View Full Version : Petition for clean Brexit referendum
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/223729/
Pales into comparison with Cameron's misuse of public money
The referendum question should be phrased thusly:
Please tick one of the following
a) Britain should remain in the EU
b) I am a muppet.
Sherwood
18-07-2018, 09:43
FFS! There is enough BREXIT on every other media! Can't we at least keep it off AOS?
If not, at least have a musical underpinning to it! Songs of a Vassal Nation! Music to Break Up By? Solitary Tunes?
:steam: :steam::steam::steam::steam::steam::steam::steam:: steam::steam::steam::steam::steam::steam:
Landloper
18-07-2018, 09:50
My understanding is that overspending by both Remain and Leave cannot legally invalidate the outcome of the referendum. Individuals and organizations responsible for the overspending may be prosecuted, but a court may not invalidate the vote.
The vote was advisory so there is noting to invalidate anyway, except the legitimacy of the political process that gave an undertaking to do as the electorate advised.
The Liberal Democrats were also fined along with Remain and for breaching spending guidelines during the referendum. Had Remain prevailed would those overspends have meant that a win for remain would likewise be invalidated? No doubt, Leave would have argued so, and Remain would have argued against any invalidation on the grounds of overspending.
The pro-Remain Tory government also spent over £9 million pounds of taxpayer's money sending out leaflets encourage voters to back Remain. This wasn't considered as Remain expenditure, even though that is what it amounted to.
Personally I think the political establishment is doing a grand job of invalidating the referendum result without having to resort to using overspending by the principle protagonists as an excuse to return to the pre-referendum status quo.
The important thing to take from this is to look again at how such campaigns are funded, and to consider setting out a new mandatory code that could make set amounts available to both sides. It might be in the public interest to fund such events from tax revenues to prevent overspends and the consequent partisan bickering afterwards.
I don't know about other people, but I didn't need either Remain or Leave to help me decide how to vote. I have lived in the EU and its predecessors for most of my life.
My understanding is that overspending by both Remain and Leave cannot legally invalidate the outcome of the referendum. Individuals and organizations responsible for the overspending may be prosecuted, but a court may not invalidate the vote.
The vote was advisory so there is noting to invalidate anyway, except the legitimacy of the political process that gave an undertaking to do as the electorate advised.
The Liberal Democrats were also fined along with Remain and for breaching spending guidelines during the referendum. Had Remain prevailed would those overspends have meant that a win for remain would likewise be invalidated? No doubt, Leave would have argued so, and Remain would have argued against any invalidation on the grounds of overspending.
The pro-Remain Tory government also spent over £9 million pounds of taxpayer's money sending out leaflets encourage voters to back Remain. This wasn't considered as Remain expenditure, even though that is what it amounted to.
Personally I think the political establishment is doing a grand job of invalidating the referendum result without having to resort to using overspending by the principle protagonists as an excuse to return to the pre-referendum status quo.
The important thing to take from this is to look again at how such campaigns are funded, and to consider setting out a new mandatory code that could make set amounts available to both sides. It might be in the public interest to fund such events from tax revenues to prevent overspends and the consequent partisan bickering afterwards.
I don't know about other people, but I didn't need either Remain or Leave to help me decide how to vote. I have lived in the EU and its predecessors for most of my life.
Pure whataboutery. You are trying to excuse imperfection using more imperfection. The more imperfection, the more the result should not stand.
Waste of time, there will never be another referendum. 8 more months and we are out.
Waste of time, there will never be another referendum. 8 more months and we are out.
Odds of 3/1 offered....I'd hardly say that it was impossible.
Beobloke
18-07-2018, 11:50
Hold your fire. A vote was taken, the public spoke and, even though they got it spectacularly wrong, IMHO, this should stand.
I now feel we should have the hardest Brexit possible - restore a solid border between Northern Ireland and Ireland; no customs or trade deals with the EU and close the Channel Tunnel. Then, when the country grinds to a halt, maybe then will be time for the second vote!
(I was going to add sending all non-British citizens home but I realised that would mean deporting Mrs. B back to Ireland, and I'm not sure I fancy going to live there with her...:D)
Bksabath
18-07-2018, 12:17
yes public spoke whit guidance from bad campaign still public spoke
They are on a job to do same work
do your job, quit or else that is what normal people get told but no mater who they are this does no apply to them even when they get the else they still get paid...
Pigmy Pony
18-07-2018, 12:24
Wake me up when it's over. With a nice cup of tea.
Bigman80
18-07-2018, 12:31
More desperate ploys by the remoaners.
To not carry out the will of the voting majority, however marginal, is to end the democratic society our ancestors fought to build, and one we fight to maintain.
Whether you agree or disagree with the result, its irrelevant.
The country had ample time to educate themselves on the subject before placing their vote. If they didn't do it, they only have themselves to blame if they are now unhappy with the decision they made when they voted.
There should be NO 2nd referendum and the remoaners should get on with their lives. The sour grapes of the remoaners makes me sick. This is a land of democracy, if you don't like it, move out of it.
We ARE leaving the EU. The decision has been made by the majority.
Written from someone who is completely sick of the behaviour of the remoaners.
walpurgis
18-07-2018, 12:53
We'll get stitched up either way. The whole thing is probably being stirred and steered by 'big money', who won't actually care which way things go, as long as good deals are on the table. It's all bollocks!!
Pigmy Pony
18-07-2018, 12:57
Whatever the outcome, it will be used as an excuse for rising prices for years.
More desperate ploys by the remoaners.
To not carry out the will of the voting majority, however marginal, is to end the democratic society our ancestors fought to build, and one we fight to maintain.
Whether you agree or disagree with the result, its irrelevant.
The country had ample time to educate themselves on the subject before placing their vote. If they didn't do it, they only have themselves to blame if they are now unhappy with the decision they made when they voted.
There should be NO 2nd referendum and the remoaners should get on with their lives. The sour grapes of the remoaners makes me sick. This is a land of democracy, if you don't like it, move out of it.
We ARE leaving the EU. The decision has been made by the majority.
Written from someone who is completely sick of the behaviour of the remoaners.
You have a very personal view of democracy - given that there is no longer a majority for tory brexit in the UK, that huge reputational and financial damage has been inflicted already and will be to greater extent inflicted on the UK should this course proceed, and that illegality permeated the referendum process, at what point does the population being able to vote on this - from a more informed position - become undemocratic?
If, as you imply, it was the will of the people, you must surely be confident of a win in the event of a re-run?
FFS! There is enough BREXIT on every other media! Can't we at least keep it off AOS?
If not, at least have a musical underpinning to it! Songs of a Vassal Nation! Music to Break Up By? Solitary Tunes?
:steam: :steam::steam::steam::steam::steam::steam::steam:: steam::steam::steam::steam::steam::steam:
Maybe we should have a referendum on that!
Bigman80
18-07-2018, 13:09
You have a very personal view of democracy - given that there is no longer a majority for tory brexit in the UK, that huge reputational and financial damage has been inflicted already and will be to greater extent inflicted on the UK should this course proceed, and that illegality permeated the referendum process, at what point does the population being able to vote on this - from a more informed position - become undemocratic?Tory Brexit? Didn't the entire nation vote? a
Thelance of the government is irrelevant. The only thing that matters when it's boiled down to its essence is that we, the people of this country, voted for what we felt and the decision was reached.
It's not a personal view, it's the very essence of democracy.
The Government are who have to carry out our will. Whoever is doing it doesn't really matter.
Tory Brexit? Didn't the entire nation vote? a
Thelance of the government is irrelevant. The only thing that matters when it's boiled down to its essence is that we, the people of this country, voted for what we felt and the decision was reached.
It's not a personal view, it's the very essence of democracy.
The Government are who have to carry out our will. Whoever is doing it doesn't really matter.
I think further "discussion" would be pointless.
For others, the petition is here
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/223729/
Bigman80
18-07-2018, 13:37
I think further "discussion" would be pointless.
For others, the petition is here
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/223729/Nial,
I think it's safe to say that this discussion is completely unsolvable. If anything, the general war between remoaners v Brexiteers has displayed just that.
Let's stick to the hifi because when religion or politics get involved, the discussion is always personal.
Nial,
I think it's safe to say that this discussion is completely unsolvable. If anything, the general war between remoaners v Brexiteers has displayed just that.
Let's stick to the hifi because when religion or politics get involved, the discussion is always personal.
What I meant, Olli...:)
More desperate ploys by the remoaners.
To not carry out the will of the voting majority, however marginal, is to end the democratic society our ancestors fought to build, and one we fight to maintain.
Whether you agree or disagree with the result, its irrelevant.
The country had ample time to educate themselves on the subject before placing their vote. If they didn't do it, they only have themselves to blame if they are now unhappy with the decision they made when they voted.
There should be NO 2nd referendum and the remoaners should get on with their lives. The sour grapes of the remoaners makes me sick. This is a land of democracy, if you don't like it, move out of it.
We ARE leaving the EU. The decision has been made by the majority.
Written from someone who is completely sick of the behaviour of the remoaners.
OK, but how about The Conservatives including exiting the single market and customs union into their manifesto, despite neither being mentioned in the referendum?
They did this due to The Salisbury Convention, which means that the Lords will not oppose a second or third reading of anything included in a party manifesto. This to me is backdooring.
Add to this that VoteLeave have been found guilty of illegal activity, and the vicious media propaganda, social media opinion influencing / NHS bus bullshit around it, and you can understand why so many people are pissed.
