Also in the news

[Leicester_Loyal]

7 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

Well, with all due respect, Leave voters *are* the reason why this has happened because there is no consensus on what they actually want. The only thing they wanted, according to the ballot paper, was to leave the EU. So surely leaving on any terms at all fulfils that?

 

And yet I know many people who voted Leave, a fair few who I'd consider very good mates, who if put in a room together would never in a million years agree on what the best course of action was or what represented a good deal.

 

Leave won, in my opinion, because it could be all things to all people. There's no real historical precedent for it and folks thought it was worth a punt because they liked what they heard - but they all had conflicting ideas of what would actually happen and what Brexit actually meant. Now we know what *will* actually happen, I think as much as anything that it's only fair to Leave voters to let them double check if this is what they actually want.

 

Whatever happens, there are going to be a huge proportion of the 52% who are going to end up feeling betrayed because the vision of Brexit they have in their own head is never going to come to fruition.

Very true.

 

I'm not gonna carry on arguing with others on here. Leavers won't change their mind, nor will Remainers.

 

Enjoy your day lads.

[Guest MattP]

10 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

You predicting the future now? Shame you couldn't do that when you blindly voted leave with no clue of what leave would be! 

 

Your actions have consequences, you vited leave, that caused this even if indirectly, because you had no idea what what you were voting for would actually become.

 

And captain explains how the vote would work above.

Nobody vote blindly to leave.

 

We voted to leave knowing that meant leaving the customs union and the single market as we were told. 

 

Now I'm even comprising on that and I'm told I need a second vote.

 

Why not just be honest for once and tell us you want a second vote to reverse it? We can tell you know.

[Grebfromgrebland]

Whether you're leave or remain there's a few things to consider.

 

1. The referendum was advisory and not legally binding.

 

2. Leave campaign committed election fraud.

 

3. If the referendum was legally binding then it would have been void due to the election fraud.

 

4. Foreign money and countries helped finance the leave campaign which is illegal.

 

So those who really value democracy would want another referendum which has been properly and legally ran.

 

Doesn't matter if you're leave or remain this election shouldn't stand especially when the stakes are so high.  

 

The real problem is that the disaster capitalists have invested so much into this and they can sense victory.  

 

Theresa May has a massive conflict of interest where her husband stands to make hundreds of million out of brexit.

 

Reece mogg will make millions.

 

Trump will make billions.

 

Putin will make billions.

 

Mercer will make billions.

 

Can you not see a pattern? Those pushing for brexit stand to abuse their power and make more money then we can imagine, all at the expense of the UK citizens. There would be no normal people who win everyone would lose.

 

 

[Charl91]

31 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Splitting the leave vote down the middle will mean that Remain wins obviously.

As opposed to the first referendum, which was:

 

Remain Vs. Hard Brexit & Soft Brexit & No Deal Brexit & Cake and Eat it Brexit, & Fantasy Brexit, etc.

 

This is why the first referendum was undemocratic, why we're in the shit right now, and why their should be another one with properly thought out choices.

 

It's alright saying well leave won, but a leave voter who wanted (and voted for) a Hard Brexit, who is now getting May's deal, might well say "well, hang on, I didn't vote for this Brexit, I'd rather remain than May's deal". Similarly, I'd rather vote for remain, but if it was a choice between May's deal and No Deal, I would take May's deal. So, why not actually take stock on what people want?

 

Simple really. Ranking preferred options would be much better / democratic. And for the people who say "Well that's too complicated!". Seriously? If that's too complicated, then should people that think this is to difficult to understand really be voting on an issue like Brexit?

 

 

Edited 24 March 2019 by Charl91

[Facecloth]

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

Nobody vote blindly to leave.

 

We voted to leave knowing that meant leaving the customs union and the single market as we were told. 

 

Now I'm even comprising on that and I'm told I need a second vote.

 

Why not just be honest for once and tell us you want a second vote to reverse it? We can tell you know.

