The word bilateral means "between two parties" there, as it always does. So, for the third time of asking, where is the mistake and how does this relate to the Tories?

FFS Do I have to spell it out. EU bilateral agreements? Penny falling. Cant be done. OK

Yes, you need to spell it out. Or at least answer the question.

Rather than ask a fourth time, perhaps I should guess what you're saying and why it appears to be incorrect:

You appear to have assumed he is a Conservative and he is talking about a series of bilateral agreements between the UK and individual EU countries to allow planes to fly between the UK and those individual EU countries. You appear to have overlooked that he's a civil servant rather than a politician of any stripe and that planes fly to and from the UK from and to countries like the USA, Canada and Brazil.

If the UK was no longer involved in the EASA it would need new agreements on safety and standards with each source/destination country and region, which Manzoni says would need to be made in a series of bilateral agreements mirroring those currently applicable under EASA auspices.

I still cannot see what you think is wrong with this or how it relates to the Tories.

Never mind.

The cliff is getting closer:

Article 50 extension would need major shift in UK politics, say EU officials

Only second referendum or election would boost case for extension, EU sources say

“We have spent the GDP of Greece in terms of manpower in trying to first of all keep the Brits in and now negotiate on their exit. Even if the UK asked for it, and that seems unlikely, it would need a compelling reason to be given.”

ronmcd wrote:I think that post is just a longer way of saying we're fucked.

Nah we are just all doomed

mrjonno wrote:

ronmcd wrote:I think that post is just a longer way of saying we're fucked.

Nah we are just all doomed

Whew!

Mogg is a cretin - how does he propose WTO rules will deal with the NI problem. You put the border back up then prepare to see British soldiers coming home in body bags once again. How long did it take to get peace? Why do we NOT want to be in the largest trade union AND have a say in what it does?

I bet the rest of Europe is rubbing it's hands in glee at the thought of a soft brexit where the UK loses it's powers.

The obvious answer to the question is to not go forward after reminding everyone that the likes of those fucktards, Johnson, Mogg, Davis, etc were telling us we could stay in the Customs Union and we could protect our borders and all this other crap that was obviously a lie and if it wasn't a lie, then these fools are incompetent on a scale appropriate to Trump.

The leave campaign were all over Brexit, promising fairies and unicorns - could they possibly give us the factual and amazing benefits we're meant to be getting from this?

The leave campaign were all over Brexit, promising fairies and unicorns

From what I have seen, though admittedly I haven't been following this very closely, their changing approach has been along the lines of:-

Before referendum
It will be brilliant, massive benefits for us.

After
It won't be as bad as everyone thinks
It might not be as bad as everyone thinks
It is still possible for it not to be as bad as everyone thinks.

But apparently what everyone thinks does not justify reconsideration.

ronmcd wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

ronmcd wrote:
Ironically, and stick with me here, the actual BEST chance for this to all be sorted might be if we are heading for no deal, that goes back to parliament (thank fuck for the lords, the only time I will ever say that) for the so-called "meaningful vote", and our MPs turn out to have backbone and simply decide no, this can't be, we will need a new vote to work out what the fuck we do now we know the sorry state we are in.

Although there remains the possibility that a second referendum also produces a leave result, that the 52% simply don't believe "project fear" and follow Boris' Brexit Dream over the cliff.

Is that something akin to a death cult?

I don't know, I'd like to think the whole endeavour (and govt) would have been so discredited another win for the leave vote would be unthinkable.

But then ... *sigh*

The polling evidence is pretty much identical to what it was just before the last referendum. It's plausible that if there were another referendum, the result would be the same.

zulumoose wrote:

The leave campaign were all over Brexit, promising fairies and unicorns

From what I have seen, though admittedly I haven't been following this very closely, their changing approach has been along the lines of:-

Before referendum
It will be brilliant, massive benefits for us.

After
It won't be as bad as everyone thinks
It might not be as bad as everyone thinks
It is still possible for it not to be as bad as everyone thinks.

But apparently what everyone thinks does not justify reconsideration.

So this was always the reality and that is, voting to leave the EU "won't be as bad as everyone thinks" and also "We'll survive" - well for what exactly? They cannot say anything good will happen and all forecasts point the opposite way to putting the UK in a weak and vulnerable position.

Bereft of Europe, we'll have no trade deals and less jobs. Put into a desperate situation is great if you want to benefit off the UK who will be begging for deals as 40,000 jobs from Jaguar go abroad and we lose our fishing industry plus the financial centre and a host of other jobs.

