|
|
Post by xchpotter on Dec 5, 2018 20:36:47 GMT
I've been watching some of the BBC Parliament coverage of the Brexit debate today. The vast majority of MP's who've spoken have said they won't be supporting May's deal and most are fully committed to remaining in the EU and are urging all other MP'S to vote the same way. They are nearly all pushing for a second referendum with remain as an option (they haven't said what the alternative question should be). They are full of praise for the levels of EU immigration and freedom of movement, ease of foreign travel, benefits of the current trading policy, the freedom the EU gives the UK to determine it's own sovereignty (!) etc etc. Almost none have any negative thing to say about the EU. That’s because they are all self serving pigs with their noses up the EU gravy train arse through other interests. The people they are supposed to represent and the ones who are paying millions into the EU are of little interest to them. Maybe one import that would be good and put them in their place is the French ability to demonstrate if there is something they don’t like. |
|
|
|
Post by pearo on Dec 5, 2018 20:41:16 GMT
Just as General and local elections have a time span to occur, the European referendum now has it’s own time span to occur, this is 41 years meaning the next referendum can be held in 2057. This gives everyone a reasonable time scale to judge the impact the result has on their own personal situation and that of the nation as a whole. It is no use having a referendum every few years, as we’ve seen by the negotiating regarding the 2016 result, there is every likelihood that the process of leaving/joining takes many years to arrange.
Now seeing that a time span for the next referendum on Remain/Leave or Stay Out/Rejoin is not due for 39 years, should the Peoples Vote take place it can only be asking which Leave option the People want to choose.
Sadly, for the 17 million plus uneducated Leave voters in this nation, that won’t be allowed to happen. The civil servants in their grey suits sitting in Westminster and Whitechappel have done and will do everything in their power to keep the nation in the EU.
People on here say “”Boris lied, the bus lied, Gove lied” grow up folks it’s politics, they all lie, which ever political persuassion they are. It is our challenge as democratic citizens to look at what is being said, what is being offered and to vote with our own conviction.
If a democratic vote in which 32million people voted is turned over or voted down by 300 to 400 people how does that give anyone any faith in our democratic process.
|
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Dec 5, 2018 20:42:50 GMT
I've been watching some of the BBC Parliament coverage of the Brexit debate today. The vast majority of MP's who've spoken have said they won't be supporting May's deal and most are fully committed to remaining in the EU and are urging all other MP'S to vote the same way. They are nearly all pushing for a second referendum with remain as an option (they haven't said what the alternative question should be). They are full of praise for the levels of EU immigration and freedom of movement, ease of foreign travel, benefits of the current trading policy, the freedom the EU gives the UK to determine it's own sovereignty (!) etc etc. Almost none have any negative thing to say about the EU. Yet 52% of voters found plenty not to like. What fucking planet are MPs on? They are giving a fuck you to the working class for a start, and the dicks are falling for it. They are guaranteeing a rise in right wing parties gaining popularity. |
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Dec 5, 2018 20:44:47 GMT
Just as General and local elections have a time span to occur, the European referendum now has it’s own time span to occur, this is 41 years meaning the next referendum can be held in 2057. This gives everyone a reasonable time scale to judge the impact the result has on their own personal situation and that of the nation as a whole. It is no use having a referendum every few years, as we’ve seen by the negotiating regarding the 2016 result, there is every likelihood that the process of leaving/joining takes many years to arrange. Now seeing that a time span for the next referendum on Remain/Leave or Stay Out/Rejoin is not due for 39 years, should the Peoples Vote take place it can only be asking which Leave option the People want to choose. Sadly, for the 17 million plus uneducated Leave voters in this nation, that won’t be allowed to happen. The civil servants in their grey suits sitting in Westminster and Whitechappel have done and will do everything in their power to keep the nation in the EU. People on here say “”Boris lied, the bus lied, Gove lied” grow up folks it’s politics, they all lie, which ever political persuassion they are. It is our challenge as democratic citizens to look at what is being said, what is being offered and to vote with our own conviction. If a democratic vote in which 32million people voted is turned over or voted down by 300 to 400 people how does that give anyone any faith in our democratic process. Yet wankers will keep voting Labour and Tory. |
|
|
|
Post by Widget123 on Dec 5, 2018 20:48:36 GMT
