Then why the heck have you been quoting figures relating to trade and profit? Have you completely lost your mind? — S

The Brexit vote was about sovereignty and democracy. Everyone expected an immediate economic hit. This was assured by the government, Bank of England, and even Barack Obama.

Well, the economic catastrophe didn't happen. Rather than an immediate loss of 500,000 - 800,000 jobs on voting Leave, as Mark Carney promised, instead UK enjoys the highest rate of employment since before entering the EEC. Rather than economic collapse, UK is now projected to be the fastest growing European G7 country after Brexit. The ONS has just released very encouraging economic figures on job, wages, and borrowing.

Nevertheless #ProjectFear continues to rumble on, so I choose to confront it with reality.

You do like cherry picking your statistics don't you? How's GDP growth doing as compared to other countries and the GDP projection?

Furthermore, it's hard to compare a counterfactual with reality but whatever the UK economy is doing now (during a general worldwide economic upswing) we don't know what it would've done if it hadn't voted in favour of Brexit. Expectations is it would've done better, which is why you see GBP currency pairs with major currencies such as EUR and USD trade consistently at lower exchange rates as it expresses the expectation that interest rates in Britain will rise in order to stimulate the economy and avoid deflation. The benefit is of course that exports will be cheaper but despite that the UK lags in GDP growth compared to its now "more expensive" EU members.

Meanwhile, a lot of companies in the UK have effectuated their contigency planning, which doesn't bode well for the economy either. http://www.cbi.org.uk/news/8-out-of-10-businesses-say-brexit-hits-investment-as-speed-of-talks-outpaced-by-reality-firms-face-on-ground/

You do like cherry picking your statistics don't you? How's GDP growth doing as compared to other countries and the GDP projection? — Benkei

The IMF is fairly upbeat about UK GDP growth.

https://order-order.com/2019/01/21/imf-uk-will-fastest-growing-european-g7-country-brexit/

Not at all. I'm saying that a man with a first class degree in philosophy politics and economics has no beliefs, no principles and no morals. I'm saying that neither Cameron or May give a fig about anything but their own position and their own power and status.

I'm saying Cameron wanted a referendum because he was losing support to Ukip, not because he had an opinion about the EU. I'm saying that hatred of the EU has been manufactured over years to divert attention from the real causes of the social degradation that has been taking place. We got a bad deal over fishing, because the people negotiating for us cared more about banking and insurance, and for them fish was a price worth paying. The British government has presided over regional decline, and impoverishment, and blamed it on the EU and Johnny foreigner. They really don't care about in or out, deal or no deal, because their world is tucked away on the Cayman Islands and won't be affected. — unenlightened

Your opinion makes more sense than most unenlightened views; do you have any more than circumstantial evidence for it?

do you have any more than circumstantial evidence for it? — karl stone

No.

Well I could probably muster some evidence that the EU is not responsible for the woes it is credited with, because - well it just isn't a monolith by design, but a common bureaucracy controlled by the negotiations and agreements between nations. The democratic deficit is put there to restrict its power, not to augment it. If you look at what the UK has accepted, and what it has rejected, I think you will find support for it being the UK government's concern to protect its financial powers more than its industrial; Hull can die as long as London thrives is UK policy, not EU.

You do like cherry picking your statistics don't you? How's GDP growth doing as compared to other countries and the GDP projection?

Furthermore, it's hard to compare a counterfactual with reality but whatever the UK economy is doing now (during a general worldwide economic upswing) we don't know what it would've done if it hadn't voted in favour of Brexit. Expectations is it would've done better, which is why you see GBP currency pairs with major currencies such as EUR and USD trade consistently at lower exchange rates as it expresses the expectation that interest rates in Britain will rise in order to stimulate the economy and avoid deflation. The benefit is of course that exports will be cheaper but despite that, which should make UK products and services more interesting but at the same time the UK lags in GDP growth.

