Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[NinjaFletch]

Its always notable that when those who advocate a second referendum, always have to state and... "Remain should be an option on the ballot", because they are fundamentally aware that Remain as an option to solve Brexit has now gone, it has no legitimacy. Unfortunately the consent of the loser's was not forthcoming and therefore it is now only about 'a deal' (May's or Boris's, or if he ever gets into power, Jeremy's).

Had the consent been forthcoming, no deliberate political 'sandbagging' a full blown support of the Governments attempt to secure a deal etc. then its quite possible when May came back with her deal, and it proved acceptable to nobody, then there was the perfect legitimate opportunity to say lets revoke A50 and go away and think again. That opportunity came and went, now neither side will 'stand down' and it will be brute political force that settles the argument and no sane Government in the UK will even think of offering a referendum on anything, ever again!

So you can't use words to explain what you want anymore because if you say what you want it lacks legitimacy?

I mean, I guess going back to a pre-iron age system of hitting at rocks with other bits of rock and grunting at each other is probably what some of the nuttier fringes want, but for the rest of us I think the development of language has been a bit of a boon.

 

[Massive Spanner]

The idea that a second referendum would somehow be any less "legitimate" than the first is just mind-bendingly stupid.

It would mean Real are still CL champions, not Liverpool, so don't discount it.

 

[Honest John]

LBC, Barnsley, you say. A pub? Whoopidoo.

I'd like to know what's worse than civil riots? Murdering more Remain supporting MP's? Is that the threat?

If people want to riot, smash up they own cities and kill remain people, they will quickly be arrested and then join those Tommy Robinson supporters in jail.

Nobody wants any of that. I am saying that vote has to be honoured else why would any vote will ever be honoured again. Why should a 2nd ref with a majority to remain be honoured? Was the 2016 referendum illegal? Can that be shown? Sure a lot of lies were told. But are lies not told in every election there has ever been? Fundamentally there were problems in this country that Cameron either did not understand or underestimated. If we are a democracy and referendums are going to be used to settle issues then they need to be honoured. Even if it is painful. If it is that painful, have another one to reverse it. But having a 2nd before the first is enacted will have the effect of rendering it meaningless.

 

[Rado_N]

It would mean Real are still CL champions, not Liverpool, so don't discount it.

Goddamit

 

[NinjaFletch]

Nobody wants any of that. I am saying that vote has to be honoured else why would any vote will ever be honoured again. Why should a 2nd ref with a majority to remain be honoured? Was the 2016 referendum illegal? Can that be shown? Sure a lot of lies were told. But are lies not told in every election there has ever been? Fundamentally there were problems in this country that Cameron either did not understand or underestimated. If we are a democracy and referendums are going to be used to settle issues then they need to be honoured. Even if it is painful. If it is that painful, have another one to reverse it. But having a 2nd before the first is enacted will have the effect of rendering it meaningless.

I know this is a bit of an over-worn example now, but I think it works quite well.

Imagine you walk into the pub and order a drink. I give you the drink by throwing it in your face. You are unhappy about this, and would much rather have had the drink to drink. You ask again if you could have the drink, but this time request that it is placed in front of you rather than thrown at you to which I respond that, unfortunately, the only way I can serve you the drink is by throwing it in your face. Armed with this information you now have a choice, do you a) continue to want a drink in this pub, knowing that it will be thrown in your face again or b) decide that maybe you don't want a drink after all?

You can rework that example any which way you want, but it is only when it comes to Brexit that certain portions of this country will argue that you should not be allowed to change your mind once presented with more information. In any other circumstance or walk of life it's patently absurd to try and bind people to a decision that they made before the full facts became clear.

 

[Penna]

I'm just neither a die-hard remainer like a lot of you on here. I've got people who i love massively who all voted Leave.

So have I, some of my closest relatives. We don't fall out about it because we don't really talk about it. And yet oates and I are two of those die-hard Remainers and we've turned our lives upside-down because of Brexit - we've left the UK because we want to stay in Europe as long as we want, we have no British home anymore, aren't British residents, etc etc.