Actually I'd argue that any negotiations should have started before Article 50 was invoked. I know the Europeans didn't want to discuss it formally but informally it could have started. From a Brexit perspective (I'm speaking neutrally here) the leave campaign had zero policy other than "leave" that's not a solid foundation for anything. The process of Brexit would have benefited from a year long discussion to settle core issues before creating a deadline. It's nothing more than business common sense. 1. I'm pretty sure that the Europeans and the UK government were in constant negotiations from the moment the result was announced. 2. I'd also wager that that there were desperate discussions on all sides as to how to thwart Brexit. 3. You say the leave campaign had 'zero policy other than leave'. Who from the leave campaign were actually involved in the Brexit negotiations? 4. It was an establishment stitch up from start to finish and I think the majority of the country truly knows that. Attempting to answer your comments in turn: 1. Exactly; there was nothing to "lose" by keeping those debates going - it was only the knee jerk invocation of Article 50 which placed an "urgent" deadline on the process. 2. This seems a little paranoid - of course there are contrary opinions to everything - sometimes that creates a alternative discussion, its not sabotage its kind of how politics works... 3. Well David Davis was Brexit minister for two years and he was a leave campaign member so I would consider him to be involved to a large extent. The leave campaign was based on suppositions about immigration, NHS funding and UK/EU law. There wasn't any strategy about how to achieve an actual leave process just basic "demands". 4. Again I'm not entirely sure about what you are suggesting - on the one hand perhaps that the entire process was started by the demands of a small number of politicians who saw a opportunity to make a mark on history, or whether you are discussing that you feel the discussion on the Brexit possibility being some what "against" the public vote in 2016. The basis of any democratic society is discussing the future and how to achieve it, a binary vote was never intended to circumvent future discussion rather than it was a indication of what the thoughts of the population were. Albeit I would suggest that there was no real honesty on any side of the debate which meant the vast majority of the voting public really had no idea what either option in the vote really meant - and again I'll reiterate that I'm looking at this neutrally - Neither the leave nor remain voters had any of the facts in front of them at the time of the 2016 vote. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 20:49:59 GMT
I've been watching some of the BBC Parliament coverage of the Brexit debate today. The vast majority of MP's who've spoken have said they won't be supporting May's deal and most are fully committed to remaining in the EU and are urging all other MP'S to vote the same way. They are nearly all pushing for a second referendum with remain as an option (they haven't said what the alternative question should be). They are full of praise for the levels of EU immigration and freedom of movement, ease of foreign travel, benefits of the current trading policy, the freedom the EU gives the UK to determine it's own sovereignty (!) etc etc. Almost none have any negative thing to say about the EU. Yet 52% of voters found plenty not to like. What fucking planet are MPs on? They are giving a fuck you to the working class for a start, and the dicks are falling for it. They are guaranteeing a rise in right wing parties gaining popularity. They are nearly all hiding behind the "voting with myown conscience" or "not in the national interests" when they are saying they'll vote against the deal on offer. One or two have said that Parliament should remember that the 17.4 million will remember if the referendum result gets overturned but the vast majority are just hell bent on stopping Brexit and staying in the EU "with the many benefits it brings to this country". Quite a few have used the phrase "the voters in my constituency will obviously trust me to use my informed opinion to make the right decision on their behalf" ! (Even though their constituencies voted Leave !). You should watch the BBC Parliament channel to see this shower of shithouses in action - although you'd probably need a new TV after you've thrown something at the screen in frustration. Complete and utter stitchup by an absolute shower of so called peoples representatives. |
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Dec 5, 2018 20:52:12 GMT