No that's what's YOU voted for, its become abuntantly clear that's not what everyone who voted leave voted for. You can cite official campaigns etc, but not everyone is as clued up on politics as you, so in some cases some people won't have been aware of those promises or won't have been aware other promises weren't from the official campaign. You can't speak for all 17.4 million, which you seem to enjoy doing, often.

[Charl91]

15 minutes ago, MattP said:

Nobody vote blindly to leave.

 

We voted to leave knowing that meant leaving the customs union and the single market as we were told. 

 

Now I'm even comprising on that and I'm told I need a second vote.

 

Why not just be honest for once and tell us you want a second vote to reverse it? We can tell you know.

If everyone knew what they voted for, then why was Theresa May's deal was met with an uproar of "Well I didn't vote for that"? Because that's what you voted for  

 

I'd like a second vote. I would happily take May's damn deal at this point, but that's clearly not going to get through, so a second vote seems to be the only way to break the deadlock. Would be brilliant if a second vote came back remain, but if it came with May's deal then MP's have got no reason to not see it through.

 

 

Edited 24 March 2019 by Charl91

[purpleronnie]

I have to say I would like a 2nd vote but that's purely for selfish reasons.

 

That said I do feel uncomfortable having a 2nd vote before the first one has been implemented.

 

[Beechey]

24 minutes ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

Whether you're leave or remain there's a few things to consider.

 

1. The referendum was advisory and not legally binding.

 

2. Leave campaign committed election fraud.

 

3. If the referendum was legally binding then it would have been void due to the election fraud.

 

4. Foreign money and countries helped finance the leave campaign which is illegal.

 

So those who really value democracy would want another referendum which has been properly and legally ran.

 

Doesn't matter if you're leave or remain this election shouldn't stand especially when the stakes are so high.  

 

The real problem is that the disaster capitalists have invested so much into this and they can sense victory.  

 

Theresa May has a massive conflict of interest where her husband stands to make hundreds of million out of brexit.

 

Reece mogg will make millions.

 

Trump will make billions.

 

Putin will make billions.

 

Mercer will make billions.

 

Can you not see a pattern? Those pushing for brexit stand to abuse their power and make more money then we can imagine, all at the expense of the UK citizens. There would be no normal people who win everyone would lose.

 

 

Talking so much guff does your point no favours. Don't present unproven allegations as fact.

 

1. All referenda in the UK are advisory and non-binding. High Court ruled so last year.  Only one to my memory that wasn't was the 2011 vote. It's a moot point if the government states they will implement the decision.

2. That's not yet been determined - it's under investigation.

3. See point 1.

4. Again, not proven - under investigation, and that's not particularly relevant considering it's nothing to do with Vote Leave.

Edited 24 March 2019 by Beechey

[The Guvnor]

11 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

No that's what's YOU voted for, its become abuntantly clear that's not what everyone who voted leave voted for. You can cite official campaigns etc, but not everyone is as clued up on politics as you, so in some cases some people won't have been aware of those promises or won't have been aware other promises weren't from the official campaign. You can't speak for all 17.4 million, which you seem to enjoy doing, often.

With all due respect you make an awful lot of assumptions there, and why anyone voted leave should not be held to scrutiny, it was an individual choice which produced the biggest turnout in history and the ballot paper said to leave ( look up the definition of leave) not for a hard, soft,  ultra soft or a pink and fluffy deal, certainly not anything which is BRINO.

[Facecloth]

2 minutes ago, The Guvnor said:

With all due respect you make an awful lot of assumptions there, and why anyone voted leave should not be held to scrutiny, it was an individual choice which produced the biggest turnout in history and the ballot paper said to leave ( look up the definition of leave) not for a hard, soft,  ultra soft or a pink and fluffy deal, certainly not anything which is BRINO.

Matt's making assumptions, assuming everyone voted the same way as him, for the same reasons. The bottom part indicates why that's almost certainly not the case, with various different flavours of leave under one vote.

[Innovindil]

3 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

A little Brexit fact that is never mentioned and should be.....

 

More people voted Remain in the 2016 Referendum than have ever voted for any winning party at a UK election.

