UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
The 'Take it Outside' thread This thread will no longer be moderated ***
In what can only be an astonishing coincidence, the apocalypse has been delayed at exactly the same rate that our activation of Article 50 has been postponed.
Michael Cargill wrote: "In what can only be an astonishing coincidence, the apocalypse has been delayed at exactly the same rate that our activation of Article 50 has been postponed."You're right.. The initial crash in share prices etc was probably a result of operation fear. Some people believed it and panicked.
The drop in the pound was probably it returning to its real value.
when we do activate article 50 and start negotiating then we'll see volatility. Some of it might even be politically induced in an attempt to create political pressure.
Personally I expect there will be negative economic consequences in at least the short term but the way the EU is going at the moment, it's even possible we might see a boost from leaving it.
Michael Cargill wrote: "In what can only be an astonishing coincidence, the apocalypse has been delayed at exactly the same rate that our activation of Article 50 has been postponed."You're so nearly there. Think about what you've just said ...
After 23rd June, the stock market fell sharply. This wasn't project fear. This was the market's genuine response to the possibility of an immediate hard Brexit.
Since then several things have happened to temporarily calm the market. The Bank of England pumped in billions of quantitative easing. They lowered the base rate (and have said they will lower it again). We may soon see bank accounts with negative interest rates in the UK. Sterling has fallen dramatically.
The immediate hard Brexit has been deferred, possibly forever. We didn't get a long Tory leadership contest. We didn't get a hardliner, like Gove, as PM. May is talking about a soft Brexit which preserves a strong trading position for the UK.
So the FTSE has recovered, although if you convert the value of the FTSE into any currency other than sterling it is still showing a substantial loss.
This emphatically does not mean that Brexit is going to be pain free or that the economy has "recovered". Nobody in Government or finance believes that for a second. What it means is that the market is reacting to UK shares being cheap and the fact that Brexit has been delayed and may be a very watered down version of what was promised in the referendum.
None of us - Leave or Remain - could have predicted what has happened since 23rd June. Gove knifing Johnson in the back. The largely unopposed rise of Theresa May. The new soft Brexit. It is quite ridiculous for anyone to say that this could or should have been predicted, or that this proves that Brexit is going to be fine.
Think about what Brexit means for a second. We probably lose our tariff free trade deal with the EU for a period of several years. Both imports and exports become more expensive. UK jobs are lost as multinationals move to the Europe. Large parts of the banking sector transfer to Europe. We see Government spending rise as we have to recruit more civil servants to replace the work done on our behalf by the EU.
We may ... may ... eventually strike trade deals to replace the single market. We may ... may ... get a relatively painless deal with the EU. Or we may spend years in the wilderness trying to get anywhere close to what we have at the moment.
So yes there is a link between the performance of the economy and the deferral of a harmful Brexit. You wouldn't expect anything else.
politician stabs politician in back shock!And it's all the fault of those wicked 'leave' voters. Before that UK politicians behaved with simple dignity, handing over their offices and returning once more to the plough after spending years reducing themselves to poverty serving the public
And now various EU member states are starting to queue up to announce that they'll veto any agreement that doesn't give them exactly what they want.
And we're supposed to have a second referendum on what sort of deal with condescend to offer them?
Marc wrote: "Will, the details of Brexit were not part of the in/out vote in the polling booth. People were voting for a principle..."33.5 million people voted in the referendum on 23rd June. None of us know for sure why they voted the way that they did. All we can ever know is why we each voted and what the polls tells us about voting patterns generally.
Some people will have voted on a principle and with relatively little regard to the evidence. We can see that from the comments made on this thread. That's okay. It's their right.
Some people will have looked at the campaign material produced by the two sides and made their decision based on that. We do know from the campaign poll trackers that the result fluctuated wildly throughout the campaign. Take a look (you need to click on "last six months":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics...
If people were voting purely on a principle, we would expect to see the poll tracker showing a fairly consistent result right up to the vote.
What we actually see is that the voting was hugely influenced by what the two campaigns said. If someone made a good speech for either Leave or Campaign (or someone made a major gaffe) we could see that in the poll tracker. The lead changed hands many times.
So we absolutely cannot say that everyone voted on principle. Or that all Leave voters were racist. Or all Remain voters were sore losers. Or any other gross simplification.