My relatives are 100% wrong in their opinions as far as I'm concerned, and I don't really care if they think there are good arguments for Leave, because there aren't.

 

[Red_toad]

The idea that a second referendum would somehow be any less "legitimate" than the first is just mind-bendingly stupid.

Maybe they need a referendum on if they need a second referendum?
it’s all fecked in the head give the people what they voted for, right or wrong it was the majority choice.

 

[Buster15]

I also voted in the 1975 referendum. It was never just a trading bloc. The number one reason, although there were many reasons, I voted for staying was freedom of movement not so that British Leyland could sell their cars more easily - Whatever treaties or laws have been signed by successive British governments are signed by governments which presumably voted for by the British electorate and by the EU parliament with British representation.

I too voted to join in that referendum; gosh, where has all that time gone, endless debating Brexit aside.
People are under the misapprehension that it was still called the Common Market which it wasn't.
One of the major principles of the organisation was Peace in Europe and we must not forget that. And that is one of the reasons why I struggle to understand the older generation dismissing that important objective.
We/they somehow ignore the fact that the UK is a fundamental part of Europe. And essentially Europe and the EU work hand in hand, albeit separate entities.
As you say, MEP's and government have been part of the various laws approved.
I do believe though that the EU has not been particularly good at championing their achievements and there is a need to appear far less remote.

 

[Honest John]

I know this is a bit of an over-worn example now, but I think it works quite well.

Imagine you walk into the pub and order a drink. I give you the drink by throwing it in your face. You are unhappy about this, and would much rather have had the drink to drink. You ask again if you could have the drink, but this time request that it is placed in front of you rather than thrown at you to which I respond that, unfortunately, the only way I can serve you the drink is by throwing it in your face. Armed with this information you now have a choice, do you a) continue to want a drink in this pub, knowing that it will be thrown in your face again or b) decide that maybe you don't want a drink after all?

You can rework that example any which way you want, but it is only when it comes to Brexit that certain portions of this country will argue that you should not be allowed to change your mind once presented with more information. In any other circumstance or walk of life it's patently absurd to try and bind people to a decision that they made before the full facts became clear.

Imagine you came into my pub and asked for a pint of beer and I served you one and you tasted it and said "this beer is shite I want another one or my money back" you'd be perfectly within your rights. But saying it was shite without having tasted it would not justify another pint or your money back.

 

[Rooney24]

Absolutely nothing.



Look, I can't speak for all leave voters about why the UK has so much eurosceptisism but My Mum and Dad (not just them obviously) were asked in 1975 if they wanted to join the EEC, nothing more than a free trading bloc so they were told. Over they years they have seen successive governments signing treaties, ceding huge swathes of our sovereignty away without their consent. Now I don't care what people think of me for saying it but I sympathise with their view.

Surely those Governments received consent by being elected into power in the first place?

 

[finneh]

Norway has a hard border. Schengen does not follow the same border laws as the GFA/CTA

Fair enough - the 15 year fluid transition would still be the case though (with the first stage being the May/Johnson style agreement). Whether the population of NI in those circumstances wanted alignment with the UK at the potential expense of the GFA; or continued alignment with the EU would still be ultimately up to them.

I'd imagine the UK would move towards a Switzerland or Canada relationship over that period of time and NI would stay closer to the EU (with the consent of both countries).

 

[Volumiza]

So have I, some of my closest relatives. We don't fall out about it because we don't really talk about it. And yet oates and I are two of those die-hard Remainers and we've turned our lives upside-down because of Brexit - we've left the UK because we want to stay in Europe as long as we want, we have no British home anymore, aren't British residents, etc etc.

My relatives are 100% wrong in their opinions as far as I'm concerned, and I don't really care if they think there are good arguments for Leave, because there aren't.

I don’t fall out with my relatives and friends. Why should I? We do talk about it though, it’s hard not to as it’s everywhere you look and certainly some pub debates with my friends have got heated but it’s all good. People will believe what they want and think what they want.

It’s sad you’ve felt you had to leave. Are you British born or moved here?

