So, as predicted, Boris won.

[Suff]

I was talking about Cameron's government before the vote, what they communicated as Policy and what is, today, being called hard brexit.

1. That was from May's government, after the vote.
2. The slide specifically states that it is not government policy.

We are talking apples and earthmovers.

You said there was no majority for Hard Brexit in the vote. I have shown there was. You have presented arguments from after the vote that there was no mandate during the vote for Hard Brexit.

You have not proven your position.

[Kaz]

I honestly think there might be civil unrest after a Hard Brexit, once the medical shortages etc kick in. How can this possibly be a good thing for the country? Why else would the government be preparing to spend millions of pounds on advertising and pamphlets in "marketing" aka propaganda, trying to calm people's fears

Suff this isn't about you being proved right or wrong, it's about the country being in a huge mess, which was completely avoidable.

[Suff]

Sorry Kaz this is not about me being right or wrong. This is a out politicians saying something which is incorrect just because they want a different result than the one which the referendum returned.

On the medicines, it will be the EU in a bigger mess than the UK. I burned half a weekend reading the EU treaty that doesn't allow drugs manufactured for sale outside the EU to be sold within it.

People seem to think that the UK does not manufacture drugs and sucks them all in from the EU. It is is not true, the UK manufactures drugs the EU needs and the EU manufactures drugs the UK needs.

The stockpiling is a buffer to ensure supply whilst we arrange extra EU access or access to suppliers outside of the EU. Given the EU statements on how they are going to punish the UK if we refuse to bow down to their terms, this is only prudent.

The point is that this is being sold by Remain leaning press as a permanent situation. It is not.

As for being avoidable? Absolutely, all that needed to happen was for the EU to give Cameron ONE of his requests. A referendum was not avoidable once more than 10% of the population had started to vote for a party which was offering one.

If Cameron had not offered the referendum, within 10 to 15 years the country would have been looking at UKIP where SNP wound up.

It was avoidable, but it was only in the power of the EU to avoid it.

They chose not to.

[Kaz]

Suff, the government itself is preparing for shortages. It isn't Project Fear, it's reality.

[Workingman]

You have not proven your position.

Au contraire. There is a truism saying that it is almost impossible to prove a negative, but I have done it as you have not been able to provide one provable positive and verifiable aspect of Brexit

As for being avoidable? Absolutely, all that needed to happen was for the EU to give Cameron ONE of his requests.

Which, as you damned well know, it did.

Brexiters chose to bang on about sovereignty and ever closer union. Cameron came back with a deal from the EU to "make it clear that the references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom."

He also wanted action on migrants and benefits. He did not get everything, but he did get a seven year emergency brake and the capability to index link "exportable" benefits to conditions in the country to which they were being sent. It is worth noting here that this all came about because all UK governments had not been enforcing EU rules with the same vigour as other members. We dug our own hole.

He also wanted clarity on the € and Competitiveness and he got explicit recognition that the EU has more than one currency and a promise to reduce 'red tape'.

Sure, he did not get everything, but it is an outright and provable lie that he got nothing. He had an option to face up to UKIP - to save the Conservatives and only the Conservatives - and he bottled it. But with all things Brexit it is always somebody else's fault.

Brexit is not, and never has been, about the UK's relationship with the EU. It has always been about the Conservative party and its internal problems with the EU, as well as UK right-wing politics

Some of us have always known that, others are now waking up to it.

[Kate1933]

who cares

I care Saundra... I and many many other EU nationals. We are still left in limbo because no-one will 100% confirm anyone's rights etc... yes we have settled status etc; and yes I need to get going and apply for UK citizenship; and I'm lucky that I can - many can't yet. And I've heard too many people telling of employers that are already refusing (illegally I'll add) to renew contracts for some EU nationals because of this blasted darn Brexit

So yes, I care!

One of my grandson's is coming to UK for the first time, he is also hoping to obtain citizenship..

[Suff]

Which, as you damned well know, it did.

Really? I read the whole article. The only thing the EU gave, without reservation, was something which was totally within the control of the UK anyway. Further integration is a unanimous vote situation where some states may chose to further integrate but others cannot be forced as they have a veto.

Everything else? 4 years on benefits block. No, seven years sliding scale, plus complete rejections in specific areas. On the others? Typical EU verbiage where it would "make efforts" Where feasible. In other words, they would not bind themselves to the UK requirements.

I'm well aware how to read what was agreed. He asked for some categoric changes and he got lip service. The voters recognised it as such and voted against it.

This is typical of the EU negotiating stance. The most recent attempt to "negotiate" came when a member state senior minister suggested the UK "just sign" the deal on the table then they would "look at changing it". What a wonderful world these people live in where they can insist you do what they demand before they will talk about changing those demands.

Fortunately not even our MP's are quite that thick.

On the upside Hammond's constituency party is preparing to launch a vote of no confidence in him.

I also read the Guardian's spin on the permanent secretaries response to Corbyn. It was laughable. Do these guys even know the way our parliament works. If government is shut down for an election no major policy decisions will be made. The last major policy decision was to leave the EU on October 31st. To change that would be a MAJOR policy change which the caretaker government could not effect....

As for the other part where Corbyn was told that, essentially, staying in the EU after 31st October was not up to the UK but was actually up to the EU, that was spun as some positive.... Really, delusions are wonderful things.

Meanwhile Corbyn makes his play for unseating the Tories. "Crown me King" he says "and I will lead you to the second referendum". Lib Dem response? "Not likely".

It's becoming the comedy of the year.

[Kaz]

Then Runnymede will be losing a decent MP, as when he was my MP he did his best on local issues. Trying to oust an MP for following his conscience is a slippery slope.

[medsec222]

Frank Field was ousted Kaz for following his conscience. He spent the whole of his political lifetime working for his constituents in Birkenhead. He was a decent MP but where did that get him when militants in the Labour Party wanted him out. I hope he is returned with a magnificent majority if he chooses to stand in the next general election. I would expect nothing less from the people of Birkenhead.

[Workingman]

To recap:

As for being avoidable? Absolutely, all that needed to happen was for the EU to give Cameron ONE of his requests.

Which, as you damned well know, it did.

Today

Which, as you damned well know, it did.

Really? I read the whole article.

So did others... Thank you, thank you so much. You have confirmed that you were wrong to claim that Cameron came back with nothing when I said that he did. It's not the first time you've been proved wrong..

Well done. Take a bow.