Just as General and local elections have a time span to occur, the European referendum now has it’s own time span to occur, this is 41 years meaning the next referendum can be held in 2057. This gives everyone a reasonable time scale to judge the impact the result has on their own personal situation and that of the nation as a whole. It is no use having a referendum every few years, as we’ve seen by the negotiating regarding the 2016 result, there is every likelihood that the process of leaving/joining takes many years to arrange. Now seeing that a time span for the next referendum on Remain/Leave or Stay Out/Rejoin is not due for 39 years, should the Peoples Vote take place it can only be asking which Leave option the People want to choose. Sadly, for the 17 million plus uneducated Leave voters in this nation, that won’t be allowed to happen. The civil servants in their grey suits sitting in Westminster and Whitechappel have done and will do everything in their power to keep the nation in the EU. People on here say “”Boris lied, the bus lied, Gove lied” grow up folks it’s politics, they all lie, which ever political persuassion they are. It is our challenge as democratic citizens to look at what is being said, what is being offered and to vote with our own conviction. If a democratic vote in which 32million people voted is turned over or voted down by 300 to 400 people how does that give anyone any faith in our democratic process. Yet wankers will keep voting Labour and Tory. After this fucking debacle there is no way I will ever vote for a mainstream party again. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 20:52:58 GMT
The MP'S have made quite a few sarcastic references to "populism" and "populist voters" during the debates - they clearly are just rubbing the leavers noses in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Dec 5, 2018 20:55:30 GMT
Yet wankers will keep voting Labour and Tory. After this fucking debacle there is no way I will ever vote for a mainstream party again. One thing is clear from the Brexit issue, as you say Numpty, the Labour party have largely abandoned the working class and no longer actually listen to them and the Conservative MPs don't represent their membership. |
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Dec 5, 2018 20:55:39 GMT
Actually I'd argue that any negotiations should have started before Article 50 was invoked. I know the Europeans didn't want to discuss it formally but informally it could have started. From a Brexit perspective (I'm speaking neutrally here) the leave campaign had zero policy other than "leave" that's not a solid foundation for anything. The process of Brexit would have benefited from a year long discussion to settle core issues before creating a deadline. It's nothing more than business common sense. I'm pretty sure that the Europeans and the UK government were in constant negotiations from the moment the result was announced. I'd also wager that that there were desperate discussions on all sides as to how to thwart Brexit. You say the leave campaign had 'zero policy other than leave'. Who from the leave campaign were actually involved in the Brexit negotiations? It was an establishment stitch up from start to finish and I think the majority of the country truly knows that. Everything that has happened confirms it. Brexiteers dropping out, one by one. Leadsome's careless comments, a totally unnecessary election called. Corbyn being treated gently by Sky, BBC and Channel 4, buying the students, thus making the election close. 20 point lead evaporated! But just not enough to let Corbyn in. If he was genuinely popular, he would have stormed the election. Funny how the antisemitism row surfaced after the election, isn't it? Funny how he's 5 points behind the ludicrously incompetent May, now. I can't believe some people aren't seeing this. And they say Brexiteers are thick! |
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Dec 5, 2018 20:57:54 GMT
Pragmatically speaking this whole Brexit stuff has been a complete car crash from the get go: 1. The question was voted on before anyone knew what the options were.
2. The campaigners on all sides lied to the public. 3. The public voted based on almost zero knowledge. 4. Article 50 was invoked prematurely. 5. Negotiations were rushed and hacked into rough clumps of partial-agreement as a result. 6. The ongoing bickering has spilled out into an all out stalemate. 7. The nett effect is likely to be a new public vote which no one will agree on the result of. 8. The Pound has tanked during the whole process. 9. The end result will be a lukewarm squib however it turns out. Basically MPs of all parties caused a massive ongoing ruckus which has achieved precisely nothing. The options were to leave the EU or remain in the EU. I really don't know how many times this has to be said. Ok, you believe the leave voters are thick racists but please don't patronise leave voters. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 21:02:33 GMT
52% of the people who bothered to vote,bet you don`t fancy a re-run do you? Do I want a re-run no as I believe the first vote should stand If there is bring it on I’m ready to grind the remainers into the dust Leave will win with a bigger margin unless of course the remainers rig the question I don’t think so. People didn’t know what they were voting for, in reality. Nigel Farage’s £350m lie just added fuel. Then, ask those Brexiteers how many would have voted ‘out’ if they were told in advance that their Government wouldn’t be able to deliver it. Another referendum would result in a strong remain majority. |
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Dec 5, 2018 21:02:35 GMT
The MP'S have made quite a few sarcastic references to "populism" and "populist voters" during the debates - they clearly are just rubbing the leavers noses in it. I just watched a discussion that touched on populism. Douglas Murray said it was a word that people use for opinions they don't like. Someone else on the panel said that lack of real discussion on immigration etc leads to populism. It's going to happen here. It's happening everywhere else. |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Dec 5, 2018 21:07:01 GMT
I'm pretty sure that the Europeans and the UK government were in constant negotiations from the moment the result was announced. I'd also wager that that there were desperate discussions on all sides as to how to thwart Brexit. You say the leave campaign had 'zero policy other than leave'. Who from the leave campaign were actually involved in the Brexit negotiations? It was an establishment stitch up from start to finish and I think the majority of the country truly knows that. Everything that has happened confirms it. Brexiteers dropping out, one by one. Leadsome's careless comments, a totally unnecessary election called. Corbyn being treated gently by Sky, BBC and Channel 4, buying the students, thus making the election close. 20 point lead evaporated! But just not enough to let Corbyn in. If he was genuinely popular, he would have stormed the election. Funny how the antisemitism row surfaced after the election, isn't it? Funny how he's 5 points behind the ludicrously incompetent May, now. I can't believe some people aren't seeing this. And they say Brexiteers are thick! I'll never understand how anyone can agree to giving away their democratic rights, their vote which was achieved largely through the struggle and sacrifice of the working class. I haven't heard anyone put a strong straightforward argument that they agree with remaining in the EU because economic and political Union is a great thing...and yet that is what they are signing up for. It is the Labour party above all who have abandoned the Working class whilst the Tories have disgracefully reneged on their promise " it's your decision, not politicians. There will be no second referendum. We will implement what you decide. Out means out. No CU, No SM . No jurisdiction of the EUCTJ" It is now about Democracy and the honour of our MPs as much as BREXIT. How many of us would willingly do business with an organisation as deceitful as that...and I'm not just talking about the EU but our own bunch of self interested politicians. |
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Dec 5, 2018 21:07:56 GMT
1. I'm pretty sure that the Europeans and the UK government were in constant negotiations from the moment the result was announced. 2. I'd also wager that that there were desperate discussions on all sides as to how to thwart Brexit. 3. You say the leave campaign had 'zero policy other than leave'. Who from the leave campaign were actually involved in the Brexit negotiations? 4. It was an establishment stitch up from start to finish and I think the majority of the country truly knows that. Attempting to answer your comments in turn: 1. Exactly; there was nothing to "lose" by keeping those debates going - it was only the knee jerk invocation of Article 50 which placed an "urgent" deadline on the process. 2. This seems a little paranoid - of course there are contrary opinions to everything - sometimes that creates a alternative discussion, its not sabotage its kind of how politics works... 3. Well David Davis was Brexit minister for two years and he was a leave campaign member so I would consider him to be involved to a large extent. The leave campaign was based on suppositions about immigration, NHS funding and UK/EU law. There wasn't any strategy about how to achieve an actual leave process just basic "demands". 4. Again I'm not entirely sure about what you are suggesting - on the one hand perhaps that the entire process was started by the demands of a small number of politicians who saw a opportunity to make a mark on history, or whether you are discussing that you feel the discussion on the Brexit possibility being some what "against" the public vote in 2016. The basis of any democratic society is discussing the future and how to achieve it, a binary vote was never intended to circumvent future discussion rather than it was a indication of what the thoughts of the population were. Albeit I would suggest that there was no real honesty on any side of the debate which meant the vast majority of the voting public really had no idea what either option in the vote really meant - and again I'll reiterate that I'm looking at this neutrally - Neither the leave nor remain voters had any of the facts in front of them at the time of the 2016 vote. David Davis was undermined at every turn. Ditto Dominic Raab. Brexit could have been delivered if there was genuine intent. |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Dec 5, 2018 21:08:52 GMT
Do I want a re-run no as I believe the first vote should stand If there is bring it on I’m ready to grind the remainers into the dust Leave will win with a bigger margin unless of course the remainers rig the question I don’t think so. People didn’t know what they were voting for, in reality. Nigel Farage’s £350m lie just added fuel. Then, ask those Brexiteers how many would have voted ‘out’ if they were told in advance that their Government wouldn’t be able to deliver it. Another referendum would result in a strong remain majority. Farage had nothing to do with the statement on the bus.... which simply meant that we could control our own money |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 21:11:27 GMT
