" I don't know" would have been concise. You just rambled and said the same thing.
OK mate.
" I don't know" would have been concise. You just rambled and said the same thing.
Again, far from concise.It's 23.15 and I am winding down plus I have had online debates, often acrimonious , with Remainers and it would serve no purpose to have yet another one. Suffice to say I got the result I wanted in the referendum.
I've no intention to debate you, I'm just still to hear a reasonable, rational, fact-based argument in favour of Brexit. Sadly it seems like the wait will continue.It's 23.15 and I am winding down plus I have had online debates, often acrimonious , with Remainers and it would serve no purpose to have yet another one. Suffice to say I got the result I wanted in the referendum.
But it won't matter to us if we leave
Over the months there have been plenty of facts posted on both sides of the argument.I've no intention to debate you, I'm just still to hear a reasonable, rational, fact-based argument in favour of Brexit. Sadly it seems like the wait will continue.
I've not heard many arguments that are based on 'facts' which don't turn out to be provably false (£350M a week, anyone?). There are a lot of opinion-based arguments e.g. 'The EU is trying to take over national governments' but very few with hard data which supports them.Over the months there have been plenty of facts posted on both sides of the argument.
I fully agree with not getting het up about it.For this reason, I only post occasionally, and try not to get too heated about things.
Q.E.D.I've not heard many arguments that are based on 'facts' which don't turn out to be provably false (£350M a week, anyone?). There are a lot of opinion-based arguments e.g. 'The EU is trying to take over national governments' but very few with hard data which supports them.I fully agree with not getting het up about it.

No surprise there - the EU didn't stop functioning on June 24th. The 'tide' of EU legislation would continue because the EU keeps on working, with or without the UKEven since the vote the tide of EU legislation has continued unabated.
Q.E.D.
Remainer fact. "A vote to remain is a vote for the status quo". Even since the vote the tide of EU legislation has continued unabated. (Ports directive anyone?)![]()
Do you have any Brexit facts?Q.E.D.
Remainer fact. "A vote to remain is a vote for the status quo". Even since the vote the tide of EU legislation has continued unabated. (Ports directive anyone?)![]()
Indeed. Thus even since the vote the "status quo" has changed.No surprise there - the EU didn't stop functioning on June 24th. The 'tide' of EU legislation would continue because the EU keeps on working, with or without the UK
The UK is a net contributor to EU funds.Do you have any Brexit facts?
That isn't really a fact about Brexit.The UK is a net contributor to EU funds.
Of course it is.That isn't really a fact about Brexit.
Indeed. Thus even since the vote the "status quo" has changed.
Not sure what the problem is with that. If everyone got out exactly what they put in then what would the point be?The UK is a net contributor to EU funds.
You are right that it is difficult to provide hard figures in pounds and pence but some kind of plan would have been nice before dragging us out of the EU. How is that a remain lie by the way?Of course it is.
What you seem to be wanting is a hard verifiable fact about what will happen AFTER Brexit which of course is impossible.
I have however given a remain lie above, because the status quo has changed since the vote and we haven't even left yet.
I can't speak for others, but what I would appreciate is a fact-based argument for why being in the EU is a net loss for the UK. It goes without saying that predicting what will happen after Brexit is impossible, given that we don't even know what Brexit actually means.What you seem to be wanting is a hard verifiable fact about what will happen AFTER Brexit which of course is impossible.
Not sure what the problem is with that. If everyone got out exactly what they put in then what would the point be?
Naturally there is a limit to what is reasonable, that goes without saying.Is there no limit to our contributions then ? would it be fine if we paid far more than we already do ?
I don't think anyone said that?Is there no limit to our contributions then ? would it be fine if we paid far more than we already do ?
By your own definition, Status Quo = the existing state of affairs.With respect you don't seem to understand what status quo means. It doesn't mean time stops.
Because the status quo was that EU directives are issued, then converted into national law.By your own definition, Status Quo = the existing state of affairs.
If the law, or regulations, governing aspects of my life, changes, how is that NOT a change to the "existing state of affairs"?
Got it! So when remain used that wording without clarification, they were about as honest as the £350m per week!Because the status quo was that EU directives are issued, then converted into national law.
Sorry, but I disagree - there was no 'clarification' needed, that has always been how it works.Got it! So when remain used that wording without clarification, they were about as honest as the £350m per week!
£350 million was plucked out of thin air and then lies were told about what was going to be done with it. I don't think anyone ever said that no new EU directives will ever be issued.Got it! So when remain used that wording without clarification, they were about as honest as the £350m per week!
I certainly don't remember any such statements being made by anyone in authority and would appreciate a link/source to confirm that they were.I don't think anyone ever said that no new EU directives will ever be issued.