Meanwhile, a lot of companies in the UK have effectuated their contigency planning, which doesn't bode well for the economy either. http://www.cbi.org.uk/news/8-out-of-10-businesses-say-brexit-hits-investment-as-speed-of-talks-outpaced-by-reality-firms-face-on-ground/ — Benkei

You sound like you know what you're talking about, so you must be part of "Project Fear".

How many EU countries are there? How many are in the G7? Spoiler, 28 and 3. That IMF paper also shows the UK will underperform compared to the EU average. In other news, the EC forecasts UK GDP growth at 1.2% tying it with Italy for last place. Both forecasts assume a soft Brexit by the way.

And that's despite a depreciated currency...

Meanwhile, spreads and volatility in UK equities have increased as well, reflecting the risks market participants perceive. Rating agencies have downgraded UK debt as well.

From an economic point of view Brexit sucks for every party involved. For instance, for the Netherlands, where I live, it can have an effect of up to 1.2% of GDP. That's 10 billion EUR in costs.

do you have any more than circumstantial evidence for it?
— karl stone

No.

Well I could probably muster some evidence that the EU is not responsible for the woes it is credited with, because - well it just isn't a monolith by design, but a common bureaucracy controlled by the negotiations and agreements between nations. The democratic deficit is put there to restrict its power, not to augment it. If you look at what the UK has accepted, and what it has rejected, I think you will find support for it being the UK government's concern to protect its financial powers more than its industrial; Hull can die as long as London thrives is UK policy, not EU. — unenlightened

I studied the EU as part of a politics degree, and I'd like to see a United States of Europe. The 'us and them' dynamic underlying Leave campaign rhetoric and opinions is, as you suggest here - fundamentally false. We are the EU in as much as other member states are the EU. So where you said above: 'We got a bad deal over fishing, because...' That's just not how it is. The common fisheries policy has serious flaws - but it was a policy developed in coordination with member states represented in Council and the Parliament.

In my own view, fishing is barbaric and should be scrapped. A United States of Europe would allow us to develop and apply the technology to farm fish on an industrial scale (pun not intended). But anything smacking of federalism has been automatically resisted by the UK. In as much as Leavers have been denied a referendum, so have those who desire a US of Europe. It's what the UK signed up to - an explicit ambition to promote 'ever closer union among the people's of Europe' - a commitment with regard to which the UK government have unilaterally acted in bad faith since 1973.

So now, when I hear 'us and them' - when I hear 'sovereignty' trumpeted as an unquestionable good, I have to ask myself, to what purposes has that sovereignty been put, and the assumption that 'ever closer union' is resisted in defense of the interests of the British people is somewhere between dubious and ludicrous. They sold off all the council housing and haven't built any social housing in 40 years, sold off the utilities to their pals in the city for peanuts, they opted out of EU legislation designed to protect workers - the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty - to create a low wage low regulation jobs market, attractive to immigration, and subsidized shitty wages with tax payers money, starving public services of funding.

And so on and on. But to get back to the point, a brexit referendum sold on an 'us and them' dynamic, that simply presumes government employs sovereign powers in the interests of the British people, that blames the EU - for problems created by acting in bad faith toward the EU, and when you add in the corrupt nature of the referendum, and the fact that brexit will disadvantage the very people fooled into voting for it the most - to protect a sovereignty that has been protected at their expense, creating the very discontent upon which the Leave campaign preyed, I'm rendered speechless with anger. Suffice to say, brexit is the very worst remedy imaginable.

I think we're so much on the same page that I won't quibble.

brexit will disadvantage the very people fooled into voting for it the most - to protect a sovereignty that has been protected at their expense, creating the very discontent upon which the Leave campaign preyed, — karl stone

This, conspiracy or mere tragedy, is the heart of the matter. And here is the connection with the US. Who knew til the shutdown that middle class Americans were just one pay check away from penury and food banks? And their 'take back control' hero was Trump!

Wouldn't you say though that the real problem is that the game of monopoly has reached its end, the winners have taken all, and the game is over.