The real reason we are leaving, it all comes down to money, is that in Jan 2019, the EU is putting aggressive anti money laundering laws in place, which would slam the City of London hard, and of course affect 1%’ers offshore bank accounts / tax avoidance schemes, newspaper owners included of course.
Bigman80
18-07-2018, 13:51
OK, but how about The Conservatives including exiting the single market and customs union into their manifesto, despite neither being mentioned in the referendum?
They did this due to The Salisbury Convention, which means that the Lords will not oppose a second or third reading of anything included in a party manifesto. This to me is backdooring.
Add to this that VoteLeave have been found guilty of illegal activity, and the vicious media propaganda, social media opinion influencing / NHS bus bullshit around it, and you can understand why so many people are pissed.Again, I have to state the obvious.
For a half of an entire nation to suddenly be "surprised" that politicians are not always truthful, seems unreal to me.
Personally, I don't care whether we are in or out of rlghr EU, it has no immediate effect on anything that concerns me.
What has got on my tits, is that we are a democratic national and the losing side of a legal vote is crying like babies.
I don't care about the politics because it's irrelevant. It doesn't really make any difference what any of us think, those electect are they to run the country on our behalf. That means when a vote is held, they carry out the result to the best of their ability.
Tory Brexit, and all the other bullshit titles are only there to cause more division.
The entire nation got to have a say on whether we remained or not. If you didn't A) educate YOURSELF & B) do it BEFORE your vote, you have no right to cry foul after it.
The majority voted out. That's the only thing that matters.
Beobloke
18-07-2018, 14:44
Nial,
I think it's safe to say that this discussion is completely unsolvable. If anything, the general war between remoaners v Brexiteers has displayed just that.
Let's stick to the hifi because when religion or politics get involved, the discussion is always personal.
As an aside, if you’re going to use the derogatory term “remoaners”, perhaps you ought to refer to their opposition as”Brexitards” for balance?
I fine with having another Brexit vote providing we can re-start the World Cup from the semi finals and we re-play the Champions League final again.
And if England and Liverpool lose again I reserve the right to demand another re-start.
What? What do you mean that's not how it works in the real world?
Beobloke
18-07-2018, 14:52
To be fair, Ireland were given two goes at their EU vote...
walpurgis
18-07-2018, 15:01
Arguing for another vote, is a bit like what they do in America in criminal trials in some states or federal prosecutions and where double jeapardy may not apply. If you are tried for an alleged crime and aquitted or given a mistrial, they simply re-arrest you on a variation of the charge and try you again until they get the result they want, a conviction. They'll even trump up other charges if the first fails, like conspiracy for instance and tack those on.
As an aside, if you’re going to use the derogatory term “remoaners”, perhaps you ought to refer to their opposition as”Brexitards” for balance?
How about 'Remoaners' and 'Wrecksiteers'?
Stryder5
18-07-2018, 16:03
I didn't read all of the posts from the beginning, couldn't be arsed.
I have to correct a readily held misconception below Oli.
We do not live in a democracy, but an elected autocracy. We vote in MP's who are a political party orientated.
They do not represent us, they represent the political party.
There are not many free votes in the House of Commons, MP's vote is dictated by the Party Whip, who reflects the dictat of the Party Leader.
So our "democracy" is the result of Party Leaders views hardly a democracy!
Only my observation of how things work.
Gary
Again, I have to state the obvious.
For a half of an entire nation to suddenly be "surprised" that politicians are not always truthful, seems unreal to me.
Personally, I don't care whether we are in or out of rlghr EU, it has no immediate effect on anything that concerns me.
What has got on my tits, is that we are a democratic national and the losing side of a legal vote is crying like babies.
I don't care about the politics because it's irrelevant. It doesn't really make any difference what any of us think, those electect are they to run the country on our behalf. That means when a vote is held, they carry out the result to the best of their ability.
Tory Brexit, and all the other bullshit titles are only there to cause more division.
The entire nation got to have a say on whether we remained or not. If you didn't A) educate YOURSELF & B) do it BEFORE your vote, you have no right to cry foul after it.
The majority voted out. That's the only thing that matters.
Pigmy Pony
18-07-2018, 16:12
Nial,
I think it's safe to say that this discussion is completely unsolvable. If anything, the general war between remoaners v Brexiteers has displayed just that.
Let's stick to the hifi because when religion or politics get involved, the discussion is always personal.
Amen to that! :D
Bigman80
18-07-2018, 16:19
Fair enough but the fact remains,
The entire nation had a chance to vote, they did and it was to leave.
People really need to accept the result and move on.
I didn't read all of the posts from the beginning, couldn't be arsed.
I have to correct a readily held misconception below Oli.
We do not live in a democracy, but an elected autocracy. We vote in MP's who are a political party orientated.
They do not represent us, they represent the political party.
There are not many free votes in the House of Commons, MP's vote is dictated by the Party Whip, who reflects the dictat of the Party Leader.
So our "democracy" is the result of Party Leaders views hardly a democracy!
Only my observation of how things work.
Gary
Stryder5
18-07-2018, 16:29
I don't disagree, but leave is leave not some diluted EU membership that is titled Brexit.
It seems there are many orchestrated definitions of leave.
I'll leave it there :confused:
Fair enough but the fact remains,
The entire nation had a chance to vote, they did and it was to leave.
People really need to accept the result and move on.
The problem is there is no definition of what people voted for. It was just leave.
The question was: Should the UK remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?
Leave can mean almost anything and I'm sure not all leave voters had the same thing in mind. It's also a lot more obvious now what the issues are. We could have a much more informed vote now. In/Out and then 2nd preferences for what type of Leave is wanted by the nation - and yes that would gather the views of the Remainers should the result be Leave. If we are to leave surely we ALL have a right to say what this should look like.
The problem is there is no definition of what people voted for. It was just leave.
The question was: Should the UK remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?
Leave can mean almost anything and I'm sure not all leave voters had the same thing in mind. It's also a lot more obvious now what the issues are. We could have a much more informed vote now. In/Out and then 2nd preferences for what type of Leave is wanted by the nation - and yes that would gather the views of the Remainers should the result be Leave. If we are to leave surely we ALL have a right to say what this should look like.
So we are leaving but we should have another referendum about which type of leaving we want? From leaving in name only to telling them to stick it all and shoving the keys back through the letterbox. And some positions in between? I'd be up for that.
The only thing that I think is important is that we can in principle refuse to enact any of their laws, even if in practice we do. I don't think many people realise how critical that is.
If we don't have that legal get-out we are hitching ourselves to a wagon and going wherever it goes, even if it is to the gates of hell, and there won't be a damn thing we can do about it. That would be a sad end for a nation that has struggled so hard and so long to maintain its independence and uniqueness.
I doubt if another was held, it would be majority for leaving now folk know whats involved.
Beobloke
18-07-2018, 18:16
How about 'Remoaners' and 'Wrecksiteers'?
:) I like that!
Tory Brexit? .
Well, some facts.
This was a tory construct, implemented by Cameron, who was worried on two counts - that UKIP was making massive inroads into the tory voter base, and that the obstructive and grumbling hard right, anti europe tory MPs needed to be silenced for good and all. So, massive miscalculation, but totally Cameron and the tories baby. Fact.
Votes cast were
tories 61% leave to 39% remain
Labour 35% leave to 65% remain
Lib Dem 32% leave to 68% remain
Green 20% leave to 80% remain
Fact - its here
(http://https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted/)
Which party, decided to proceed to brexit on an advisory referendum? The tories. Fact.
Which party is, even though they now command no majority in parliament, two years whatever later, still - I use the term loosely - in charge of brexit? Fact.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is tory brexit.
That petition, BTW is https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/223729/
Bigman80
18-07-2018, 19:33
I didn't say the Tories didn't implement the vote or that they aren't doing the management of it, now did I ?
What I said was, they are TASKED with doing what the BRITISH PUBLIC VOTED FOR.
Your facts are meaningless and it's ridiculous to blame Tories for the referendum. They added it to their manifesto BECAUSE THE PUBLIC WANTED IT. UKIP gained ground on this subject because of the support for it. There was no miscalculation, or error of judgment. It got the Tories another term, regardless of majorities. Funny how UKIP have become less of an opposition now the Tories held the referendum.
That's what annoying here, a persistence to BLAME people. A snotty nosed attitude that anyone who voted to leave must be like "Bob", an uneducated council estate dweller, living on benefits and is terrified Abdul is going to come here and take the houses and jobs that as a British born male, has a god given right to. They're all Xenophobic, homophobic scum bags aren't they. All 16m of them (or whatever the majority was)
The Lefties are becoming extreme left because they didn't win the referendum. Insulting and belittling those who voted differently to them. It's pathetic.
The vote was cast, counted and the decision was to leave the EU. It was all done LEGALLY.
The breakdown of what political party each referendum voter usually votes for is irrelevant. It's just another tool being used to try and undermine the decision by bitter remainers, who cannot accept they didn't get their own way.
Well, some facts.
This was a tory construct, implemented by Cameron, who was worried on two counts - that UKIP was making massive inroads into the tory voter base, and that the obstructive and grumbling hard right, anti europe tory MPs needed to be silenced for good and all. So, massive miscalculation, but totally Cameron and the tories baby. Fact.
Votes cast were
tories 61% leave to 39% remain
Labour 35% leave to 65% remain
Lib Dem 32% leave to 68% remain
Green 20% leave to 80% remain
Fact - its here
(http://https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted/)
Which party, decided to proceed to brexit on an advisory referendum? The tories. Fact.