People had many different reasons for voting the way they did. Those who voted on principle will probably vote the same way again next time. They may vote the same way no matter what evidence is put in front of them. That's fine. It's a democracy.
But the people who voted on the basis of what the campaigns said have been let down. Whether you believe that Leave did most of the lying or they were both as bad as each other, the plain fact is that we are making a monumental decision about the future of this country based on a pack of lies from politicians who all had a hidden agenda.
As individuals, we may decide that we don't want or need a second referendum. We've squeaked the result we want by fair means or foul. Now we want to pull up the drawbridge and deny anyone else a voice ever again.
But we can't speak for everyone. We can't claim to know what they think. They don't necessarily think the same way that we do.
We haven't squeaked a result. We voted, one side was the majority. Some of us voted against European politicians who had hidden agenda. It works both ways. As for the Eurocrats who are trying to tell us still what we can't do, surely even the most europhile among us can see that is one of the reasons some voted to be out. If we can't get rid of the most corrupt in Europe, to take ourselves out is one solution. If somebody stamps on your toes they should expect the knee jerk reaction. They do and should accept that their actions have contributed to a leave vote. They also reinforce the opinion of the leavers.
Lynne (Tigger's Mum) wrote: "We haven't squeaked a result. We voted, one side was the majority. Some of us voted against European politicians who had hidden agenda. It works both ways. As for the Eurocrats who are trying to te..."I genuinely fear for democracy in this country. We've always had the extreme left who have wanted to disenfranchise sectors of the population who would vote 'the wrong way.' (The extreme right probably do this as well but they're less in evidence in UK politics so I'm not uniquely demonising the left)
But this contempt for people who have the temerity to vote the 'wrong way' seems to have crept into the centre. In the weeks following the referendum there were calls for the elderly to be disenfranchised because they'll be dead soon so their opinions are irrelevant, and we still have a strong voice demanding a second vote because the voters were too stupid to realise what they were doing and had to be given a chance to get it right
What are you fearing, exactly? People voicing things?It's not like anyone is attempting an armed coup.
Farage was the one asking for a second referendum, and that was before the first one had taken place.
Of course, and if we're to take Farage as our political mentor we'll do all sorts of strange thingsI don't actually dislike him because I've never met him, but I suspect history might decide he's been one of the most influential UK politicians of the early 21st century
I've not problem with people voicing things.
I have a problem with people deciding that other people need to shut up, or to be ignored because they're not smart enough or politically sound enough. It strikes me that at times this debate has been skirting the edge of that. In the first few days the debate actually included that due to the initial shock and disappointment
Jim wrote: "Of course, and if we're to take Farage as our political mentor we'll do all sorts of strange thingsI don't actually dislike him because I've never met him, but I suspect history might decide he's ..."
Another reason to dislike the EU is what seems like its deliberate policy of caricaturing and smearing anyone who has the temerity to criticise it as a far-right, xenophobic racist.
Sound familiar?
See here.
So rather than the leavers, it could be the remainers who were duped and deluded ones, and by the EU itself.
The Leavers are developing a persecution complex.
The latest gossip in the newspapers is that Corbyn is going to put the Labour party on an election footing because he suspects there might be an early general election. Paddy Ashdown has speculated that there are 100 Tory MPs who could force a vote of no confidence against Theresa May because she can't deliver the sort of hard Brexit they want. More about it here:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics...
This could get very messy. We could have a civil war inside the Tory party as hard Brexiters argue against soft Brexiters. So much for Brexit means Brexit!
We know where the Lib Dems and SNP are going to be. Labour is harder to call. If Corbyn wins the leadership contest (and he looks almost certain to), he is going to have to form a cabinet somehow and decide what stance Labour is going to take on the EU.
If we do have a general election, it could effectively become the second referendum. Or it could become a debate about a hard versus soft Brexit.
In a way that would be a good thing because it might clear the air and there is a chance that an election would be fought on more realistic promises. But it could give us months of uncertainty which could hit an already damaged economy.
Just read your link Will...... it only really contains 3 words - if, and & but. I don't mean that in a combative way - just that I was disappointed it didn't have any real information - just more speculation.
Jim wrote: "I genuinely fear for democracy in this country."Me too. I am worried that we are slipping into a post-truth era where politicians prey on people's fears by spinning a web of lies. Where armchair experts think they know better than experts. Where the public are denied the information they need to make a decision. Where people stop thinking about their voting decisions and go on gut instinct or emotion instead. Where the press manipulate stories to present only one side of the story.
