Brexit -am I stupid or what

I didn't mean for them to use those words - it was more the sentiment........ the time for chatting is now over, and therefore we should simply stop all negotiations, payments and get out without any deal; I suspect once they realise that their bully-boy tactics haven't worked, and that we do actually have the gumption to leave and leave them high and dry, that they will suddenly want to talk to us - especially as they want to deter Italy and Poland from following suit.

 

This is the sort of approach that frankly terrifies the living daylights out of me. I honestly don't know where to start. If international relations were to be ironed out in such spectacularly simple terms, in the blink of an eye, then the whole world's problems could be solved over a pint by a few blokes in their local pub. What scares me to death is how people on both sides of this infernal debate are so incredibly confident that their side and their's only is 100% foolproof, as if they have tried it before and they have a crystal ball. The truth is that a gung-ho approach like the one you advocate could lead to medicine shortages, the scrapping of decades' worth of cooperative work on education, science, counter-terrorism, and to mass unemployment. Of course, it also may not lead to this. But the idea that Theresa May should turn around to her fellow professionals and tell them to F-off ad just take it from there is...well, I don't have any words for it to be honest. Tell me, where is your precedent?[/QUOTE]

Do you seriously think that I meant for Theresa May to go over and literally tell them to F-Off? Because if you do, that frankly terrifies me! Come on fella, we are chatting on a web-forum here - this ain't exactly a UN conference.

Maybe the worlds problems SHOULD be sorted in a more simple fashion, as clearly the current methods do not work and they cost all of us a bleedin' fortune.

Oh, and I am sick and tired of reading could - anything could happen, but it is not a guarantee. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that all of the propaganda that is being shoved out anti-Brexit is true - we all know politicians lie.

No offence, but I am not going to sit and play keyboard warriors over this, at least this weekend - I am in agony with a capital F, and therefore in no mood to be discussing such a sensitive subject, so please do not be offended if I do not reply further.

 

Get some rest and sleep, FC, and I hope you can relieve the pain you're in, my friend.

 

I doubt I will get much sleep this weekend pal - this pain is pretty severe to be honest, and there ain't any whisky in the house (until tomorrow at least!) But typing hurts, so I won't be doing much of it.

 

The trouble is, Freddy, there is no right way if one party is being stalled, blocked, stonewalled, obstructed, by the other party who is using their rules, regulations, and legislation to the very last comma and full stop. I think it's long been obvious that the EU regards the UK as a awkward, rebellious, trouble maker not willing to do as it is told while paying a huge amount of £Billions for the privilege. Amicable agreements are reached by amicable participants under amicable conditions........and I haven't seen the EU being amicable during the negotiations, more like .........

and then

 

I'll be right over with a bottle of.......

 

I'm sorry, Freddy, but in any Court of Arbitration, European or UK, 52% v 48% means in language or political situation/decision means a clear division and "victory". 50% v 50% would call for a rerun or a comprise. In any General Election I've never heard of a Political Party being defeated by a narrow margin of even 1% asking for a compromise. If the winning party is over the line then it's a democratic win. Calling into question a 4% win is not a compromise it's merely blurring the lines of of a decision and democracy........that is a common practice in Europe and Scotland but hopefully we won't do it with the UK referendum.

 

You've lost me, Freddy Nobody reviling that part of the population who voted remain but what you seem to be suggesting is that there should be a "compromise" where the 54% who voted out should have that decision questioned and nullified on the basis that it wasn't the right answer for the remainers. The fact is that the democratic decision of the UK population voted to leave the EU...........that's fact. Obviously, there will never agreement between opposite sides of the Referendum but I don't think either side should get angry or ask for a "compromise" which is really asking for a change in the decision. It's been decided by a majority vote to leave the EU and what we should be doing to honouring that vote and standing together to get through these difficult times and get to the other side.