Everything that has happened confirms it. Brexiteers dropping out, one by one. Leadsome's careless comments, a totally unnecessary election called. Corbyn being treated gently by Sky, BBC and Channel 4, buying the students, thus making the election close. 20 point lead evaporated! But just not enough to let Corbyn in. If he was genuinely popular, he would have stormed the election. Funny how the antisemitism row surfaced after the election, isn't it? Funny how he's 5 points behind the ludicrously incompetent May, now. I can't believe some people aren't seeing this. And they say Brexiteers are thick! I'll never understand how anyone can agree to giving away their democratic rights, their vote which was achieved largely through the struggle and sacrifice of the working class. I haven't heard anyone put a strong straightforward argument that they agree with remaining in the EU because economic and political Union is a great thing...and yet that is what they are signing up for. It is the Labour party above all who have abandoned the Working class whilst the Tories have disgracefully reneged on their promise " it's your decision, not politicians. There will be no second referendum. We will implement what you decide. Out means out. No CU, No SM . No jurisdiction of the EUCTJ" It is now about Democracy and the honour of our MPs as much as BREXIT. How many of us would willingly do business with an organisation as deceitful as that...and I'm not just talking about the EU but our own bunch of self interested politicians. You're right - from the bits I've seen on BBC Parliament not one of the MP's have mentioned economic and political Union, they've just said they want the single market and customs union. |
|
|
|
Post by Widget123 on Dec 5, 2018 21:13:32 GMT
Pragmatically speaking this whole Brexit stuff has been a complete car crash from the get go: 1. The question was voted on before anyone knew what the options were.
2. The campaigners on all sides lied to the public. 3. The public voted based on almost zero knowledge. 4. Article 50 was invoked prematurely. 5. Negotiations were rushed and hacked into rough clumps of partial-agreement as a result. 6. The ongoing bickering has spilled out into an all out stalemate. 7. The nett effect is likely to be a new public vote which no one will agree on the result of. 8. The Pound has tanked during the whole process. 9. The end result will be a lukewarm squib however it turns out. Basically MPs of all parties caused a massive ongoing ruckus which has achieved precisely nothing. The options were to leave the EU or remain in the EU. I really don't know how many times this has to be said. Ok, you believe the leave voters are thick racists but please don't patronise leave voters. I've made no suggestion that is what I think, I've merely suggested that neither remain nor leave voter had any evidence for what they voted for in 2016. They either voted out of fear that they were told leaving would be "bad" or that they disliked being in the EU for reason "xyz". Neither of those positions are educated reasons to vote either way and in 2016 that was largely the only evidence available. My proposition is that the vote had no basis in fact, I'm not suggesting that it wasn't a binary option. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 21:13:40 GMT
Attempting to answer your comments in turn: 1. Exactly; there was nothing to "lose" by keeping those debates going - it was only the knee jerk invocation of Article 50 which placed an "urgent" deadline on the process. 2. This seems a little paranoid - of course there are contrary opinions to everything - sometimes that creates a alternative discussion, its not sabotage its kind of how politics works... 3. Well David Davis was Brexit minister for two years and he was a leave campaign member so I would consider him to be involved to a large extent. The leave campaign was based on suppositions about immigration, NHS funding and UK/EU law. There wasn't any strategy about how to achieve an actual leave process just basic "demands". 4. Again I'm not entirely sure about what you are suggesting - on the one hand perhaps that the entire process was started by the demands of a small number of politicians who saw a opportunity to make a mark on history, or whether you are discussing that you feel the discussion on the Brexit possibility being some what "against" the public vote in 2016. The basis of any democratic society is discussing the future and how to achieve it, a binary vote was never intended to circumvent future discussion rather than it was a indication of what the thoughts of the population were. Albeit I would suggest that there was no real honesty on any side of the debate which meant the vast majority of the voting public really had no idea what either option in the vote really meant - and again I'll reiterate that I'm looking at this neutrally - Neither the leave nor remain voters had any of the facts in front of them at the time of the 2016 vote. David Davis was undermined at every turn. Ditto Dominic Raab. Brexit could have been delivered if there was genuine intent. IIRC wasn't Raab told by May that she was taking control of all negotiations, so basically he was just a title with no power or authority to negotiate anything - hence his resignation at the final negotiated "deal". |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 21:17:41 GMT
