Brexit!

[Spiritwalker]

5 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I tell you what, I hope that photo of Rees-Smug goes viral - the potential for damage to the Tories is huge.

 

If there's an election, Labour should put it on billboards all over the country.

With the slogan ' This man wants you to work until you're 75yrs old.'

[UniFox21]

2 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Amplified it because I agree so strongly. And I'm not even a ****ing Brexiteer. Everything about the referendum was ****ing criminal for the gravity of what was being asked. David Cameron has royally ****ed us.

You simply cannot ask a nation to vote on the outcome and future of the country without giving the full truth. 

 

The fact is that we simply cannot ignore this referendum or just call another, it sets too much of a dangerous precedent for the future. 

[joachim1965]

1 minute ago, UniFox21 said:

Tbh nobody particularly knew what they were voting for. 

 

The 'end goal' was so deformed behind all the lies and slogans that no one knows what they were voting for. 

People focused on a few policies and almost ignored the others due to their main 'issue' being ticked 

Spot on, I would suggest that a large proportion of people who voted leave expected us to just leave.

[UniFox21]

Just now, joachim1965 said:

Spot on, I would suggest that a large proportion of people who voted leave expected us to just leave.

Exactly. 

I'd assume they voted assuming the government would respect the decision and spend 2 or 3 years getting the best possible deal. Not bickering and leaving it to the last minute to finish or get an extension.  

 

Instead we have polarised groups so strongly against the 'other side' that none of them could put aside their beliefs and political allegiances to work for the best of the country.

 

They're paid, extremely generously, to work for the best of our country. Yet they've sat there and squabbled away our negotiating time. 

Quite frankly its embarrassing. 

[Legend_in_blue]

Now they're kicking out the 20 MPs.  Absolute disgrace.  People putting the country before their egos and get chucked out because of it.

 

I'll just pop down to my local poll station mid Oct, vote for my Yes Man MP, and fully put my trust in a PM who wasn't proroguing parliament, but did, and who wasn't calling for a GE, but did.  Can't trust a word he says.  Complete farce.

 

I don't normally follow this stuff, but I'm actually very annoyed.  

[HybridFox]

9 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Leaving without a deal is not honouring the referendum result.

 

Nobody voted for that shit.

Agree completely but neither is remain. 

 

What I'm saying is ultimately if we do not end up leaving the European Union, it isn't honouring a referendum which voted to do so.

 

In an ideal scenario, we will leave with a deal.

[Lionator]

Just now, TK95 said:

Agree completely but neither is remain. 

 

What I'm saying is ultimately if we do not end up leaving the European Union, it isn't honouring a referendum which voted to do so.

 

In an ideal scenario, we will leave with a deal.

Ironically, it's gone so far now that I think a lot of people on the remain side would be content with a deal. Anything but to drop off of a cliff edge.

[Mark_w]

9 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

You simply cannot ask a nation to vote on the outcome and future of the country without giving the full truth. 

 

The fact is that we simply cannot ignore this referendum or just call another, it sets too much of a dangerous precedent for the future. 

How does calling another referendum 3 years on, after years of debate & learning, set a dangerous precedent?

[PAULCFC]

1 minute ago, UniFox21 said:

Exactly. 

I'd assume they voted assuming the government would respect the decision and spend 2 or 3 years getting the best possible deal. Not bickering and leaving it to the last minute to finish or get an extension.  

 

Instead we have polarised groups so strongly against the 'other side' that none of them could put aside their beliefs and political allegiances to work for the best of the country.

 

They're paid, extremely generously, to work for the best of our country. Yet they've sat there and squabbled away our negotiating time. 

Quite frankly its embarrassing. 

I thought that,was supposed to be a debate tonight(i watched it all)You have JRM more or less falling asleep and the PM and JC nowwhere to be seen.If the leaders of our great demorcracy can't be bothered to turn up what chance do we have?

[Captain...]

7 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

You simply cannot ask a nation to vote on the outcome and future of the country without giving the full truth. 

 

The fact is that we simply cannot ignore this referendum or just call another, it sets too much of a dangerous precedent for the future. 

First thing is referendums are not and never have been legally binding. 

 

They give the government a mandate to pursue a course of action, but the decision is that of the government and it is up to parliament to vote it through. It's the same with a manifesto. We vote in good faith at the time, but we have a governing body to act in the best interests of the country.

 

It would have been the same with the Scottish independence referendum, if they had voted to leave it doesn't mean they would have left and would not have been forced to do so if it was not in the interest of the country.

[BoyJones]

2 minutes ago, Mark_w said:

How does calling another referendum 3 years on, after years of debate & learning, set a dangerous precedent?

Are you a WUM? 

[Mark_w]

Just now, BoyJones said:

Are you a WUM? 

No. Is that an answer?

[UniFox21]

3 minutes ago, Mark_w said:

How does calling another referendum 3 years on, after years of debate & learning, set a dangerous precedent?

Because it gives the indication that if a government doesn't get the answer they want or can agree on, they spend years bickering  (as that's what it's been) and call another until they get the answer they want. 

 

Maybe I've exaggerated a little, but it's something that can potentially happen

 

[StanSP]

13 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

You simply cannot ask a nation to vote on the outcome and future of the country without giving the full truth. 

 

The fact is that we simply cannot ignore this referendum or just call another, it sets too much of a dangerous precedent for the future. 

This is a bit contradictory, no?

 

Agree with the first bit but the first referendum was put out to the people without giving the full truth? It was a blank Leave or Remain, not all the shite we've learned since and realised that it involved lots of negotiations?

 

Perhaps calling another with more truths since 2016 isn't that much of a dangerous precedent? If you call it after a couple of months then yeah, that's dangerous.

