That's not an answer. You're a con artist. Let's look at UK trade with the US compared to UK trade with the EU: — S

UK trades more with the rest of the World than the EU. This is obvious since UK trade with EU accounts for 44% of GDP, despite the paltry 8% of GDP in traded goods.

Trade with USA accounts for the greatest trade with any other country, and it is massively profitable. With every EU country, UK runs a trade deficit, apart from Ireland. In fact UK deficit with Germany is totally offset by UK trade with USA.

However, Uk does not have to pay £13billion to trade with USA.

What percentage of UK GDP depends on selling goods to non-EU countries for comparison? — S

UK runs a surplus in traded goods with the rest of the world, and its most profitable trading partner is the USA, with which the UK returns a trade surplus of £34billion.

When the UK can trade with who it wants, under the terms it agrees, the economic growth will be phenomenal. Open free-trading democracies always beat protectionist customs unions.

So...? About half of the UK's total trade is with the EU: — Baden

Total trade with the EU sits at about 44% of GDP and falling, but that is irrelevant. UK pays money to the EU, gives up its fish and pays £4billion in benefits to EU Citizens, in return for access to the Common Market in traded goods. There is effectively no Common Market in services.

That's a lovely cherry. Where did you pick it? I think you've shown it to me before. Is your plan to keep showing me it until I'm brainwashed? — S

The EU Commission, but there are plenty of sources, e.g:

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Intra-EU_trade_in_goods_-_recent_trends

Now all you need to do is calculate the percentage of UK GDP this represents. The number you will get is less than 8%.

Sure, LA County has registration rate of 112%, and Broward County FL has more votes cast than registered voters, including the dead ones.

Nothing to see here.

The 2016 referendum was corrupt and anti democratic in about six...teen different ways. — karl stone

Ah yes, those six...teen mysterious ways.

We more or less did it to ourselves, but the majority of voters did not vote for Trump, as Clinton won the popular vote. Recall how Trump was fulminating about voter fraud and how quickly his baseless allegations were dropped. — Arkady

There's a lot going on behind the scenes to counteract voter-fraud.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/california-and-los-angeles-county-to-remove-1-5-million-inactive-voters-from-voter-rolls-settle-judicial-watch-federal-lawsuit/

It is known that the UK does receive substantial economic value from our relationship with the EU, as many credibly sourced statistics indicate. — S

Less than 8% of UK GDP depends on selling goods to EU, according to the EU Commission.

6k
Time travel isn't possible period. — Terrapin Station

There are certain space-time structures that make time-travel possible, if I remember correctly. Didn't Kurt Godel discover one, as did Frank Tipler?

Also there is a theory of time -travel in the multiverse, the catch being that the time you go to will not be in your world.

Presentism is wrong according to these theories.

You must have a short memory. Perhaps a look back through the pages of this discussion will refresh it. — S

If UK received anything of value in return approaching that huge financial burden, then why does no other EU country pay a similar penalty?

Right on cue! — S

There never is an answer though.

We'll still have our democracy though, so your premise is flawed. It's far from ideal that we've got ourselves in such a mess that one possible resolution which needs to be considered is going back on the results of a democratic vote. A democratic vote the result of which both main parties committed to honouring. But a no-deal Brexit is not a price worth paying for that. Not out of my wallet, anyway. — S

What do you think you get for £13billion membership fee, £4billion in fish, £4billion in benefits to EU citizens, and a £95billion deficit in traded goods?

The 2016 referendum was corrupt and anti democratic in about six...teen different ways. — karl stone

Why don't you list the 16 different corruptions?

Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who defied the expressed will of Parliament to provide for a referendum entirely on his own recog - as a manifesto commitment no-one could obstruct. — karl stone

Both the Conservatives and the Greens had manifesto commitments for an EU referendum. Cameron was never a eurosceptic, and campaigned strongly for Remain. The claim of yours that Cameron was a eurosceptic is entirely fictional.

And that's saying nothing of the rumour he once fucked a pig! — karl stone

Now you're being hysterical.

Take the fact Cameron told the public, the result of a legally advisory referendum would be implemented, thereby forcing the hand of Parliament — karl stone

Fiction again.

The EU Referendum Act 2015 was passed by 544-53 votes in the Commons, and laid the legal foundation for holding a referendum.

The EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 passed in the Commons by 494-122.

So, it took two pieces of primary legislation, passed by overwhelming majority of MPs to hold a referendum, and to give power to the prime minister to implement the result. Cameron wasn't even around for the second part.

A hypothetical scenario? Do you expect me to respond to that? Something dredged from your fevered brexiteer imagination - when you won't respond to the facts laid out before you? — karl stone

You haven't laid out a single fact though.

