The country voted to leave and Parliament says that decision must be upheld so why not list all the major Brexit options such as No Deal/Norway/Canada/Theresa May's and any other popular deals out there and run a series of MP's votes like how the Conservative leadership race was run. All MP's must vote,no abstaining and their voting being made public,with the bottom option in each round being eliminated,leaving just two options in the final vote,with the winning option being declared as the one that the country goes ahead with.Nothing undemocratic about that solution.
That means that the outcome would be the will of Parliament, rather than the people.
Our politicians are suggesting that yet another general election will solve the problem, which seems unlikely.
They are describing the upcoming general election as putting it back to the people.
Why do people think that putting it back to the people in the form of numerous general elections is acceptable, whereas doing the same thing through a referendum is out of the question.
You cant really use the words logic and Brexit in the same sentence.
The country voted to leave and Parliament says that decision must be upheld so why not list all the major Brexit options such as No Deal/Norway/Canada/Theresa May's and any other popular deals out there and run a series of MP's votes like how the Conservative leadership race was run. All MP's must vote,no abstaining and their voting being made public,with the bottom option in each round being eliminated,leaving just two options in the final vote,with the winning option being declared as the one that the country goes ahead with.Nothing undemocratic about that solution.
That means that the outcome would be the will of Parliament, rather than the people.
Our politicians are suggesting that yet another general election will solve the problem, which seems unlikely.
They are describing the upcoming general election as putting it back to the people.
Why do people think that putting it back to the people in the form of numerous general elections is acceptable, whereas doing the same thing through a referendum is out of the question.
You cant really use the words logic and Brexit in the same sentence.
Without going over old ground again,surely it was the politicians job to find a solution as to what 'deal' we come out with.The people delivered their verdict,it was then up to the MP's to do their job,which they've failed miserably.You can't keep going back to the people every time a decision needs to be made,otherwise we might as well hand the running of the country over to Ant & Dec.
I never used to be a fan of conspiracy theories but recent years have made me rather more receptive. All these legal challenges to Brexit, instant rent a crowds and the like are being financed from somewhere, where? The opposition parties appear to be in collusion with Europe. Surely they should favour an instant election? No, they wish to wreak further havoc with more delays. The constant talk of "no, no deal" has perhaps blunted us to the bizarre nature of it. In March I googled "negotiations where on side cannot refuse a deal" and found not one example. Interestingly all I got was "negotiations in bad faith" which seemed accurate. In what situation in anyone's life would they suggest "no deal" was not an option? If I offered Corbyn 10% of his house price would he be bound to accept? Would Swinson sell me her car for a fraction of its value or would she say "no deal"? Yes they are rhetorical questions but do remember how utterly strange "no, no-deal" is. The only one I have been able to think of is the Versailles Treaty. I stand to be corrected on this, but I don't think there has ever been another one in modern international diplomacy. Similarly all these "experts" ("X"-the indefinite article, "spurt" - a drip under pressure as my mother used to say) who come out and tell us what a disaster Brexit will be seem to be working to a European agenda instead of offering solutions. We've had three and a half years to resolve these problems, what have the "experts" and special interest groups been doing? They, in tandem with the opposition parties, oppose any meaningful Brexit and "no-deal" is just tagged on for appearances sake. I believe that ONLY "no deal" offers what the majority voted for. This parliament has shown that they cannot be trusted to even adhere to democratic decisions much less resolve negotiations in good faith. It is a dire situation we find ourselves i8n as a nation but let there not be a scintilla of doubt as to where the responsibility for this lies. It rests firmly with those who would not accept the result of the referendum and act upon it. No other referendum has been ignored the way this one has and I for one deeply distrust the motives of those opposed to democracy. The more so because they prate about defending it when their actions hinder it. My apologies for going on so long but I am more annoyed about the referendum being blocked than any other political event in my life - even our entry into the EEC without being consulted!
The country voted to leave and Parliament says that decision must be upheld so why not list all the major Brexit options such as No Deal/Norway/Canada/Theresa May's and any other popular deals out there and run a series of MP's votes like how the Conservative leadership race was run. All MP's must vote,no abstaining and their voting being made public,with the bottom option in each round being eliminated,leaving just two options in the final vote,with the winning option being declared as the one that the country goes ahead with.Nothing undemocratic about that solution.
That means that the outcome would be the will of Parliament, rather than the people.
