Brexit is fast becoming an irrelevance, an irritant, a distraction. It s not dead because it was never alive. Ethereal as a puff of smoke it is fast disappearing, lost in the mists of its own confusion. Things are not looking good. Proponents of the flat earth theory are sounding more credible. It is all very sad.
Are Brexiters realising that to oppose is a lot easier than to govern and deliver ?
2 of 3
Originally Posted by hoppyuppy:
“I don't do "sides". It becomes divisive and there is never compromise. Politics is full of know alls.
”
“I don't do "sides". It becomes divisive and there is never compromise. Politics is full of know alls.
”
I could have said "Leave campaign" (which is what it was, more long the lines of a protest movement or protest campaign than anything else and a very effective one too......it was essentially anti-mainstream and anti-establishment).
Originally Posted by Mr Oleo Strut:
“Brexit is fast becoming an irrelevance, an irritant, a distraction. It s not dead because it was never alive. Ethereal as a puff of smoke it is fast disappearing, lost in the mists of its own confusion. Things are not looking good. Proponents of the flat earth theory are sounding more credible. It is all very sad.”
“Brexit is fast becoming an irrelevance, an irritant, a distraction. It s not dead because it was never alive. Ethereal as a puff of smoke it is fast disappearing, lost in the mists of its own confusion. Things are not looking good. Proponents of the flat earth theory are sounding more credible. It is all very sad.”
That is worth a new thread.
Originally Posted by Mr Oleo Strut:
“Brexit is fast becoming an irrelevance, an irritant, a distraction. It s not dead because it was never alive. Ethereal as a puff of smoke it is fast disappearing, lost in the mists of its own confusion. Things are not looking good. Proponents of the flat earth theory are sounding more credible. It is all very sad.”
“Brexit is fast becoming an irrelevance, an irritant, a distraction. It s not dead because it was never alive. Ethereal as a puff of smoke it is fast disappearing, lost in the mists of its own confusion. Things are not looking good. Proponents of the flat earth theory are sounding more credible. It is all very sad.”
I can't decide whether this belief is stated with regret or relief.
Originally Posted by Eurostar:
“The Leave side spoke of "the freedom to forge new trade deals around the world" but I wonder if any of them actually believed any of that stuff. It's obvious Brexit was a purely political event and happened for political reasons (immigration, sovereignty).”
“The Leave side spoke of "the freedom to forge new trade deals around the world" but I wonder if any of them actually believed any of that stuff. It's obvious Brexit was a purely political event and happened for political reasons (immigration, sovereignty).”
Of course it was believed, it was a major point in the campaign to leave and it will happen, in fact, talks have already started to happen.
Originally Posted by Cloudy2:
“Nope 48.1% remain, 51.9% leave or a leave win by 1,269.501. Not basically 50/50.”
“Nope 48.1% remain, 51.9% leave or a leave win by 1,269.501. Not basically 50/50.”
Yes, basically 50/50, no matter how much you cut the figures. Some Brexiteers are desperately trying to rewrite history by making it seem like the result wasn't as close as it actually was.
They do it by emphasising the difference (1,269.501) which swung it for Brexit whilst de-emphasising the colossal figures on both sides of the eventual vote, to make it seem like the 'lower' number on the Remain side is somehow less important. Almost half the people who voted in the referendum were against the idea of Brexit, and the Leavers won by a comparative whisker. Even Nigel Farrago said as much when he pre-empted the vote by saying a 52-48 win for Remainers would not have settled the matter.
Originally Posted by tahiti:
“but you never queried the exit terms, or its consequences , when you voted ?
on the ballot there was neither a left wing nor a right wing perspective on leaving the EU. there was just 'leaving the EU'.
by definition, one of these wings will be disappointed!”
“but you never queried the exit terms, or its consequences , when you voted ?
on the ballot there was neither a left wing nor a right wing perspective on leaving the EU. there was just 'leaving the EU'.
by definition, one of these wings will be disappointed!”
No more than one can be disappointed when a party you don't support is temporarily in government. We are leaving, that's the most important thing, and, realistically, the only way that could ever happen is through a Tory or UKIP government.