Which party is, even though they now command no majority in parliament, two years whatever later, still - I use the term loosely - in charge of brexit? Fact.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is tory brexit.
Why should anyone who claims to support democracy want to stop a second referendum? Surely it’s another chance to have a say with more facts available. If a majority still want to leave then so be it. If a majority want to remain, then it’s democracy in action. Those voting to leave had their wish in that we went down that road. Any subsequent vote will replace the previously expressed will.
Lawrence001
18-07-2018, 20:36
I'm with Oli on this one. And possibly Martin, but he's harder to pigeonhole.
Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk
What I said was, they are TASKED with doing what the BRITISH PUBLIC VOTED FOR.
Your facts are meaningless and it's ridiculous to blame Tories for the referendum.
Of course it was a daft Tory scheme - who else is there to blame.
The Tories dreamt it up, the Tories voted it in and the Tories are implementing it - not a TASK - just doing their job as Gov and seeing through what they started (albeit in a very ramshackle and Brian Rix fashion)
[QUOTE) The Lefties are becoming extreme left [/QUOTE]
Now you're just being silly for silly's sake ...
How about 'Remoaners' and 'Wrecksiteers'?
I kind of like 'Brekshitters' ... slight touch of the Sean Connery about it.
Bigman80
18-07-2018, 21:27
Behave Mikmas,
The "Tories" didn't vote anything at all to do with the decision to leave the EU.
The people did.
As for being silly for Silly's sake, again, belittling those who disagree with you. Isn't that ironic that you've proved my point so adequately.
Of course it was a daft Tory scheme - who else is there to blame.
The Tories dreamt it up, the Tories voted it in and the Tories are implementing it - not a TASK - just doing their job as Gov and seeing through what they started (albeit in a very ramshackle and Brian Rix fashion)
[QUOTE) The Lefties are becoming extreme left
Now you're just being silly for silly's sake ...[/QUOTE]
Having had the whole thread the only moaning and whining seems to be all coming from those who like to bang on about THE DEMOCRATIC WILL OF THE PEOPLE. It's classic 3 card trick.
Wherever this ends is not going to be a good place, for either the UK or the other countries in the EU. We seem to have forgotten what we are actually talking about here, as a country, and are just screaming about how much we hate each other.
Divide and rule.
Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk
walpurgis
18-07-2018, 23:05
"THE PEOPLE" are largely........the public at large. Many being part of an ill educated rabble who don't buy newspapers or read (if they can) any other source of information. At a guess, I'd say maybe 50% of the population are totally incapable of understanding anything more demanding than a betting slip.
At a guess, I'd say maybe 50% of the population are totally incapable of understanding anything more demanding than a betting slip.
I've always struggled with betting slips.
;)
Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk
... belittling those who disagree with you. Isn't that ironic that you've proved my point so adequately.
:lol:
Pot - Kettle - Black ...
From your very first post in this thread (#12):
"More desperate ploys by the remoaners."
'belittling those who disagree with you"
Don't make me laugh ...... :rolleyes:
This thread will rapidly end in tears if it descends into 'name calling'.
Bigman80
18-07-2018, 23:48
[emoji38]
Pot - Kettle - Black ...
From your very first post in this thread (#12):
"More desperate ploys by the remoaners."
'belittling those who disagree with you"
Don't make me laugh ...... :rolleyes:I don't believe I belittled you personally, Mike. There inlies the difference.
"now you are just being silly for Silly's sake"
- Personal
"More desperate ploys from the Remoaners"
- General in direction of a group actively trying to force a re-vote
Pot - kettle - oh, no sorry.
[emoji6] Good night.
Bigman80
18-07-2018, 23:49
This thread will rapidly end in tears if it descends into 'name calling'.That's what happens when intellect runs out, Barry.
... or 'zyxt'
(for the pedantic)
The Black Adder
19-07-2018, 09:21
It should be best of 3... lol
And whoever loses gets their teeth kicked in... HAHA
... or 'zyxt'
(for the pedantic)
Is this your attempt to have the last word? :D
More desperate ploys by the remoaners.
To not carry out the will of the voting majority, however marginal, is to end the democratic society our ancestors fought to build, and one we fight to maintain.
Whether you agree or disagree with the result, its irrelevant.
The country had ample time to educate themselves on the subject before placing their vote. If they didn't do it, they only have themselves to blame if they are now unhappy with the decision they made when they voted.
There should be NO 2nd referendum and the remoaners should get on with their lives. The sour grapes of the remoaners makes me sick. This is a land of democracy, if you don't like it, move out of it.
We ARE leaving the EU. The decision has been made by the Majority .
Written from someone who is completely sick of the behaviour of the remoaners.
I’m sorry but that simply isn’t the case. 17 million out of 65.6 million is only slightly more than one in four. A small minority voted for, and a slightly smallest minority voted against. A far larger number than either either couldn’t vote or didn’t bother. Of those that didn’t bother, quite a few assumed that remain was a foregone conclusion, and of those that couldn’t vote, many were below voting age and will be more deeply affected than any of us. The vast majority of those between 16 and 18 would have voted remain.
There should a second referendum, the voting age should be lowered to sixteen, and most importantly, voting should be compulsory, with an option on the ballot paper to express no preference if that is your considered opinion.
It’s such an insult to the memory of all those who fought and died over centuries for the right to vote to simply not bother.
Those who didn't vote don't count either way, you can only express a majority as a percentage of those who actually voted.
As far as letting children vote that would be a disaster. I'd raise the voting age to 25. No-one under 25 has got a bloody clue about anything, they've barely even opened their eyes at that age, especially these days were they get wrapped in cotton wool for their whole childhood.
walpurgis
19-07-2018, 12:38
As far as letting children vote that would be a disaster. I'd raise the voting age to 25. No-one under 25 has got a bloody clue about anything, they've barely even opened their eyes at that age, especially these days were they get wrapped in cotton wool for their whole childhood.
Damn right. When I think back to how I and my pals were until into our twenties. Pretty clueless about important things really and I was a sight smarter than most. My daughter was the same.
Nope, you’re quite right. Sixteen year-olds shouldn’t be allowed to vote at all. They’re old enough to marry, have kids, enlist and die for their country (as many did 100 years ago) but they’re definitely not capable of rational thought. Same’s true for old people. Stuck in their ways, out of touch with the modern world, badly educated decades ago and probably senile. Don’t let pensioners anywhere near a ballot paper! And as for women, well, let’s face it, they’re a pretty flakey lot, aren’t they? Best not let them vote. Far better to leave the voting to people with experience, who’ve made a success of their lives, who understand the ways of the world and had a good education. People like Cameron, Gove, Johnson and Rees-Mogg. People of integrity that you can trust to make the right decision on behalf of us poor innocents.
Yatsushiro
19-07-2018, 13:08
"THE PEOPLE" are largely........the public at large. Many being part of an ill educated rabble who don't buy newspapers or read (if they can) any other source of information. At a guess, I'd say maybe 50% of the population are totally incapable of understanding anything more demanding than a betting slip.
I assume you made a typo, in that you meant maybe 5%? If not, perhaps you need to widen your circle of friends/acquaintances.
.
walpurgis
19-07-2018, 13:27
That had me going there for a moment. I enjoy humour.
Is this your attempt to have the last word? :D
;)
Nope, you’re quite right. Sixteen year-olds shouldn’t be allowed to vote at all. They’re old enough to marry, have kids, enlist and die for their country (as many did 100 years ago) but they’re definitely not capable of rational thought. .
Although we were one of the last countries to abolish so called 'child soldiers' you can't go on active service now until you are 18. You can't marry under 18 without permission of a parent or guardian. Yes they can legally have sex and perhaps children as a result, but I don't count that as a qualification for voting rights.
I see you point in that any age group can be 'unqualified' to vote but I think with age 18 is the lower limit and we have that already. Otherwise you are just making a bad situation worse: Lets have even more people who are utterly clueless voting!
Just doesn't work for me.
Can marry in Scotland at 16.
Can you vote for anyone there at 16?
The referendum, and afaik now can vote in local and Scottish parliamentary elections.
The referendum, and afaik now can vote in local and Scottish parliamentary elections.
So they could vote in the EU ref? Or just the Scottish independence one?
Not In eu ref. That was a uk vote
Pigmy Pony
19-07-2018, 18:41
"THE PEOPLE" are largely........the public at large. Many being part of an ill educated rabble who don't buy newspapers or read (if they can) any other source of information. At a guess, I'd say maybe 50% of the population are totally incapable of understanding anything more demanding than a betting slip.
So the opposite of ill educated rabble is newspapers buyers? I NEVER buy newspapers, not because I'm thick (though I am a bit), but because I don't trust them to give me the truth on anything important without twisting the "facts" to suit someone's agenda, and for unimportant stuff I've got YouTube.
I'm not sure ANYONE knew all of the consequences of leaving the EU. A few may have had some idea, but only in terms of how it affected them personally. Why else would politicians, even ones within the same party have such conflicting views on the subject?
The leave vote is what it is, and to have a new referendum would just take the piss out of the democracy we supposedly live in. Although those that told us lies (Bobby Boris Johnson and his Shit-kickers) should be put in the stocks and pelted with rotten fruit shaped house bricks.
Threads like this amuse me.
The pound is going to be worth next to nothing.
All the major companies will leave the U.K. as customs charges come into play, and the country will carry on going down the pan.
