Fox In The Box 90

No hard border with the technology or checks no one can ever describe.

Its only ever been about party politics and the furthering of careers, right from david cameron calling a referendum. He didnt want to lose a few seats to UKIP and wanted to silence the eurosceptics in his party. It was never about actually leaving. Look at Boris' face the day after the referendum when the reality sunk in that he had won. He spent the campaign pandering to a certain "audience" all the time assuming he would lose and hoping to lose as narrowly as possible to have cameron at his weakest. Instead, his audience fell for his, and others twaddle. Now he has to now pretend forever brexit is a good idea.

Administrator

In your little brexit echo chamber yes.

Why is anyone listening to you? They arent.

You are in the same pigeon hole though arent you. None of you are going to get what you want, and especially not your idea. Yet you all make up the barely over half of the UK that voted leave.

If you assume that manufacturers wont need materials or components for their products that need to cross borders, that manufacturers will happily want to shrink their own markets, that consumers will like having less choice, and will like to pay more for that priveledge, maybe. But weve already seen that isnt the case. This also directly contradicts the people youve voted to agree with like Rees Mogg and the ERG no dealers who take their economic advice from Patrick Minford. Their whole argument was prices would come down when we dropped tariffs as we would be open to the whole world, and that the price to pay for this was our own farming and manufacturing industries would be destroyed. But theres a perfect illustration.youre all brexiteers yet your viewpoints are a confused muddle of contradictions and youve all ended up on the same side of the argument not getting what you want.

So youre one of these we dont need trade deals lets go wto people then. Either you think we will build, grow and provide every possible service here or you think trading on wto terms whilst our closest trading partners have preferential deals with each other and 70+ countries and markets will be better. So explain now why you believe trading on wto terms whilst our closest trading partners have preferential deals with each other and 70+ countries and markets is better. Or explain your "nationalised" industry plan. What will make that better?

You dont have an argument. Youve got immigration and not liking globalisation. Its hardly an outward looking viewpoint and hardly fits with our necessity to find new trade deals either

Yes youre right brexit has deranged the country. Because no one can ever advance the conversation beyond "we voted to leave". You talk about creating a better society but you, or any other leave voter cant explain what will be better, except to: a) talk about immigration numbers as if its some "positive" when many people have absolutely no problem with immigration numbers, are aware of powers the UK has but chooses not to use, and are aware of government figures that back up the idea wage compression is either not happening in the vast majority of industries due to immigration or wage compression is its due to other factors. b) you resort to talking about "control" and "sovereignty" and all of this. Not withstanding the fact we have many ELECTED representatives that are complete arseholes, people on your side genuinely seem to think there will be no involvement with supernational courts anymore and you didnt elect the WTO, the people who will approve our trade schedules, the civil service, the attorney general, the queen.....the list goes on. It just makes your sovereignty argument look silly. c) you talk about ****ing FISH when we have enormous employers like JLR, Nissan, Honda, Airbus and many many more explicitly telling us exactly why brexit will be so bad, some of who are already making redundancies, whilst we grow an industry thats worth about 0.5% of GDP assuming either we totally change our diets and eat more fish or the tariffs are low enough we can still sell into europe. D) the point ive made many times still remains. YOUR side invented project fear. Project fear was invented to shut up people who predicted down sides to brexit, it was to make sure they were ignored. You cannot in any way reconcile the creation of project fear, with saying you dont mind being hit in the pocket. Youve absolutely tied yourself in knots by saying i think the predictions of the remain side are correct, and the leave side are false. However i will also deride the remain side and vote for leave whilst ignoring my own sides campaign and believing remain Why cant you, or anyone else just explain what you think will be better after brexit for everyone. Everyone who isnt you. Without resorting to all the tired soundbites anyone can instantly destroy

1) no i dont feel sorry for him in any way i think he is a hate preaching goon 2) it doesnt say more about me than them, as i am not a hate preaching goon and people who follow him largely are. Tommy robinson yaxley lennon twatsford is soft spoken and level headed? Go and have a lie down and stop looking from the outside in.

Tommy Robinson Yaxley Lennon is an absolute shittard and so are his braindead hate filled followers.

No bad consequences of brexit. Only considerable upsides.

Kids dont tend to be really old, really racist or in the ERG though so theyd probably not go on a protest for hard brexit.

With regards to project fear youre simply talking guff. 61% of people would accept significant damage to the econony and 40% of people (4 in 10 leavers) would happily lose their job, or see their wife or kids lose theirs? Pull the other one its got bells on. And if those absolutely ridiculous numbers were true, why is project fear even a thing? If 61% of people accept significant economic damage, then why do people on the leave side do everything to make people ignore experts telling them there will be significant economic damage? Your first paragraph...people voted to take back sovereignty so they could sign it back away. Alright lol. Softening attitudes towards immigration.... the UK could have enacted a stricter immigration policy anyway. Belgium and Germany do. We could have deported people if we wanted. WE chose not to. We were not forced into anything. Your interviews arent going to collect very good data. People are going to lie to you, come on be honest with yourself. No one is going to say the perceived "wrong things" to you. They just arent. And if UKIP had any purpose, theyd have all the answers on brexit. A party whos sole existence was to remove us from the EU. Having achieved their goal, they should have all the answers on how to be a great independent nation. But now theyre totally insignificant. You dont even understand the concept of cognitive dissonance. So wed better leave it there.