 

[Wibble]

Maybe they need a referendum on if they need a second referendum?
it’s all fecked in the head give the people what they voted for, right or wrong it was the majority choice.

That isn't possible as noboby who voted leave had the faintest idea what leave involved or meant, as it was never articulated. Part of the reason we are still deadlocked all this time and effort later.

 

[NinjaFletch]

Imagine you came into my pub and asked for a pint of beer and I served you one and you tasted it and said "this beer is shite I want another one or my money back" you'd be perfectly within your rights. But saying it was shite without having tasted it would not justify another pint or your money back.

Except in your example the reason we think the beer is shite is because we just watched the bartender put the pint glass to the floor and piss in it. If you want to make sure it's piss before you return it fine, but you'd also be entitled to change your mind about drinking the pint of piss having watched the events leading up to it being served to you.

We know, now, what those events were, we know what the withdrawal agreement looks like, and we know it's piss. Asking people 'are you sure you want the piss?' is, of course, completely legitimate. If people decide that after all this they do want the piss it is, at least, an informed choice.

 

[Rado_N]

Maybe they need a referendum on if they need a second referendum?
it’s all fecked in the head give the people what they voted for, right or wrong it was the majority choice.

Because it's that simple. Clearly.

 

[Honest John]

Surely those Governments received consent by being elected into power in the first place?

As did this one along with the majority of the HoC on a mandate to enact Brexit.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

It was a contentious affair even back then Paul, if you voted in it (I won't call you old by the way, I was literally only born in that year ) you should know. Ted Heath, addressing Eurosceptic concerns (don't quote me exactly) stated something along the lines that there would be no more integration without consent. That consent was never specifically given and here we are.

Yes it was contentious back then with Benn, Foot, Barbara Castle and co. against it but both sides spoke rubbish then as they did in 2016. The governments have given consent. I don't agree with referendums or direct democracy. How can people who have no expertise in these areas understand what the consequences will be.
Having said that, now that politicians are now more closely scrutinised, don't think may of them know what they're talking about either.

I don't feel that old.

 

[Honest John]

Except in your example the reason we think the beer is shite is because we just watched the bartender put the pint glass to the floor and piss in it. If you want to make sure it's piss before you return it fine, but you'd also be entitled to change your mind about drinking the pint of piss having watched the events leading up to it being served to you.

We know, now, what those events were, we know what the withdrawal agreement looks like, and we know it's piss. Asking people 'are you sure you want the piss?' is, of course, completely legitimate. If people decide that after all this they do want the piss it is, at least, an informed choice.

I think exactly that. People were so pissed off with their lot that they would rather suffer the economic consequences than vote with the government. If you have next to nothing then nothing isn't such a big drop is it?

 

[Wibble]

Imagine you came into my pub and asked for a pint of beer and I served you one and you tasted it and said "this beer is shite I want another one or my money back" you'd be perfectly within your rights. But saying it was shite without having tasted it would not justify another pint or your money back.

It would if you knew it was poisoned.

 

[Smores]

Except in your example the reason we think the beer is shite is because we just watched the bartender put the pint glass to the floor and piss in it. If you want to make sure it's piss before you return it fine, but you'd also be entitled to change your mind about drinking the pint of piss having watched the events leading up to it being served to you.

We know, now, what those events were, we know what the withdrawal agreement looks like, and we know it's piss. Asking people 'are you sure you want the piss?' is, of course, completely legitimate. If people decide that after all this they do want the piss it is, at least, an informed choice.

Drink the piss you fecking traitor!

 

[Wibble]

Because it's that simple. Clearly.

Who knew?

Annoying that we have been stuffubg around for years not knowing this easy solution.

 

[esmufc07]

Drink the piss you fecking traitor!

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I too voted to join in that referendum; gosh, where has all that time gone, endless debating Brexit aside.
People are under the misapprehension that it was still called the Common Market which it wasn't.
One of the major principles of the organisation was Peace in Europe and we must not forget that. And that is one of the reasons why I struggle to understand the older generation dismissing that important objective.
We/they somehow ignore the fact that the UK is a fundamental part of Europe. And essentially Europe and the EU work hand in hand, albeit separate entities.
As you say, MEP's and government have been part of the various laws approved.
I do believe though that the EU has not been particularly good at championing their achievements and there is a need to appear far less remote.

