You wouldn’t be much use in resolving this then as you appear not to realise that there was a referendum on this issue.
All true and sensible. Now sell it to the people who voted for less foreigners
Some are / will be dead - Many potential new votes have not had a voice. Many feel they were misled - NO one understood the full implications / feasibility including government. Seemingly they still don’t as they have not got any deal in front of them. It is however quite clear Brexit will not be a cake walk, we will not be better off, ‘foreigners’ will not evaporate, our services will not be vastly improved, we do not have a crack negotiating team, we are not in a strong position, If the referendum was held today with the scant information available I’m not so use it would turn out the same?
Theresa has already purloined “for the many not the few” and she’s only been going a minute.
She is very good at talking a lot but saying nothing
The very definition of a politician
Modern outward tolerant country.
I thought it was amusing that she blamed EU for the terrible conditions in those parts of the country that voted leave. Nothing to do with Tory policies, austerity & general neglect.
I know there was a referendum, but I don’t accept that an advisory referendum with 52% voting to leave means that we must leave, let alone leave on such damaging terms. I think it should primarily be down to the politicians who led the leave campaign to negotiate the terms, get the best deal they can, then that deal should be ratified in a binding referendum.
Current polls suggest any change in voting patterns is marginal and that Leave is still underestimated by polling. It’s a moot point as neither Lab nor Tory favour a second referendum, so we will not be getting one.
I’d love to know what leavers think the uk is going to look like in 5 years post brexit
I’ve been reading the speech and trying to figure out what in it was really new. The key quote it would seem to me is:
“Our access to each other’s markets will be less than it is now.”
Now that is very realistic and hasn’t been made clear before. She then went on to talk about what is effectively a policy of managed divergence in some sectors and full alignment in others. What the Government has failed to do, and what May completed avoided is explaining how the costs of this limited access can be justified. That is, what are the benefits from managed divergence? She needs to provide a business plan for want of a better description in the absence of a valid case grounded in economics. A case study can be used to illustrate the situation clearly. May mentioned the European Medicines Agency in her speech. This organisation was based in London but has been relocated with loss of several hundred posts in the UK along with the additional benefits it brought. We are now to sign up as associate members (if such a thing is possible) and fully align. Just how does this improve anything? Effectively we are in the same position as before, facing the same costs of compliance, but have paid a price to hamper ourselves.
Our utopian future includes a free bulldog for every family, another World Cup win and the full restoration of the empire.
Not forgetting the right to have bananas of any shape we damned well please and an end to ‘EU bureaucracy gone mad’.
I’m looking forward to it - it’ll be a hoot.
Especially the deregulation of the banana market. When people experience that, they will really appreciate what this whole brexit thing was all about in the first place…
As long as there’s less or fewer foreign people they don’t care.
That, of course, very much depends on whether or not we manage to re-negotiate access to the Banana market or negotiate a new trade deal with Banana trading countries.
Two big ifs right there.