Once that's agreed any terms or changes to how the UK operates on the wider world stage will evolve over many years and shaped by future governments.
Whatever deal the current gov does with the EU as we terminate our membership is only a starting point.
Originally Posted by Libretio:
“Yes, basically 50/50, no matter how much you cut the figures. Some Brexiteers are desperately trying to rewrite history by making it seem like the result wasn't as close as it actually was.
They do it by emphasising the difference (1,269.501) which swung it for Brexit whilst de-emphasising the colossal figures on both sides of the eventual vote, to make it seem like the 'lower' number on the Remain side is somehow less important. Almost half the people who voted in the referendum were against the idea of Brexit, and the Leavers won by a comparative whisker. Even Nigel Farrago said as much when he pre-empted the vote by saying a 52-48 win for Remainers would not have settled the matter.”
“Yes, basically 50/50, no matter how much you cut the figures. Some Brexiteers are desperately trying to rewrite history by making it seem like the result wasn't as close as it actually was.
They do it by emphasising the difference (1,269.501) which swung it for Brexit whilst de-emphasising the colossal figures on both sides of the eventual vote, to make it seem like the 'lower' number on the Remain side is somehow less important. Almost half the people who voted in the referendum were against the idea of Brexit, and the Leavers won by a comparative whisker. Even Nigel Farrago said as much when he pre-empted the vote by saying a 52-48 win for Remainers would not have settled the matter.”
When taking in all the votes who got the most? yes the result is close but you don't see rugby teams demanding that they replay games as they lost 52-48 etc.
If you need a certain gap in the result for it to be valid then it should be from the beginning to be defined otherwise even if its one vote then its that way.
Originally Posted by Mr Oleo Strut:
“Brexit is fast becoming an irrelevance, an irritant, a distraction. It s not dead because it was never alive. Ethereal as a puff of smoke it is fast disappearing, lost in the mists of its own confusion. Things are not looking good. Proponents of the flat earth theory are sounding more credible. It is all very sad.”
“Brexit is fast becoming an irrelevance, an irritant, a distraction. It s not dead because it was never alive. Ethereal as a puff of smoke it is fast disappearing, lost in the mists of its own confusion. Things are not looking good. Proponents of the flat earth theory are sounding more credible. It is all very sad.”
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Meanwhile I'll carry on living in the real world.
Originally Posted by allaorta:
“Of course it was believed, it was a major point in the campaign to leave and it will happen, in fact, talks have already started to happen.”
“Of course it was believed, it was a major point in the campaign to leave and it will happen, in fact, talks have already started to happen.”
I suspect opposition to Britain's membership of the EU was primarily political and ideological. Once the referendum campaign was underway, then the Leave campaigners had to start putting forward all sorts of economic reasons why Brexit would be a good idea (ie. freedom to forge new trade deals etc), but I imagine it was issues like sovereignty and immigration that would have been at the forefront of their minds.
If the Leave campaign was genuinely convinced the EU was an economic disaster zone, then membership or even access to the Single Market wouldn't even be up for discussion, it would be a hard Brexit all the way.
Originally Posted by Eurostar:
“I suspect opposition to Britain's membership of the EU was primarily political and ideological. Once the referendum campaign was underway, then the Leave campaigners had to start putting forward all sorts of economic reasons why Brexit would be a good idea (ie. freedom to forge new trade deals etc), but I imagine it was issues like sovereignty and immigration that would have been at the forefront of their minds.
If the Leave campaign was genuinely convinced the EU was an economic disaster zone, then membership or even access to the Single Market wouldn't even be up for discussion, it would be a hard Brexit all the way.”
“I suspect opposition to Britain's membership of the EU was primarily political and ideological. Once the referendum campaign was underway, then the Leave campaigners had to start putting forward all sorts of economic reasons why Brexit would be a good idea (ie. freedom to forge new trade deals etc), but I imagine it was issues like sovereignty and immigration that would have been at the forefront of their minds.
