Not the reason I voted leave.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Brexit
- Thread starter KingstonSeagull
- Start date
Not the reason I voted leave.
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,772
There's a whole load of people on here who agree with Plooks that leaving the EU, doesn't mean leaving the single market or giving up FOM
Posted before by someone. Conveniently ignored by Leavers. Typically. Cowards afraid to face the truth.
It's interesting to hear how many of the more intelligent Brexiteers often talk about having their own reasons for leaving, and to be honest I quite like some of the arguments that are proposed by such people.
That said, it is for this reason that I do get annoyed when other Brexit people (and it's always the simpletons on here) express outrage when there is consideration given for quitting the EU but staying in a customs union, or staying under ECJ jurisdiction or whatever. None of that was on the ballot paper, so these people think they speak for ALL Brexiteers rather than themselves. They don't.
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,772
One thing the last 2 years has proven. They definitely need us more than we need them
Indeed. And it riles me that I'm somehow lumped in with racists or, heaven forbid, 2 Profs. My reasons were far more about the reach of the EU and the rush to an EU superstate. Give me the 'Common Market' back and I'd vote stay.
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,772
Gosh, it really doesn’t take much effort to show these dumbos up, does it! Excellent work.
The problem is that there is a large rump of pro-Brexit people who really are fcking stupid - I'd happily name check them on here but there are too many of them. Compounding this, it is certainly a fact that on average, you were more likely to vote leave the less educated you are:
http://www.statsguy.co.uk/brexit-voting-and-education/
(Note this clearly that doesn't mean ALL educated people voted remain, and it also doesn't mean that all uneducated people are stupid and vice-versa):
Sure, there are some clowns in the pro-remain camp too, but their stupidity only tends to manifest itself in lumping all Brexiteers as one stupid mass. (It is laughable reading the one person on here who does that a lot as he is certainly intellectually inferior to a fair few of them - something clear to everyone but himself)
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,772
I know that you've explained this a number of times before, but given where we are it looks like either a supersoft Norway type model or a 'no deal'. In the past, you have said that you think, given that choice, that 'no deal' was worth the cost to get that independence.
How long would you think the economic impact of 'no deal' would take to turn around ?
Good question. It's also worth bearing in mind that the only people so flippantly suggesting "no deal" is fine are utter twats like Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg. Are some Brexiteers still so deluded that they'll believe these two are men of the people rather than simply so absolutely minted that they won't be touched by mental vanity projects?
I'm touched that you think I have all the answers ..... maybe I should replace Raab ? In answer to your question - no idea - I'm not an economist.
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,772
Cop out
It's interesting that both you and [MENTION=25]Gwylan[/MENTION], as two of the more lucid Brexiteers on here, probably represent two vastly contrasting views on Brexit with you going for 'no deal' and him going for the Norway style Brexit. The fact that you then both believe a United Ireland is a solution to the NI/Ireland issue, just shows the nuances involved.
And given the pair of you both had to tick the same box as Two Profs and Ppf, it was never going to work out well was it ?
Unlike the people at "The Economist", who have concluded Brexit is a nonsensical folly and a "no deal" one would be particularly disastrous. They are even sympathetic to endorsing a Labour party run by extreme socialists if there is a chance of reversing it and suggest that even some wealthy people in this country might arrive at the same conclusion.
Anyway, I think that says all you need to know about the implications of a no deal Brexit, even if you agree with the concept of some other sort of Brexit.
Fitzcarraldo
Well-known member
- Nov 12, 2010
- 973
It's funny when those who have spent the period during and after the referendum dismissing the views of economists as 'Project Fear' then defer to economists when asked an economic question. Should we listen to them or not? I'm confused.
Cop out
It's interesting that both you and [MENTION=25]Gwylan[/MENTION], as two of the more lucid Brexiteers on here, probably represent two vastly contrasting views on Brexit with you going for 'no deal' and him going for the Norway style Brexit. The fact that you then both believe a United Ireland is a solution to the NI/Ireland issue, just shows the nuances involved.
And given the pair of you both had to tick the same box as Two Profs and Ppf, it was never going to work out well was it ?
I'm not sure that I'd have wanted Norway from the outset but, given the situation we're in, I think it's the best option now (and has been for some time). And while I think a united Ireland is the natural outcome, I don't think it's something that should happen immediately but, yes, NI and ROI should be in the same customs union and, after Brexit, will inevitably become one country.
I said several times on here, well before the referendum that a stark, binary choice was going to cause trouble because people would paint their own version of Brexit ( I don't think there 17m reasons for voting to leave but I do think there are a dozen different reasons people will give). It would have been impossible to accommodate all those views but the government should have accommodated more than the views of the hardcore isolationists.
Whilst I wouldn’t want to make out that all leave voters are thick, it’s not fair to lump the all in the same pile, so many variables. Conversely I wouldn’t stay all remainers are intelligent, one or two on here spring to mind LOL!!
I do believe the general public are not informed enough to vote on such matters. Advice from Non-political third parties should have been sought. And listened to.
I do believe the general public are not informed enough to vote on such matters. Advice from Non-political third parties should have been sought. And listened to.
Last edited:
I agree with everything you say here, except of course the bit where that you say "I wouldn’t want to make out that all leave voters are thick", seeing as you have said exactly that on this very thread DOZENS of times.
A search for user name "The Clamp" and the word "thick" by post, and you'll see it returns 111 posts in the past 2 years, nearly all on this thread.
Last edited:
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,772
I don't believe that you can get truly independent third parties. The best you can hope for is to understand the background, funding and purpose of a person or body and then take that into account when you are reading or listening to them. This is often not obvious and can take some significant time to ascertain.
Unfortunately, this is beyond a significant proportion of the electorate and this is why I believe it is a Government's duty to protect them from themselves. This is why the Government should not try and hold simple referendums on complex matters and why they cannot let the population decide on national and international strategy.
That's why we allow politicians to make those decisions, and they then use Civil Servants (or should !) who are experts and have years of experience in these matters.
I think that the problem may get worse in the coming years as everyone now believes their view is as valid as anyone else's no matter how well or ill informed they are. Hence the problems with everyone knowing what their rights are without any concept of their responsibilities. (I think schools particularly suffer from parents with this attitude).
The general population have proven time and time again that they don't have the ability to make rational informed decisions..
If they had let the paedophile vigilante groups of a few years ago carry on, we would have been left with no paediatricians
Last edited: