Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Zarlak said:
Actually, fecking millions of us average people understood the implications of Brexit. You're the one belittling British people's intelligence here. Don't want to see leavers trying to weasel their way out of personal responsibility by claiming they never understood it, the picture was painted as clear as day the entire run up. It's laughable that you say Paul is an expert and so knows what he's talking about, when the entire emphasis of leavers was to actively not listen to experts because they didn't trust them. Every expert was telling you day in, day out that it was a bad idea, and all the reasons why, but the leavers listened to them and then said 'nope, I don't believe you.' That is one of the main reasons why they're called idiots, precisely because those who lacked the knowledge required, were provided it by the people who had the knowledge, and they said they didn't believe or trust them. That is absolutely moronic at its core.
Click to expand...

Spot on.

Buster15 said:
You have missed the point completely.
The post related to MP's cheering about the vote to take no deal off the table.
Click to expand...

Mate. With all due respect, the last 30 pages have been filled with you pretty much consistently missing the point. You need to take a step back and quit condescending people who understand the situation better than you do.
 
Wibble said:
Which is why referendums are often such lotteries.
Click to expand...

Referendums are only lotteries when those calling them have not defined the terms of acceptance, e.g. a 2:1 outcome, or over 65 % result etc. beforehand. The reason for not bothering to define such terms in advance is the arrogant belief of those calling the referendum, that nobody could possibly vote against their opinion!

Referendums are valid when they are part of a written constitution, and when such a constitution defines how the results are to be accepted, beforehand. In this case the UK had neither.

Many of those voting to Leave are accused of looking backwards, but effectively the whole of a our law-making and at least part of our political system is built on looking back...at precedents already set. Its the way things are done, and learning from your mistakes is not an unreasonable position to take, i.e. those who learn nothing from mistakes, are condemned to repeating them, but not sure the Remain voters would agree!
 
Maticmaker said:
Referendums are only lotteries when those calling them have not defined the terms of acceptance, e.g. a 2:1 outcome, or over 65 % result etc. beforehand. The reason for not bothering to define such terms in advance is the arrogant belief of those calling the referendum, that nobody could possibly vote against their opinion!

Referendums are valid when they are part of a written constitution, and when such a constitution defines how the results are to be accepted, beforehand. In this case the UK had neither.

Many of those voting to Leave are accused of looking backwards, but effectively the whole of a our law-making and at least part of our political system is built on looking back...at precedents already set. Its the way things are done, and learning from your mistakes is not an unreasonable position to take, i.e. those who learn nothing from mistakes, are condemned to repeating them, but not sure the Remain voters would agree!
Click to expand...

So if there is a second Scottish independence referendum anything under 65% for leaving the UK shouldn't count?
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
So if there is a second Scottish independence referendum anything under 65% for leaving the UK shouldn't count?
Click to expand...


No, that figure was quoted as an example. My point was that if the UK had a written constitution it would ensure that for any referendum held a defined figure for acceptance of the outcome should be made beforehand, it could be a 4% difference, as with the last one, but the point is it should be specified before the event.
 
Maticmaker said:
No, that figure was quoted as an example. My point was that if the UK had a written constitution it would ensure that for any referendum held a defined figure for acceptance of the outcome should be made beforehand, it could be a 4% difference, as with the last one, but the point is it should be specified before the event.
Click to expand...

The Scottish Nationalists who called the referendum specified anything over 50% including by even 1 vote before the event. Cameron specified the same target before the Brexit referendum.

I'm not following your thinking.

Also its not arrogant belief that you couldn't lose a 50% referendum which informed the decision, its the understanding of what happens if you get a majority but not a large enough of one to carry an arbitrary higher threshold. A very real concern not as easy to dismiss as people favouring the continuation of the status quo would like to suggest.
 
diarm said:
Spot on.



Mate. With all due respect, the last 30 pages have been filled with you pretty much consistently missing the point. You need to take a step back and quit condescending people who understand the situation better than you do.
Click to expand...

Mate.
I am absolutely delighted that you have been keeping a track of my posts over the last 30 pages.
I am sure that you have learned a great deal from them.

I on the other hand deliberately skip over posts that are clearly written by those who know nothing.
These include yours.
Good bye.
 
Buster15 said:
Mate.
I am absolutely delighted that you have been keeping a track of my posts over the last 30 pages.
I am sure that you have learned a great deal from them.

I on the other hand deliberately skip over posts that are clearly written by those who know nothing.
These include yours.
Good bye.
Click to expand...

I reckon if you were made of chocolate you'd eat yourself.
 
Buster15 said:
Mate.
I am absolutely delighted that you have been keeping a track of my posts over the last 30 pages.
I am sure that you have learned a great deal from them.

I on the other hand deliberately skip over posts that are clearly written by those who know nothing.
These include yours.
Good bye.
Click to expand...

Well you obviously don't as you just responded to it :smirk:
 
Buster15 said:
Mate.
I am absolutely delighted that you have been keeping a track of my posts over the last 30 pages.
I am sure that you have learned a great deal from them.