Jim - I don't feel contempt for your point of view. I am not trying to disenfranchise you. I am not trying to shut you up or ignore you. I don't think that you're not smart enough or politically sound enough to make your own mind up.
What I am doing is putting my point of view. I am trying to differentiate between the myths and the facts. If that makes you feel uncomfortable or persecuted, then I'm sorry but that is the price of a democracy. We are both entitled to express our opinions.
I am not hearing anyone telling anyone to shut up. Actually, that's not quite true. I am hearing people trying to block any further debate in Parliament or a second referendum. Effectively telling the Remain voters to shut up. Oh, and all the people who are disappointed that Brexit isn't turning out the way that they were promised.
Ha! Corbyn...If his behaviour in the lead up to the referendum is anything to go by, he'll be too busy attending the Cuban Socialist Reunion meetings at the local church hall to bother competing at a general election.
I believe he's a man of principles, but the problem is that his principles are up there on fantasy cloud 9 and are just not liveable!
Will wrote: "What I am doing is putting my point of view. I am trying to differentiate between the myths and the facts. ..."so when are you going to turn your back on the myth that leave voters are a lot of racists who worried only about immigration?
I would suggest the chance of a tory civil war at the moment is very low, however much people might hope for one.They're got the Labour party as a terrible example of what can happen in front of their very eyes, they've got to get themselves seats lined up after the boundary changes.
As for the speculations of Paddy Ashdown, spare us that, his main contribution to party politics was to have four years of secret meeting on coalitions with Tony Blair only to be kicked into the long grass when Labour got a majority, and under him the Libdem share of the vote actually fell, although they did a bit better with regard to seats in their heart land
His opinion on what might or might not happen in the Conservative party is predominantly wishful thinking
Michael Cargill wrote: "The Leavers are developing a persecution complex."Hardly.
Jim wrote: "Will wrote: "What I am doing is putting my point of view. I am trying to differentiate between the myths and the facts. ..."so when are you going to turn your back on the myth that leave voters a..."
Some leave voters are racists. I think we all know that. The myth is that all leave voters are racists. We do need to get away from the idea that all people in a certain group have the same characteristics. That's lazy stereotyping.
The chances of a Tory civil war are actually quite high. We've got new groups being set up like the Change Britain campaign (backed by Boris Johnson). The Tory party is keeping a lid on it, for the time being, but the discontent is simmering away in the background.
The Tories are better at party unity than Labour, but it could all come to a head if Theresa May can't deliver the hard Brexit that her Euro sceptics want. Then we might get an opportunistic attack from the far right. They might figure that Labour the Lib Dems are weak so this could be a time to replace May with a more hardline PM like Leadsom.
I rate May's chances of getting to 2020 without a vote of no confidence at a little better than 50/50.
Will wrote: " if Theresa May can't deliver the hard Brexit that her Euro sceptics want. ..."you seem to be the only person who hasn't realised yet that nobody can deliver any particular sort of Brexit
We have the EU in disarray with various member states threatening to veto whatever deal is agreed, we've had commissioners demanding that democratically elected politicians from member states don't discuss the matter with the UK prior to article 50 no matter what their electorate say
Actually a hard Brexit is probably the easiest thing of all to deliver. You bring article 50 into play, you allow the Commission to pontificate and play silly games and suddenly, two years later, you've got hard brexit
At some point you're going to have member states putting pressure on the commission because they're worried about their sales of cars, or dairy products or whether their citizens will be allowed to stay in the UK and at that point there'll be a deal to be done. It could be in three years time if the commission remains obdurate, or it could happen faster if democratic governments are allowed to play their part.
In fact we could see it causing the EU to fissure further as member states with a lot to lose get fed up of the posturing of some of the others
As for votes of confidence, once we have the new boundaries we could have a general election anyway. I think you'll find that boundaries and finding seats are going to be far more important for MPs than the pleas of the remain campaign
The Leavers' contributions to this thread can oft-times be summarised as 'One man one vote once'. When your party loses a General Election, you pick yourself up, dust yourself down, and start getting ready for the next one. But according to our treaty obligations we're not supposed to negotiate with the EU until we've triggered Article 50, and we're not supposed to negotiate with non-EU countries until after we've left the EU. So:1. It isn't legally possible to have agreed Brexit terms to put to a second referendum.