Our politicians are suggesting that yet another general election will solve the problem, which seems unlikely.
They are describing the upcoming general election as putting it back to the people.
Why do people think that putting it back to the people in the form of numerous general elections is acceptable, whereas doing the same thing through a referendum is out of the question.
You cant really use the words logic and Brexit in the same sentence.
Without going over old ground again,surely it was the politicians job to find a solution as to what 'deal' we come out with.The people delivered their verdict,it was then up to the MP's to do their job,which they've failed miserably.You can't keep going back to the people every time a decision needs to be made,otherwise we might as well hand the running of the country over to Ant & Dec.
I think Parliament reflects the country, in that it is almost equally split. I don't think that you can knock the politicians that have sacrificed their jobs and futures, over what they feel are the best interests of the country. This has gone on for years now. There is a solution, but it appears that we would prefer to continue going around in circles in order to respect the so called will of the people. Some people would get the hump if we had another referendum. Many people have got the hump now, and many more will have the hump whatever the outcome. If people concentrated on measures that are likely to solve the problem, rather than something that happened three and a half years ago, we would have a chance.
The following is likely to happen. No deal is blocked. We extend to the end of January. So a November election will happen. A likely result of this is no overall majority for any party. Boris is toast for not getting us out. We end up back here in January. Parliament are trying to stop no deal again. Another extension? The only possible alternative to this seems to be Boris getting a deal. This seems to be unlikely as he hasn't come up with any new proposals. So it would have to be close to Theresa Mays deal, including the backstop. Therefore, unlikely to get through Parliament. I think that no deal would be a disaster, and support the rebel MPs. The danger is that more people support this disaster our of frustration.
Emily Thornberry is having a battering after explaining the Labour policy, which I have laughed at for some time. She confirmed that if Labour won the election, they would negotiate a better deal than the Tories. They would then call for a referendum, on their new, better deal, or remain. The would support remain in the referendum, and campaign against their own deal. Incredible. Imagine saying to the EU, that they want to tie up 50 people for 6 months to negotiate a deal, then campaign for their supporters to vote against it. Where are we going?
I never used to be a fan of conspiracy theories but recent years have made me rather more receptive. All these legal challenges to Brexit, instant rent a crowds and the like are being financed from somewhere, where? The opposition parties appear to be in collusion with Europe. Surely they should favour an instant election? No, they wish to wreak further havoc with more delays. The constant talk of "no, no deal" has perhaps blunted us to the bizarre nature of it. In March I googled "negotiations where on side cannot refuse a deal" and found not one example. Interestingly all I got was "negotiations in bad faith" which seemed accurate. In what situation in anyone's life would they suggest "no deal" was not an option? If I offered Corbyn 10% of his house price would he be bound to accept? Would Swinson sell me her car for a fraction of its value or would she say "no deal"? Yes they are rhetorical questions but do remember how utterly strange "no, no-deal" is. The only one I have been able to think of is the Versailles Treaty. I stand to be corrected on this, but I don't think there has ever been another one in modern international diplomacy. Similarly all these "experts" ("X"-the indefinite article, "spurt" - a drip under pressure as my mother used to say) who come out and tell us what a disaster Brexit will be seem to be working to a European agenda instead of offering solutions. We've had three and a half years to resolve these problems, what have the "experts" and special interest groups been doing? They, in tandem with the opposition parties, oppose any meaningful Brexit and "no-deal" is just tagged on for appearances sake. I believe that ONLY "no deal" offers what the majority voted for. This parliament has shown that they cannot be trusted to even adhere to democratic decisions much less resolve negotiations in good faith. It is a dire situation we find ourselves i8n as a nation but let there not be a scintilla of doubt as to where the responsibility for this lies. It rests firmly with those who would not accept the result of the referendum and act upon it. No other referendum has been ignored the way this one has and I for one deeply distrust the motives of those opposed to democracy. The more so because they prate about defending it when their actions hinder it. My apologies for going on so long but I am more annoyed about the referendum being blocked than any other political event in my life - even our entry into the EEC without being consulted!