The fact that the majority voted based on false truths (the extra millions going into the NHS and the immigration issues) to leave is laughable. You will leave the EU, still pay the same fees as before and have no benefits from being a member.
What could possibly go wrong?
The EU are making an example of the U.K. so it is not going to be an easy ride!
I am remaining in the EU.
Scotland voted to remain in but were out voted by the damned Sassanachs. Lol
Scotland voted to remain in but were out voted by the damned Sassanachs. LolI wouldn't be terribly surprised to see it lead to Scottish independence in the not too distant future.
Reunification of Ireland has also become not unimaginable.
Meanwhile homelessness is on the rise and the the grass grows long in the parks.
Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk
montesquieu
19-07-2018, 20:53
Threads like this amuse me.
The pound is going to be worth next to nothing.
All the major companies will leave the U.K. as customs charges come into play, and the country will carry on going down the pan.
The fact that the majority voted based on false truths (the extra millions going into the NHS and the immigration issues) to leave is laughable. You will leave the EU, still pay the same fees as before and have no benefits from being a member.
What could possibly go wrong?
The EU are making an example of the U.K. so it is not going to be an easy ride!
I am remaining in the EU.
Utter nonsense. There was never a single market in services (80% of the UK economy anyway) and never likely to be because of vested interests in the other large EU economies, which simply never learned to compete in these areas globally.
The (North American) IT company I work for is booming in the UK and has been for months, with companies here investing in systems. We had our best ever quarter and our best ever year in FY 17-18 (which just ended in June according to our timetable). This is predominantly investment in new systems made by major multinationals, focused in the UK. We are doing better than France, Spain, Italy, Holland .. even Germany.
Anecdote is not data of course, but in my view anyone dumb enough to buy into Project Fear (Groaniad readers generally) needs to read a bit more widely. The anti Brexit propaganda before during and since has been utterly OTT and far outweighs anything nonsense on the side of buses that the Remain lot complained about.
The worst-case referendum predictions showed a pretty small effect on UK GDP from a Brexit vote with a substantial potential for upside if played well. The only thing that can mess it up is precisely what has happened - a cack-handed government not taking necessary steps to make a success of it.
I was more or less for remain, not because I like the EU (far from it, it's utterly corrupt and undemocratic, the whole Junker-Selmayr thing is a perfect case in point), but because I was worried about the impact on Scottish independence, which I'm resolutely against, and I was also a bit concerned about the hassle factor.
But since we voted out, the only logical thing that makes any sense is a proper, hard Brexit that actually focuses on obtaining the advantages of being out - not some half-in nonsense that is all obligation without influence.
walpurgis
19-07-2018, 21:16
Despite the predictions and guesses, nobody knows how it will turn out. No doubt not even those 'organising' things, regardless of which side of the table they are sat. The situation was much the same in 1973 when Britain signed up to the Common Market, as it was called then. Did expectations match the realities? Were the goalposts moved?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DiYwXWeX0AApq6w.jpg
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/07/16/the-brexit-dividend-expect-a-lost-decade-of-economic-underperformance-and-political-crisis/
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DiYwXWeX0AApq6w.jpg
I'll just clarify that this is a Yougov poll conducted on the 16th-17th July, the questions being:
Britain to remain in the EU
Britain to leave the EU and accept the negotiated deal
Britain to leave the EU without a deal.
the results are
Britain to remain in the EU 50%
Britain to leave the EU and accept the negotiated deal 17%
Britain to leave the EU without a deal 33%
and with weighting applied for second preference expressed
Britain to remain in the EU 55%
Britain to leave the EU without a deal 45%
Figures are also broken down by geographical region, age, political affiliation etc, which makes for interesting reading.
From the LSE link in the previous post
"Yet closer examination of the evidence paints a far less rosy picture. It is of course impossible to know how the economy would have fared in the absence of a vote to leave the EU as we have no observable counterfactual. Yet UK growth has slowed markedly since the referendum in 2016, over a period when the rest of the global economy has boomed. The UK has gone from top of the G7 growth league in 2015 to likely bottom in 2018. All else equal, growth in the UK economy should have accelerated and not slowed over this period. World growth increased in 2017 to 3.8 percent, with a notable rebound in global trade which is expected to endure through 2018. At the same time the Bank of England loosened policy, and the Treasury soft-pedalled on fiscal policy. Yet despite this, something seems to be acting as a powerful drag on UK growth and this is consistent with a negative Brexit effect."
For those who haven't read the thread in its entirety, there is link to a petition to rescind article 50, which would probably necessitate a referendum worded not unlike the above, in the first post.
Lawrence001
20-07-2018, 10:00
Was about to write something rude then I looked at your profile and realised who you are so I'm keeping schtum. Those Ureis at Kegworth were the highlight of the show for me :)
Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk
I agree. The financial crash of 2008 was a huge event of monumental proportions, yet how many economists and politicians saw it coming? Not many. So why should we have any faith in their ability to predict the economy of the future?Your position appears to be that because someone was once eaten by a wolf you do now on principle not heed any warnings about wolves?
;)
https://www.ft.com/content/452dc484-9bdc-11de-b214-00144feabdc0
Was about to write something rude then I looked at your profile and realised who you are so I'm keeping schtum. Those Ureis at Kegworth were the highlight of the show for me :)
Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk
Why, that's really nice of you!
Howsitgoin' Lawrence - was good hanging out with you! Till next year?
Have amassed all the components to make a pair of JBL 4430 clones....
montesquieu
20-07-2018, 11:07
Your position appears to be that because someone was once eaten by a wolf you do now on principle not heed any warnings about wolves?
;)
https://www.ft.com/content/452dc484-9bdc-11de-b214-00144feabdc0
Since the referendum I've come close to cancelling my subscription to The Economist, something I've had runing for over 30 years. The reason is that it has ceased to attempt to report on the Brexit debate with anything close to impartiality. The same applies to the FT. Both see themselves now as players in something that isn't finished, part of an attempt to swing the debate back by partisan reporting of statistics, and by miscaracterisation of Brexiteers as thick or deranged.
As I mentioned I was a soft remainer at the time of the referendum but acknowledge there were (and are) strong arguments either way. But the people voted, and that has to be respected. Most Brexit supporters I know voted out of a concern for sovereignty, at the democratic deficit from an overbearing EU commission, and to some extent also at concern that the EU had lost control of its borders. (At the time of the vote this seemed pretty clear though it has unquestionably improved since then).
Since then I have been persuaded into the soft Brexiteer camp, mainly out of irritation at those who are using the issue for sneering and virtue signalling - look at me I'm not a knuckle dragging, kick the immigrants out oik like those thick Brexit voters - identity politics cuts both ways and that sort of condescending attitude is something that I want nothing to do with.
As to the arguments, I read quite widely (not just the Groan or the FT) have read material on everything from the result being an asteroid strike on the UK economy to predictions of +3% GDP per annum after an initial adjustment period. All arguments are partisan and none, I believe, can be taken as gospel. Most Brexiteers acknowledge that there will be an initial negative impact but even the worst case treasury predictions were not catastrophic in this regard.
Many countries around the world manage to trade perfectly well outside the EU, thanks to the WTO and to bilateral treaties. The doom meisters need to acknowledge that the EU (the Commission mainly but also other actors including some politicians) is trying as hard as it can to manipulate sentiment and that its statements should be read entirely in that light.
There is a particularly idiotic example of this today - the Irish PM saying he'll ban UK flights over Irish airspace. Kind of backfired a bit though - what a clown, didn't exactly think it through:
https://i.imgur.com/u9J7hVT.jpg
It is of course impossible to know how the economy would have fared in the absence of a vote to leave the EU as we have no observable counterfactual. ."
.
It is 'of course', making this absolutely worthless as far as proving a point goes.
In any case most of us who voted out are prepared to accept any associated economic issues; some things are more important than money.
If we'd had a referendum prior to Maastricht, or if Heath had not lied about the nature and intentions of the EEC prior to the original referendum we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.
Leaving the EU is the start of fixing what is broken and that's not going to be without some associated pain.
montesquieu
20-07-2018, 11:15
On the virtue signalling issue BTW I had an interesting conversation last week. My wife is an academic and I was picking her up from a post-graduation 'do' where the lecturers get pissed before going off for the summer.
I found myself with several senior history academics, a professor in the business department and a retired philosophy professor, husband of one of the historians.
I brought up Brexit myself and it was fascinating to watch this group slowly realise that they were all to varying degrees in favour of Brexit - something they had never admitted to each other as it's not a 'safe' view to hold in academic circles.
Pro-Brexit and other more conservative views are simply not safe to express in academic circles these days, in case individuals expressing them get labelled and targeted - sad but true.
Since the referendum I've come close to cancelling my subscription to The Economist, something I've had runing for over 30 years. The reason is that it has ceased to attempt to report on the Brexit debate with anything close to impartiality.
I agree, The Economist has sacrificed its reputation on the altar of Brexit. Very sad to see.
The Economist has sacrificed its reputation on the altar of Brexit.
Time will tell.
...it has ceased to attempt to report on the Brexit debate with anything close to impartiality. The same applies to the FT.
The FT link was to an article from 2009 that was about how all of the economists who had been predicting the crash had been ignored or sidelined. I posted it in response to your declaration that nobody had predicted that crash, so why should we pay any attention now.
Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk
Some economists did predict that crash, I predicted it and I'm not an economist.
To me this is a good example of how seriously the predictions of economists are taken in the real world. I.e not seriously at all. There's a reason for that.