Again, you seem to be sidestepping the issues raised in my posts. The 2016 referendum was undemocratic and corrupt — karl stone

And had Remain won, I'm sure you would be complaining about the corruption.

But we agree that it's nonsense either way, so let's not quibble. — S

If UK abandons democracy, it will be like France on a Saturday, except it will be every day.

I was talking about your reference to a "progression of mindless pro-Brexit nonsense". — S

You mean pro-Democracy nonsense, surely.

The UK cancelled their referendum on EU membership in 2006 because it was clear that the people would vote the same way as France and the Netherlands. At that point the idea that a referendum should be ignored, as they did on the continent, was anathema to even the Europhiles. How things change.

Lord Hill resigned if I recall correctly. But in fact, national appointees to the EU Commission represent the EU. Nation state governments are represented in the Council of Ministers, and the people are represented in the EU Parliament. — karl stone

You note correctly, that you have no representation on the EU body with monopoly on legislative initiative, monopoly on fiscal initiative, and which enforces EU treaties. You seem to be happy with this anti-democratic arrangement, yet complain that when people actually vote, the process is undemocratic.

This makes no sense, unless you really don't care for democracy, but are happy to smear your opponents as undemocratic, because you know they care about such things.

The 2016 referendum was corrupt and anti democratic in about six...teen different ways. — karl stone

Who represents you on the EU Commission?

I'd have to ask - when you say "democracy" what on earth are you referring to? — karl stone

Well, in the specific case of Brexit, democracy is embodied in the referendum, its result. and the government's promise to implement the result. This culminated in the EU (Withdrawal) Act which became law in June 2018.

The well-funded attempts by the Establishment, the Elites, and Corporatists to undermine the democratic process, will have repercussions far beyond Brexit, if they succeed.

Brexit is a criminal conspiracy against the British people. — karl stone

How would you characterise the Soros funded campaign by the elites to undermine democracy?

Chances of official Brexit by the deadline currently hovering at around 25% according to those with skin (i.e. hard cash) in the game. Even that's generous, I'd say. Read a bit more about parliament's power to thwart Brexit and anti-Brexit Tory rebels like Oliver Letwin and you'll see why. — Baden

How do you think Brexit might be stopped?

I don't know, but a no-deal is not inevitable nor is any Brexit at all (though some kind of Brexit is more likely than a no-deal imo). And I don't expect a no-deal because I expect economic concerns will trump ideological ones. — Baden

Under UK Law, a no-deal Brexit is the default, and will happen, unless something better is agreed. 700,000 German jobs depend on selling goods to UK.

This is the best Brexit diagnosis I've seen. The right historical context, the usual suspects identified. — unenlightened

Hysterical claptrap. UK trades profitably with the rest of the world under WTO, and many countries lining up for a trade deal, including USA, Japan, and Commonwealth countries. UK's problem is its £95billion deficit in traded goods with EU. An economic disaster.

There is provision for extending the A50 notice in the Withdrawal Act. But how long would the EU be willing to grant the extension for? And, as far as I can ascertain, such an extension can only happen once.

Would make the EU elections in May very interesting.

Well, call me a Pollyanna, but I still reckon Jacob Mouse-Mugg is more likely to get eggs Benedict all over his face rather than the Bulldog's breakfast of Brexit he so covets. — Baden

How can Brexit be stopped? By law, EU treaties cease to apply to UK on 29th March.

I'm convinced that May will find a way to wiggle out of the Brexit that she never wanted and blame someone else for it. She's good like that. — Baden

Brexit can be delayed with EU permission, but there are mixed signals from EU whether they would give permission and for how long. They have already allocated some of the UK MEP seats to other countries, and are unlikely to want their parliament turned into a farce if UK returns a load of eurosceptic MEPs in the May EU elections.

If May wants to stop Brexit altogether, she is going to need primary legislation, and I'm unaware of any on the horizon.

The EU has offered a free trade deal in return for Northern Ireland.

That's because it is even more undemocratic than the EU. But the British people were never consulted about joining the WTO, and we demand a referendum. — unenlightened

I also find it deeply amusing that UK is forced to be a member of WTO by the EU, yet still manages to have more representation on WTO than the EU Commission.

After Brexit, UK will effectively have to re-join WTO as an independent member.

Gosh, 4 million is a lot, I don't think my spare bedroom is big enough. But back to the WTO, that unaccountable undemocratic overwhelmingly foreign organisation imposing its trade rules on us. Let's take back control, Leave the WTO! — unenlightened

I find it rather amusing that the UK has more representation on the WTO than it does on the EU Commission.

