Brexit will be Titanic success, says Boris Johnson

How readily the accusation of 'racist' without foundation is bandied around these days; it seems to be a kind of Tourette's response of liberals. I've never heard DT say anything to convince me he's a racist.

 

"We know that Banks are moving people out and that I think is likely to be a massive loss, France and Germany and possibly another country are putting things in order to take over the UK's position.

We know that other company's are thinking of not starting more work here until the situation is known - hence the under the table something to Nissan and that will go on and on.

We know that if we stopped using migrants in farming we would have no British produce in our stores within 5 days.

We know that we are going to miss money for research as well as the best minds to spark each other off.

We know our young will no longer be able to plan a career in a different country in Europe etc etc etc."

So you are a fully paid up member of project fear then - "we know"...sorry but must of what you've written is made up bollox.

My personal fav a was "We know our young will no longer be able to plan a career in a different country in Europe" - Honestly, just because we don't know anything, doesn't give you the excuse to just make (*)(*)(*)(*) up.

In my mind, the biggest loser in the EU vote has been the reputation of British people.
People who lost the vote (and i was one of them as i voted to remain), have behaved like spoilt little pre-pubescent children whose mummys have refused them their favourite sweets.

The only saving grace for these people is their unfounded panic and I'm afraid things like "We know our young will no longer be able to plan a career in a different country in Europe" is part part of the rather stupid, but very amusing project fear.

I'd like to make a suggestion - Go to YouTube and search for a gentleman called "Jonathan pie" - Watch his videos on brexit...and stop worrying about what MIGHT happen.

 

I don't respond to coarse posts.

 

Rubbish, the Leader of the Liberal Party wants a second referendum, large numbers of the Labour party want a second referendum .. all this bluster about requiring a vote to trigger article 50 is nothing more than a smoke screen to try and stop Brexit happening by any means possible. The Royal prerogative is used regularly, it covers numerous things including the powers of declaring war and of making peace, the issue of passports, and the granting of honours.

There should be a cross party committee set up that can discuss etc the terms of negotiation with the EU once Article 50 has been triggered, for the government to lay out all it's cards on the table before article 50 has been triggered is just plain stupid .. would you go into a negotiation where the people you are negotiating with know everything you have?

Absolute rubbish, the usage of a slippery slope fallacy as a means to bolster what is nothing more than a back door attempt to undermine the will of the people .. whether this legal judgement is correct or not please don't try to justify it as remoaners supporting Sovereignty when it is plain by there previous actions that they do not.

 

You mean the economist on both continents who predicted immediate doom and gloom if the UK voted to leave (including the current Bank of England head) and yet here we are nearly four months later and the sky has not fallen in, in fact the UK economy has grown by 0.5% since Brexit, unemployment is down, Consumer spending is up, Prices remain pretty steady, and the latest economic forecast from credit ratings agency Moody’s predicts the UK will slow down modestly, but will not enter a recession.

So all in all these "brightnpeople[sic]" have got it pretty much wrong.

 

LOL and you don't think that a person can hide their racist core simply to boost their own public image, I mean it wouldn't be the first time Trump has flip-flopped on things to garner public support.

Clinton is just as bad. I just wish there was a non violent revolution in the US where people voted for a third option say Gary Johnson (BTW I am not endorsing him), American politics has been a two horse race based on how much money you can get for the campaign for far to long.

 

So prime minister May makes it clear she would like us to have access to the single market, but it's rejected unless she accepts the freedom of movement clause, therefore all she can do is walk away - I don't see what else she can do; she tried and they sent her away with a flea in her ear. That being the scenario, what can parliamentarians who don't like it insist she should do next, go cap in hand and beg to be allowed access to it? Yeah right - the PM of our country, Great Britain, grovelling to a bunch of obstructive foreign jobsworths.

 

Wrong, please read the Conservative General Election Manifesto of 2015 where it very clearly states “We believe in letting the people decide: so we will hold an in-out referendum on our membership of the EU before the end of 2017.” It should be noted that the election promise was to “let the people decide”. It was not a promise to hold an advisory referendum, with the final decision being left to Parliament. Therefore the British people were given a politically and constitutionally binding promise in the election manifesto of the successful party that they would be given the final and deciding say in a referendum in which the majority would prevail.