Yes, time has flown by. A peaceful Europe was a big part of it. The 70s - grim but exciting.
The Uk sometimes forget their geographical position.
The EU have been poor in the past but have improved in recent years ironically.

 

[BobbyManc]

I said this recently r.e. Kuennsberg but it's true for the rest of them: I just don't think the majority are very good at their job; they find Parliamentary mechanisms confusing and, worse, a solid portion seem to find the whole thing just a bit tedious. There's many things that this Brexit shit show has been, but if you're a political nerd (which you damn well should be if it's your fecking job) boring is far from one of them. It's a bit like Sky employing a pundit to watch the football to tell everybody that it's shit and that rugby is a better sport. Too many of them are in it because it's a jolly jape and they can continue to hang around with their university mates at the HoC as long as they write up some tosh now and again to meet a deadline.

Kuennsberg seems more than intelligent enough to grasp these matters if it was in her interest to do so. The trouble is, it isn't. She's more than willing to push out a specific message so long as it secures her access to the right sources, and this is buttressed by what I suspect to be a loose degree of ideological congruity with her sources. The same is true for the likes of Peston.

 

[Redplane]

 

[Eboue]

Because it's that simple. Clearly.

Imagine if you went to a pub and the pub had a sign that said closed Wednesday but you went by on a Thursday after work because you wanted a drink. So you get there and the pub is still closed and you see someone inside so you tap on the windows and they point to a sign that says "please do not tap on the windows" so then you motion to the person inside to come closer so that you can talk. The person inside rolls their eyes and walks over to you. When they get close you start shouting through the door so they can hear you and you say "today is thursday, why are you closed?" and the person says "well we aren't open 24 hours on thursday" and then you say "that's not what the sign says" and you start tapping on the window again agitatedly and then the person points to the sign about not tapping on the windows again and you apologize without really meaning it. then you tell the person that if they aren't open for certain times, they should have a sign up for that and the person points to another sign that is kind of hidden and it shows the times they aren't open so now there are three signs you see: the sign about open days, the sign about open times and the sign about not tapping on the window and you say (but really its more like yelling) "a lot of good that does me now eh?" and the person inside shrugs their shoulders and goes back inside. then you walk away and mutter to yourself and you kick a rock on the ground and a dog barks. that's brexit mate

 

[Penna]

I don’t fall out with my relatives and friends. Why should I? We do talk about it though, it’s hard not to as it’s everywhere you look and certainly some pub debates with my friends have got heated but it’s all good. People will believe what they want and think what they want.

It’s sad you’ve felt you had to leave. Are you British born or moved here?

No, we're British born and bred. I never thought that in my retirement years I'd be living in another country! The way we feel about the UK now, I can't see us going back unless we have to. I'm disappointed, sad, angry, despairing - I can't begin to tell you. I did a lot of door-knocking in support of the last European referendum in 1975, I've always felt it was a massive deal.

 

[Volumiza]

Yes it was contentious back then with Benn, Foot, Barbara Castle and co. against it but both sides spoke rubbish then as they did in 2016. The governments have given consent. I don't agree with referendums or direct democracy. How can people who have no expertise in these areas understand what the consequences will be.
Having said that, now that politicians are now more closely scrutinised, don't think may of them know what they're talking about either.

I don't feel that old.

I agree with your point on direct democracy to a certain degree but the issue of Europe and our place in it has been a huge open ulcer on our parliament for 40 plus years.

I firmly believe that at each treaty stage of ‘ever closer union’ the public should have been asked. No government was elected on the manifesto of signing treaties that further integrate us into the EU.

This mess would have been avoided or sorted out much earlier and wouldn’t have been so destructive.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Drink the piss you fecking traitor!

