crouch

Look for pity's sake cut us some slack here. We're thickos. We think the future is very uncertain and the success - or otherwise - of Brexit will unfold gradually over the years. Any number of black swans - like Cvid 19 - may make an appearance and throw things off course. Now Remainers are much superior people. They can see that Brexit has failed even though we haven't fully left yet; that in fact it can never succeed - in fact the very notion is laughable - and when this becomes clear within a couple of years we should beg to go back. They can see the future with crystal clarity whereas us poor Leavers can't and, it must be admitted, this leaves us at a huge disadvantage. And of course the EU will be waiting to receive us with open arms into that vast benevolent edifice that can do no wrong. Leavers can't see any of this; they think at Brexit should be given a chance - ridiculous! Why should we give something a chance when we know, absolutely know, it will fail, indeed is already a failure?

Idiocy squared.

I thought that the terms on we are leaving has yet to be revealed; if that is the case how could I possibly be doing what you suggest?

Are you capable of even the minimum degree of understanding? Where did I say that I was in favour of Brexit because it had the potential to cause a cathartic shock, in other words that one of the reasons was that shock? The shock is a potential collateral benefit not a reason. In any case even if the probability - and not merely the potential - was an explicit reason for voting for Brexit then all that means is that the trade offs are different. You implicitly assume that such a trade off cannot be but that is just - assumption.

Your arrogance is only exceeded by your foolishness.

I did say "potential". "Potential" is not speculation because it means "could" not "will".

Yes.

Yes.

Actually I doubt this. Yes, and one of the major potential effects of Brexit is that it will provide a cathartic shock to the system and provide the basis for resolving at least some of these issues.

You misunderstand; going back could be a worse option than staying out; it all depends on terms. You assume we would reapply to join the EU; I say not. The EU itself recognises that it has major problems; this isn't just some Brexit fantasy. Also, the EU, in common with many has used the printing press for years now to paper over the cracks. You sneer at "Eurogeddon"; I think you'd find a great deal of real concern about these issues in the EU which, I repeat, they have openly acknowledged.

This is the way things appeared to be moving; there has been a gradual reduction in trade with the EU but more with ROW. You may be right to call trade with China/ far east dust/verbotten; on the other hand you may be wrong. There are still huge non tariff barriers in place all over the World which will, if reduced, result in far more trade with ROW. After all our strength is in services and it is these that are most subject to NTBs. Unfortunately you assume that if Brexit is the egregious failure you expect then we will go back into the EU. Why? The EU is now arguably too big and diverse to manage within its current structure and with little appetite to transform itself into a federal state; it's actually in a dead end. If it does that we might well find the terms of rejoining too onerous and they may not want us anyway. The EU has major problems, which it admits, and it may not be able to resolve them in which case some sort of rupture/ realignment may be more than a remote possibility. The sensible thing is to stay clear of the EU until these issues have been resolved, Brexit failure or no.

Entry in 1973 was seen economically as a hope that some of the economic magic in the six would rub off on us; their growth in GDP per capita had been significantly higher than ours since the war. The irony is that the European magic peaked at just the time we went in. More subtle but no less important reasons related to the opening up of the UK to European competition in order to rid ourselves of the industrial efficiences which have been a feature of the UK for years. If Brexit results in industrial feather bedding then we really will be in trouble. As to leaving you're preaching to the converted.

I'm not talking about prospects and possibilities about what might happen, i'm simply talking about the plan. You are talking about what happened but a plan is something with an objective and means. To repeat, yet again, what was that objective and what were the means? What was the plan, not in airy fairy terms but in concrete terms? What was the plan in 1973 that is the equivalent to your plan for Brexit, to put it yet another way?

I didn't ask what the EU had done I asked for the plan of the UK once in the EEC. To repeat - what was our plan? As you're always going on about planning you must know what a plan is. And I am not comparing scenarios. I am asking what monitoring was done in respect of our EEC entry that would parallel your requirement for Brexit. My questions are about the EEC not Brexit, but of course you haven't noticed. And you haven't answered any of the other questions. Quelle surprise! So, when asked to provide any, repeat any, chapter and verse relating to our entry to the EEC to parallel your requirements for Brexit you score null points! Not in the least surprising.

If I told you that they wouldn't be secret.

If you expect me to defend everything that goes in the name of Brexit you'll be sorely disappointed.

What was the plan to ensure things got better after we joined in 1973? Where was the monitoring to ensure that the promises made were kept? Can you show me the assessments that were made during all of this? Joining the EEC was just as much a leap of faith as leaving it so you'll be able to answer these questions very easily.

Argentina has a very long history of economic difficulties, certainly enough to come to some judgement on the issues but more than the two years you allow Brexit.

Thank you for this; I feel much better.

How are the folks on Alpha Centauri?

Where have I said there are secret and measureable advantages?

It normally isn't.

Rejoining the EU is always a possibility so the answer is - no. I don't disagree but Brexit has to be given time to work or, as you would have it - fail. I see we have our "futurist" goggles on today.

The Swiss is a hybrid system.

Why not go the whole hog and vote to end parliament?