2. It is generally considered sound negotiating practice to keep your cards close to your chest, so it looks to be a bad idea to publish and vote on terms that must perforce be speculative.
So I can't see any useful purpose is served by a second referendum. Nothing will have changed by the time a second referendum is held (we'll still be members of the EU) so why should the result be any different?
Where I live, we voted 60-40 to Remain. It's the taxes paid in areas like ours that fund the public services in the areas that voted against, so I'm not surprised there are Londoners wondering why the hell they need Sunderland. Once the process of fragmentation starts, why should it stop at the current borders of the UK?
I expect the consequences of Leave will be:
1. We will collectively be poorer than we would otherwise have been
2. The United Kingdom will cease to be
3. Our ramshackle democracy, where the outcome is decided by the small number of people who both live in the small number of constituencies that ever change hands and who ever switch their votes between parties, will be even more in hock to vested interests than it is at the moment.
I'm sad about all those prospects, and will continue to campaign to Remain. But I think rather than a second referendum we should have a General Election before Article 50 is triggered, when I hope that some of the parties will stand on a 'Remain' platform, and that they will win.
I've said it once, I'll say it again: I did not vote leave because of immigrants. I live in the middle of nowhere, I rarely see an immigrant. The restoration of this island's democratic freedoms was the driving force for my leave vote, that, and the punishment inflicted upon the ordinary Greek people by the EU.
For as long as I live, I will never forget what the EU did to Greece. I will never forgive the EU for what they did to Greece.
They crushed that nation, reduced it to an EU colony.
So now you know why one person voted to leave, only 16.9 million other people to ask!
Jim wrote: "you seem to be the only person who hasn't realised yet that nobody can deliver any particular sort of Brexit."Er ... no. We have a Prime Minister who is currently delivering her vision of a soft Brexit. If Leadsom had won the Tory leadership contest, we would probably have triggered article 50 by now and be delivering her version of a hard Brexit. If Gove hadn't assassinated Boris he would probably be PM and we would be delivering his version of barmy Brexit.
They're all different from each other and none would be anything like the one promised by the Leave campaign.
A hard Brexit is easiest to do and the hardest to do right. It would almost certainly mean years if not decades of economic pain. That's why May is trying to steer for a soft Brexit.
The new boundaries will not spark a general election. The UK now has fixed term parliaments unless a mid-term election is needed, for example following a vote of no confidence.
Our democratic freedoms aren't changed one iota either by Leave or Remain. The House of Commons continues to reign supreme regardless.What the EU did to Greece was little different to what the UK government did to its citizens post 2008. Greece owed money to banks, which it was unable to repay. Almost all the EU bail-out was paid to banks, so instead of owing money to the banks, Greece now owed money to tax-payers in other EU countries. The Greeks suffer, and the tax-payers they can never repay suffer. Who's got off scot free? Why, the bankers, of course.
R.M.F wrote: "For as long as I live, I will never forget what the EU did to Greece. I will never forgive the EU for what they did to Greece. "You mean, bailed Greece out of an economic disaster of their own making? Provided loans and helped to reform their failing financial system?
That's an excellent reason to vote remain.
a Greece that never should have been allowed into the Eurozone as it didn't meet the economic requirements, but which the EU waved through.I know I've posted this before, quite recently, but I can't be bothered to go back and look. This thread is repeating itself ad infinitum now
Will wrote: "R.M.F wrote: "For as long as I live, I will never forget what the EU did to Greece. I will never forgive the EU for what they did to Greece. "You mean, bailed Greece out of an economic disaster o..."
There was an interesting article in Private Eye the other day, and to cut a long story short, here's the abridged version.
Manuel Barroso, he of the European Commision, takes up job with Goldman Sachs, they of the helping Greece cook the books to allow them into the Euro, on Barroso's watch...
You can guess the rest...
R.M.F wrote: "I've said it once, I'll say it again: I did not vote leave because of immigrants. I live in the middle of nowhere, I rarely see an immigrant. The restoration of this island's democratic freedoms ..."
yes, Greece was the last straw for me as well
Will wrote: " We have a Prime Minister who is currently delivering her vision of a soft Brexit.."nobody is delivering anything, no body is negotiating, until article 50, there is no negotiation, no brexit, whether soft or hard.
At the moment there is discussion and a building up of departments
From the tory point of view Boris was a corbynite figure, popular enough among the membership (allegedly, because it's never been proved by any sort of vote) but with virtually no support among MPs.