The doom meisters need to acknowledge that the EU (the Commission mainly but also other actors including some politicians) is trying as hard as it can to manipulate sentiment and that its statements should be read entirely in that light.
Can we take it from this that you are saying that anything negative we hear about the possible consequences of Brexit are still just a part of Project Fear, and should be ignored?
montesquieu
20-07-2018, 13:14
The FT link was to an article from 2009 that was about how all of the economists who had been predicting the crash had been ignored or sidelined. I posted it in response to your declaration that nobody had predicted that crash, so why should we pay any attention now.
Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk
I cancelled my FT subscription so was unable to get to the link, as I mentioned I am thinking of doing the same with The Economist.
At the time of the crash it was fairly clear there was a massive global housing bubble at the very least (I sold up end of 2006 - fortuitous location move as it happens, rather than foresight) but I elected not to buy in again till 2013 as I thought 2007 prices were utter madness - a gut feeling that was proved correct. Though few imagined the extent to which worthless mainly but not exclusively sub-prime US mortgages had been re-sold and securitised around the world, or the impact the bursting of the housing bubble would have.
People have been predicting chaos coming out of China in similar fashion, the same inidicators are flashing red and the Chinese central bank is working overtime to contain it (succesfully up till now) though once again I suspect it will take the world 'by surprise' and it's likely Trump will get the blame.
montesquieu
20-07-2018, 13:22
Can we take it from this that you are saying that anything negative we hear about the possible consequences of Brexit are still just a part of Project Fear, and should be ignored?
Of course there will be negative consequences and these should have been stated clearly. The argument for Brexit is a long-term one, I can't see how it will fail to have impact on manufacturing supply chains and consequently on investment and jobs in some of those sectors, and the short-term pain associated with that may appear to be severe as the sector is very good at making a noise and the media will report it with glee.
Some banking jobs have been lost though it's worth noting that more have been created than have moved away in the interim - that's to be expected. Equally though ask anyone who knows Frankfurt (or Dublin for that matter, for different reasons), it's not exactly a brilliant place to live compared to London if you are a wealthy banker, especially from a family perspective. These things do matter.
All in all though, live outside the EU is perfectly possible and some things - food for example - will be cheaper if we move away from compulsorily subsidising French and Italian rural lifestyles, which is what the ruinously expensive CAP is all about!
As it happens I would have had more respect for the Scottish Nationalists if they had owned up to the (potentially far more serious and longer term) economic consequences of secession from the UK and said 'it's worth it to chart our own destiny'. But they didn't (for obvious reasons).
People have been predicting chaos coming out of China in similar fashion, the same inidicators are flashing red and the Chinese central bank is working overtime to contain it (succesfully up till now) though once again I suspect it will take the world 'by surprise' and it's likely Trump will get the blame.
I am a little confused now as to what your position is. Do you mind if I recap what I think you have said?:
A. In 2008 it was "fairly clear" that there was a housing bubble, but no one predicted the crash. Because no-one predicted that crash, we should not listen to the warnings that Brexit will set back the UK economy?
B. There is a looming global economic crisis that will originate in China, but warnings about it are being ignored, and when it happens Donald Trump will be scapegoated for it.
C. We should be paying attention to some warnings (eg about China) but not others (eg about Brexit). Also because there were no economists who predicted the 2008 crash, we shouldn't actually pay attention to any warnings at all? (Martin takes this further and seems to say warnings from economists should never be taken seriously)
D. Anything said by anyone in the EU should be discounted because they have a vested interest in making us think it will all go very badly for us if we leave.
I apologise if this is a bit garbled, but I am really trying to understand your position here. Am I close?
EDIT DUE TO CROSS POSTING::
I just saw that you replied before this post, which i did not see. From that post I understand that you further believe that:
i] The negative effects to industry are being grossly exaggerated by the sectors involved
ii] Bankers will not leave London because it is a great place to live (this appears to be regardless of how the final agreement affects their ability to actually perform their work)
iii] Food will be cheaper after Brexit because we no longer will have to subsidise French and Italian farmers
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/food-statistics-pocketbook-2017/food-statistics-in-your-pocket-2017-global-and-uk-supply
Please excuse any confusion caused by my missing your previous response!
Link to the full YouGov survey - instructive to will of the people espousers.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/j26n4y534f/TimesResults_180717_VI_Trackers_w.pdf
montesquieu
20-07-2018, 14:08
I am a little confused now as to what your position is. Do you mind if I recap what I think you have said?:
A. In 2008 it was "fairly clear" that there was a housing bubble, but no one predicted the crash. Because no-one predicted that crash, we should not listen to the warnings that Brexit will set back the UK economy?
What a strange argument. Comment was unrelated to Brexit and in response to comments about 2009.
B. There is a looming global economic crisis that will originate in China, but warnings about it are being ignored, and when it happens Donald Trump will be scapegoated for it.
Pretty much. Though to be fair, the scapegoating might not be entirely unfounded. He is correct though 1) to call China on its outrageous behavior regarding intellectual property and 2) the EU's duplicitous behavior in talking free trade but acting as a walled garden with all sorts of non-tarrif barriers designed to protect assorted vested interests).
C. We should be paying attention to some warnings (eg about China) but not others (eg about Brexit). Also because there were no economists who predicted the 2008 crash, we shouldn't actually pay attention to any warnings at all? (Martin takes this further and seems to say warnings from economists should never be taken seriously)
The 2009 financial crisis or the coming China meltdown are of a different order entirely to any potential Brexit disruption. Simply not in the same bracket - even if you are talking purely about UK only impacts and not globally - and it's utterly ridiculous to draw any equivalence.
[EDIT - from my earlier post] All arguments are partisan and none, I believe, can be taken as gospel. Most Brexiteers acknowledge that there will be an initial negative impact but even the worst case treasury predictions were not catastrophic in this regard.
D. Anything said by anyone in the EU should be discounted because they have a vested interest in making us think it will all go very badly for us if we leave.
Yup pretty much. They have a vested interest in making an example of us, and we should have known that from Day 1 and acted accordingly. Our whole approach to the negotiation has been utterly cack-handed and May will go down in history as one of the most hapless prime minsters ever, making even Gordon Brown look good in the process.
Indeed I suspect that there's a modest chance that Brexit might not happen because of this, which the more conspiracy minded might well believe was intentional all along. (I'm not, I'm firmly in the cock-up theory of Government as opposed to conspiracy theories .. but I can certainly see there's a case for that viewpoint).
Patrick Dixon
20-07-2018, 14:19
Of course there will be negative consequences and these should have been stated clearly. The argument for Brexit is a long-term one, I can't see how it will fail to have impact on manufacturing supply chains and consequently on investment and jobs in some of those sectors, and the short-term pain associated with that may appear to be severe as the sector is very good at making a noise and the media will report it with glee.
Yeah, so long as the pain is not personally ours, who cares? I am all for 'principles' so long as someone else pays for them ...
(What no one advocating Brexit seems to acknowledge is that doing any kind of trade deal, or deal at all, with anyone, means giving up some sovereignty. Just look at the power the US legal system has over British citizens when it comes to pursuing US aims.)
All in all though, live outside the EU is perfectly possible and some things - food for example - will be cheaper if we move away from compulsorily subsidising French and Italian rural lifestyles, which is what the ruinously expensive CAP is all about!
Is cheaper better though? Could you tell a cheaper chlorine-washed chicken from an expensive unwashed one in your supermarket? Or hormone-feed beef? Do you care about the welfare of the animals whose flesh or eggs you eat ... or whose milk you drink? Do you care about the shape of our countryside or whether the planet is damaged shipping cheaper food half way around the world?
montesquieu
20-07-2018, 14:24
Is cheaper better though? Could you tell a cheaper chlorine-washed chicken from an expensive unwashed one in your supermarket? Or hormone-feed beef? Do you care about the welfare of the animals whose flesh or eggs you eat ... or whose milk you drink? Do you care about the shape of our countryside or whether the planet is damaged shipping cheaper food half way around the world?
We already have Thai chicken and seafood (in theory to EU standards but very hard to monitor), Danish pork (much lower animal welfare standards than ours), French veal and foie gras made to traditional (pretty cruel) methods. EU vested interests are everywhere in local exceptions to regulation.
The chlorinated chicken thing is held up as the great example, but in reality that will not be allowed, nor growth hormone beef - consumers are far too educated. But at the moment we could be getting far more food from non-EU sources but can't because of import tarrifs up to 60% along with many rules that are non-functional and purely obstructionist.
Again, scare tactics. Don't believe everything you read in the Groan.
Link to the full YouGov survey - instructive to will of the people espousers.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/j26n4y534f/TimesResults_180717_VI_Trackers_w.pdf
The "WILL OF THE PEOPLE" argument is clearly nonsense. I am not suggesting that the result of the referendum was anything other than c. 52/48 for leave, but rather that the way that is being used is fundamentally dishonest. The dishonest argument being put forward by Rees-Mogg and all the other hard-Brexiters is that anything less than a no deal brexit would disrespect the result of the referendum.
The Prime Minister went unchallenged the other day when responding to Peter Bone saying that his activists were feeling betrayed.
She said "I believe this is what people voted for when they voted leave."
And that's the problem here. No-one knows what people actually had in mind when they voted, because that was not the question. Theresa may doesn't KNOW what people voted for, she can only guess.
It is all just a question of interpretation, and as soon as anyone suggests anything they are shouted down for suggesting something that "wasn't what people voted for." It is two years on and no-one has a clue what to expect, any warnings are rubbished no matter where they come from, and we are expected to be satisfied with "calm down don't worry it's all going to be fine although we can't actually explain how".