But we're talking over 3 years since the result. Look at all the bollocks that's transpired in that time. All the truths! The truths of the potential consequences!

[Mark_w]

7 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

Because it gives the indication that if a government doesn't get the answer they want or can agree on, they spend years bickering  (as that's what it's been) and call another until they get the answer they want. 

 

Maybe I've exaggerated a little, but it's something that can potentially happen

 

It's been three years, pro-referendum parties performed collectively stronger than pro-brexit parties in recent local elections & the government that's failed to agree a deal was elected by the British people. If the collective will of the British people was to leave the EU without any deal at all, or with a deal of a particular type, then they surely would have voted for MPs who were clearly going to support that? We have a very divided commons because we have a very divided country, a two staged ranked vote with the options leave with no deal, leave with deal x & remain would be a lot more democratic than pulling us out with no deal.

Edited 3 September 2019 by Mark_w

[UniFox21]

Just now, StanSP said:

This is a bit contradictory, no?

 

Agree with the first bit but the first referendum was put out to the people without giving the full truth? It was a blank Leave or Remain, not all the shite we've learned since and realised that it involved lots of negotiations?

 

Perhaps calling another with more truths since 2016 isn't that much of a dangerous precedent? If you call it after a couple of months then yeah, that's dangerous.

But we're talking over 3 years since the result. Look at all the bollocks that's transpired in that time. All the truths! The truths of the potential consequences!

Mainly referring to all the stuff put out by various campaigners of money that'll be pushed into services such as the NHS.

 

It's a difficult one, I'm torn over giving the opportunity to vote again with all the new information we have or if ignoring the initial vote could lead to issues in the future. 

I guess it's whichever is deemed the lesser of the two evils; as we'll no doubt encounter issues whichever way we go.

 

Never was one for politics, so may have looked at this from an unusual angle. 

[UniFox21]

3 minutes ago, Mark_w said:

It's been three years, pro-referendum parties performed collectively stronger than pro-brexit parties in recent local elections & the government that's failed to agree a deal was elected by the British people. If the collective will of the British people was to leave the EU without any deal at all, or with a deal of a particular type, then they surely would have voted for MPs who were clearly going to support that? We have a very divided commons because we have a very divided country, a two staged vote with the options leave with no deal, leave with deal x & remain would be a lot more democratic than pulling us out with no deal.

I agree with what you're saying; its just a nagging feeling that simply voting again will come back to haunt us in the future. 

 

But as I've said in another comment; I've never been one for politics, I may be looking at this from the wrong angle and spouting complete bull. I probably should just stick to football or science 

Edited 3 September 2019 by UniFox21

[Buce]

When the Tories introduced the Fixed-Term Parliament Act, it was with the intention of keeping them in power,

 

I can't be the only one enjoying the delicious irony?

[Mark_w]

1 minute ago, UniFox21 said:

I agree with what you're saying; its just a nagging feeling that simply voting again will come back to haunt us in the future.

Oh I've no doubt, we'll have to see a lot more of Nigel Farage for a start (it'd almost be worth a no-deal for him to piss off to America with the money he's made from it and never grace my TV again), but it's the fairest way of doing things.

[Legend_in_blue]

 

Good man.  His time will come.  

[Captain...]

1 minute ago, UniFox21 said:

I agree with what you're saying; its just a nagging feeling that simply voting again will come back to haunt us in the future. 

 

But as I've said in another comment; I've never been one for politics, I may be looking at this from the wrong angle and spouting complete bull. I probably should just stick to football or science 

Think of it this way, imagine you are Ebbsfleet town, a club owned by the fans who vote on every decision. (Turns out they stopped that 6 years ago) The fans vote to sign a player, the player comes in for his medical and they discover his knee is knackered and he's one bad tackle from having his career ended.

 

Do you still sign him?

[Mark_w]

2 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Think of it this way, imagine you are Ebbsfleet town, a club owned by the fans who vote on every decision. (Turns out they stopped that 6 years ago) The fans vote to sign a player, the player comes in for his medical and they discover his knee is knackered and he's one bad tackle from having his career ended.

 

Do you still sign him?

Also he has the plague.

[Cheeseontoast]

I thought this was funny

 

 

 

[UniFox21]

Just now, Captain... said:

Think of it this way, imagine you are Ebbsfleet town, a club owned by the fans who vote on every decision. (Turns out they stopped that 6 years ago) The fans vote to sign a player, the player comes in for his medical and they discover his knee is knackered and he's one bad tackle from having his career ended.

 

Do you still sign him?

No, you don't. 

In which case you'd either say we aren't signing him or call another vote with the new information.

 

Which is what I would love us to do on this; set down the facts of what would happen in either scenario and ask the country to vote again. It just feels like a bad precedent to set that we can just call another vote on the same subject? 

 

8 minutes ago, Mark_w said:

Oh I've no doubt, we'll have to see a lot more of Nigel Farage for a start (it'd almost be worth a no-deal for him to piss off to America with the money he's made from it and never grace my TV again), but it's the fairest way of doing things.

At this point I'm not sure if anything is fair about politics or this topic anymore. Whatever is decided, people are gonna be pissed and the country polarised.

 

its generally why I avoid politics, unlike science where there's a definitive answer, people refuse to budge on politics and leads to all sorts of shit.

 

 

 

 

Whilst on the topic; I find it odd how 21 people were sacked for opposing the PM. In usual business I could see the reasoning, but surely when they've been voted in, they should be able to vote how they wish? 

[PAULCFC]

I might be a bit nieve,but surely getting rid of 21 of the people that would probably vote for you,if you get thing's sorted is a bit short termest.