Let's not forget Brexit

Quite bizarre -Davis agreed the negotiating priorities during the first round of meetings, and yet he has spent his time ever since trying to undermine this agreement. Odd.

Oh “legislative garbage” wow - so that’s why they can’t bring the bill forward.

All the EU are interested in is getting as much money out of the UK as possible that's why negotiations haven't started yet and probably never will. They are not interested in EU nationals living here. Theresa May made a good offer regarding EU nationals but it was dismissed.

Repeal bill apparently not delayed because they never set a date

Oh Lordy! this government is a laugh a minute

What was wrong with Tegan's guess POGS?

Tegan 2

You guessed wrong.

tegan “you lose track” [grin%] you are in good company -so does the government

I guess that's because she won't agree to safeguard the future of EU nationals living/working/marrying here [or has she done a u turn on that as well [I lose track...].

Yanis Varoufakis has just made a brilliant point when asked about the so called negotiations. It went something along the lines of .

So far Theresa May / UK is negotiating to be able to start negotiations .

Very true.

'Since the referendum, sterling continues to fall against most important currencies, inflation is rising, interest rates will rise, debt is increasing exponentially again'. But John Redwood [where did they dig him up from?] said yesterday that it wasn't brexit that affected sterling. Someone else who believes that, if you tell a lie loud enough and often enough people will believe you .

I think another referendum would indeed be foolish.

Given that every authority on the subject forecast correctly what is now clearly happening to the economy, would you say that it would be expedient to take note of what they are saying or not?

How does anybody categorically know whether in the long term we will or will not be better off outside the EU, unless that someone is in possession of a crystal ball?!

This latest referendum was voted by Parliament to be first past the post which cancels out former referendum rules. Yes the rules could be changed yet again, but that would now certainly be seen as a way of getting the 'right' result, which of course it would be. Having agreed the rules once, to change them again so soon for one reason only would certainly be deemed unfair by a lot of the population, which again of course it would be!

Think as far as the economic argument there is no need to pursue this any further.

Brextremists simply can no longer argue that the U.K. will be better off outside of Europe.

Since the referendum, sterling continues to fall against most important currencies, inflation is rising, interest rates will rise, debt is increasing exponentially again. Wages are stagnating, business is less confident about the future then it has been for ever, businesses are planning an exodus from the UK, there is clear evidence that the rest of the world will continue to pursue trading with the EU because of its massive customer base and shows little interest in the UK regardless of what the Brextremists are giving out as propaganda. There is of course a huge amount more evidence. This is not remoaning this is fact.

Brexiters have lost the economic argument.

www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-10-18/brexit-talks-are-failing-somebody-needs-to-care

"At the moment the EU27 is more unanimous than the UK," says the Finnish state secretary.

To clarify, even the government can't agree on that, niggly.
The more they argue, the easier it becomes to see we can stay in.

www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-17/u-k-s-brexit-divisions-make-talks-harder-says-irish-premier

This last referendum was NOT conducted in the same way as the previous one to decide whether or not we continued with the EU. It was a referendum with the stipulation of I think a 60/40 divide. It was a very clear majority then.
If as Niggly says a referendum should be conducted by the same rules as any previous one then this last one does not count at all.

When it's a change of government voting every five years is fine, but surely you can't dip in and out of the EU and all that entails in the same way? You could go on doing that every so often for ever as, bearing in mind any future referendum would have to be conducted in the same way as the original, at what point would you have a 'final' referendum and ignore any future clamour for yet another?!
To clarify, we're leaving the EU dj, even the Labour party have acknowledged that (I think!!) that's where we are, I'd have thought that was fairly obvious, but perhaps not.

It is called democracy- people make a decision- and then can change their mind and act accordingly. Otherwise, we wouldn't have elections ever 4 years - just elect one and then keep it forever. There was a vote- with a tiny minority of those who voted in favour of leave (never mind it was won on lies and prejudice peddled by the gutter Press, etc) - but NOW, or rather WHEN - we know the outcome and the nature of the deal- then democracy, and Parliamentary democracy UK style even more so- requires that the deal is approved - by Parliament, and I believe by the people too.

Democracy. Otherwise you any Gvt could lie and manipulate to make people vote one way - and then never have another say again?! Would that be democracy? Or dictatorship?

Osborne's father in law, I think.

Astonishingly there is a country full of people outside London and big business!

I agree with you, nn to the extent that Cameron's government's austerity policy and complete unconcern for the poorer members of our society (as exemplified by the 'no need to build council housing because the people who need them don't vote conservative' attitude) were very significant factors inluencing the way people voted in the referendum. See the link I posted earlier.

(And wasn't there a tory peer who said that fracking in Cumbria was fine because nobody lived there...)

Amongst, not amonst.