Meanwhile our freedom of movement is set to be dramatically curtailed, which appears to be just tough shit because "the will of the people" doesn't want to go and live in Italy anyway, so suck it up you lost get over it.
My prediction is this is going to all end in a complete and utter shit show which will ultimately be blamed upon "remoaners", the EU, and (that old favourite) immigrants.
EDIT:
The chlorinated chicken thing is held up as the great example, but in reality that will not be allowed...
see above "don't worry it's all going to be fine" -although we can't actually guarantee it. This will depend very much on how well we negotiate our trade deals. Judging by how well we are failing to negotiate our exit from the EU, forgive me if I do not share your confidence.
What a strange argument. Comment was unrelated to Brexit and in response to comments about 2009. I confused you with another - apologies
Indeed I suspect that there's a modest chance that Brexit might not happen because of this, which the more conspiracy minded might well believe was intentional all along. (I'm not, I'm firmly in the cock-up theory of Government as opposed to conspiracy theories .. but I can certainly see there's a case for that viewpoint). Here's hoping.
The "WILL OF THE PEOPLE" argument is clearly nonsense. I am not suggesting that the result of the referendum was anything other than c. 52/48 for leave, but rather that the way that is being used is fundamentally dishonest. The dishonest argument being put forward by Rees-Mogg and all the other hard-Brexiters is that anything less than a no deal brexit would disrespect the result of the referendum.
.
I agree, the ref was in or out but the nature of out was not defined so the idea that anything but a hard brexit is not the will of the people doesn't stack up.
re economists: I did not say that they should never be listened to. The point I was making was that in practice they are not listened to. The reasons are twofold
1) Nobody is an 'expert' on economics.
2) For every economist who says one thing you can find an economist who says the exact opposite.
Similarly, when we had the first referendum back in 1975, "in" wasn't what it became 40 years later.
How is that similar?
Heath knew what we were really voting for - entry into a nascent European Superstate. He just failed to mention that at the time.
Bloody Brexit... BORES THE SHITE OUT OF ME, AND AM FED UP HEARING ABOUT IT!!!! :steam::doh::punch::nocomment::please:
Carry on....;)
Marco.
Bloody Brexit... BORES THE SHITE OUT OF ME, AND AM FED UP HEARING ABOUT IT!!!! :steam::doh::punch::nocomment::please:
I think we can all agree on that really. It would be nice to just be able to get on with our lives without everyone screaming at each other.
Not had anyone screaming at me about Brexit. Or do you mean on the news? I don't watch that. It's bad for you.
prestonchipfryer
20-07-2018, 17:58
Bloody Brexit... BORES THE SHITE OUT OF ME, AND AM FED UP HEARING ABOUT IT!!!! :steam::doh::punch::nocomment::please:
Carry on....;)
Marco.
:)
Patrick Dixon
20-07-2018, 18:13
The chlorinated chicken thing is held up as the great example, but in reality that will not be allowed, nor growth hormone beef - consumers are far too educated.
I don't believe consumers are particularly educated, or have the time and the energy to become so. That people are getting fatter and that your children's generation has a lower life expectation than you, is quite probably evidence of that. I don't believe either, that we will get some great trade deal with the likes of the US without bending over and taking it. In negotiations, size is power and power always gets what it wants ... which is why of course we are better off negotiating as part of the EU.
Again, scare tactics. Don't believe everything you read in the Groan.Indeed, that lovely Boris Johnson bloke has all our best interests at heart (even if Rees-Mogg is clearly just out for himself). But it sounds like you and your retired history profs have it all figured out; that's got to be the very definition of living in the past, hasn't it?
Patrick Dixon
20-07-2018, 18:14
Bloody Brexit... BORES THE SHITE OUT OF ME, AND AM FED UP HEARING ABOUT IT!!!! :steam::doh::punch::nocomment::please:
Carry on....;)
Marco.
Me too, it's just wasted the last two years for this country. Let's call the whole thing off.
The Black Adder
20-07-2018, 18:21
Lets face it... Brexit will happen. No petition will change that.
Fed up of hearing about it, really, really fed up of hearing about it.... we just all have to watch this car hit the wall.
. I don't believe either, that we will get some great trade deal with the likes of the US without bending over and taking it. In negotiations, size is power and power always gets what it wants ... which is why of course we are better off negotiating as part of the EU.
?
Don't mistake the size of the UK on the map with the economic reality. The UK is one of the world's largest economies and largest manufacturing nations, as well as being a highly lucrative market for imported goods. Like Tom I work for a U.S company and they are investing billions here. Not at all bothered about Brexit.
Pigmy Pony
20-07-2018, 18:38
What's that weird stuff stuck to the rest of the forum? Oh ok, it's just cobwebs. :)
Don't blame me. Some older boys started it and then ran off.
Pigmy Pony
20-07-2018, 18:48
:lol: Older than us? Wow, that is old, surprised they could run.
nonuffin
20-07-2018, 19:03
The biggest mistake the british public made was entrusting the brexit process to politicians.
When the EU decided that the leaving fee was 57 billion quid, then somneone with some backbone should have told them to go swim the atlantic with an anvil strapped on their back, but no snarling and teeth baring happened with the nitwits we have got doing the negotiating reacted to that demand FFS
chris@panteg
20-07-2018, 21:45
The whole thing has been a shambles and we are heading now to what looks like a no Deal brexit or it seems likely.
God knows what's going to happen if that is the result, I guess the best thing to do is keep playing music and stop thinking about it, out of our hands.
montesquieu
20-07-2018, 22:00
I don't believe consumers are particularly educated, or have the time and the energy to become so. That people are getting fatter and that your children's generation has a lower life expectation than you, is quite probably evidence of that. I don't believe either, that we will get some great trade deal with the likes of the US without bending over and taking it. In negotiations, size is power and power always gets what it wants ... which is why of course we are better off negotiating as part of the EU.
Indeed, that lovely Boris Johnson bloke has all our best interests at heart (even if Rees-Mogg is clearly just out for himself). But it sounds like you and your retired history profs have it all figured out; that's got to be the very definition of living in the past, hasn't it?
Like I said, don’t believe everything you read in the groan. And yes it’s perfectly possible to think Boris Johnson is a complete pillock yet still come round to believing Brexit could be a positive thing long term for the UK.
And yes it’s perfectly possible to think Boris Johnson is a complete pillock yet still come round to believing Brexit could be a positive thing long term for the UK.
"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Alice in Wonderland.
montesquieu
20-07-2018, 23:52
"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Alice in Wonderland.
Arrogant condescending bollocks didn’t win the referendum argument at the time. What makes you think itll work now?
All those non EU countries look at the idiots lapping up the EU propaganda and laugh at them. I have a colleague in Switzerland who simply can’t understand what on earth our quivering, fearful Remoaners are so worried about.
Arrogant condescending bollocks didn’t win the referendum argument at the time. What makes you think itll work now?
All those non EU countries look at the idiots lapping up the EU propaganda and laugh at them. I have a colleague in Switzerland who simply can’t understand what on earth our quivering, fearful Remoaners are so worried about.
Well, aside from describing Lewis Carrol as "arrogant condescending bollocks" - surely a first - the referendum surely was won by exactly such arrogant condescending bollocks, if I can borrow your phrase.
I give you project fear, the bus, the we don't need experts.
Just the first three that came to mind.
And as leavers on here have no hesitation into descending into ad hom - I'll also point out that this is surely a sure sign that they are on shaky ground and feel their position threatened.
Let's have some credible, (not ERG funded jism) facts posted by leavers which credibly demonstrate tory brexit will bring:
Better economic performance, short and long term.
Trade deals with no loss of sovereignty.
Lower immigration without the health service and agriculture keeling over.
Yeah, I know, I could so easily add controls on oligarch money laundering in London, proper taxation of mega corporations, addressing offshore tax avoidance, but we'll leave it to those first three. And facts, not "I believe" or "I have a mate that" or "stupid remoaners won't have this". Some FACTS, by someone reasonably expert will do nicely.
Pigmy Pony
21-07-2018, 08:46
Some facts, by someone reasonably expert? Good luck with that one, you may have a bit of a wait. Did you bring a flask?
Seriously, I don't believe that what you're asking for exists, although they will start to appear in the fullness of time, to say 'I knew this would happen'.
walpurgis
21-07-2018, 08:52
Some facts, by someone reasonably expert? Good luck with that one, you may have a bit of a wait.
Damn right.
Reading through some of the posts here is quite entertaining. So many giving the impression they think they have 'the high ground', when of course they don't. 'Cos there ain't none!......Yet....................And what's that funny smell? Is it indignation or could it possibly be self righteousness?
Some facts, by someone reasonably expert? Good luck with that one, you may have a bit of a wait. Did you bring a flask?
Seriously, I don't believe that what you're asking for exists, although they will start to appear in the fullness of time, to say 'I knew this would happen'.
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/Exiting-the-European-Union/17-19/Cross-Whitehall-briefing/EU-Exit-Analysis-Cross-Whitehall-Briefing.pdf
Economics - it is impossible to say how the experiment will work out until we conduct it. No-one can be an expert on a system so large and with so many variables that cannot be quantified. There are credible arguments that go both ways on this.
