[Politics] Brexit

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

I'm going to try to be an honest remainer.

For months I've waited for an honest leaver to say something like "I know the country will be worse off after Brexit, but I still think it's a price worth paying."

So I'm going to say "I know that to overturn the outcome of the referendum will be very questionable from a democratic perspective, but I think it's a price worth paying."

 

[Simster]

It's called having 2 bites at the cherry. Bit like they did to Ireland when they didn't get their way. Try,try and try again until we get our own way. Do you know how pathetic that sounds.

About as pathetic is some of the drivel that passes as rhetoric that has been coming out of the mouths of Jacob Rees Mogg and Liam Fox just because the Lords is doing what has done for the past several hundred years.

And let's face it, it's also not as pathetic as the likes of you talking shìt like this. The only reason it scares you is because you brexiteers know full well you'd struggle to get any sort of majority if the vote was taken again. And frankly, it is utterly hypocritical for you to be moaning about remainers not using their democratic powers to try and put a halt to this nonsense when we are otherwise locked into making ourselves poorer forever, all because of the flimsiest of referendum Brexit wins when Farage himself had said before the vote that it wasn't over if it ended up 52-48 remain.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

I do hope so.

keep the faith , the press just love a bit of Brexit bashing, don't let that put you off, AND THE GRIZZLERS CLING TO IT LIKE SHIT TO A BLANKET
regards
DR

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

about as pathetic is some of the drivel that passes as rhetoric that has been coming out of the mouths of jacob rees mogg and liam fox just because the lords is doing what has done for the past several hundred years.

And let's face it, it's also not as pathetic as the likes of you talking shìt like this. The only reason it scares you is because you brexiteers know full well you'd struggle to get any sort of majority if the vote was taken again. And frankly, it is utterly hypocritical for you to be moaning about remainers not using their democratic powers to try and put a halt to this nonsense when we are otherwise locked into making ourselves poorer forever, all because of the flimsiest of referendum brexit wins when farage himself had said before the vote that it wasn't over if it ended up 52-48 remain.

the only one's that are scared are your sort
regards
DR

 

[Simster]

the only one's that are scared are your sort
regards
DR

*Sigh* You can't even spell.


So thick...

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

What are you going to say to members of the 17m who have since changed their minds? "Tough shit, nobody is allowed to change their minds ever again"?

bit like some remainers that have accepted the vote to leave
regards
DR

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

It is only a democratic decision if people can change their minds at a later date. Which people are doing.

regards
DR

 

[5ways]

And what would you suggest would be a democratic solution if we were to have another vote on the outcome of the negotiations and the vote was to decide to stay in, but then, say in 2 years time, opinion polls were showing more people wanted to leave?

Would you support a new referendum? If not, why not, as you are so keen on democracy? Or do you mean you support democracy if you get your way?

I support democratic decisions made by an informed electorate. If the electorate has a change of heart, that is up to them.

 

[A1X]

No, they can wait 40 years and have a vote - just like we leavers had to do.

Just because Leavers were too incompetent to get their act together don't assume we Remainers are as useless as you guys at getting shit done.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

It's called having 2 bites at the cherry. Bit like they did to Ireland when they didn't get their way. Try,try and try again until we get our own way. Do you know how pathetic that sounds.

Don't be too hard on yourself. What you say doesn't sound pathetic to me.

Although it does sound wrong. Mine is a google-free posting but from memory I recall that the Irish had serious concerns about an EU treaty compromising their traditional neutrality. This was addressed by the EU and as a result the Irish voted in favour. Something very similar happened in Denmark - the Danes achieved considerable concessions following a No vote and as a result subsequently voted Yes. Both these cases sound like good examples of democratic cause and effect, not bad. The situation in France, again from memory, was less clear cut but if that outcome reflected badly on anyone it was on the French state, not the EU.

The claim that the EU habitually batters people into voting the way it wants (how would you do that anyway?) is an Eurosceptic urban myth I'm afraid.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

And what would you suggest would be a democratic solution if we were to have another vote on the outcome of the negotiations and the vote was to decide to stay in, but then, say in 2 years time, opinion polls were showing more people wanted to leave?

