XPost: uk.politics.misc, uk.d-i-y, uk.radio.amateur 
 From: abelard3@abelard.org 
  
 On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 15:25:57 +0100, "tim..."  
 wrote: 
  
 > 
 > 
 >"Roger Hayter"  wrote in message 
 >news:1ofes9s.2zqsr03jk5p9N%roger@hayter.org... 
 >> Pamela  wrote: 
 >> 
 >>> On 19:07  13 Oct 2019, Norman Wells  wrote: 
 >>> 
 >>> > On 13/10/2019 17:16, Pamela wrote: 
 >>> >> On 13:49  13 Oct 2019, "Dave Plowman (News)"  
 >>> >> wrote: 
 >>> >> 
 >>> >>> In article <0001HW.23533798000B6E74700000BBC2EF@news.giganews.com>, 
 >>> >>>     Keema's Nan  wrote: 
 >>> >>>>> I see your mistake. You think the referendum was a football match 
 >>> >>>>> with winner takes all. In fact, the vote was more or less evenly 
 >>> >>>>> split and MPs will take that into account. 
 >>> >>> 
 >>> >>>> Ok, but not quite evenly split though, was it? 
 >>> >>> 
 >>> >>> No. It was approximately 1/3rd. 
 >>> >>> 
 >>> >>>>> 
 >>> >>>>> 
 >>> >>>>> A second referendum will serve to show Parliament if the original 
 >>> >>>>> split has been preserved after voters have seen what Brexit really 
 >>> >>>>> looks like. 
 >>> >>> 
 >>> >>>> No one can see what Brexit looks like until they have experienced 
 >>> >>>> it. 
 >>> >>> 
 >>> >>> Which could be too late for many jobs based on free trade with the 
 >>> >>> EU. 
 >>> >>> 
 >>> >>>> All we have, is what bullshitters tell us Brexit will be like. 
 >>> >>> 
 >>> >>> I certainly remember being told how easy it would be to get a new 
 >>> >>> deal 
 >>> >>> with the EU giving us all we wanted. Since they need us more than we 
 >>> >>> need them. 
 >>> >>> 
 >>> >>>> If we are allowed a few years of Brexit and then have a referendum 
 >>> >>>> based on 'stay out' or 're-join', that would be sensible. But common 
 >>> >>>> sense is what the remain-filled UK establishment do not possess. 
 >>> >>> 
 >>> >>> The nest few years will be spend sorting out just what sort of deal 
 >>> >>> we 
 >>> >>> end up with in detail. Any agreement now is simply a starting point. 
 >>> >>> And if we leave without one, those negotiations will simply take 
 >>> >>> longer. A lot longer. 
 >>> >> 
 >>> >> How true. 
 >>> >> 
 >>> >> In fact, for many leavers, Brexit has become an end it itself. 
 >>> >> 
 >>> >> Brexit serves no useful purpose.  However, fanatical leavers have 
 >>> >> nailed their colours to its mast and now insist we leave to satisfy 
 >>> >> their sense of pride. 
 >>> >> 
 >>> >> Boris's "Let's get Brexit done" is based on the totally false premise 
 >>> >> that it will be over when we leave. 
 >>> > 
 >>> > It's actually drawing a line that will enable discussions on trade, 
 >>> > which you seem concerned about, actually to start.  We haven't had 
 >>> > *any* 
 >>> > so far.  We can't until we have left. 
 >>> 
 >>> What a mess. 
 >> 
 >> I don't think that particular part of it is a mess at all. 
 >> International discussions and hugely disruptive changes of status are 
 >> always going to take a long time.   And it seems obvious to me that the 
 >> EU cannot negotiate new trade terms with us until we have actually left; 
 >> after all, it is now clear to everyone, and probably was always  obvious 
 >> to the EU officials, that unitil we actually leave we could withdraw our 
 >> Article 50 notification at a ny time.  So all the May deal was is a 
 >> transitional arrangement while we negotiate.   That should be no 
 >> problem, no reasonable person could have thought that it could have been 
 >> done quicker without unnecessary disruption. 
 >> 
 >> The real problem with the May deal is not the delay, or even the content 
 >> of the transitional arrangements, it is what to do about Ireland. 
 >> Perhaps this is our fault for allowing the Unionist population to 
 >> dictate partition in 1923.  But is a real mutual problem for the EU and 
 >> us because of Brexit.   And blaming the EU for it is misdirected. 
 > 
 >I'm not blaming the EU for the problem 
 > 
 >But I do for their negotiation of it. 
 > 
 >They should say, this is a problem that we have to solve and sit around the 
 >table with us whilst we do so 
 > 
 >instead that say "this is your problem to solve and we are not sitting down 
 >to talk to you about it until you have a 100% workable solution that can be 
 >implemented tomorrow" - which by definition excludes any technological 
 >solution and only leaves their stitch up of NI staying in the SM and CU. 
  
 a solution that is exactly as we wish it to be... 
  
 unfortunately chaps, any solution is compatible with leaving 
     does not qualify as 'a solution' 
  
 -- 
 www.abelard.org 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)