Loss Of Sovereignty in trade deals - you'll need to define what you mean by sovereignty. To me it is a legal term, Whose court has the last say? If we had a trade deal with the USA would the U.S Supreme Court have the last say in matters of English Law? No it wouldn't. As a member of the EU a UK Court does not have the last say. I find that unacceptable.
Labour shortage due to Lower Immigration - the point here is that you do not necessarily have lower immigration you just have control over who you allow to immigrate. If you need doctors and nurses or whatever , they can immigrate. You don't want unskilled labourers because you have enough of them unemployed here already, so you don't let them immigrate.
walpurgis
21-07-2018, 09:43
If we had a trade deal with the USA would the U.S Supreme Court have the last say in matters of English Law? No it wouldn't.
It would do in some cases under TTIP. There should be more trepidation over that being implemented than anything involving the EU.
It would do in some cases under TTIP. There should be more trepidation over that being implemented than anything involving the EU.
Specifically? I've seen this claimed before but with no evidence and when I looked I couldn't find any.
Or even more generally, what would be an example of a 'Loss of sovereignty' in a trade deal?
Economics - it is impossible to say how the experiment will work out until we conduct it. No-one can be an expert on a system so large and with so many variables that cannot be quantified. There are credible arguments that go both ways on this.
I posted a credible link in the post prior to this. I'd find something similar supporting assertions that tory brexit will be economically beneficial, short and long term, acceptable, if you can post something.
Loss Of Sovereignty in trade deals - you'll need to define what you mean by sovereignty. To me it is a legal term, Whose court has the last say? If we had a trade deal with the USA would the U.S Supreme Court have the last say in matters of English Law? No it wouldn't. As a member of the EU a UK Court does not have the last say. I find that unacceptable.
Well, if we rewind to TTIP, which you'll admit is representative of what we may have to accept (actually, given the rush we will be in, it's likely that we'll achieve worse than TTIP), there was Investor-State Dispute Settlement, whereby corporations could sue states over perceived loss of profits due to state laws (eg, as has happened, environmental), this process to prevail over existing state law. Something like this is the norm in most negotiated trade agreements now.
Not regaining sovereignty in my book.
Labour shortage due to Lower Immigration - the point here is that you do not necessarily have lower immigration you just have control over who you allow to immigrate. If you need doctors and nurses or whatever , they can immigrate. You don't want unskilled labourers because you have enough of them unemployed here already, so you don't let them immigrate.
Again, some factual indication that this is likely to happen as a result of tory brexit? Because at the moment it looks "unlikely". Do some googling around falling numbers of nurses post referendum.
Specifically? I've seen this claimed before but with no evidence and when I looked I couldn't find any.
Or even more generally, what would be an example of a 'Loss of sovereignty' in a trade deal?
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/10/obscure-legal-system-lets-corportations-sue-states-ttip-icsid
I posted a credible link in the post prior to this. I'd find something similar supporting assertions that tory brexit will be economically beneficial, short and long term, acceptable, if you can post something.
There is nothing that predicts short term benefits. Long term benefits are just speculation, is there any point posting them? And it all depends on the final nature of the exit anyway, which we don't know yet.
Well, if we rewind to TTIP, which you'll admit is representative of what we may have to accept (actually, given the rush we will be in, it's likely that we'll achieve worse than TTIP), there was Investor-State Dispute Settlement, whereby corporations could sue states over perceived loss of profits due to state laws, this process to prevail over existing state law. Something like this is the norm in most negotiated trade agreements now.
Not regaining sovereignty in my book.
If you sue someone then it has to be decided in a court of law. The question is whose court?
Again, some factual indication that this is likely to happen as a result of tory brexit? Because at the moment it looks "unlikely".
I don't understand? Practical reality dictates that if you need to import workers then you will import them. Regardless of policy or ideology. There is no possible scenario in which that would not happen.
The only time there is a problem is if you want them and they don't come. But that is irrelevant to whether UK is in the EU or not.
I posted a credible link in the post prior to this. I'd find something similar supporting assertions that tory brexit will be economically beneficial, short and long term, acceptable, if you can post something.
There is nothing that predicts short term benefits. Long term benefits are just speculation, is there any point posting them? And it all depends on the final nature of the exit anyway, which we don't know yet.
Well, if we rewind to TTIP, which you'll admit is representative of what we may have to accept (actually, given the rush we will be in, it's likely that we'll achieve worse than TTIP), there was Investor-State Dispute Settlement, whereby corporations could sue states over perceived loss of profits due to state laws, this process to prevail over existing state law. Something like this is the norm in most negotiated trade agreements now.
Not regaining sovereignty in my book.
If you sue someone then it has to be decided in a court of law. The question is whose court?
Again, some factual indication that this is likely to happen as a result of tory brexit? Because at the moment it looks "unlikely".
I don't understand? Practical reality dictates that if you need to import workers then you will import them. Regardless of policy or ideology. There is no possible scenario in which that would not happen.
The only time there is a problem is if you want them and they don't come. But that is irrelevant to whether UK is in the EU or not.
So, no short term benefits, and long term benefits are so nebulous that you have been unable to find anyone credible asserting this. OK.
Whos court? Read the article I linked to.
Fruit pickers are unskilled. Or will everyone take some sort of skill test? The point with the nurses, is not that they're currently being refused access to the UK, but they are, post referendum going elsewhere. A place has to be attractive to migrate to, and, with higher GDP and no resounding "Go Home" being shouted at them, they are going to other EU countries. But that is a situation we can lay at the feet of the referendum result.
So, no short term benefits, and long term benefits are so nebulous that you have been unable to find anyone credible asserting this. OK.
Whos court? Read the article I linked to.
Fruit pickers are unskilled. Or will everyone take some sort of skill test? The point with the nurses, is not that they're currently being refused access to the UK, but they are, post referendum going elsewhere. A place has to be attractive to migrate to, and, with higher GDP and no resounding "Go Home" being shouted at them, they are going to other EU countries. But that is a situation we can lay at the feet of the referendum result.
I read the article, it has nothing to do with loss of sovereignty. The ICSID is not a 'court' but a tribunal, both sides in the treaty agree to be arbitrated by it. There is nothing to prevent one side from ignoring its ruling except that this may result in the treaty failing. It cannot compel any country to change its laws. This is why I suggested we be specific about what is meant by sovereignty. It is no way comparable to the legal arrangement we currently have with the EU, and it is what that arrangement is now and worse, what it may become in the future, that concerns me.
The 'shortage of skilled labour' thing is a non-issue AFAIAC. In or out of Europe that is always a problem that can be solved.
Sorry Martin, but in my book that is most definitely loss of sovereignty. You might just as well argue from your position that as we signed up to the EU trade with the attendant ECJ no loss of sovereignty was involved? Same thing.
As for changing laws, no the tribunal has no right to do that, but it's decisions would most certainly have that effect in some (most?) cases.
Immigration/labour - we'll have to agree to differ, then - you haven't, though, produced anything credible beyond your personal assertion to support this, I notice.
Patrick Dixon
21-07-2018, 13:52
Loss Of Sovereignty in trade deals - you'll need to define what you mean by sovereignty. To me it is a legal term, Whose court has the last say? If we had a trade deal with the USA would the U.S Supreme Court have the last say in matters of English Law? No it wouldn't. As a member of the EU a UK Court does not have the last say. I find that unacceptable.
If we do a trade deal with the USA a UK Court WON'T have the final say. If we revert to WTO rules a UK Court WON'T have the final say.
Clearly we have different ideas of what a Court is and what sovereignty encompasses.
But under your definitions it is impossible for any nation that trades to have sovereignty. So that clearly cannot be the definition of the word or it would be a redundant concept. Or are you arguing that it is a redundant concept?
Re immigration I don't see any need to produce evidence, you need to produce evidence or at least show by what mechanism that the UK outside of the EU will not be able to attract the required skills in the required numbers. As far as I can see there is no difference to that issue whether we are in or out. It is still people's free choice if they want to come and work here either way.
judging by the amount of fruit up here not getting picked, and rotting on the plants, we need more, not less immigrants
Lawrence001
21-07-2018, 15:45
Why, that's really nice of you!
Howsitgoin' Lawrence - was good hanging out with you! Till next year?
Have amassed all the components to make a pair of JBL 4430 clones....Good thanks, not much time for HiFi as I'd like but then children are more rewarding in a different way :) yes I very much hope to get to Kegworth or wherever it might be next time. Will I get to hear the Ureis again though??
Would the JBLs sound as good, I find it hard to believe much can come close..
Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk
Good thanks, not much time for HiFi as I'd like but then children are more rewarding in a different way :) yes I very much hope to get to Kegworth or wherever it might be next time. Will I get to hear the Ureis again though??
Would the JBLs sound as good, I find it hard to believe much can come close..
Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk
I have high hopes for the JBLs....was a bit of a story to deciding to make them. I went after a pair of Urei 815s (do google - they are awesomely huge!)- when I got there I found two things not made clear on the advert - the bass units, which should be made by Eminence. had been replaced by JBL 2225s, and they had been stored somewhere really really damp, such that the cabs had turned to cheesey mess.
So I offered just for the drivers and crossovers, so got another pair of the Altec drivers you liked so much in the 811s and 2 pairs of these very desirable JBLs.
I've stuck one pair in the subs I had at Keggie - to very good effect, I might add - and decided to make a clone pair of JBL 4430s with the other pair.
So have been hoovering up the other bits on ebay - the butt cheek horns are rare and don't come up often, but luckily got a NIB pair from the States. Still haven't got crossovers though, but will probably make them, with the pots bypassed like on the Ureis you heard - I guess this, better quality resistors and caps and leaving out the active/passive selector switch will elevate performance to somewhere up by the big Ureis.