Except Britain, of course, which has to put up with hordes of Finns coming here to take advantage of the wonderful happy life that we all lead here with our super-generous benefits system and state of the art health service. — unenlightened

UK is only managing a net immigration from EU of 74,000 per anum at the moment. The 248,000 from elsewhere will help take up the slack.

I don't think there is a large Finnish population in UK, but there are a million Poles, and approaching four million EU citizens in total.

The registration might be of advantage if the United Kingdom decides to withdraw from the EU and British citizens are required to apply for a residence permit in Finland in the same way as any other so called third-country nationals — ssu

UK citizens already have to register their residence in Finland, and demonstrate they have sufficient funds to support themselves and their family. Same applies across the EU.

The British are desperate and angry. Unfortunately at entirely the wrong people. That something is popular does not prevent it from being a disaster. But you miss the point as usual. The WTO is an international governing body like the EU. We could leave, and take back control. It would be another really bad idea. — unenlightened

As I said, UK already trades under WTO (where the EU will allow). In fact, Germany's single largest trading partner is China, with which it trades mostly under WTO.

UK's single most profitable trading partner is USA, with whom it will have a free trade agreement soon after Brexit, so whether USA is in WTO or not is irrelevant to UK.

Trade deals are being offered to UK from across the globe. WTO is merely a fall-back where no deal exists, like with China or USA.

We could leave the WTO as well - imposing its rules on us undemocratically. — unenlightened

UK is a signatory to WTO, and trades with the rest of the world on those terms. UK actually runs a trade surplus under WTO.

According to WTO rules, trade between UK and EU will continue under current arrangements for 10 years or until a trade deal is agreed.

I think people are seriously misjudging the mood of the British.

Can’t be followed through without consequence either. And as I’ve said before, my crystal ball is telling me that the consequences of Brexit - especially a No Deal Brexit - would be worse than the consequences of revoking Article 50. — Michael

This is strange, because paying £13billion in fees annually, £4billion in fish, £4billion in benefits to EU citizens, to maintain a £95billion deficit in traded goods seems pretty catastrophic already.

Less than 8% of UK GDP depends on selling goods to EU.

A no deal Brexit will simply mean that things carry on as they are (as WTO rules demand) but the UK is free to trade openly with the rest of the world, rekindle it economic links with the Commonwealth, and become a functioning democracy once more. Oh, and it saves £39billion and gets its fishing industry back.

The government must remove the prospect of the catastrophe of Brexit. — Michael

Democracy is a catastrophe for those whose plans don't support it.

Ok and whats your source? how were those numbers estimated and by whom?
Who said Indians didn't matter. My issue is with a bogus claim. I'm not saying muslims haven't caused atrocities in the past, just that the one you're mentioning has weak foundations in terms of the sources. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Just Google it.

Don't be silly of course people care about the christians. How were there christians there in the first place if Islam is just by default murdering them? If what you say is true, there would never have been the opportunity for so many christians to establish themselves in the Middle East in order for these atrocities to occur. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Christianity is 600 years older than Islam.

same argument could be made as was done with the christians. If the islamic position is by default to murder them, how were they able to establish such high numbers in the region in the first place? — Mr Phil O'Sophy

They may pay the jizya.

which genocide are you referring to? Are you by any chance doing a Molyneux and adding up the estimated deaths that occurred in India over a millennia and counting them as one genocide? Or is there a different one you're thinking of? — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Millennia? 400 million doesn't matter to you because they are Indian?

Don't mention the Yazidi either.

With regards to terrorism, what does a western dogmatic christian, or angry atheist, have to do if they want to kill loads of muslims? Do they necessarily have to just go outside and hunt them down? Or can they just join the army, get paid for it, get told they're a hero and earn a pension and a badge? — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Christians are being genocided in the Middle East by Muslims. No one cares about the Christians.

Britain doesn't need a wall. — frank

Mexico has one, and no one is calling them racist for constructing it.

So let´s say Trump is a racist, and think Mexicans are a race. — DiegoT

How about let's not cast baseless smears just because we don't like secure borders?

So if the number $100 billion is inaccurate, as you imply, why the arbitrary raising of it by $150 billion, instead of lowering it by that amount? — Metaphysician Undercover

I provided a link to a study that the annual cost of illegals is £135 billion. There was a study in 2013 that put the cost at $54 billion. A lot will depend on what is included in the estimate. But if you accept the study which found that illegals cost $70,000 per head in their lifetime, excluding costs of their children, then a figure of $100 billion is of the right order of magnitude.

The cost of a wall is a drop in the ocean compared to these costs.