The one reason the opposition parties have delayed an election is to stop us crashing out with no deal. Boris cant be trusted. A better example of no deal is for a business to tell their biggest customer to f... off, and then contemplate who to sell their products to in future, and stop the company going bankrupt. No deal is a nonsense anyway, as I said earlier if we left with no deal this morning we would have to go crawling back this afternoon to beg for a deal, with no leverage. To say that the majority voted for no deal is untrue. No deal wasn't even mentioned in the referendum campaign. No deal is a disaster. So far we have only reached the Withdrawal Agreement stage. This involves 3 things, citizens rights, and how much we owe, which are easy, and are agreed. The remaining part in the Irish border problem which we haven't solved in two and a half years. Any ideas? The future trade talks are meant to take place after we leave. The one thing that is holding up any movement is the Irish border. I believe the EU has bent over backwards in an effort to solve this problem, but our side cant reach an agreement. What is a meaningful Brexit?
I posted the following elsewhere earlier.
Most people who will contribute to this thread, will be aware of how I voted in the referendum.
My view is based on what I consider to be best for our country.
Assuming we do leave I think that a deal that keeps us close to the EU would be the best choice.
We should choose the deal that loses the least number of jobs, trade, etc.
I have found the whole thing disappointing.
Starting with the referendum question that was wholly inadequate
Much of the leave vote was intended as a protest, but they were pointing their protesting fingers in the wrong direction. Our Government, rather than the EU should have been the target.
Leave voters claim to have been called thick for voting to leave.
When the truth is that a number of polls showed that the more educated people were likely to have voted to remain. I am not a highly educated person, but don't consider myself stupid. The same polls showed that the majority of old people also voted to leave, and an overwhelming majority of young people voted to remain. Assuming the polls are accurate then these are facts, people that are in their 70s cant claim to be young, and people that left school will no qualifications cant claim to be highly educated. However this does not mean that either category have to be thick or stupid.
Something that gets my back up is that so many leave voters seem to rely on the pub, their family, workplace, or friends for their EU knowledge, and just repeat claims made by others, which are not founded in any truth. This makes any debate difficult, as very often any questions regarding these claims are met with stony silence.
Leave voters will comment on the unelected EU, despite all the members conducting elections on a regular basis. They ridicule the EU over straight banana laws, which never happened, and completely ignore, or are unaware of the good things that we should be grateful to the EU for, like workers rights, which the Tories are threating to reduce post Brexit, and equal pay, paid leave, consumer protection, the right to live, and work in another member country, foreign study, easy travel, clean rivers, and clean air, cheap flights, etc etc.
Ask a leave voter to point to an EU law that they object to and would like to repeal as soon as we leave, and they rarely respond. Ask them to explain which EU law has affected their lives in an adverse way, and you usually get the same response. They claim to be taking back control, but aren't sure what they are taking back control of, or how it is going to work. Sovereignty, how does that improve anything for the average working man? They are only able to defend a no deal Brexit by using the phrase "project fear", when confronted by any information forecasting the damage to our economy. I don't intend to explore the ridiculous claims like the EU are responsible for handball rules in football, or Boris and his kipper wrappers.
The division in Parliament merely reflects the country.
The idea that Brexit could ever be described as the will of the people, is in my view a fallacy.
Assuming it is delivered at some point in the future, only a small number of people will consider they have got what they voted for.
I really hope that had I been a leave voter, that I would have bowed to the avalanche of overwhelming evidence pointing to the fact that I had been mistaken, and changed my mind by now.
I also think that is more productive to consider where we are now, the mess that we are in, and ways out of it, rather than continuing to harp back to 2016, and the will of the people.