I think we're so much on the same page that I won't quibble.

brexit will disadvantage the very people fooled into voting for it the most - to protect a sovereignty that has been protected at their expense, creating the very discontent upon which the Leave campaign preyed,
— karl stone

This, conspiracy or mere tragedy, is the heart of the matter. And here is the connection with the US. Who knew til the shutdown that middle class Americans were just one pay check away from penury and food banks? And their 'take back control' hero was Trump!

Wouldn't you say though that the real problem is that the game of monopoly has reached its end, the winners have taken all, and the game is over. — unenlightened

I have a scientific conception of reality that recognizes religious, political and economic ideological concepts as conventions and traditions arising from our evolutionary history - and in those terms, this is but a moment after dawn for humankind. An awkward moment to be sure, but entirely negotiable. The very dynamics I criticize - I criticize as absolutes that exclude a scientific understanding of reality, but in acceptance of scientific truth they are cultural treasures, science can easily afford to protect and celebrate - while providing for a long and prosperous future.

Well I found something of a connection that makes your conspiracy theory a bit more likely...

2012. https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/jcb-boss-sir-anthony-bamford-named-in-cash-for-cameron-scandal/8628352.article

2019. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/24/jcb-paid-boris-johnson-10000-three-days-before-speech?CMP=fb_gu&fbclid=IwAR0I6CGObVxEOWvnFCOQN1q-Z8dUWrdiIYzutOkT0KOv3vjOUpwaZHoyff8

The same fellow supporting remain and leave champions is a bit suspicious...

Well I found something of a connection that makes your conspiracy theory a bit more likely...

2012. https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/jcb-boss-sir-anthony-bamford-named-in-cash-for-cameron-scandal/8628352.article

2019. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/24/jcb-paid-boris-johnson-10000-three-days-before-speech?CMP=fb_gu&fbclid=IwAR0I6CGObVxEOWvnFCOQN1q-Z8dUWrdiIYzutOkT0KOv3vjOUpwaZHoyff8

The same fellow supporting remain and leave champions is a bit suspicious... — unenlightened

It is rather odd how that chap seems intent on giving all his money to the Tory party. I rather suspect however, there's a PIIC covering up the whole rotten saga - so it will never come out in the British press.

From an economic point of view Brexit sucks for every party involved. For instance, for the Netherlands, where I live, it can have an effect of up to 1.2% of GDP. That's 10 billion EUR in costs. — Benkei

I get it. Uk must pay £13billion membership fee, £4billion in fish, £4billion in benefits to EU citizens, and suffer a £95billion deficit in traded goods, so your country can benefit to the tune of EUR10billion?

Anything else you want?

Meanwhile Dalia Grybauskaitė hints she might veto Brexit notice period extension. She wants no-deal.

Fuck it, screw the foolhardy masses who voted to leave. Let's work towards reversing it in a way that'll minimise the fallout.

Fuck it, screw the foolhardy masses who voted to leave. Let's work towards reversing it in a way that'll minimise the fallout. — S

I cannot equate defrauding of the politically ignorant with the idea of 'the foolhardy masses.' I have a long term fascination with politics - but don't ask me anything about football. Is that foolhardy? No. You could easily deceive me into believing the ball was in - or offside, or whatever. It's just ignorance. And the Leave campaign played upon real grievances and concerns. The lie was that those real issues are the fault of the EU, and can be resolved by brexit. Those who voted Leave, the vast majority of them knew little or nothing about politics - and they were deceived. This isn't a matter of 'the foolhardy masses' - this is a matter of political corruption.

Yes. I want you to stop misrepresenting the facts all the time by cherry picking data and spreading misleading or false information. It's not nearly as much as you state it is and it is also meaningless without understanding the gains. It's kind of like saying 'an iPhone costs 300 EUR to make so we shouldn't do it because it's to expensive!'. On the UK contribution:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/articles/theukcontributiontotheeubudget/2017-10-31

Meanwhile, based on figures from 2005 to 2015 the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Luxemburg, Denmark, France and Austria all contributed more to the EU as percentage of their GDP. This still excludes the Fontainebleau Abatement, which probably puts the UK net contribution even belowthan Italy's.

https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2016/50/netherlands-largest-net-contributor-eu-this-century

The economic benefits of being part of the EU are nevertheless clear (it costs us 230 EUR a year per person and results in a 1,500 EUR benefit). And of course a Nexit is discussed in the Netherlands but that's a matter of EU bureacracy, sovereignty and local autonomy and a perceived democratic deficit. The EU, by the way, is in its structure less democratic than the Dutch structure but more democratic than the UK structure. So "taking back control" in the UK is quite misleading as it is mostly about taking back control for a specific elite in the UK. But whatever, don't let actual facts get in your way.

