Were they? Even if this were so, hyperbole and downright fabrication are not equivalents.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Really. The only vote was on the Letwin ammendment. Not the Boris deal.
That may be so but the desperation and bullsheet came thick and heavy from Remain towards the end of the debates.
The only thing we have come to understand is that there is absolutely nothing about Brexit that will make everyone happy.
Nothing.
Can you elaborate on those points?No I'm not and would vote remain again. Brexit has the potential to harm my company and certain aspects of it can be moved to mainland Europe.
That being said, I have Leave voting parents and leave voting friends and on certain points I agree with them so I usually try and stay our of these things, interesting as they are, being something of a centrist I get bashed by both sides
For example?
Yes. People massively understand what the Letwin ammendment achieved and what that means going forward (and why the govt probably won't be allowed to bring a MV today):
Thread here:
If not for Boris's bluster coming back to bite him Letwin was a bit of a glancing blow for him.
Yes it would and to a centrist like myself that is mana from heaven mate.
No matter the margins in a democratic process. A win is a win and a loss is a loss.
I make no secret of being a remainer and that makes me fairly unpopular at home at times but I did it for selfish reasons as already stated but that doesn'tmean I wish for ever further union so in those respects I sympathise with the Leave voters.
Can you not remember George Osborne and David Camerons performances towards the end of the debates? It was cringeworthy stuff, warning of financial armageddon. None of which has transpired.
You haven't left yet.
Anyway, here we go, closet leave voter 101
Step #1 - I voted remain but .. <let's be honest I actually voted leave>
Step #2 - There are reasons I can understand why people voted leave
Step #3 - mumble mumble remain lied, something about George Osborne
Step #4 - Refuses to list any tangible reasons why leave is a good thing
So, on to step 4?
Yeah sure, being a totally sovereign nation again appeals to me. I don't like the fact that we moved from simply being the EEC without consent from the nation.
I will also say that my Mrs's parents are Greek, they are not fans of the EU at all and have seen their businesses suffer very badly back home. Yes, the Greeks aren't perfect but is a very good example of how political and financial integration EU doesn't fit all.
I mean we have had our currency devalued by like 1/4 .... That's not entirely insignificant
I like this woman a lot.
We haven't even left yet and it's already been bad enough. Even the Tories own projections show leaving under Boris' shitty deal will be extremely harmful to the economy ffs.
Those aren't points, that's just opinion, what basis is there for that?
You are a totally sovereign nation, what benefits will leaving the EU bring that makes you more totally sovereign? The UK gave its consent to move from being just in the EEC, it's the UK who decided not to have a referendum on the matter, not the EU.
I'm asking what points they've made that you could argue are good reasons for leaving, like benefits etc.? Can you give me examples?
so of all the doom mongering predictions absolutely none of it matches up with the complete shit-show that transpired? That's quite impressive.
The USA are the biggest single country but as a bloc the EU is far bigger and different types of products which are usually urgent.
The distance factor is the speed. With the USA you've got a minimum of about three weeks to sort yourself out with the paperwork. NZ you've got three months at least.
Nearly every nation on Earth is in some kind of trading bloc who look out for each other - I have no idea how the UK will rally alone to get any better deals than they currently have with far less influence and appeal.
Agree it's pointless to leave the EU and stay in the CU/SM but then imo all Brexit's will be harmful.
Legally binding would be the ECJ.
Do you actually believe that?
Exactly that. Because of his stupid antics there is zero trust and hence the Letwin outcome.
Having said that, it cannot be right for the HoC not to at least have the MV.
And all of this shambles just for the Withdrawal Agreement, which in the grand scheme of things is just a small part of leaving.
Far far more significant with be the future trading agreement....
How long is that going to take.
Crikey, this is fun
My point remains the same, it needn't have been a shit show. Politicians have made it one.
Yet now people like you tell us repeatedly that leaving the single market was always the plan and every who voted leave definitely knew and wanted this.
You're either lying or ignorant.