I never used to be a fan of conspiracy theories but recent years have made me rather more receptive. All these legal challenges to Brexit, instant rent a crowds and the like are being financed from somewhere, where? The opposition parties appear to be in collusion with Europe. Surely they should favour an instant election? No, they wish to wreak further havoc with more delays. The constant talk of "no, no deal" has perhaps blunted us to the bizarre nature of it. In March I googled "negotiations where on side cannot refuse a deal" and found not one example. Interestingly all I got was "negotiations in bad faith" which seemed accurate. In what situation in anyone's life would they suggest "no deal" was not an option? If I offered Corbyn 10% of his house price would he be bound to accept? Would Swinson sell me her car for a fraction of its value or would she say "no deal"? Yes they are rhetorical questions but do remember how utterly strange "no, no-deal" is. The only one I have
The many hundreds of Euromyths about unelected bureaucrats envisaged bans on loved British foodstuffs and customs, reports about Britain being isolated as other countries gang-up on it, the lack of coverage of MEPs doing their legislative job, supported an overarching narrative of the EU being all powerful, Britain being without a say and friends, and EU institutions unaccountable. Some of these claims had a grain of truth in them, but the overwhelming majority has been at best misleading and often manifestly false. Whilst television coverage has been perceived as considerably less biased and more trusted, it was not proactive to educate citizens about the EU. Successive governments have contributed to these beliefs by claiming any economic and political successes for themselves and blaming Brussels for uncomfortable outcomes. We know since the Leveson inquiry how successive Prime-Ministers felt severely constrained to stand-up to the power of the Eurosceptic press and their owners’ editorial agendas. The rejection of the case made by an overwhelming majority of elite actors points partly to a source credibility issue affecting some of the leading figures, particularly Cameron, but also Corbyn. However, more importantly the Remain campaign started from a huge “deficit” in public knowledge about the nature of the EU, its powers and the UK role within it. There are natural limits to how much the Remain side could to do to overcome deeply ingrained views about the EU, but there is little evidence that they tried, and some ‘in-‘campaigners such as Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, endorsed the “leave” critique of the EU as undemocratic and unaccountable without specifying the reasons or being clear about the remedies. Two lessons to draw from this: First, those who are interested in the UK forging a constructive and friendly relationship with the EU, will need to invest more in educating the public about what the EU is and how it actually works and, perhaps more importantly, do not let inaccurate reporting and the press ownership creating it go without challenge. Otherwise, persuasive positive frames and narratives about the EU will struggle to resonate.
Secondly, profound questions about the linkage between democracy, political promises and knowledge arise: does it matter on what grounds votes are cast in an advisory issue referendum as compared to general elections? Does it matter if citizens vote against their best interests as a result of accepting weak, misleading or false claims? Does it matter if promises made by the Leave campaign are withdrawn just days after the vote or evaporate when faced with economic and political reality post-Brexit? Politics will show.
I voted leave and believed that it was a no deal just walk away thing.
I would vote leave again simply because to not leave would be a betrayal of everything that this Country is supposed to stand for.
Whatever happens we are now a world laughing stock.
Here is proof, I have only posted a couple because I am fed up of posting them now.
The first three are from our current PM, the fourth from the man responsible until recently for negotiating our trade deals, number 5 from a leading Tory MEP, the sixth is what the official vote leave campaign had to say, and lastly what was said by the current Leader of The House of Commons.
I never used to be a fan of conspiracy theories but recent years have made me rather more receptive. All these legal challenges to Brexit, instant rent a crowds and the like are being financed from somewhere, where? The opposition parties appear to be in collusion with Europe. Surely they should favour an instant election? No, they wish to wreak further havoc with more delays. The constant talk of "no, no deal" has perhaps blunted us to the bizarre nature of it. In March I googled "negotiations where on side cannot refuse a deal" and found not one example. Interestingly all I got was "negotiations in bad faith" which seemed accurate. In what situation in anyone's life would they suggest "no deal" was not an option? If I offered Corbyn 10% of his house price would he be bound to accept? Would Swinson sell me her car for a fraction of its value or would she say "no deal"? Yes they are rhetorical questions but do remember how utterly strange "no, no-deal" is. The only one I have been able to think of is the Versailles Treaty. I stand to be corrected on this, but I don't think there has ever been another one in modern international diplomacy. Similarly all these "experts" ("X"-the indefinite article, "spurt" - a drip under pressure as my mother used to say) who come out and tell us what a disaster Brexit will be seem to be working to a European agenda instead of offering solutions. We've had three and a half years to resolve these problems, what have the "experts" and special interest groups been doing? They, in tandem with the opposition parties, oppose any meaningful Brexit and "no-deal" is just tagged on for appearances sake. I believe that ONLY "no deal" offers what the majority voted for. This parliament has shown that they cannot be trusted to even adhere to democratic decisions much less resolve negotiations in good faith. It is a dire situation we find ourselves i8n as a nation but let there not be a scintilla of doubt as to where the responsibility for this lies. It rests firmly with those who would not accept the result of the referendum and act upon it. No other referendum has been ignored the way this one has and I for one deeply distrust the motives of those opposed to democracy. The more so because they prate about defending it when their actions hinder it. My apologies for going on so long but I am more annoyed about the referendum being blocked than any other political event in my life - even our entry into the EEC without being consulted!