Would you support a new referendum? If not, why not, as you are so keen on democracy? Or do you mean you support democracy if you get your way?

You'd have an argument if the primary case for a further referendum was the state of public opinion. It isn't. The direct result of the 2016 referendum has been the current negotiations; the case for a further one is to finish the process by allowing the voting public to consider the outcome of those negotiations. I'd find it very hard to make a case for a third referendum, whichever way the second one went.

If the public voted to leave on the negotiated terms but then, at some time in the future, appeared to change its mind then the way to address this would be via the traditional method of a general election.

 

[larus]

You'd have an argument if the primary case for a further referendum was the state of public opinion. It isn't. The direct result of the 2016 referendum has been the current negotiations; the case for a further one is to finish the process by allowing the voting public to consider the outcome of those negotiations. I'd find it very hard to make a case for a third referendum, whichever way the second one went.

If the public voted to leave on the negotiated terms but then, at some time in the future, appeared to change its mind then the way to address this would be via the traditional method of a general election.

And the problem is that our politicians have a habit of thinking they know what’s best for us. Look at the gradual change from the Common Market to the Customs Union, Maastricht and Lisbon etc. At no point was the electorate consulated, and when it was it decided to vote out (even in the face of the wealth of lies from the establishment).

As for your point about a general election:
1. The only party to stand on a Pro EU ticket got decimated.
2. A General Election is not a single issue and should never be such, so that argument is pointless.

The EU is making this as difficult as possible, as they want to stop Brexit (they want our money). All the time the remain MPs/Lords are working against the government (on their election promise to take us out BTW), this is going against democracy.

Democracy seems important until it works against some people.

 

[melias shoes]

About as pathetic is some of the drivel that passes as rhetoric that has been coming out of the mouths of Jacob Rees Mogg and Liam Fox just because the Lords is doing what has done for the past several hundred years.

And let's face it, it's also not as pathetic as the likes of you talking shìt like this. The only reason it scares you is because you brexiteers know full well you'd struggle to get any sort of majority if the vote was taken again. And frankly, it is utterly hypocritical for you to be moaning about remainers not using their democratic powers to try and put a halt to this nonsense when we are otherwise locked into making ourselves poorer forever, all because of the flimsiest of referendum Brexit wins when Farage himself had said before the vote that it wasn't over if it ended up 52-48 remain.

Your probably one of those people that would like to see the back of the House of Lords. You know the unelected people that like to tell us that although you've voted and made a decision we're going to do our very best to stop it. However in this instance it suits your purpose so all is great at the House of Lords as far as you're concerned.

 

[melias shoes]

Don't be too hard on yourself. What you say doesn't sound pathetic to me.

Although it does sound wrong. Mine is a google-free posting but from memory I recall that the Irish had serious concerns about an EU treaty compromising their traditional neutrality. This was addressed by the EU and as a result the Irish voted in favour. Something very similar happened in Denmark - the Danes achieved considerable concessions following a No vote and as a result subsequently voted Yes. Both these cases sound like good examples of democratic cause and effect, not bad. The situation in France, again from memory, was less clear cut but if that outcome reflected badly on anyone it was on the French state, not the EU.

The claim that the EU habitually batters people into voting the way it wants (how would you do that anyway?) is an Eurosceptic urban myth I'm afraid.

The EU and democracy don't go hand in hand.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

The EU and democracy don't go hand in hand.

It is all very well to say 'the EU and democracy don't go hand in hand' but can you elaborate a little - what exactly do you find undemocratic about the events in, for example, Denmark?

The people there made it clear that they weren't happy with a particular aspect of a treaty, and rejected it. The EU addressed the issue and the people were then asked if they were happy with the treaty as amended. They said that they were.

What aspect of this do you find undemocratic?

 

[Lincoln Imp]

And the problem is that our politicians have a habit of thinking they know what’s best for us. Look at the gradual change from the Common Market to the Customs Union, Maastricht and Lisbon etc. At no point was the electorate consulated, and when it was it decided to vote out (even in the face of the wealth of lies from the establishment).

As for your point about a general election:
1. The only party to stand on a Pro EU ticket got decimated.
2. A General Election is not a single issue and should never be such, so that argument is pointless.