To remain in the single market you have to accept freedom of movement. From all I heard from leavers and the campaign was to leave it and the biggest gripe was FoM. I'm not sure if this was some confusion by Dan or just him thinking we'll be given some special place in it. I've watched a lot them during 2016 say they'll be willing to take a hit of 5-10 years just so they can leave.
Leave has always meant leave. The EU is set up in such a way that there's no halfway house soft Brexit. In order to do your own trade deals, end FoM and not be under EU laws you have to leave.
I'm not for leaving by the way. We should revoke A50.
I do yes.
That is correct, but the Leave campaign spent their entire energies trying to deceive people into believing that was not the case, and that you could Leave without the resultant pain. Thus all the lies about potential scenarios that people who understood the EU properly knew were impossible.
I'm in the category of being a remainer but wanting the vote to be honoured. I wasn't 100% happy with the EU but I thought it was better to try and influence from within than leave it altogether. Whatever foul play took place during the campaign is largely irrelavent now unless someone can prove in the courts that criminal behaviour took place of a nature that one its own influenced the vote. Truth is there are many people in the country who for one reason or another were unhappy with either the EU or (more truthfully) the government and saw the vote as away of getting their voices heard.
I run a business and 70% of what we do comes from Airbus and I am majorly concerned about the fallout from this.
However, we have to leave and feel the pain that 90% of posters on this site, including myself, think we are going to feel.
If that turns out to be correct then some party - probably Labour can campaign to take us back in.
People say that the EU would force the Euro and Schenghen on us, but I don't think they would.
Trying to overturn this result is the wrong way.
The Tories will probably win the GE but it would be fatal if they were to win by a landslide.
The way the other parties are acting at the moment would make that a real possibility.
I run a business and 70% of what we do comes from Airbus and I am majorly concerned about the fallout from this.
However, we have to leave and feel the pain that 90% of posters on this site, including myself, think we are going to feel.
If that turns out to be correct then some party - probably Labour can campaign to take us back in.
People say that the EU would force the Euro and Schenghen on us, but I don't think they would.
Trying to overturn this result is the wrong way.
The Tories will probably win the GE but it would be fatal if they were to win by a landslide.
The way the other parties are acting at the moment would make that a real possibility.
They won't. Other countries know the UK urgently needs new trading partners and they can speculate. The UK will end up importing substandard products from other countries simply because it's more sustainable and will cost less than having the standard quality ones.
And if UK leaves without deal as a lot want to, the EU will issue and immediate embargo on exports and imports to UK, like any other entity would do in a unilateral contract rescission, and will create panic in the market, leading the UK to make expensive and panic deals.
Unless they are stalling because they are negotiating them.
So, how do you explain the presence of the opposition in the House of Commons, then? After all, in your winner takes all, say whatever you want and hope you sneak over the line version of democracy the party that won should have dictatorial powers for the five years that they are in charge, shouldn't they?
If you're honest about being a Remainer I'd think carefully about legitimising a winners/losers narrative as if we were talking about a kids football match.
This part is for me the only one that matters in the entire Brexit debate. Do people realize how ridiculous that suggestion is? There isn't an organization, country, company, household, you can be part of, entirely or partially, without being under its rules. All of his entities are legally and/or geographically defined, specific rules will apply to them.
The reason for the division is that no party has had a workable majority since the referendum. Combine that with the fact that our contrarian politics means the opposition would not back any deal brought to Parliament simply because it was negotiated by their opposition and it means perpetual log-jam.
Logically extracting ourselves from the EU was going to be a transitional process taking c. 15 years and the way to do this would be to become Norway, then Switzerland, then Canada whilst being able to negotiate without the time and political pressures we're currently seeing. Naturally if 5 years into the extraction process a new government were elected with a manifesto against further extraction or in fact for re-integration, then we'd do so. If a government was elected on further extraction then we'd continue on that path.