The options were to leave the EU or remain in the EU. I really don't know how many times this has to be said. Ok, you believe the leave voters are thick racists but please don't patronise leave voters. I've made no suggestion that is what I think, I've merely suggested that neither remain nor leave voter had any evidence for what they voted for in 2016. They either voted out of fear that they were told leaving would be "bad" or that they disliked being in the EU for reason "xyz". Neither of those positions are educated reasons to vote either way and in 2016 that was largely the only evidence available. My proposition is that the vote had no basis in fact, I'm not suggesting that it wasn't a binary option. Didn't Cameron/the Government spend £9.3 million sending their Referendum guide to every household to spell out the pro's and con's of remaining/leaving - I thought it was abundantly clear before the referendum what we were voting for. On the back page it also said that the Government would honour the result. |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Dec 5, 2018 21:18:58 GMT
I'll never understand how anyone can agree to giving away their democratic rights, their vote which was achieved largely through the struggle and sacrifice of the working class. I haven't heard anyone put a strong straightforward argument that they agree with remaining in the EU because economic and political Union is a great thing...and yet that is what they are signing up for. It is the Labour party above all who have abandoned the Working class whilst the Tories have disgracefully reneged on their promise " it's your decision, not politicians. There will be no second referendum. We will implement what you decide. Out means out. No CU, No SM . No jurisdiction of the EUCTJ" It is now about Democracy and the honour of our MPs as much as BREXIT. How many of us would willingly do business with an organisation as deceitful as that...and I'm not just talking about the EU but our own bunch of self interested politicians. You're right - from the bits I've seen on BBC Parliament not one of the MP's have mentioned economic and political Union, they've just said they want the single market and customs union. Imagine if every country in the world said to each other" we'll only trade with you if you allow free movement" or " we can only trade if we share the same currency" or " we'll only trade if you agree that we can impose regulations and directives and you'll be subject to the jurisdiction of our courts" " trade with us and we'll dictate your agricultural policy" " and pay us £39b from your workers taxes"....How do the Remainers defend that.....or promote it as a great deal. I think that they are more in love with the Idea of " being European" than the reality of the EU |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Dec 5, 2018 21:22:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 21:22:38 GMT
You're right - from the bits I've seen on BBC Parliament not one of the MP's have mentioned economic and political Union, they've just said they want the single market and customs union. Imagine if every country in the world said to each other" we'll only trade with you if you allow free movement" or " we can only trade if we share the same currency" or " we'll only trade if you agree that we can impose regulations and directives and you'll be subject to the jurisdiction of our courts" " trade with us and we'll dictate your agricultural policy" " and pay us £39b from your workers taxes"....How do the Remainers defend that.....or promote it as a great deal. I think that they are more in love with the Idea of " being European" than the reality of the EU When you look at it in simple terms like you've used it's absolutely ludicrous that the EU can employ such a high-handed, arrogant attitude and yet there are still millions of people desperate to remain part of the "club". As you say in the cold light of day I think it's more "being European" than being "in the EU". |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 21:24:08 GMT
One of very few voices in HOC expressing that sentiment - unfortunately ! |
|
|
|
Post by Widget123 on Dec 5, 2018 21:29:43 GMT