Bear in mind that these and the bigger 4435s did to some extent displace the Ureis in studios, so I have high hopes, as I say!
My son will finish at LIPA next year, so these will do for studio monitors if and when he sets up a studio.
Kids, eh! Make sure you expose them to plenty of good music of yours before they get into their own, then the bonus is they'll come back with interesting stuff to introduce you to.
Clearly we have different ideas of what a Court is and what sovereignty encompasses.
But under your definitions it is impossible for any nation that trades to have sovereignty. So that clearly cannot be the definition of the word or it would be a redundant concept. Or are you arguing that it is a redundant concept?
Re immigration I don't see any need to produce evidence, you need to produce evidence or at least show by what mechanism that the UK outside of the EU will not be able to attract the required skills in the required numbers. As far as I can see there is no difference to that issue whether we are in or out. It is still people's free choice if they want to come and work here either way.
No, I think our definition of sovereignty is much the same - to clarify, I mean the ability to make, enact and enforce our own laws without this being compromised by outside interference. Do you agree with that definition?
Whether this "sovereignty" is compromised by a court, or an all powerful tribunal we are subservient to as a result of of trade agreement being conditional on our acceptance of its rulings seems to have no distincton between them to me. And of course, even if we are not under the ECJ any more, we have signed up to the European Court of Human Rights, and will be still be liable to abide by its decisions post tory brexit. If you say sovereignty is only compromised by courts, you, frankly, need to get real. The real power is wielded by corporations, and their machinations trump sovereignty now, and will do so increasingly.
Is sovereignty a redundant concept? I guess in the Rees Mogg Days of Empire sense, yes. The world doesn't work that way anymore. All the more shameful this brexit mess was partly sold on that basis.
Re Immigration, no, as I see it the balls in your court, but if you don't want to play it, fine.
montesquieu
21-07-2018, 19:10
Well, aside from describing Lewis Carrol as "arrogant condescending bollocks" - surely a first - the referendum surely was won by exactly such arrogant condescending bollocks, if I can borrow your phrase.
I give you project fear, the bus, the we don't need experts.
Just the first three that came to mind.
And as leavers on here have no hesitation into descending into ad hom - I'll also point out that this is surely a sure sign that they are on shaky ground and feel their position threatened.
Let's have some credible, (not ERG funded jism) facts posted by leavers which credibly demonstrate tory brexit will bring:
Better economic performance, short and long term.
Trade deals with no loss of sovereignty.
Lower immigration without the health service and agriculture keeling over.
Yeah, I know, I could so easily add controls on oligarch money laundering in London, proper taxation of mega corporations, addressing offshore tax avoidance, but we'll leave it to those first three. And facts, not "I believe" or "I have a mate that" or "stupid remoaners won't have this". Some FACTS, by someone reasonably expert will do nicely.
1) Your use of the quote in this context was arrogant and condescending and needed to be called out. I assume you understand this since it was your intention to be offensive? Red herring.
2) You seem to assume that the primary goal of Brexit is economic. For many, that is not the case. It's about sovereignty. I don't see that a trade deal involves a loss of sovereignty anywhere comparable to that involved in the EU treaties - indeed it's arguable that no sovereignty is lost at all, at least not in the same way. Red herring.
3) Brexit is not about reduced immigration (many areas and many sectors need more immigration, not less), but controlled immigration. As it stands we have no control over who comes in from the EU. This will change. But again - red herring, the usual Remoaner bollocks to paint those in favour of Brexit as pigmy-brained bigots, when in fact the bigotry is often the other way - good old British class snobbery.
4) There are many, economic arguments in favour of Brexit, a lot of them coming from broadly similar perspectives, not that you appear to read widely enough to have come across any. (Something that itself is a bit amusing). But you could read some of this material here on the Economists for Free Trade site:
https://www.economistsforfreetrade.com/publication/
Of course you may dismiss some of these arguments on grounds that the actions outlined are not to your political taste, but that's an entirely different argument.
1) Your use of the quote in this context was arrogant and condescending and needed to be called out. I assume you understand this since it was your intention to be offensive? Red herring.
2) You seem to assume that the primary goal of Brexit is economic. For many, that is not the case. It's about sovereignty. I don't see that a trade deal involves a loss of sovereignty anywhere comparable to that involved in the EU treaties - indeed it's arguable that no sovereignty is lost at all, at least not in the same way. Red herring.
3) Brexit is not about reduced immigration (many areas and many sectors need more immigration, not less), but controlled immigration. As it stands we have no control over who comes in from the EU. This will change. But again - red herring, the usual Remoaner bollocks to paint those in favour of Brexit as pigmy-brained bigots, when in fact the bigotry is often the other way - good old British class snobbery.
4) There are many, economic arguments in favour of Brexit, a lot of them coming from broadly similar perspectives, not that you appear to read widely enough to have come across any. (Something that itself is a bit amusing). But you could read some of this material here on the Economists for Free Trade site:
https://www.economistsforfreetrade.com/publication/
Of course you may dismiss some of these arguments on grounds that the actions outlined are not to your political taste, but that's an entirely different argument.
Ahh, so you're calling me, rather than Lewis Carroll, arrogant and condescending. Now that's crystal clear, I'll just leave that there, I think.
I've addressed the sovereignty issue elsewhere on this thread. If you still maintain your position after reading it, fine - we have no more to say to each other - I don't have time to waste on those immune to reason.
Brexit was most definitely, unarguably and unambiguously sold on the basis that it would stop immigration. If you want to try and move the goalposts after the event, do so, but don't think it isn't obvious what you're doing.
I went to the site you linked to, but was put off the the moral and intellectual failings of those on the "our advisors" page. Its an ERG front, isn't it? Sorry, but I can't take that seriously. Or credit anything on a website associated with Mogg.
Our advisors?
Our funnelers of Aaron Banks Russian money, more like.
No, not acceptable.
You want me to post stuff from The Canary?
Standards, mate.
montesquieu
21-07-2018, 19:37
Hilarious. Won't (can't?) engage with the argument, just an ad hominem. Says all I need to know about your intellectual bandwith on this topic.
Hilarious. Won't (can't?) engage with the argument, just an ad hominem. Says all I need to know about your intellectual bandwith on this topic.
Ad Hominem...that's that Latin isn't it - is that like calling people arrogant and condescending? ...if only I could aspire to your intellectual bandwidth. Still, I can dream, can't I?
montesquieu
21-07-2018, 19:56
Ad Hominem...that's that Latin isn't it - is that like calling people arrogant and condescending? ...if only I could aspire to your intellectual band width. Still, I can dream, can't I?
It means 'to/toward the man' - kicking the person you are arguing with rather than addressing the argument. Exactly as you just did above, presumably because you can't deal with information that contradicts your prejudices. Stick to The Guardian and you won't be needing to worry about such a trauma, there's a good chap.
As I mentioned, I started off as a Remainer, but was persuaded of the opportunity through wider reading after the result. (We've already established you'd rather just stay in your bubble that read anything that contradicts what you think already).
I can still see arguments for both sides, and I am genuinely worried that the Tories are cocking up the negotiations. But what gets me very pissed off is when I come across Remoaner bigots who refuse to see that there is a genuine opportunity here, and who spend their time rushing around gathering information to confirm their small-minded 'anti' prejudices while rejecting anything that argues to the contrary. (And yes such types exist on the Leave side too, but I see them more often on the Remain side, usually mixed up with snobbery and arrogance. Recognise anyone?)
Enough now gentlemen. If we cannot discuss the topic rationally then who can?
1) Your use of the quote in this context was arrogant and condescending and needed to be called out.
Utter nonsense - some light hearted banter and little more.
The Brekshitters on this thread seem to be a very thin skinned lot ...
It means 'to/toward the man' - kicking the person you are arguing with rather than addressing the argument. Exactly as you just did above, presumably because you can't deal with information that contradicts your prejudices. Stick to The Guardian and you won't be needing to worry about such a trauma, there's a good chap.
As I mentioned, I started off as a Remainer, but was persuaded of the opportunity through wider reading after the result. (We've already established you'd rather just stay in your bubble that read anything that contradicts what you think already).
I can still see arguments for both sides, and I am genuinely worried that the Tories are cocking up the negotiations. But what gets me very pissed off is when I come across Remoaner bigots who refuse to see that there is a genuine opportunity here, and who spend their time rushing around gathering information to confirm their small-minded 'anti' prejudices while rejecting anything that argues to the contrary. (And yes such types exist on the Leave side too, but I see them more often on the Remain side, usually mixed up with snobbery and arrogance. Recognise anyone?)
Ah....now I totally get it "ad hominem" is like:
"Stick to The Guardian and you won't be needing to worry about such a trauma, there's a good chap".
"We've already established you'd rather just stay in your bubble that read anything that contradicts what you think already"
"Remoaner bigots"
"snobbery and arrogance. Recognise anyone?"
Got it. And so kind of you to do, like, a demonstration post just for me. Kudos!
FFS, who gives a flying fuck about Brexit SHITE??
How anyone can get so het up about this pish, I've no idea. Get a bloody life, guys! And listen up, from now on, ALL POLITICAL DISCUSSION will be banned, as I'm not giving bandwidth to any more of this bollox, if you can't discuss the subject calmly and respectfully as adults!! This crap has happened once too often:steam:
A notice will be posted up about it tomorrow.
Marco.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.