Marc wrote: "a Greece that never should have been allowed into the Eurozone as it didn't meet the economic requirements, but which the EU waved through.I know I've posted this before, quite recently, but I ca..."
Absolutely, but they let Greece in, knowing it was inevitably going to fail and hadn't planned meaningfully for that failure, unless they planned for 50% youth unemployment
So the EU are to blame for the current state of Greece, even though it was Greece's own choice to join, a choice it made of it's own volition?I thought having sovereignty and being able to do what you wanted was a good thing.
Bankers sold the idea of the loans to the Greeks, bankers marketed the loans, bankers handed over the money, then bankers collected from the German taxpayer. Nice work if you can get it.
Jim wrote: "Will wrote: " We have a Prime Minister who is currently delivering her vision of a soft Brexit.."nobody is delivering anything, no body is negotiating, until article 50, there is no negotiation, ..."
Sorry, Jim, but you're wrong. The civil service is working towards triggering article 50 in the next few months. The negotiations with other states have started - discretely and behind closed doors. The Treasury are getting ready with a new budget for the Autumn Statement.
That's the issue. The Government knows far more about the impact of Brexit than it is telling us. It will know even more when it triggers article 50.
The Greece point is silly. The Greek Government got themselves into a financial black hole by allowing a massive and unsustainable deficit to build up. The EU, IMF and European Central Bank gave them a way out of the mess they had made for themselves.
Yes, this means that Greece has to implement austerity measures. They should have been doing that anyway so that their deficit would have been smaller. Yes, Greece has large scale unemployment. How much worse would it be without the EU's intervention?
Greece is an EU success story. I can't see how anyone could view it as a reason to leave the EU.
Will wrote: " The negotiations with other states have started - discretely and behind closed doors. ..."so the EU member states are ignoring the commission and negotiating with us anyway then?
Will wrote: "Greece is an EU success story. I can't see how anyone could view it as a reason to leave the EU...."50% youth unemployment
How rapidly do you want us to emulate their success
We don't know much about what is happening behind closed doors. We do know from the press that some discussions with non-EU states have happened. We can be certain that there is a lot of work being done with the Commission on the mechanics of article 50, if not perhaps the trade deals that would follow it.There is one sense that we ought not to know exactly what is being discussed. Theresa May is right to say that the negotiations have to happen in secret. Negotiating in public very rarely works.
But there will come a point just before article 50 when the initial negotiations have finished and the Government knows a lot more about what Brexit means. That is the point when the Government will have to decide whether to trigger article 50 or not. If the signs are reasonably good (or at least not too awful) then May will almost certainly trigger article 50 trying not to have any debate in Parliament or public discussion. That's her "Brexit means Brexit" mantra. She doesn't want to give us a choice.
The problem comes if we get to the point of triggering Article 50 and all the evidence collected behind closed doors is that Brexit would be a total disaster. It could well be so bad that few of the public would accept it. It could be a miles away from what the Leave campaign promised. The financial impacts might be worse than the Treasury report suggested. The other states might gang up on us and veto any vaguely acceptable trade deal. We might have no chance of reducing immigration.
If we get to that point, what does Theresa May do? Does she plough on regardless and trigger article 50 to send the UK into a mess? Does she come clean and tell the public that it can't be delivered? Or does she call an election or a second referendum to give her a mandate to do something very different from the Brexit promised by the Leave campaign?
Will wrote: "We don't know much about what is happening behind closed doors. .."You said explicitly "The negotiations with other states have started - discretely and behind closed doors."
so it that true or not?
Is the Commission in charge or not?
The Greeks did have an alternative. They could have defaulted, as they have done at least five times since gaining independence (see Greek Sovereign Debt Defaults). Then the bankers would have taken the initial hit. It's for Conspiracy Theorists to debate the extent to which those bankers have bent national and supra-national institutions to their wills.The Commission would like to be in charge, but it isn't. Its stated policy is to ignore us until we trigger Article 50. Since we're in the driving seat until Article 50 is triggered, we're not going to do that anytime soon. So we're engaging in secret bi-lateral discussions.
There is a widespread perception that EU policies serve other national interests better than the UK's. I've never seen Civil Servants negotiating with foreign powers, but I have seen them engaged in commercial negotiations in the UK, and I haven't met one I would trust to negotiate my bathroom refurbishment. However, few of them shared my assessment of their abilities. Since it will be people like these doing the spadework on Brexit negotiations, I have little confidence the outcome will be favourable to UK interests.