Then the trade deficit.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/bulletins/uktrade/january2018

The trade deficit in the UK widened from 3.4 billion GDP to 8.7 billion GBP during a time the pound depreciated in respect of the EUR. The 95 billion is not a familiar figure. Have you decided to take an arbitrary time period and added all the yearly deficits together?

Finally, the EU can hardly be blamed for UK citizens wanting to import non-UK manufactured goods and retain non-UK services. That's a consequence of free trade markets that UK citizens have access to those goods.

It is unknown whether the trade deficit will improve due to Brexit. Any economists claiming one way or the other is just guessing. The depreciated GBP should lead to a reduced purchasing power abroad, so less imports. UK goods would be relatively cheaper for foreign bowers, so more exports. But, there's a barrier to trade now as the EU negotiated trade deals with third countries are lost and the "trade deal" of the EU is lost as well. Where the UK has no real alternative to buy abroad what it cannot provide itself, all other EU countries can avoid the hassle of dealing with UK customs by turning to any other country in the EU for that product or service. That will obviously lead to less exports for the UK to EU countries.

Finally, capital flows are significantly larger than trade flows. Where it used to be that trade deficits would correct themselves in a floating exchange rate environment the exchange rate nowadays is set by capital flows and trade flows have a neglible effect. It's therefore unclear what the GBP currency pairs will trade at in the future, which will be the main driver in the long run as to what happens with the trade deficit. A strong GBP will continue the trade deficit, a weaker one can reduce it or lead to a surplus. I doubt (as in when hell freezes over), however, the UK government is prepared introduce capital controls.

Yes. I want you to stop misrepresenting the facts all the time by cherry picking data and spreading misleading or false information. On the UK contribution: — Benkei

OK So the membership fee is closer to £14billion.

The deficit in traded goods is still £95billion.

EU still takes £4billion in fish from UK waters.

EU citizens still take £4billion in benefits.

And UK is still on track to leave the burgeoning fascist state that is the EU on 29th March.

Those who voted Leave, the vast majority of them knew little or nothing about politics - and they were deceived. This isn't a matter of 'the foolhardy masses' - this is a matter of political corruption. — karl stone

The people who voted Leave did so because they want to live in a functioning democracy.

Also, there was not a single argument to Remain, other than fear mongering, and that's not really an argument.

When the UK can chart its own destiny, make its own trade deals, set its own taxes and regulations, escape the protectionist tariff barriers, it will once again become an economic powerhouse and a bulwark against the burgeoning totalitarianism engulfing Europe.

The people who voted Leave did so because they want to live in a functioning democracy. — Inis

How do you know this? Fact is, you don't.

Also, there was not a single argument to Remain, other than fear mongering, and that's not really an argument. — Inis

There was no Remain campaign. Cameron was a brexiteer - who sabotaged his credibility and lost on purpose for Remain.

When the UK can chart its own destiny, make its own trade deals, set its own taxes and regulations, escape the protectionist tariff barriers, it will once again become an economic powerhouse and a bulwark against the burgeoning totalitarianism engulfing Europe. — Inis

I know by the very fact you say that, you have no real idea what it means. You stand as proof that:

Those who voted Leave, the vast majority of them knew little or nothing about politics - and they were deceived. This isn't a matter of 'the foolhardy masses' - this is a matter of political corruption. — karl stone

How do you know this? Fact is, you don't. — karl stone

I know it because I know many people who voted Leave, and through the extensive research done by polling organisations. e.g.

Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.” Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.” Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.”

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/

There was no Remain campaign. Cameron was a brexiteer - who sabotaged his credibility and lost on purpose for Remain — karl stone

That is the opposite of the truth. Cameron was a staunch Remainer, campaigned strongly for remain, and there are literally 100s of videos on youtube that captured the historical record. e.g.



British people don't want to be part of a burgeoning fascist state with its own army.

The people who voted Leave did so because they want to live in a functioning democracy.
— Inis

How do you know this? Fact is, you don't.
— karl stone

I know it because I know many people who voted Leave, and through the extensive research done by polling organisations. e.g.

Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.” Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.” Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.” — Inis

No mention of a 'functioning democracy.' And what's the sample size of this poll? It's says - "nearly half of leave voters' - but that's misleading. They didn't interview all leave voters, or half of them. Further, the questions asked now - about why people voted leave, very likely have little to do with why people voted at the time. They are responding to a list of choices - categories into which the survey must place them for the purposes of the report. Reality isn't like that.

There was no Remain campaign. Cameron was a brexiteer - who sabotaged his credibility and lost on purpose for Remain
— karl stone

That is the opposite of the truth. Cameron was a staunch Remainer, campaigned strongly for remain, and there are literally 100s of videos on youtube that captured the historical record. e.g. — Inis

Try this video from 2009, and tell me Cameron didn't want a referendum but was forced into it by UKIP!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca-v9rGE4-o

British people don't want to be part of a burgeoning fascist state with its own army. — Inis

I assume you think that describes the EU - but it just doesn't. The EU is an elegantly democratic institution - with human rights, workers rights, consumer and environmental protection built into the founding treaties. Those values are the very antithesis of fascism. I can't imagine you even know what the word fascism means. You're making it more and more difficult to maintain the idea that you are not foolhardy, but were merely misled.

A handy list of Brexit campaign lies to awaken you from your delusions.

"£4300 cost to families/households" if UK votes Leave. This was concocted by dividing a fictitious GDP reduction by the number of households. Even the method is a lie.
https://www.strongerin.co.uk/4300_the_cost_of_brexit_to_uk_households#pq4TJxSsT3135rzx.97
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36073201

Cameron threatened refugee camps in South East of England.
https://www.itv.com/news/2016-02-08/prime-minister-warns-brexit-could-see-refugee-camps-in-south-east-england/
https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/le-touquet-treaty-affects-refugees-calais/

Leaving the Single Market would mean UK would have no access to it.
https://www.strongerin.co.uk/brexit_campaigners_have_conceded_uk_outside_the_eu_wouldn_t_have_access_to_the_single_market#SGf4kJiDzB9huysh.97

If UK voted Leave there would be an "instant DIY recession" according to Osbourne. The recession would be precipitated by just the vote!
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-to-create-instant-diy-recession-warns-george-osborne-a7042886.html

If the UK votes Leave there will be an immediate Emergency Budget with £30 billion in new taxes and spending cuts.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/14/osborne-predicts-30bn-hole-in-public-finance-if-uk-votes-to-leave-eu

UK would be "Back of the Queue" for a trade deal with USA.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/22/barack-obama-brexit-uk-back-of-queue-for-trade-talks

In Obama's defence, it was Cameron who requested he say it.
https://news.sky.com/story/cameron-personally-requested-obamas-back-of-the-queue-brexit-warning-11423669

The possibility of an EU Army is a dangerous fantasy, the UK was told.


100,000 Banking jobs to be lost.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/brexit-would-lead-to-loss-of-100000-bank-jobs-says-city-a3124661.html

Cameron claims Turkey joining EU "not remotely on the cards". Not until the year 3000 anyway.


Cameron, in order to instil fear, said he would invoke Article 50 on 28th June, if he lost the referendum.


Risk of interest rate rises, according to Mark Carney.
https://www.itv.com/news/2016-01-26/carney-warns-brexit-could-lead-to-interest-rate-rise/

Inis - you have failed to grasp the thrust of my thesis. You are talking to yourself. So thanks, but no thanks. We're done.