I voted leave and believed that it was a no deal just walk away thing.
I have no wish to be considered a bully, cause a big row, and only wish to enter into a temperate debate. This post illustrates the argument I put forward in my previous post perfectly. Nobody in the referendum campaign even suggested the possibility of no deal. How could anyone even suggest that walking away from our biggest trading partners could ever be a serious option. If we walked away today with no deal, first thing tomorrow we would have to start negotiating a deal. The thought that leaving with no deal is some sort of resolution is absolutely ridiculous. How on earth could we possibly survive not reaching any agreement with our biggest trading partners? We have temporary arrangements in place for basic things like flights landing, what happens when they run out? I find the thought of this just mind boggling. No deal just means we have to come crawling back to beg for a deal later, with no leverage.
I would vote leave again simply because to not leave would be a betrayal of everything that this Country is supposed to stand for.
This is a serious question. What in your opinion does this country stand for?
Do you think that we have been betraying everything this country stands for, during the last 45 years that we have been members?
It just sounds to me like a phrase that is similar to taking back control, or getting our Sovereignty back, controlling our borders by not having any etc
Whatever happens we are now a world laughing stock.
Caused by the leave voters?
The referendum was also about immigration. Yet the Government have abandoned plans to stop freedom of movement at the end of October, and quietly moved away from any immigration targets. I suppose we should blame the EU.
Buying a beer abroad ‘nearly 50p more expensive typically since Brexit vote’
The cost of buying a beer abroad could be around 16% or nearly 50p more expensive now than three years ago due to the weakened pound, according to analysis. Foreign exchange firm Caxton FX compiled a “Brexit beer index” by looking at the average cost of a beer now in various countries. It compared currency exchange rates now with those in June 2016, when the EU referendum was held, to show the impact of currency movements over the past three years.
Buying a beer abroad ‘nearly 50p more expensive typically since Brexit vote’
The cost of buying a beer abroad could be around 16% or nearly 50p more expensive now than three years ago due to the weakened pound, according to analysis. Foreign exchange firm Caxton FX compiled a “Brexit beer index” by looking at the average cost of a beer now in various countries. It compared currency exchange rates now with those in June 2016, when the EU referendum was held, to show the impact of currency movements over the past three years.
I'm trying to sell a property in Franc atm.....the only silver lining to the Brexit cloud is when you've bought at 1.43 and sell at 1.08/1.09 you 'might' get your money back due to the decreased asking price you have to start with due to Brexit uncertainty! (in this country if you buy a property in 2006 and sell 13 years later...happy days....not so in France)
Buying a beer abroad ‘nearly 50p more expensive typically since Brexit vote’
The cost of buying a beer abroad could be around 16% or nearly 50p more expensive now than three years ago due to the weakened pound, according to analysis. Foreign exchange firm Caxton FX compiled a “Brexit beer index” by looking at the average cost of a beer now in various countries. It compared currency exchange rates now with those in June 2016, when the EU referendum was held, to show the impact of currency movements over the past three years.
Buying a beer abroad ‘nearly 50p more expensive typically since Brexit vote’
The cost of buying a beer abroad could be around 16% or nearly 50p more expensive now than three years ago due to the weakened pound, according to analysis. Foreign exchange firm Caxton FX compiled a “Brexit beer index” by looking at the average cost of a beer now in various countries. It compared currency exchange rates now with those in June 2016, when the EU referendum was held, to show the impact of currency movements over the past three years.
Buying a beer abroad ‘nearly 50p more expensive typically since Brexit vote’
The cost of buying a beer abroad could be around 16% or nearly 50p more expensive now than three years ago due to the weakened pound, according to analysis. Foreign exchange firm Caxton FX compiled a “Brexit beer index” by looking at the average cost of a beer now in various countries. It compared currency exchange rates now with those in June 2016, when the EU referendum was held, to show the impact of currency movements over the past three years.
Buying a beer abroad ‘nearly 50p more expensive typically since Brexit vote’
The cost of buying a beer abroad could be around 16% or nearly 50p more expensive now than three years ago due to the weakened pound, according to analysis. Foreign exchange firm Caxton FX compiled a “Brexit beer index” by looking at the average cost of a beer now in various countries. It compared currency exchange rates now with those in June 2016, when the EU referendum was held, to show the impact of currency movements over the past three years.
Buying a beer abroad ‘nearly 50p more expensive typically since Brexit vote’
The cost of buying a beer abroad could be around 16% or nearly 50p more expensive now than three years ago due to the weakened pound, according to analysis. Foreign exchange firm Caxton FX compiled a “Brexit beer index” by looking at the average cost of a beer now in various countries. It compared currency exchange rates now with those in June 2016, when the EU referendum was held, to show the impact of currency movements over the past three years.
Buying a beer abroad ‘nearly 50p more expensive typically since Brexit vote’
The cost of buying a beer abroad could be around 16% or nearly 50p more expensive now than three years ago due to the weakened pound, according to analysis. Foreign exchange firm Caxton FX compiled a “Brexit beer index” by looking at the average cost of a beer now in various countries. It compared currency exchange rates now with those in June 2016, when the EU referendum was held, to show the impact of currency movements over the past three years.
Buying a beer abroad ‘nearly 50p more expensive typically since Brexit vote’
The cost of buying a beer abroad could be around 16% or nearly 50p more expensive now than three years ago due to the weakened pound, according to analysis. Foreign exchange firm Caxton FX compiled a “Brexit beer index” by looking at the average cost of a beer now in various countries. It compared currency exchange rates now with those in June 2016, when the EU referendum was held, to show the impact of currency movements over the past three years.
Buying a beer abroad ‘nearly 50p more expensive typically since Brexit vote’
The cost of buying a beer abroad could be around 16% or nearly 50p more expensive now than three years ago due to the weakened pound, according to analysis. Foreign exchange firm Caxton FX compiled a “Brexit beer index” by looking at the average cost of a beer now in various countries. It compared currency exchange rates now with those in June 2016, when the EU referendum was held, to show the impact of currency movements over the past three years.
Buying a beer abroad ‘nearly 50p more expensive typically since Brexit vote’
The cost of buying a beer abroad could be around 16% or nearly 50p more expensive now than three years ago due to the weakened pound, according to analysis. Foreign exchange firm Caxton FX compiled a “Brexit beer index” by looking at the average cost of a beer now in various countries. It compared currency exchange rates now with those in June 2016, when the EU referendum was held, to show the impact of currency movements over the past three years.
So that will be 50p cheaper than buying a Beer in Cornwall, £1 cheaper than in London and at least £2 cheaper than buying one at Manchester Airport
EDIT: except for buying a Pint in Mr Brexit's WETHERSPOONS of course!
Taking back control of our beer then?
Yes for sure. Mr WETHERSPOONS is selling British Beer at £1.99 a pint in many of his Pubs
Wouldn't be seen dead in one of his pubs.
Some of us can only afford to drink in his pubs. Always good to look for Value..... and I can assure you, they aren't half busy!
Play better poker then.
Even if I was Melty, AlanCarr and MattBates, rolled into one (a MeltyCarrMatt), I'd still drink in WETHERSPOONS..... after all.....I did grow up in Yorkshire
Buying a beer abroad ‘nearly 50p more expensive typically since Brexit vote’
The cost of buying a beer abroad could be around 16% or nearly 50p more expensive now than three years ago due to the weakened pound, according to analysis. Foreign exchange firm Caxton FX compiled a “Brexit beer index” by looking at the average cost of a beer now in various countries. It compared currency exchange rates now with those in June 2016, when the EU referendum was held, to show the impact of currency movements over the past three years.
So that will be 50p cheaper than buying a Beer in Cornwall, £1 cheaper than in London and at least £2 cheaper than buying one at Manchester Airport
EDIT: except for buying a Pint in Mr Brexit's WETHERSPOONS of course!
Taking back control of our beer then?
Yes for sure. Mr WETHERSPOONS is selling British Beer at £1.99 a pint in many of his Pubs
Wouldn't be seen dead in one of his pubs.
Some of us can only afford to drink in his pubs. Always good to look for Value..... and I can assure you, they aren't half busy!
Play better poker then.
Even if I was Melty, AlanCarr and MattBates, rolled into one (a MeltyCarrMatt), I'd still drink in WETHERSPOONS..... after all.....I did grow up in Yorkshire
You said you only did it because you cant afford to drink elsewhere?