This is the same as all laws of course, you end up with successful parties being right in the centre of the populaces belief systems. Taxation as an example has been similar (as a % of GDP) under all successful governments of the last 20-25 years; meaning we have population consensus on this. Political maneuvering and population consensus would naturally result in all parties after a few elections being comfortable with the status quo on Brexit (whether that be sticking with Norway, Switzerland or Canada would depend on negotiations by the party or parties in power).
That's why Johnson's agreement to have further discussions seems fine to me (as did May's). If Labour win an election they can negotiate the next phase as they choose, if that's further integration then that would be their prerogative. If the Brexit Party won the next election then they would torpedo discussions in favour of the WTO. If the Tories won they would continue on the current path.
No that's not a correct interpretation of what I think at all NinjaFletch. Of course I understand the relevance of the opposition but I do believe the result of the 2016 referendum should be enacted before overturning it as I genuinely believe something important will be gone if a national vote is ultimately ignored.
If then, it turns out to be the horror show some believe (I don't think it will be quite that bad personally) then as someone else has pointed out, someone could in the future run on taking us back in. At least we would have tried and respected a vote.
I'm not sure why you think I'm being dishonest though. I've no need to be dishonest.
I'm seriously unsure whether they'd let us back in at all. The UK makes life constantly difficult for the EU, but once we were in the benefits for them just about outweighed the cons. If we were actually out though, would they really welcome back in a disruptive country that recently cost them many billions, and which could be expected to keep delivering UKIP MEP's?
So you know better than the governments own economic analysis?
The only people who can ignore the previous vote are the people? So which people are being overruled here and how can that be a larger group than ignoring all people by refusing a second referendum?
I really struggle to understand this point of view.
Frankly, a 4% victory in a referendum on a critical issue, irrespective of the absolute bullshit the leave campaign was built on is absolutely no justification for this country burning billions.
And when the cuts come to cover this loss they were come in the DWP, the NHS, Social Care and education.
It is irresponsible to accept that.
The Tories will win the next GE no matter what I'm sure. The non metropolitan South of England will ensure that.
This is the point, the leave campaign lied. Literally constantly.
The argument that my post was in response to was that all leave voters wanted out of the single market, which is demonstrably untrue because they were being fed a pack of lies and many if not most had absolutely no understanding of what they were actually voting for.
Because without respecting the first one, why should the results of a second be any more valid? It's this argument I don't get. If we leftand in 10 years time there was another referendum fair enough but on what planet is it acceptable to ignore the results of one and have a second hoping for a different answer (as that is all it is). Where would that one end?
Can you imagine the chaos if remain won? Can you say remain would give up if Leave won again?
I'm unsure that you do, because you responded by talking about winners and losers in response to a point about the EU ref not giving a mandate for a hard brexit.
The argument falls short, because it implies that people are just being asked the same question again. If that was true then you would be absolutely right. That's not the case however. When the 1st ref happened, people were being asked to vote for a position that at the time was undefined. Leave could have meant any one of a hundred different things. The grown up thing to do now we know what is actually on the table is to confirm that the chosen path is the one people actually wanted. It's not just repetition.
I don't see how its been wrong. It's been a shitshow economically an getting worse. Also the main point your missing is we haven't even left yet.
Last edited:
But unless I'm living in some parallel universe we haven't ignored the result of the first one, we've spent 3 years negotiating a withdrawal.
The two referendums are not on the same thing is as simply as i can put it. The first was a direction of travel which we've done, the second is to confirm we're happy with the destination. That's not a complex thing to understand so i put it to you that you do perfectly understand it you just don't like it.
If it comes back leave then we've confirmed what needs to be done. If it comes back remain then it's because the people now don't like where we've ended up. Shouting "it's wrong you can't change your mind you have to respect your 2016 self" at people has got to be one of the worst political arguments I've heard.
Why dont they aprove a deal in the House then do a referendum with 2 options: The Deal or Remain?
Why do people keep bringing up Norway? You can't honour the GFA with a Norway style arrangement.