The EU is making this as difficult as possible, as they want to stop Brexit (they want our money). All the time the remain MPs/Lords are working against the government (on their election promise to take us out BTW), this is going against democracy.

Democracy seems important until it works against some people.

With respect, you ignored the substantive point - about the role of a further referendum.

However, I agree with you about politicians taking the view that they know what is best for us. But that is the very essence of representative democracy. Politicians take a view on what is in our interests and if we disagree with them we vote them out in favour of people we think will represent us better.

And this is done via general elections.

I'm sorry, but your reference to a 'wealth of lies from the establishment' is cock-eyed. I am looking at the final Leave leaflet that came through my door...

Among other things, it tells me that if we vote Leave then... wages will rise, doctor's waiting lists will reduce, food will be 17 per cent cheaper, the average family will be £200 a month better off, the country will become much wealthier. If we vote to remain however... the NHS could collapse, Turkey will join the EU, the NHS will be privatised (whether before or after its collapse isn't clear) and - look at this - the EU will take full control of the British army. And this list doesn't include the £350m-for-the-NHS fabrication that even the director of Vote Leave agrees was an outright lie that won his side - your side - the referendum.

I agree however that the Remain campaign misled me about the timing of the financial hardship that will result from voting Leave. There is no equivalence however.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

The EU and democracy don't go hand in hand.

Indeed, France and the Netherlands both held referendum's about the creation of an EU constitution both voting against .... so they were ignored and circumvented see Lisbon Treaty.

 

[larus]

With respect, you ignored the substantive point - about the role of a further referendum.

However, I agree with you about politicians taking the view that they know what is best for us. But that is the very essence of representative democracy. Politicians take a view on what is in our interests and if we disagree with them we vote them out in favour of people we think will represent us better.

And this is done via general elections.

I'm sorry, but your reference to a 'wealth of lies from the establishment' is cock-eyed. I am looking at the final Leave leaflet that came through my door...

Among other things, it tells me that if we vote Leave then... wages will rise, doctor's waiting lists will reduce, food will be 17 per cent cheaper, the average family will be £200 a month better off, the country will become much wealthier. If we vote to remain however... the NHS could collapse, Turkey will join the EU, the NHS will be privatised (whether before or after its collapse isn't clear) and - look at this - the EU will take full control of the British army. And this list doesn't include the £350m-for-the-NHS fabrication that even the director of Vote Leave agrees was an outright lie that won his side - your side - the referendum.

I agree however that the Remain campaign misled me about the timing of the financial hardship that will result from voting Leave. There is no equivalence however.

I agree there were lies on both sides. My decision to vote leave was about the unelected technocrats in Brussels and not about anything slogan on a bus not leaflet. However, I would not expect there to be any changes (in the items started by the leave campaign) until we have left, as we are still in the EU.

Some of the points were scare-mongering (Turkey) and some are based on the natural progression of the EU towards a state (Army, etc.). The lies from the Remain campaign were about the immediate impact of a vote to leave.

I don’t believe either of us were swayed by the emotive language and made our decision based on our own logic/thoughts as to what we’d prefer. I would prefer to be an independent nation, with a close relationship with the EU (and I understand that we would have to comply with regulations for goods shipped there) but free to trade elsewhere too and negotiate for ourselves rather than as part of a large block.

We’ve had a referendum. I have no problem with another referendum, but it should be along the lines of :
“We are leaving the EU and CU. Do you want to accept the terms of the agreement or leave with no deal”.

It should not be:
“We voted to leave the EU, do you want to accept the deal or stay?”

Why? Because this give the EU the incentive to give us a bad deal.

 

[The Clamp]

Quite honestly it's a fing disgrace what's going on here. What are you going to say to the 17M+ people who voted to Leave, if we don't actually Leave at the end of this all.

"Calm down, it's for your own good. We let the idiots take over for a few months but all over now. As you were, the day is saved".

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Quite honestly it's a fing disgrace what's going on here. What are you going to say to the 17M+ people who voted to Leave, if we don't actually Leave at the end of this all.

Given the age demographic I’ll be saying RIP to a significant number, and you’re-in-the-minority-now-shit-happens-eh? to the rest. Either that or just laugh my head off.