Buying a beer abroad ‘nearly 50p more expensive typically since Brexit vote’
The cost of buying a beer abroad could be around 16% or nearly 50p more expensive now than three years ago due to the weakened pound, according to analysis. Foreign exchange firm Caxton FX compiled a “Brexit beer index” by looking at the average cost of a beer now in various countries. It compared currency exchange rates now with those in June 2016, when the EU referendum was held, to show the impact of currency movements over the past three years.
So that will be 50p cheaper than buying a Beer in Cornwall, £1 cheaper than in London and at least £2 cheaper than buying one at Manchester Airport
EDIT: except for buying a Pint in Mr Brexit's WETHERSPOONS of course!
Taking back control of our beer then?
Yes for sure. Mr WETHERSPOONS is selling British Beer at £1.99 a pint in many of his Pubs
Wouldn't be seen dead in one of his pubs.
Some of us can only afford to drink in his pubs. Always good to look for Value..... and I can assure you, they aren't half busy!
Mini workers face two weeks of unpaid leave in event of no-deal Brexit
BMW will make workers at its Mini plant in Oxford take unpaid leave for two weeks or more if a no-deal Brexit causes major disruption to its business. The German carmaker is ready to close the Cowley factory for at least a fortnight from the 31 October Brexit deadline if BMW has problems importing components for vehicles, its chief financial officer Nicolas Peter said. The shutdown could stretch to more than three weeks, he added. Cowley’s 4,500 workers would go unpaid because their holiday allowance was used up in April when BMW carried out a planned shutdown of the plant for a month after the original Brexit deadline of 29 March, Peter said.
Investment in Britain’s car industry has ground to a halt as a hard Brexit has loomed. The amount pledged for new investments in the first half of 2019 was £90m compared with between £2.5bn and £2.7bn a year before the Brexit vote.
Comments
Our politicians are suggesting that yet another general election will solve the problem, which seems unlikely.
They are describing the upcoming general election as putting it back to the people.
Why do people think that putting it back to the people in the form of numerous general elections is acceptable, whereas doing the same thing through a referendum is out of the question.
You cant really use the words logic and Brexit in the same sentence.
I don't think that you can knock the politicians that have sacrificed their jobs and futures, over what they feel are the best interests of the country.
This has gone on for years now.
There is a solution, but it appears that we would prefer to continue going around in circles in order to respect the so called will of the people.
Some people would get the hump if we had another referendum.
Many people have got the hump now, and many more will have the hump whatever the outcome.
If people concentrated on measures that are likely to solve the problem, rather than something that happened three and a half years ago, we would have a chance.
The following is likely to happen.
No deal is blocked.
We extend to the end of January.
So a November election will happen.
A likely result of this is no overall majority for any party.
Boris is toast for not getting us out.
We end up back here in January.
Parliament are trying to stop no deal again.
Another extension?
The only possible alternative to this seems to be Boris getting a deal.
This seems to be unlikely as he hasn't come up with any new proposals.
So it would have to be close to Theresa Mays deal, including the backstop.
Therefore, unlikely to get through Parliament.
I think that no deal would be a disaster, and support the rebel MPs.
The danger is that more people support this disaster our of frustration.
Emily Thornberry is having a battering after explaining the Labour policy, which I have laughed at for some time.
She confirmed that if Labour won the election, they would negotiate a better deal than the Tories. They would then call for a referendum, on their new, better deal, or remain. The would support remain in the referendum, and campaign against their own deal.
Incredible.
Imagine saying to the EU, that they want to tie up 50 people for 6 months to negotiate a deal, then campaign for their supporters to vote against it.
Where are we going?
Boris cant be trusted.
A better example of no deal is for a business to tell their biggest customer to f... off, and then contemplate who to sell their products to in future, and stop the company going bankrupt.
No deal is a nonsense anyway, as I said earlier if we left with no deal this morning we would have to go crawling back this afternoon to beg for a deal, with no leverage.
To say that the majority voted for no deal is untrue. No deal wasn't even mentioned in the referendum campaign.
No deal is a disaster.
So far we have only reached the Withdrawal Agreement stage.
This involves 3 things, citizens rights, and how much we owe, which are easy, and are agreed. The remaining part in the Irish border problem which we haven't solved in two and a half years.
Any ideas?
The future trade talks are meant to take place after we leave.
The one thing that is holding up any movement is the Irish border.
I believe the EU has bent over backwards in an effort to solve this problem, but our side cant reach an agreement.