As a matter of constitutional practice, the inclusion of a policy in the election manifesto of a political party which achieves a majority at a general election gives rise to a constitutional mandate to implement that policy. The Act itself does not say that it is advisory. At no point did ministers in their public statements either to Parliament or outside say that the referendum result would only be advisory. On the contrary, they repeatedly said that the referendum would allow the British people to decide the question of whether we remain or leave.

In opening the second reading debate on the Referendum Bill on 9 June 2015, the Foreign Secretary said, "This is a simple, but vital, piece of legislation. It has one clear purpose: to deliver on our promise to give the British people the final say on our EU membership in an in/out referendum by the end of 2017.", And he concluded that speech as follows, "Few subjects ignite as much passion in the House or indeed in the country as our membership of the European Union. The debate in the run-up to the referendum will be hard fought on both sides of the argument. But whether we favour Britain being in or out, we surely should all be able to agree on the simple principle that the decision about our membership should be taken by the British people, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even by Government Ministers or parliamentarians in this Chamber. The decision must be for the common sense of the British people. That is what we pledged, and that is what we have a mandate to deliver. For too long, the people of Britain have been denied their say. For too long, powers have been handed to Brussels over their heads. For too long, their voice on Europe has not been heard. This Bill puts that right. It delivers the simple in/out referendum that we promised, and I commend it to the House."

Then we have the £9.5 million tax payer funded leaflet that projected the gross bias in favour of remaining in the EU, but which also contained the following statements, “The referendum on Thursday 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in the European Union.” and “This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.”, clearly there is not even a hint that the referendum was advisory but was constitutionally decisive and binding.

 

Yea, clearly not racist:
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Yep, only some (he assumes) are good people, but the majority are bringing drugs, bringing crime and THEY ARE RAPISTS.

It is impossible to convince those who put their fingers in their ears and sing la la la

 

And you disagree that that's a probability. I think that homosapiens being what they are in their proclivities, within the numbers there are some of all of them; but of course the vast majority will be 'good people' - which is what Mr Trump said. What makes you think that you know any better than him, or me?

 

Some does not mean majority, it means minority. Trump said that the majority of the Mexican immigrants are rapists. And he had to assume that some Mexicans are good people- - he was not even confidant enough to say that some are good but you carry on supporting that racist statement.

 

Then you have little understanding of UK politics, we elect a Party to govern, we do not elect a Prime Minister .. the Conservative party were elected with a house majority, regardless of who is the leader of that party (and as such the PM). The Conservative General Election Manifesto of 2015 makes it very, very clear that the people will be given a referendum to decide whether we remain of leave the EU, in no part of that is the referendum EVER referred to as advisory, the party in power at the time of the result therefore have a mandate from the majority decision to do what ever is necessary to enact the will of the people, no where in ANY correspondences (including the Referendum Act) to the people did the government state that certain thresholds had to be reached for the referendum result to be binding.

I suggest you do the reading;

She has been an MP since 1997, holding various positions including Chairman of the Conservative Party, she was the longest serving Conservative Home Secretary for over a century, and it is strange that you seem to know for sure that she will "destroy 40 years of treaties, laws and cooperation." .. do you have a crystal ball, or is that just more scaremongering.

Read what?

Wrong, I did not say I agreed with the judges, I said I respect their decision .. very different, and no English law is not under attack from anyone except those who place the facade of supporting sovereignty as a means to undermine the people.

I know more than enough of our legal history to show what a complete and utter idiot you are .. for instance the very act of parliament that originally took us into the Common Market (as it was then) was illegal under English Law, Parliament did not have the power to take us in without first repealing the 1689 Bill of Rights which is STILL law in the UK and states "I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority within this Realm.", other legal precedences that were violated include the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628 ) and the Act of Settlement (1701) which all require Parliament to consult the electorate directly where constitutional change which would affect their political sovereignty is in prospect, and non of which have been repealed.

I can't stand Trump and as shown I know far more about my countries history and legal system then you ever will do .. your pointless attempts to bait me are treated with the contempt they so richly deserve.

 

Coarse? What a strange thing to say.

I do encourage you to see out Jonathan Pie though - You'll find him informative and funny which is seldom a bad thing.