It's not an either/ or. The Commission are leading on the Brexit mechanics and article 50. But each member state will have their own views, both on the practical question of how brexit will work and on the trade deals that will happen afterwards. The Government will be using its informal contacts with other states to sound out where each government is in terms of negotiating position. This generally happens at several different levels from Heads of State, Ministers, ambassadors to subject-specific civil servants. Strictly speaking no discussions are supposed to happen before article 50 is triggered but the reality is that people are still talking to each other.
The UK Govt will also be speaking to non EU states about trade deals outside the EU. Again, they're not supposed to but they don't want to wait for article 50.
There's also a frantic recruitment drive going on so that we have enough civil servants with the right skills to replace what we had in the EU.
That's one of the issues that Hammond will have to tackle in his Autumn statement. All of this comes at a cost. As we're operating at a large deficit at the moment that will mean more public borrowing or tax increases or cuts to other services. My guess is that he will opt for more borrowing as loans are very cheap at the moment and May wants to move away from austerity.
There's also a frantic recruitment drive going on ...I'll lay odds that it will end up as a Case Study for Parkinson's Law aficionados.
David wrote: "There's also a frantic recruitment drive going on ...I'll lay odds that it will end up as a Case Study for Parkinson's Law aficionados."
normally does, the only way we seem to be able to cut the numbers is to invite the barbarians in to run the empire instead :-)
David wrote: "The Greeks did have an alternative. They could have defaulted, as they have done at least five times since gaining independence (see Greek Sovereign Debt Defaults). Then the bankers would have take..."Absolutely
Having seen how well the civil service did negotiating PFI contracts with them in charge we'll probably end up paying a bigger share of the EU budget
... we would probably have triggered article 50 by now ...Fortunately the asylum hasn't been entirely taken over by lunatics. Our negotiators need to play hard-ball. It's tough on those affected, but the status of the EU citizens living and working here is a valuable bargaining chip. We can't afford to give it away. We should be (and are) ignoring the Treaty Obligation not to discuss Brexit before triggering Article 50, and we should be (and are) ignoring the Treaty Obligation not to talk to other countries about trade until we leave (by default 2 years AFTER triggering Article 50).
It's hard to fathom what Theresa May expects to result from the creation of two new departments of state, and putting three big-ego-ed Brexiteers jointly in charge. The new departments will spend months on internal empire definition when they're not engaged in turf wars with each other. Brexit kicked into the long grass, perhaps? "Paradise Postponed".
I don't think she had much choice about the three Brexiteers. If she put anyone else in charge of the Brexit departments, the Tory sceptics in her party would cry foul. What this ought to mean is that the Brexiteers should back whatever deal the Government comes up with, whether this is a "best we can do" soft Brexit or a humiliating reversion to Remain if all the deals on the table are awful.
That's the theory, I'm sure. The problem is that I wouldn't trust any of those three one inch (and I'm sure May doesn't either). I expect that they will look for a way to distance themselves from the Government when/if the wheels come off. And then Boris will be looking for another route into number 10.
At least she has buried Gove in the deep political pit where he belongs.
At least she has buried Gove in the deep political pit where he belongs.I'm sure all of us, Remainers and Brexiteers both, will agree on that!
Why should you trust any politicians? Power corrupts
UK Amazon Kindle Forum
Books mentioned in this topic
The Beiderbecke Affair (other topics)The Grain Market in the Roman Empire: A Social, Political and Economic Study (other topics)
The Peasants Are Revolting (other topics)
How to Lie with Statistics (other topics)
That Old Ace in the Hole (other topics)
More...
With all this now proven to be deceitful at best, perhaps Gove had a point. The government spent £10 million sending a leaflet to every home in the country outlining all these apocalyptic forecasts that would all pour down upon us as soon as the the majority voted Leave.
Cameron went to Europe to cut us a deal, he came back neutered and tried to sell it as a win. You could tell he was lying because his mouth moved.
Until the Remainers come to their senses and stop behaving like Canute then we will continue to lose momentum as the EU will think they are in with a chance of doing to us what they did to Ireland. It would also make a difference if the elites understood that we are not deluded fools, but people who decided that the EU is not compatible with the belief that staying would be to our best interest.