I on the other hand deliberately skip over posts that are clearly written by those who know nothing.
These include yours.
Good bye.
Click to expand...
Christ.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
The Scottish Nationalists who called the referendum specified anything over 50% including by even 1 vote before the event. Cameron specified the same target before the Brexit referendum.

I'm not following your thinking.

Also its not arrogant belief that you couldn't lose a 50% referendum which informed the decision, its the understanding of what happens if you get a majority but not a large enough of one to carry an arbitrary higher threshold. A very real concern not as easy to dismiss as people favouring the continuation of the status quo would like to suggest.
Click to expand...

I can see that!
I'm talking about having a UK written constitution which lays down these things in advance, not some 'winning' margin dreamed up by whoever calls the referendum. The Scots Nationalists called for the referendum in Scotland, not the Unionists, Cameron called for the Brexit referendum in the UK because of promises he made to parts of his party, and he thought Remain would win... both initiators set their own winning post margins.
 
Maticmaker said:
I can see that!
I'm talking about having a UK written constitution which lays down these things in advance, not some 'winning' margin dreamed up by whoever calls the referendum. The Scots Nationalists called for the referendum in Scotland, not the Unionists, Cameron called for the Brexit referendum in the UK because of promises he made to parts of his party, and he thought Remain would win... both initiators set their own winning post margins.
Click to expand...

Ok, but the written constitution would have to pick a threshold for constitutional change. What figure should that be?

You are not one of these its written down a long time ago in a constitution so its sacrosanct types are you? I mean, how do you say to the SNP next time you want a referendum you have to get over 65% otherwise you can't have independence and how do you think that would play out if they got 51%? My guess is badly and the idea is ill thought out wisdom of the ages bullshit.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
Ok, but the written constitution would have to pick a threshold for constitutional change. What figure should that be?

You are not one of these its written down a long time ago in a constitution so its sacrosanct types are you? I mean, how do you say to the SNP next time you want a referendum you have to get over 65% otherwise you can't have independence and how do you think that would play out if they got 51%? My guess is badly and the idea is ill thought out wisdom of the ages bullshit.
Click to expand...

Which is why only the fact that a qualified majority is required will be specified. The actual threshold is determined by parliaments which makes sense since you generally need a parliamentary act if you want to call for a referendum.
 
This thread reminds me that British politicians are amongst the least skilled and worst in the world.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
Ok, but the written constitution would have to pick a threshold for constitutional change. What figure should that be?

You are not one of these its written down a long time ago in a constitution so its sacrosanct types are you? I mean, how do you say to the SNP next time you want a referendum you have to get over 65% otherwise you can't have independence and how do you think that would play out if they got 51%? My guess is badly and the idea is ill thought out wisdom of the ages bullshit.
Click to expand...

No, the written constitution would present the guidelines for holding a referendum on major change. Any Government wishing to initiate a referendum would have to meet that criteria, including specifying the winning margins, it could be by just one vote, providing the referendum is held in accordance with the relevant part of the constitution.

The decision to hold a referendum would always be in the lap of the Government of the day, that wouldn't change. We don't have a written constitution just now, the nearest thing is the Magna Carte, so the only thing that's sacrosanct is precedent.

My original point was that Referendums do not have to be the lotteries they tend to be at the moment. Learning from history is never bullshit!
 
Maticmaker said:
No, the written constitution would present the guidelines for holding a referendum on major change. Any Government wishing to initiate a referendum would have to meet that criteria, including specifying the winning margins, it could be by just one vote, providing the referendum is held in accordance with the relevant part of the constitution.

The decision to hold a referendum would always be in the lap of the Government of the day, that wouldn't change. We don't have a written constitution just now, the nearest thing is the Magna Carte, so the only thing that's sacrosanct is precedent.

My original point was that Referendums do not have to be the lotteries they tend to be at the moment. Learning from history is never bullshit!
Click to expand...

Here your is the original point,

"Referendums are only lotteries when those calling them have not defined the terms of acceptance, e.g. a 2:1 outcome, or over 65 % result etc. beforehand"

Now you say

"including specifying the winning margins, it could be by just one vote"

The history lesson from all this is that referendums are not solutions to difficult political decisions we shouldn't hold them and more people should have voted for Ed Miliband and none of this would have happened.
 
So are any leave voters still happy with their decision? if so, could you give me 1 reason to be cheerful that's factual and not emotional rhetoric.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
Here your is the original point,

"Referendums are only lotteries when those calling them have not defined the terms of acceptance, e.g. a 2:1 outcome, or over 65 % result etc. beforehand"

Now you say

"including specifying the winning margins, it could be by just one vote"

The history lesson from all this is that referendums are not solutions to difficult political decisions we shouldn't hold them and more people should have voted for Ed Miliband and none of this would have happened.
Click to expand...