 

Please, Some means "an unspecified amount or number of." (determiner), "an unspecified number or amount of people or things." (pronoun) or "to some extent; quite a lot." (adverb), none of those definitions give any indication of whether some means majority or minority.

 

Since The UK has not yet left the current state is a result of being in the EU. When they actually leave the predictions will be confirmed. You do know the difference between the vote and the action one assumes.

 

It is called context and in this case the key words :
They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

But you carry on defending the racist statement from a racist that had to assume that some were good people

 

Strange that the economists were making these doom and gloom predictions based on the actual vote if it were to be a vote to leave, not on the actual leaving .. perhaps you should go back and read some of them just to remind yourself, and even when the UK does leave the EU they will still be proven wrong. The economists predicted doom and gloom just for a vote to leave and they have been proven wrong, I have no doubt they will be proven wrong when we do actually quit the corrupt EU.

There are currently 27 countries seeking trade deals with the UK post Brexit, the total GDP of all of these countries is nearly $50 trillion dollars – 67% of global GDP. In comparison, the EU’s GDP of $16 trillion equates to just 22%

The 27 Countries are;-
Australia
Argentina
Bolivia
Brazil
Canada
Chile
China
Colombia
Ecuador
Germany
Ghana
Iceland
India
Ireland
Japan
Kenya
Korea (Republic of)
Mexico
New Zealand
Pakistan
Paraguay
Peru
Suriname
Switzerland
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela

Out of the 10 largest economies in the world, just two (France and Italy) have not yet made moves for a deal.

 

LOL I am not defending his statement, I found it to be completely out of order .. I am questioning your understanding of the English language, assume means "suppose to be the case, without proof." ... tell me what proof do you have that what he said is not true?

 

No the economists were making the predictions based on understanding the results of the voting. The failure to understsnd the difference is yours.

 

I don't want to get into semantics but the remark about immigrants was suggesting that amongst the number would be 'undesirables', and who would be naive enough to deny the possibility? He probably wished afterwards that he had said 'some' are rapists; it's very easy to make a subsequently-regretted slip of the tongue when making an unscripted speech, you might agree? One thing is for sure - no way are they all 'good people': I personally don't see him as racist. In fact whilst I could wish he had a more benign style of rhetoric, I see him as your saviour.

 

Out of those countries, how much do we export to them?

I hope you know that free trade deals are a bad idea for countries that import more goods than they export.

Your statement "There are currently 27 countries seeking trade deals with the UK" does not mean anything. Every country in the world have got sales agents seeking deals with every other country in the world.

 

As I suggested before you need to re-read some of the things they were saying as it seems you have conveniently forgotten.

 

In 2015 UK exports to Non-EU countries was £288.2 billion compared to £223.3 billion to EU countries. The proportion of exports to non EU countries has been steadily increasing since 1999 where it was ~45% to 56% in 2015. Since 2009 the value of exports to non EU countries has exceeded the value to EU countries.

The UK currently has a negative trade balance ie we import more than we export .. however that does not have to remain as it is, one of the issues is that while we remain a member of the EU we cannot negotiate our own trade agreements with non EU countries. There is the prospect that we could increase our exports, especially with fast growing markets such as India, and as such create jobs within the country.

These are countries that are seeking trade deals AFTER brexit where negotiations would be done via the UK government and not via the EU so in reality it means a lot.

 

Right on the button. Not only that, what kind of trade deal do they want? What is in it for them and what is in it for Britain? How exactly are we going to negotiate all these separate trade deals without having the diplomatic capacity to do so?

 

I'll just repeat what I replied to truth and justice,

In 2015 UK exports to Non-EU countries was £288.2 billion compared to £223.3 billion to EU countries. The proportion of exports to non EU countries has been steadily increasing since 1999 where it was ~45% to 56% in 2015. Since 2009 the value of exports to non EU countries has exceeded the value to EU countries.

The UK currently has a negative trade balance ie we import more than we export .. however that does not have to remain as it is, one of the issues is that while we remain a member of the EU we cannot negotiate our own trade agreements with non EU countries. There is the prospect that we could increase our exports, especially with fast growing markets such as India, and as such create jobs within the country.

These are countries that are seeking trade deals AFTER brexit where negotiations would be done via the UK government and not via the EU so in reality it means a lot.