You are asking a question about something I did not say. Furthermore, you are asking me to provide specific examples about the thing I did not say.
If I had done the same to you, how would you have responded?
So, I suggest you go back to my post and ponder over the word “subsequent”. 
. If you’re still stuck, then I’ll be happy to exemplify by analogy.
Here is what happened. I read your post which was a response to me writing ‘the other much touted sunlit uplands never came about’. Your post stated ‘that was down to subsequent failings made by governments’.
My initial reaction (and a reasonable reaction) was that you were inferring that the government implementation of Brexit fell short of expectations. So I wrote ‘what - the Brexit we got was super flawed?’ I this is a fair question given your statement blaming government actions, even if it does anticipate what you intended to infer. But it was still a question and thus gave you opportunity for clarification.
You now highlight the word subsequent. My reading of that was the actions of governments following the 2016 referendum. That is a fair reading of the word subsequent as it folllowed my post citing what was claimed in the referendum. Your post above infers (it would be great if you moved from inference to clarity) that this use of the word subsequent means following something else (as yet not identified).
Here is yet another opportunity for you to explain what you intended to mean.
Or you can keep on wriggling about avoiding a simple request for clarification.
Ok, I’ll simplify my clear point by analogy… you enter a showroom to buy a car. You negotiate the terms and what specifications you want, and agree on it, and get the car you want.
Subsequently, you, your wife and family and indeed the next owner don’t take advantage of all the capabilities of the car, and thus don’t enjoy it as much as you could have. In fact, some of those things could have improved fuel efficiency and comfort.
Is that the fault of the original deal, or the users of the vehicle? Was the car and the deal “super flawed” ?
I ask for clarity and you provide an analogy. Jeeps, man, your life must be so cumbersome and full of confusion. Just blooming explain what you mean in the context of what you are talking about and without adornment.
Here is my problem now. If I attempt to unpick your analogy then it seems quite possible that I will misunderstand or omit or fail to grasp some aspect of this analogy. Then you will cry foul and make some claim about words in mouths or misrepresentation.
But here is my guess. You are trying (just trying too hard) to make the case that the withdrawal agreement provided opportunities for the UK that the UK government have not realised or taken advantage of. (See no need for an analogy.) This is the ‘subsequent’ you originally refered to. Strewth, that was painful when it coud have been simple.
Before we consider this claim can you please confirm that this is what you are saying?
It was, and clearly so. Hence why I said “subsequent”.
It’s hardly my fault if you decided to misread it and want to waffle on all sorts of nonsense about how it’s my fault. But, it would seem that my analogy was simple enough for you to finally understand what was bleeding obvious in the first place.
So, please desist from trying so hard (too hard) to obfuscate the fact that you misread it and put the blame onto me. Sometimes, swallowing your pride would be a really good idea.
Now, care to get back to topic and ask questions for clarification/exemplars about the point I made and not the point I didn’t? 
Yes of course, it was my fault. I foolishly thought that subsequent was used to note something following what I had refered to rather than, as it turns out, something following a thing that was in your head but never shared. Stupid me.
Delete
There may be a case that the withdrawal agreement and the nature of the Brexit we got could have allowed for government actions, or indeed UK business actions, that have not come about. But equally it could have been that even if provisions for good things were in the Brexit we got the reality was that they were never actually going to happen.
The Brexit we got was not a car with specifications of performance. You might be able to say that it was a kit of parts that could, in certain conditions, make the car you want with the performance you want. But that assembly would never be down to one skilled person, and bits were missing, and the instructions were incomplete, and some external events could change parts before you could use them, and to make some parts fit you need to adapt them. And then other external events change your desired specification. (You started the analogy thing.)
You can blame the government or you can recognise that the claimed opportunities were wildly over-optimistic. Thus far it seems to be the latter. This is especially true because there is no detail on exactly what the government failed to do.
This analogy thing is fun.
Expanding on Brexit and the withdrawal agreement as being more like the most dodgy kit car you get ever purchase.
Yes, a mixed bag of parts, yes very vague instructions, yes dependent on external events. But worse, you told it had great performance and excellent efficiency but the folk who told you that then disappeared when it was time to deliver the kit. And while they had painted ‘Morgan’ on the crate, inside quite a few bits were for a Trabant. Namely the engine and the gearbox.
Seems that you have turned into shrödinger’s Lincolnshire. 
I’m just killing time until someone puts some detail onto what exactly any government failed to enact that meant the promised sunlit uplands were not attained.
Until then I’ll continue to develop my kits of car parts analogy and continue to be certain that there never were going to be sunlit uplands, not with the Brexit we got given.
Why do you always answer a question with a question Lincs?
Can’t you offer your own opinions and thoughts on matters without resorting to internet searches and quoting the media’s facts, figures and statistics?
Use your own grey matter and not somebody else’s.
That is a strange accusation as I am frequently posting my thoughts and observations.
I am guilty of checking facts, stats, backgrounds, histories, time lines, causality, etc. I prefer that to uninformed guesswork or blind prejudice or what Joe down the pub told me. Each to their own.
It’s a forum Lincs, not a court of law or an official inquiry. Forum members (at least over 50) have spent most of their lives observing politics and world affairs, it’s not always possible to conjure up the source of the information, but that doesn’t mean it was Joe down the pub, or that it’s not valid. Sometimes a theory might come under the category of ‘What if?’
Actually most of what we get is not ‘what if’ but rather ‘I reckon’ followed by false claims. Like recently matey boy claimed the national debt always soars under a Labour government when the actual fact is that national debt soars right after a global catastrophe, regardless of which government. Certainly this forum is not a court of law but neither should it be a loudspeaker of false info. I’m happy to check and correct such claims. It is a great pity that those making such claims don’t think to do the checking themselves before posting.
What is your point again?
Well, that is what most “common” folks elect a government on so, it must be a relevant perspective!
Let’s consider that. You are saying that ignorance, wilfully prejudiced thinking and dumb acceptance of lies is a perfectly reasonable basis to decide one’s views on major issues? Further, you are hoping to suppress anyone who corrects errors and lies - they are, in your view, acting against a (your words) relevant perspective. Because it looks a lot like that.
Well I don’t know Farage I only what I see on TV and read
The latest revelations revolving around Farage yes I can believe , he’s always come over as arrogant and unpleasant to me.
Shoving a woman MP and grabbing her by the arm …yes I can believe that .
Yuck nasty.
Dear oh dear oh dear. Putting words in other’s mouth again. Bad habit that, IMHO.
(Not you Ripple )
You do know how to tell when a politician is lying, don’t you?