I also said in the same response that
"Referendums are valid when they are part of a written constitution, and when such a constitution defines how the results are to be accepted, beforehand. In this case the UK had neither."

I agree with you, that ill considered (binary) referendums are not helpful and as we've seen sow division. With all binary choices the winning side (no matter what the margin) always accepts the outcome, its only the losing side which disagree. As with our beloved game, the side benefiting from the refs decision always agrees, the side which loses out from that same decision rarely does... especially now there is VAR available!
 
Maticmaker said:
I can see that!
I'm talking about having a UK written constitution which lays down these things in advance, not some 'winning' margin dreamed up by whoever calls the referendum. The Scots Nationalists called for the referendum in Scotland, not the Unionists, Cameron called for the Brexit referendum in the UK because of promises he made to parts of his party, and he thought Remain would win... both initiators set their own winning post margins.
Click to expand...
In fairness the referendum they had was advisory and not binding... It's the politicians who chose to make it binding by invoking article 50.
 
sun_tzu said:
In fairness the referendum they had was advisory and not binding... It's the politicians who chose to make it binding by invoking article 50.
Click to expand...
I don't even think it's that that makes it "binding", it's that most politicians from the two main parties regard it as undemocratic to suggest opinions may have altered in the face of evidence three years on.
 
Anyone watched “brexit: uncivil war” yet? Halfway through, some of the characters are as I’d imagine them

One of you lot must be Dominic Cummings I reckon
 
Camy89 said:
I pray to him that you stop speaking to people in a condescending tone.

He's yet to answer me.
Click to expand...

He has now.
You are correct. Looking at my posts I can see that they can be condescending and for that, I apologise to anyone I may have offended including anyone from Cork.

The tone of this Brexit thread has become divisive and confrontational and I guess I followed this tone.

I will endeavour to stick to being as non-condescending as possible in future and thanks for pointing this out.
 
I saw a bill board with a tweet from JRM on it saying that we could have a 2nd referendum once the terms of leaving were agreed.

Initially I thought, good, but on reflection, wouldn't it have been better to have, at least, a clear framework, before the first one?
 
Oo0AahCantona said:
So are any feckwiteers still happy with their decision? if so, could you give me 1 reason to be cheerful that's factual and not emotional rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Fact number 1: Ger
Fact number 2: Rrr
Fact number 3: onn
Fact number 4: wiv
Fact number 5: it

Now I dare to you try and refute that?
 
Stanley Road said:
:lol:

I love the way bmi blaming brexit uncertainty for their collapse.

18 people per flight average. feck off
Click to expand...

They operate 45 seater airplanes. Not 180 seaters. Obviously the company wasn’t doing particularly well anyway, but that number as a year long average is not tremendously low.

I must say I find the attitude kinda what I was expecting would happen among Brexiteers. First (pre-Referendum), claim the businesses will boom. When the businesses issue warnings, claim it’s “project fear”. When business start to shut down citing Brexit, claim it’s all lies. And finally when recession truly bites, blame everyone else from the incompetent politicians, to the EU, to the bad man in the sky.
 
MadMike said:
They operate 45 seater airplanes. Not 180 seaters. Obviously the company wasn’t doing particularly well anyway, but that number as a year long average is not tremendously low.

I must say I find the attitude kinda what I was expecting would happen among Brexiteers. First (pre-Referendum), claim the businesses will boom. When the businesses issue warnings, claim it’s “project fear”. When business start to shut down citing Brexit, claim it’s all lies. And finally when recession truly bites, blame everyone else from the incompetent politicians, to the EU, to the bad man in the sky.
Click to expand...

And 35 seaters.
 
Stanley Road said:
:lol:

I love the way bmi blaming brexit uncertainty for their collapse.

18 people per flight average. feck off
Click to expand...
What about all of the other organisations that are hurt or moving?

Is that funny too? Or is it just a coincidence that they are all packing up a month before brexit?

Have a good laugh, March 30th none of us will be laughing.
 
Berbasbullet said:
What about all of the other organisations that are hurt or moving?

Is that funny too? Or is it just a coincidence that they are all packing up a month before brexit?

Have a good laugh, March 30th none of us will be laughing.
Click to expand...
He will be, he doesn't give a toss.
 
MadMike said:
They operate 45 seater airplanes. Not 180 seaters. Obviously the company wasn’t doing particularly well anyway, but that number as a year long average is not tremendously low.

I must say I find the attitude kinda what I was expecting would happen among Brexiteers. First (pre-Referendum), claim the businesses will boom. When the businesses issue warnings, claim it’s “project fear”. When business start to shut down citing Brexit, claim it’s all lies. And finally when recession truly bites, blame everyone else from the incompetent politicians, to the EU, to the bad man in the sky.
Click to expand...
All the planes i fly on to the uk are packed, i used to fly british Midland from schipol as it was my favourite. If bmi is the same company and it has died then bad luck, if it isnt the same company then bad luck. feck me, blame brexit all you like, uk jas not left yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.