If the Leave campaign was genuinely convinced the EU was an economic disaster zone, then membership or even access to the Single Market wouldn't even be up for discussion, it would be a hard Brexit all the way.”
Then you suspect wrongly. There were many reasons people voted to leave but I seriously doubt that any Brexiter voted on a single issue; I certainly haven't come across one. Where you and probably every Remnant go wrong is in thinking that economic reasons were tantamount to Brexiter's decision.
The EU, by way of the Eurozone is already a disaster, only held together by those who daren't let it fall apart. As the saying goes, "If you owe the bank £1000 you have a proble, if you owe a million, the bank has a problem. Make no mistake, there is hardly a country in the EU that could financially survive if their debts were called in....and that includes my country and your country, despite the brave face of the Irish on here.
Originally Posted by hoppyuppy:
“Seems everyone got a crystal ball for Mythmas.
I wish the world could be fuelled by burning know alls.”
“Seems everyone got a crystal ball for Mythmas.
I wish the world could be fuelled by burning know alls.”
You means those weird myths of economics like supply & demand, economies of scale and synergies?
You don't need a crystal ball to know what's happening, just to know how business works and a look to history to see how the government will cut corporation tax, turn a blind eye to business tax avoidance and have "special deals" with their corporate friends while sh*tting on the masses.
You don't need to be a know it all to work things out, just not be a village idiot with a pitchfork wanting to burn "those magic thinking people".
Originally Posted by allaorta:
“Then you suspect wrongly. There were many reasons people voted to leave but I seriously doubt that any Brexiter voted on a single issue; I certainly haven't come across one. Where you and probably every Remnant go wrong is in thinking that economic reasons were tantamount to Brexiter's decision.
The EU, by way of the Eurozone is already a disaster, only held together by those who daren't let it fall apart. As the saying goes, "If you owe the bank £1000 you have a proble, if you owe a million, the bank has a problem. Make no mistake, there is hardly a country in the EU that could financially survive if their debts were called in....and that includes my country and your country, despite the brave face of the Irish on here.”
“Then you suspect wrongly. There were many reasons people voted to leave but I seriously doubt that any Brexiter voted on a single issue; I certainly haven't come across one. Where you and probably every Remnant go wrong is in thinking that economic reasons were tantamount to Brexiter's decision.
The EU, by way of the Eurozone is already a disaster, only held together by those who daren't let it fall apart. As the saying goes, "If you owe the bank £1000 you have a proble, if you owe a million, the bank has a problem. Make no mistake, there is hardly a country in the EU that could financially survive if their debts were called in....and that includes my country and your country, despite the brave face of the Irish on here.”
Nope. Actually thought a large section voted based on immigration. They should have considered the economy but didn't think it would effect them.
Originally Posted by Maxatoria:
“When taking in all the votes who got the most? yes the result is close but you don't see rugby teams demanding that they replay games as they lost 52-48 etc.
If you need a certain gap in the result for it to be valid then it should be from the beginning to be defined otherwise even if its one vote then its that way.”
“When taking in all the votes who got the most? yes the result is close but you don't see rugby teams demanding that they replay games as they lost 52-48 etc.
If you need a certain gap in the result for it to be valid then it should be from the beginning to be defined otherwise even if its one vote then its that way.”
But if a referendum is stated as being an opinion and not binding. You shouldn't suddenly shout that you won so it now has to be binding.
You don't change the rules of rugby after the game has ended.
Originally Posted by allaorta:
“Then you suspect wrongly. There were many reasons people voted to leave but I seriously doubt that any Brexiter voted on a single issue; I certainly haven't come across one. Where you and probably every Remnant go wrong is in thinking that economic reasons were tantamount to Brexiter's decision.
The EU, by way of the Eurozone is already a disaster, only held together by those who daren't let it fall apart. As the saying goes, "If you owe the bank £1000 you have a proble, if you owe a million, the bank has a problem. Make no mistake, there is hardly a country in the EU that could financially survive if their debts were called in....and that includes my country and your country, despite the brave face of the Irish on here.”