 

We hear a lot about the 17.4m who voted Leave, and rightly so. But we rarely hear about the 16.1m who voted Remain.

 

The message that I hear from uncompromising Hard Brexit / No Deal types is effectively: "We won. We can ignore you. We can dictate terms and do whatever we like. We can crush you".

 

There needs to be humility and compromise on BOTH sides....not just the narrow winners using an ultra-vague mandate to impose whatever they want.

 

 

The trouble is Alf, the only compromise leave could possibly offer that would be acceptable for remainers would be remaining, at least to the point as where leaving wouldn't represent leaving at all.

[Facecloth]

29 minutes ago, MattP said:

Nobody vote blindly to leave.

 

We voted to leave knowing that meant leaving the customs union and the single market as we were told. 

 

Now I'm even comprising on that and I'm told I need a second vote.

 

Why not just be honest for once and tell us you want a second vote to reverse it? We can tell you know.

So what if I do. Apparently winning by being dishonest is fine, as long as you win.

[Beechey]

1 minute ago, Innovindil said:

The trouble is Alf, the only compromise leave could possibly offer that would be acceptable for remainers would be remaining, at least to the point as where leaving wouldn't represent leaving at all.

Apparently there's a consensus in Parliament that EFTA membership is something that can be agreed on mutually by the majority. I think it should have been the aim from the start. The red line of FoM has to be erased, though.

 

[Charl91]

3 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Apparently there's a consensus in Parliament that EFTA membership is something that can be agreed on mutually by the majority. I think it should have been the aim from the start. The red line of FoM has to be erased, though.

 

 

Going on a slight tangent here, but I hate, hate, hate charts like the one above. It's the reason we've ended up with stuff like Brexit. It's designed in such a (leading) way that the average person would look at the chart, and go "oooh, the stuff on the right is GREEN, the stuff on the left is RED and YELLOW. EU = Bad, Norway model = good".

 

Then they always manage to leave out specific information that might make the preferred side look bad. Like "has a say in the rules" - UK as a EU member, yes, Norway, no.

 

(I'm not disagreeing that Norway model might be a good way to go, I just hate these tables  )

[Beechey]

11 minutes ago, Charl91 said:

 

Going on a slight tangent here, but I hate, hate, hate charts like the one above. It's the reason we've ended up with stuff like Brexit. It's designed in such a (leading) way that the average person would look at the chart, and go "oooh, the stuff on the right is GREEN, the stuff on the left is RED and YELLOW. EU = Bad, Norway model = good".

 

Then they always manage to leave out specific information that might make the preferred side look bad. Like "has a say in the rules" - UK as a EU member, yes, Norway, no.

 

(I'm not disagreeing that Norway model might be a good way to go, I just hate these tables  )

EFTA states actually do get somewhat of a say, though. EFTA members are consulted frequently throughout the EU Commission rule-making process. If EFTA states are ignored, they don't have to implement the legislation (though this costs some market access). It's estimated that 21% of EU Commission legislation would apply to the UK if we joined EFTA, and 80%-90% of that being standardised globally anyway.

 

 

This, from the Norwegian Foreign Ministry:

"Norway and the other EEA EFTA states have the opportunity to participate in the development of EU legislation during the preparatory stage. Within the framework of Norway’s agreements with the EU, Norway has greatest opportunity to participate in the development of EU policy and legislation at an early stage of the legislative process, i.e. during the preparation of Commission proposals and during preliminary discussions in the Council of the EU (the Council) and the European Parliament."

 

Now obviously it's not as much of a say (as in, there's no voting rights) as a full EU member, but compromise is compromise.

Edited 24 March 2019 by Beechey

[lgfualol]

Cant believe there are still people that reckon we should leave and everything will be fine with mental May and a government full of rich nobbers in charge. Everyone should be marching about what a **** up this is. Just hope I can stick around in Germany and dont end up in the UK fighting an old grandma over the final tins of beans in a dark and cold Tesco.

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, Heathrow fox said:

Most people vote on their economic circumstances and that’s what the remain side totally forget.I get the impression that a lot of the remainers on this forum are fairly well paid office based and haven’t had to live with the direct consequences of freedom of movement.

 

Hardly any thought or compassion has been given by the remain side on this issue.Instead they scream racist little englander,forgetting it’s actually a huge influx of white often well educated young men and woman.With a good proportion of the people suffering the consequences of this influx being from the ethnic minority’s.

 

As for the panic regarding the possible economic meltdown.

Well sorry but millions of people are worried about how to get through this week.Not what might happen next year.Trade deals really aren’t at the top of a lot of people’s lists.Neither is the potential hassle they might encounter getting a visa to go on their bloody gap year ?

 

Im in the construction industry myself and can’t really complain to much.Although things can happen.Recessions can hit you in or out the EU.You can earn a decent living though (brickie)However I should be creaming it now .There are skill shortages in certain areas.Instead of importing labour there should be uni graduates joining the trades from this country because of the excellent potential earnings.

 

Finally didn’t anyone consider the fact that some of the over 70s might have voted remain,to avoid potential downturns in their pensions.Again people vote with tend to vote with their wallets.

 

 

Not sure why you've said all this in response to my post agreeing with Voll Blau that Remain supporters lack understanding of Leave voters (and vice versa). 

 

Your stance is different to many other Leave posters (not that there's anything wrong with that). Other Brexiteer posters often say that they know Brexit will make us worse off economically, but that they're happy to be a bit poorer so as long as the UK regains more national sovereignty/control. You obviously expect to be better off due to freedom of movement ending.

 

In construction, maybe that'll work out for you if the sector holds up and there is less competition from EU migrant labour. Might not be so good for people working in other sectors like manufacturing or finance that need EU trade or markets, though. Then there's the indirect impact on construction if there's an economic downturn - fewer firms and individuals wanting construction work done. I hope it doesn't go bad for all our sakes - and my brother works in construction. Btw, I'm sure trade deals aren't top of most people's lists, but if we're trading on poorer terms, the obvious risk is that our firms will be less competitive, will lose business and people in this country will lose jobs or work or pay.....I hope not, again.

 

As for Remainers "screaming racist little Englander", I know you get a minority of idiots like that on both sides but very few on here. Worth noting that the MP (Jo Cox) who was murdered was a Remainer and that the MP told by police not to go home last weekend due to credible death threats was also a Remainer (Anna Soubry).....though I know there are idiots on both sides. Btw it's perfectly possible to be racist against white foreigners, not just against black/Asian - and for ethnic minorities to be racist.

 

I'm sure some Remainers on this forum have well-paid office jobs, but so do some Brexiteers - and I can think of Remainers who don't do office jobs. For the record, I now do white collar work self-employed from home, but did plenty of manual work when I was younger - and probably never earned as much as a brickie either then or in my current occupation!  I've spent plenty of time struggling financially week to week, and I don't reckon getting rid of a few Europeans will sort all that out.

 

Not sure what your point is about over-70s voting Remain to avoid downturns in their pensions? That would only happen if Brexit harmed the economy or public finances, surely? It's not as if the EU pays people's pensions (apart from Nigel Farage's massive pension). Anyway, the vast majority of over-70s voted Leave...

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

The trouble is Alf, the only compromise leave could possibly offer that would be acceptable for remainers would be remaining, at least to the point as where leaving wouldn't represent leaving at all.

 

I've made clear that I see a Soft Brexit compromise as the best solution now. That would involve leaving the EU. We would Leave the EU and no longer Remain members. That is the only question that was asked on the ballot paper: "Should the UK remain a  member of the EU or leave the EU?".

 

If you say that particular form of leaving doesn't "represent leaving at all", you are denying facts and imposing your own interpretation of "Leave" without having any democratic mandate for that interpretation. We voted to Leave, that's the only mandate. Soft Brexit involves leaving the EU. Imagine if Remain had won and the Remainers had turned round and said that the only true form of Remaining was to join the Euro, join Schengen etc.....