What is a meaningful Brexit?
I posted the following elsewhere earlier.
Most people who will contribute to this thread, will be aware of how I voted in the referendum.
My view is based on what I consider to be best for our country.
Assuming we do leave I think that a deal that keeps us close to the EU would be the best choice.
We should choose the deal that loses the least number of jobs, trade, etc.
I have found the whole thing disappointing.
Starting with the referendum question that was wholly inadequate
Much of the leave vote was intended as a protest, but they were pointing their protesting fingers in the wrong direction. Our Government, rather than the EU should have been the target.
Leave voters claim to have been called thick for voting to leave.
When the truth is that a number of polls showed that the more educated people were likely to have voted to remain. I am not a highly educated person, but don't consider myself stupid. The same polls showed that the majority of old people also voted to leave, and an overwhelming majority of young people voted to remain. Assuming the polls are accurate then these are facts, people that are in their 70s cant claim to be young, and people that left school will no qualifications cant claim to be highly educated. However this does not mean that either category have to be thick or stupid.
Something that gets my back up is that so many leave voters seem to rely on the pub, their family, workplace, or friends for their EU knowledge, and just repeat claims made by others, which are not founded in any truth. This makes any debate difficult, as very often any questions regarding these claims are met with stony silence.
Leave voters will comment on the unelected EU, despite all the members conducting elections on a regular basis. They ridicule the EU over straight banana laws, which never happened, and completely ignore, or are unaware of the good things that we should be grateful to the EU for, like workers rights, which the Tories are threating to reduce post Brexit, and equal pay, paid leave, consumer protection, the right to live, and work in another member country, foreign study, easy travel, clean rivers, and clean air, cheap flights, etc etc.
Ask a leave voter to point to an EU law that they object to and would like to repeal as soon as we leave, and they rarely respond. Ask them to explain which EU law has affected their lives in an adverse way, and you usually get the same response. They claim to be taking back control, but aren't sure what they are taking back control of, or how it is going to work. Sovereignty, how does that improve anything for the average working man? They are only able to defend a no deal Brexit by using the phrase "project fear", when confronted by any information forecasting the damage to our economy. I don't intend to explore the ridiculous claims like the EU are responsible for handball rules in football, or Boris and his kipper wrappers.
The division in Parliament merely reflects the country.
The idea that Brexit could ever be described as the will of the people, is in my view a fallacy.
Assuming it is delivered at some point in the future, only a small number of people will consider they have got what they voted for.
I really hope that had I been a leave voter, that I would have bowed to the avalanche of overwhelming evidence pointing to the fact that I had been mistaken, and changed my mind by now.
I also think that is more productive to consider where we are now, the mess that we are in, and ways out of it, rather than continuing to harp back to 2016, and the will of the people.
Caused by the leave voters?
The referendum was also about immigration. Yet the Government have abandoned plans to stop freedom of movement at the end of October, and quietly moved away from any immigration targets. I suppose we should blame the EU.
The cost of buying a beer abroad could be around 16% or nearly 50p more expensive now than three years ago due to the weakened pound, according to analysis.
Foreign exchange firm Caxton FX compiled a “Brexit beer index” by looking at the average cost of a beer now in various countries.
It compared currency exchange rates now with those in June 2016, when the EU referendum was held, to show the impact of currency movements over the past three years.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/buying-beer-abroad-nearly-50p-101938107.html
EDIT: except for buying a Pint in Mr Brexit's WETHERSPOONS of course!
Mini workers face two weeks of unpaid leave in event of no-deal Brexit
BMW will make workers at its Mini plant in Oxford take unpaid leave for two weeks or more if a no-deal Brexit causes major disruption to its business.
The German carmaker is ready to close the Cowley factory for at least a fortnight from the 31 October Brexit deadline if BMW has problems importing components for vehicles, its chief financial officer Nicolas Peter said. The shutdown could stretch to more than three weeks, he added.
Cowley’s 4,500 workers would go unpaid because their holiday allowance was used up in April when BMW carried out a planned shutdown of the plant for a month after the original Brexit deadline of 29 March, Peter said.
Investment in Britain’s car industry has ground to a halt as a hard Brexit has loomed. The amount pledged for new investments in the first half of 2019 was £90m compared with between £2.5bn and £2.7bn a year before the Brexit vote.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/mini-workers-face-two-weeks-210350374.html