“Then you suspect wrongly. There were many reasons people voted to leave but I seriously doubt that any Brexiter voted on a single issue; I certainly haven't come across one. Where you and probably every Remnant go wrong is in thinking that economic reasons were tantamount to Brexiter's decision.
The EU, by way of the Eurozone is already a disaster, only held together by those who daren't let it fall apart. As the saying goes, "If you owe the bank £1000 you have a proble, if you owe a million, the bank has a problem. Make no mistake, there is hardly a country in the EU that could financially survive if their debts were called in....and that includes my country and your country, despite the brave face of the Irish on here.”
Farage said in his LBC interview today that he felt immigration was the thing that swayed the referendum result (interestingly though, he added it wasn't the main factor for him : he was ideologically opposed to the EU as an institution all along on the question of sovereignty. so things like economics and immigration were not the key issues for him).
My own impression is that Euroscepticism has always been primarily based on political grounds. There were plenty of people in Britain who wanted out of the EU even before the enlargement of the union in 2004 and at a time when the economy was doing well.
Originally Posted by Thiswillbefun:
“But if a referendum is stated as being an opinion and not binding. You shouldn't suddenly shout that you won so it now has to be binding.
You don't change the rules of rugby after the game has ended.”
“But if a referendum is stated as being an opinion and not binding. You shouldn't suddenly shout that you won so it now has to be binding.
You don't change the rules of rugby after the game has ended.”
You could also view that in that case that a 52% view to stay is also just an opinion and as such the government could just decide to activate the A50 anyway?
The main stay is that the question wasn't really well worded and probably would take at least the next 50 years and about 5 trillion ton's of paper to be able to articulate the question and thats before people complain that there was some EU edict that changed the maximum curvature of a cucumber and thus all the paperwork is out of date.
By that time we'll all be speaking German probably and have very nice leather trousers
Originally Posted by Maxatoria:
“When taking in all the votes who got the most?”
“When taking in all the votes who got the most?”
That misses the point of what I was saying: The Brexiteers won by the narrowest of margins, but some of them are using a variety of tactics to make it seem like the size of the Remain vote is somehow insignificant, for no other reason than they 'lost'. The numbers were huge on both sides, no matter the comparatively small number which won it for the Brexiteers.
Originally Posted by Maxatoria:
“...yes the result is close but you don't see rugby teams demanding that they replay games as they lost 52-48 etc.”
“...yes the result is close but you don't see rugby teams demanding that they replay games as they lost 52-48 etc.”
The consequences of the EU referendum are just a tad more serious than the outcome of a rugby match, so the analogy doesn't really stand up. And I speak as a rugby fan.
Originally Posted by Maxatoria:
“If you need a certain gap in the result for it to be valid then it should be from the beginning to be defined otherwise even if its one vote then its that way.”
“If you need a certain gap in the result for it to be valid then it should be from the beginning to be defined otherwise even if its one vote then its that way.”
Can't argue with the idea that the vote should have been clarified by the apportioning of a 'gap' that might have been acceptable to both sides prior to the vote. But good luck on getting all parties to agree to it!!...
I think most brexiters know what they want, unfortunately they aren't the ones in charge of delivering it and aren't droning on endlessly as if the result of the vote wasn't in.
Originally Posted by Maxatoria:
“When taking in all the votes who got the most? yes the result is close but you don't see rugby teams demanding that they replay games as they lost 52-48 etc.
If you need a certain gap in the result for it to be valid then it should be from the beginning to be defined otherwise even if its one vote then its that way.”
“When taking in all the votes who got the most? yes the result is close but you don't see rugby teams demanding that they replay games as they lost 52-48 etc.
If you need a certain gap in the result for it to be valid then it should be from the beginning to be defined otherwise even if its one vote then its that way.”
Rugby games don't usually have outcomes that result in literally decades of turmoil, a potential break up of the country, etc.
When the decision is of such importance, it is obviously important that it is done so after a decisive accord has been reached. This referendum was far from that. It should have had a clear super majority needed for change. Like 65 or 75%.
Originally Posted by Libretio:
“Yes, basically 50/50, no matter how much you cut the figures. Some Brexiteers are desperately trying to rewrite history by making it seem like the result wasn't as close as it actually was.