[Innovindil]

28 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I've made clear that I see a Soft Brexit compromise as the best solution now. That would involve leaving the EU. We would Leave the EU and no longer Remain members. That is the only question that was asked on the ballot paper: "Should the UK remain a  member of the EU or leave the EU?".

 

If you say that particular form of leaving doesn't "represent leaving at all", you are denying facts and imposing your own interpretation of "Leave" without having any democratic mandate for that interpretation. We voted to Leave, that's the only mandate. Soft Brexit involves leaving the EU. Imagine if Remain had won and the Remainers had turned round and said that the only true form of Remaining was to join the Euro, join Schengen etc.....

Utter hogwash and far beneath someone of your intelligence Alf.

[Facecloth]

3 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Utter hogwash and far beneath someone of your intelligence Alf.

Why don't you tell him why its hogwash and beneath him? Hate it when people respond with posts like this. If you disagree, don't just call the post rubbish, say why, or its utterly pointless.

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Utter hogwash and far beneath someone of your intelligence Alf.

 

Here's the ballot paper below.

 

Doesn't say anything about Hard Brexit, Soft Brexit, Single Market, Customs Union, Euro, Schengen, Freedom of Movement....... It just says Remain/Leave EU, nothing else. That's a big part of the problem!

 

Seems that I'm just stating facts, whereas you're blending evasion, friendly abuse and tactical flattery. 

 

[Dahnsouff]

11 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Here's the ballot paper below.

 

Doesn't say anything about Hard Brexit, Soft Brexit, Single Market, Customs Union, Euro, Schengen, Freedom of Movement....... It just says Remain/Leave EU, nothing else. That's a big part of the problem!

 

Seems that I'm just stating facts, whereas you're blending evasion, friendly abuse and tactical flattery. 

 

The single most despicable and ridiculous  thing to put on a ballot paper I have seen in my lifetime.

(And no, I wasn’t born yesterday  )

Edited 24 March 2019 by Dahnsouff

[Innovindil]

7 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Here's the ballot paper below.

 

Doesn't say anything about Hard Brexit, Soft Brexit, Single Market, Customs Union, Euro, Schengen, Freedom of Movement....... It just says Remain/Leave EU, nothing else. That's a big part of the problem!

 

Seems that I'm just stating facts, whereas you're blending evasion, friendly abuse and tactical flattery. 

 

You know exactly what you're doing Alf and you don't need me to explain it to you.

 

On the one hand, we are mocked for believing the words of a bus, on the other hand we're told that what the leave side campaigned on wasn't what we were voting for.

 

It is either one or the other, not both to suit your own agenda. 

[bovril]

4 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Remainers did lie, they just lost the vote.

 

It's a pointless debate, people aren't going to accept that others want to leave/remain, so will just throw shit at them.

 

We've had the vote, it's embarrassing that people want to have another one, which will leave us in the same situation. Leave lied, remain lied, end of.

Not really, because Brexit didn't start or stop the day after the vote.

I accept people on the remain side lied. I don't think that's relevant, and I don't think leave's lies are relevant either. I don't give a shit about the red bus.

I think Brexit will be bad because of what has come to light since then. Economic forecasts looking quite grim (including even Brexiters admitting we'll be worse off), key sectors worried about the impact an exodus of EU staff will have, the threat of manufacturing leaving the country, the fact that we haven't even begun to replace many of the trade deals we have in place, evidence that the government have been preparing for serious disruption in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

Convince me that I am wrong instead of simply saying "yeah well David Cameron lied too so whatever". 

Edited 24 March 2019 by bovril

[Dahnsouff]

Can someone explain this too me please? I fear I have missed a critical point.

What is being debated/rejected/repeat/repeat is the Withdrawl Agreement, and a lot of the debate is around the Irish backstop

Which basically means that IF after 2 years we cannot conclude our own trade deals, we (all the UK) is then still in the EU customs union, which essentially creates 

a border (of undefined rigidity) down the Irish Sea.

After the Withdrawl Agreement comes a 2 year transistiln period?

Have I misunderstood? 

Edited 24 March 2019 by Dahnsouff