David Cameron campaigned for Remain.

OK So the membership fee is closer to £14billion. — Inis

Minus the rebate, minus the expenditures of the EU in the UK, you get around 9 billion GDP. In return for which you have access to the largest free trade block in the world. Effectively each UK citizen pays 135 GBP, or 155 EUR, per year. The Dutch pay 230 per capita but make more than up for it in the benefits it generates (somewhere between 1500 to 2000 per year per capita). And here the CBI explains to you why it was a benefit to the UK as well: http://www.cbi.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/our-global-future/factsheets/factsheet-2-benefits-of-eu-membership-outweigh-costs/

But of course people actually running a business don't know what they're talking about. :rofl:

In any case, the UK paid and is paying far less than the other most-developed European countries. So the complaint about the membership fee is just pathetic. If youthink being part of a free trading block can be a free lunch then you don't understand the complexities of having to maintain a functioning and integrated market. Just have a look at the total public expenditures in the UK as a whole.

EU still takes £4billion in fish from UK waters. — Inis

And the UK fishes in Irish, Norwegian, Dutch and other waters and is and was in any case a negotiated deal the UK agreed to.

The deficit in traded goods is still £95billion. — Inis

Ah, it's cherry picking again and a blatant attempt at misrepresentation. The trade balance is the total of goods and services. The most recent numbers from November 2017 to November 2018 is 28.6 billion GBP compared to 4.1 billion GDP as of end 2017. A strong rise compared to before which is driven by falling foreign direct investment in the UK due to the uncertainty of Brexit. Something you can blame your politicians for.

EU citizens still take £4billion in benefits. — Inis

Based on what information because the "data on migrants and benefits is incomplete, fragmented and not routinely available"? When people voted on Brexit no information was available on the costs of benefits paid by the UK government to EU citizens. The estimates I found in the House of Commons Library were from March 2017 on data in 2013/2014 at results in 1.7 billion GBP over 2 years for non-UK EU citizens. An important point as well: non-UK nationals were far less likely to receive benefits than UK nationals. Since the system is such that the working populace carries the costs of those receiving benefits, the non-UK citizens not only pay for all non-UK people receiving benefits but also a part of UK citizens receiving benefits. E.g., they make social security cheaper for everyone in the UK.

UK citizens working in the EU have the same rights to benefits as well that the UK wouldn't have to pay if they were unemployed in the UK (1.3 million UK citizens live in the EU) but I imagine that they similarly have a lower unemployment rate and less need for benefits as the local populace and as group are a net contributor.

Minus the rebate, — Benkei

The £14 billion includes the rebate.

Yes, I reiterated what had to be deducted from the gross amount resulting in a net payment of 9 billion. Agree with that final figure or not?

David Cameron campaigned for Remain. — Inis

David Cameron pretended to campaign for Remain - but was in fact a brexiteer. He lost on purpose.

I get it. Uk must pay £13billion membership fee, £4billion in fish, £4billion in benefits to EU citizens, and suffer a £95billion deficit in traded goods, so your country can benefit to the tune of EUR10billion?

Anything else you want? — Inis

Ah yes, the mercantilist whining about a trade deficit. This is a Basic problem: people don't know or understand international trade and how beneficial it actually is. You only have to say that a) there's a trade deficit and b) foreigners are taking the jobs, and people go straight into believing the lies that trade barriers and "protection" of your domestic industry is the way to go.

Besides, the Dutch pay per capita (that means per person) a lot more to the EU than the British do (Benkei has explained), so again a questionmark on your crying about payments to EU.

After all, before the EU payments were simply a method of transferring money to the agricultural sector: in the 1980's like 70% of the EU budget went to agriculture and even now about 41% go there.

David Cameron pretended to campaign for Remain - but was in fact a brexiteer. He lost on purpose. — karl stone

You have zero evidence for your baseless fantastical claim.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/21/donald-tusk-warned-david-cameron-about-stupid-eu-referendum-bbc