They do it by emphasising the difference (1,269.501) which swung it for Brexit whilst de-emphasising the colossal figures on both sides of the eventual vote, to make it seem like the 'lower' number on the Remain side is somehow less important. Almost half the people who voted in the referendum were against the idea of Brexit, and the Leavers won by a comparative whisker. Even Nigel Farrago said as much when he pre-empted the vote by saying a 52-48 win for Remainers would not have settled the matter.”
“Yes, basically 50/50, no matter how much you cut the figures. Some Brexiteers are desperately trying to rewrite history by making it seem like the result wasn't as close as it actually was.
They do it by emphasising the difference (1,269.501) which swung it for Brexit whilst de-emphasising the colossal figures on both sides of the eventual vote, to make it seem like the 'lower' number on the Remain side is somehow less important. Almost half the people who voted in the referendum were against the idea of Brexit, and the Leavers won by a comparative whisker. Even Nigel Farrago said as much when he pre-empted the vote by saying a 52-48 win for Remainers would not have settled the matter.”
50/50? I take it maths wasn't your strong point at school?
Originally Posted by moox:
“Rugby games don't usually have outcomes that result in literally decades of turmoil, a potential break up of the country, etc.
When the decision is of such importance, it is obviously important that it is done so after a decisive accord has been reached. This referendum was far from that. It should have had a clear super majority needed for change. Like 65 or 75%.”
“Rugby games don't usually have outcomes that result in literally decades of turmoil, a potential break up of the country, etc.
When the decision is of such importance, it is obviously important that it is done so after a decisive accord has been reached. This referendum was far from that. It should have had a clear super majority needed for change. Like 65 or 75%.”
I'm sure plenty of school kids would love it to be so as until we get a 75% vote either way we'll just keep asking the question and they'll get a day off school every few weeks. Might even improve the voter count as people will be fed up of booking days off/arranging cover for the kids after the 55th time
Originally Posted by moox:
“Rugby games don't usually have outcomes that result in literally decades of turmoil, a potential break up of the country, etc.
When the decision is of such importance, it is obviously important that it is done so after a decisive accord has been reached. This referendum was far from that. It should have had a clear super majority needed for change. Like 65 or 75%.”
“Rugby games don't usually have outcomes that result in literally decades of turmoil, a potential break up of the country, etc.
When the decision is of such importance, it is obviously important that it is done so after a decisive accord has been reached. This referendum was far from that. It should have had a clear super majority needed for change. Like 65 or 75%.”
Would you be saying the same had your side won? No!
Originally Posted by MTUK1:
“Would you be saying the same had your side won? No!”
“Would you be saying the same had your side won? No!”
No, you're right, I wouldn't - because like I said in the post you quoted, supermajorities should be for a vote for change. Voting to remain is not voting for change. It is the status quo.
You also can't really have a supermajority for both outcomes. What would a 52/48 remain result have meant? Another referendum? Ignoring the result? Madness
Originally Posted by MTUK1:
“50/50? I take it maths wasn't your strong point at school?”
“50/50? I take it maths wasn't your strong point at school?”
I take it you're one of those foaming-at-the-mouth Brexit-at-all-costs sort of person. That would explain a lot.
Originally Posted by MTUK1:
“Would you be saying the same had your side won? No!”
“Would you be saying the same had your side won? No!”
Gawd give me strength...
Originally Posted by moox:
“No, you're right, I wouldn't - because like I said in the post you quoted, supermajorities should be for a vote for change. Voting to remain is not voting for change. It is the status quo.
You also can't really have a supermajority for both outcomes. What would a 52/48 remain result have meant? Another referendum? Ignoring the result? Madness”
“No, you're right, I wouldn't - because like I said in the post you quoted, supermajorities should be for a vote for change. Voting to remain is not voting for change. It is the status quo.
You also can't really have a supermajority for both outcomes. What would a 52/48 remain result have meant? Another referendum? Ignoring the result? Madness
”
Hypocrite?
2 of 3