I've made no suggestion that is what I think, I've merely suggested that neither remain nor leave voter had any evidence for what they voted for in 2016. They either voted out of fear that they were told leaving would be "bad" or that they disliked being in the EU for reason "xyz". Neither of those positions are educated reasons to vote either way and in 2016 that was largely the only evidence available. My proposition is that the vote had no basis in fact, I'm not suggesting that it wasn't a binary option. Didn't Cameron/the Government spend £9.3 million sending their Referendum guide to every household to spell out the pro's and con's of remaining/leaving - I thought it was abundantly clear before the referendum what we were voting for. On the back page it also said that the Government would honour the result. Okay that's an interesting point and a good one too - that was remain propaganda. The "bus" was leave propaganda. Both have their place, arguably the bus was more "persuasive", but then a big advert or story always beats boring raw text. In the US elections there was a "fake news" story about a paedo ring in a pizza restaurant - it was propaganda but its narrative is so compelling that I still remember the story (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory). That is not passing any comment on either remain or leave propaganda but looking at them as each as a source of propaganda ahead of a vote. Neither contained fact but instead were suppositions of what "could" happen. We now have facts in terms of what the EU are prepared to agree to if we leave that's something to vote on instead of the "say so of politicians" regardless of their position. |
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Dec 5, 2018 21:44:45 GMT
Do I want a re-run no as I believe the first vote should stand If there is bring it on I’m ready to grind the remainers into the dust Leave will win with a bigger margin unless of course the remainers rig the question I don’t think so. People didn’t know what they were voting for, in reality. Nigel Farage’s £350m lie just added fuel. Then, ask those Brexiteers how many would have voted ‘out’ if they were told in advance that their Government wouldn’t be able to deliver it. Another referendum would result in a strong remain majority. The last poll out showed leave still on around 50% For you’re scenario to work it requires the Eu to say we realise you’ve pissed us about for two and a half years of course you can waltz back and keep all your previous benefits the rebate ect Do you really think they will And don’t forget the remain voters who were swayed by project fear which turned into a complete load of lying shit |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Dec 5, 2018 21:50:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 21:53:10 GMT
I don’t think so. People didn’t know what they were voting for, in reality. Nigel Farage’s £350m lie just added fuel. Then, ask those Brexiteers how many would have voted ‘out’ if they were told in advance that their Government wouldn’t be able to deliver it. Another referendum would result in a strong remain majority. The last poll out showed leave still on around 50% For you’re scenario to work it requires the Eu to say we realise you’ve pissed us about for two and a half years of course you can waltz back and keep all your previous benefits the rebate ect Do you really think they will And don’t forget the remain voters who were swayed by project fear which turned into a complete load of lying shit Let’s be honest, the whole country has been played by politicians, for their own gain, since the referendum, regardless of which side of the fence you sit. We’re all just pawns in a huge game. We should have all realised that our Government couldn’t deliver a pint of milk, let alone Brexit, and now, after much time & effort, it really does look like we’d be better off whacking it in reverse, and sticking where we are. If we retain most of/all of that we held before, that seems like a half-decent result from where we currently stand. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 21:59:33 GMT
It's a pity Cameron didn't have the integrity and guts to stay and deliver what he had promised. This current shower in the HoC should be made to watch that. Soubry is a classic example - her constituency voted heavily to l e ave yet she's one of the main vouces of Remain. She's got the nerve to take on her constituency chairman who she claims is trying to oust her because she's not listening to her voters - despicable bloody woman ! And there are countless others going against their constituency decision to leave. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 22:03:58 GMT
The last poll out showed leave still on around 50% For you’re scenario to work it requires the Eu to say we realise you’ve pissed us about for two and a half years of course you can waltz back and keep all your previous benefits the rebate ect Do you really think they will And don’t forget the remain voters who were swayed by project fear which turned into a complete load of lying shit Let’s be honest, the whole country has been played by politicians, for their own gain, since the referendum, regardless of which side of the fence you sit. We’re all just pawns in a huge game. We should have all realised that our Government couldn’t deliver a pint of milk, let alone Brexit, and now, after much time & effort, it really does look like we’d be better off whacking it in reverse, and sticking where we are. If we retain most of/all of that we held before, that seems like a half-decent result from where we currently stand. Many leavers no longer wanted what we had previously, that's precisely why they voted leave. No close ties to the EU, out of the customs union, out of the single market, stop freedom of movement etc. To stick where we currently are is precisely what the leavers don't/didn't want. |
|