I should also note here that Brexit also made a lot of rich people a ton of money.

Nobody can give a positive, everyone except those pushing for Brexit say it's going to be a disaster. We can put the brakes on right now but we'd rather hit the iceberg and go down as the string quartet plays "Rule Brittania"

Tracer Tong wrote:

ronmcd wrote:
I don't know, I'd like to think the whole endeavour (and govt) would have been so discredited another win for the leave vote would be unthinkable.

But then ... *sigh*

The polling evidence is pretty much identical to what it was just before the last referendum. It's plausible that if there were another referendum, the result would be the same.

You're probably right. It's really what my "But then ... " comment was about. I sometimes think the worst can't possibly happen, and then people inexplicably STILL vote Tory. Or vote for an orange sociopath for President.

People do the strangest things.

Tracer Tong wrote:

The polling evidence is pretty much identical to what it was just before the last referendum. It's plausible that if there were another referendum, the result would be the same.

is it?

Remaining in the EU would beat leaving with no deal by 54 per cent to 46, according to a YouGov poll for The Sunday Times.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/brexit-lates ... 00368.html

If the polls were the same after the last 2 years it shows the British are a bunch of dullards then and incapable of making an informed decision. Given the resignations and all forcasts if the result would be the same would re-emphasise the point of why we have politicians to make decisions and not the public. Of course that comes with the caveat that said politicians know what the fuck they're talking about to begin with (none of them seemed to know about Northern Ireland)

The above poll is an 8 point lead and also, let's point out another inconvenient fact for Brexiters. Not all the people who voted for Brexit voted to leave the customs union or have borders put up. The Brexit campaign literally vommited bullshit everywhere that they told everyone

- they could have their cake an eat it
- We'd get everything we wanted
- Europe needs us more than we need them so we'll get any deal we like
- we'd stay in the customs union
- we'd have no borders except to keep out brown people (I'm assuming)
- we'd get brilliant trade deals so great you could eat an egg off it (we'll get WTO rules which are nothing short of absolute shit)


If the polls are the same as they were on the vote then I'd say we have a massive problem and our schools have failed abysmally.

people inexplicably STILL vote Tory. Or vote for an orange sociopath for President.

By definition 50% of people have a 2 digit IQ.

I have had many conversations with people whose beliefs are unshakeable because fact does not influence them, their belief is entirely justified to themselves by what they prefer to think is true.

The polling evidence is pretty much identical to what it was just before the last referendum. It's plausible that if there were another referendum, the result would be the same

I doubt if that many people have changed their mind but I do strongly suspect how important people see it has changed.
The underclass/poorly educated would be a lot less bothered to turn out this time -voting twice in your life too much effort, a lot of the pensioners are dead and among the middle class they are likely to feel a lot less risk adverse and simply not bother to turn out next time.

The young realising how important it is would be more likely to turn out as well.

Getting people not to vote as ever bit a good tactic to win elections as getting them to vote

How many are dead that voted leave? Quite a few I believe.

Scot Dutchy wrote:How many are dead that voted leave? Quite a few I believe.

and the 16 year olds that weren't allowed to vote are now 18.

Scot Dutchy wrote:How many are dead that voted leave? Quite a few I believe.

Not enough, yes I do look at pensioners on the bus and think did you vote brexit hurry up, and die you fuck.

I am not a nice remainer

mrjonno wrote:

The polling evidence is pretty much identical to what it was just before the last referendum. It's plausible that if there were another referendum, the result would be the same

I doubt if that many people have changed their mind but I do strongly suspect how important people see it has changed.
The underclass/poorly educated would be a lot less bothered to turn out this time -voting twice in your life too much effort, a lot of the pensioners are dead and among the middle class they are likely to feel a lot less risk adverse and simply not bother to turn out next time.

The young realising how important it is would be more likely to turn out as well.

Getting people not to vote as ever bit a good tactic to win elections as getting them to vote

What evidence there is suggests that in the prior referendum new voters (n.b. not equivalent to the newly franchised) favoured leave, not remain. Further, leave supporters were more likely to turn out than remain supporters. I don't know of any evidence to suggest this pattern wouldn't be replicated in another referendum.

Teague wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

The polling evidence is pretty much identical to what it was just before the last referendum. It's plausible that if there were another referendum, the result would be the same.

is it?

Yeah. As before, there's a good chance that support for leave is being underestimated.