 

[Volumiza]

No, we're British born and bred. I never thought that in my retirement years I'd be living in another country! The way we feel about the UK now, I can't see us going back unless we have to. I'm disappointed, sad, angry, despairing - I can't begin to tell you. I did a lot of door-knocking in support of the last European referendum in 1975, I've always felt it was a massive deal.

Really sad you feel that way Penna.

I work in a very European company and we have a lot of French and Spanish people come and work with us. None have left us thankfully but most have had massive concerns over the last 3 years.

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

 

[Rado_N]

Drink the piss you fecking traitor!

 

[Rado_N]

Imagine if you went to a pub and the pub had a sign that said closed Wednesday but you went by on a Thursday after work because you wanted a drink. So you get there and the pub is still closed and you see someone inside so you tap on the windows and they point to a sign that says "please do not tap on the windows" so then you motion to the person inside to come closer so that you can talk. The person inside rolls their eyes and walks over to you. When they get close you start shouting through the door so they can hear you and you say "today is thursday, why are you closed?" and the person says "well we aren't open 24 hours on thursday" and then you say "that's not what the sign says" and you start tapping on the window again agitatedly and then the person points to the sign about not tapping on the windows again and you apologize without really meaning it. then you tell the person that if they aren't open for certain times, they should have a sign up for that and the person points to another sign that is kind of hidden and it shows the times they aren't open so now there are three signs you see: the sign about open days, the sign about open times and the sign about not tapping on the window and you say (but really its more like yelling) "a lot of good that does me now eh?" and the person inside shrugs their shoulders and goes back inside. then you walk away and mutter to yourself and you kick a rock on the ground and a dog barks. that's brexit mate

What kind of pub is it?

 

[NinjaFletch]

Kuennsberg seems more than intelligent enough to grasp these matters if it was in her interest to do so. The trouble is, it isn't. She's more than willing to push out a specific message so long as it secures her access to the right sources, and this is buttressed by what I suspect to be a loose degree of ideological congruity with her sources. The same is true for the likes of Peston.

I think it's a combination of a few factors tbh. I think some of the constitutional issues have been genuinely complex and it's quite clear which journalists do understand them and which don't. There's not really time for someone who doesn't already to go away and educate themselves on it, given the 24hr twitter newsfeed, so they try to spoof it by parroting the lines of those that do.

But I also think there's a fair proportion of journalists who do the exact same thing with incredibly basic points of Parliamentary process, of which Kuennsberg is one – whether feigned or genuine, that for some reason have been able to climb to senior positions.

The problem should surely be that people who don't or can't be bothered to understand what they're reporting on should be rooted out far before it becomes in their interests to be used as a patsy in return for access.

At the very least they should be able to cheerlead for parliamentary democracy and tell you why they find it all terribly exciting, rather than acting that this thing they've dedicated their life to reporting on is a chore.

 

[Massive Spanner]

Fair enough - the 15 year fluid transition would still be the case though (with the first stage being the May/Johnson style agreement). Whether the population of NI in those circumstances wanted alignment with the UK at the potential expense of the GFA; or continued alignment with the EU would still be ultimately up to them.

I'd imagine the UK would move towards a Switzerland or Canada relationship over that period of time and NI would stay closer to the EU (with the consent of both countries).

Umm, it isn't up to them because they voted to remain, and yet here we are..

 

[Jippy]

Leaving the sheer lameness of the intro aside for a mo', it must've been a posh mate to have a garlic press about 35 years ago.

 

[Smores]

Leaving the sheer lameness of the intro aside for a mo', it must've been a posh mate to have a garlic press about 35 years ago.

I'm convinced brexit is going to be the thing that gives me blood pressure issues and male pattern baldness. That article

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I agree with your point on direct democracy to a certain degree but the issue of Europe and our place in it has been a huge open ulcer on our parliament for 40 plus years.

I firmly believe that at each treaty stage of ‘ever closer union’ the public should have been asked. No government was elected on the manifesto of signing treaties that further integrate us into the EU.

This mess would have been avoided or sorted out much earlier and wouldn’t have been so destructive.

All UK governments have used the EU as their scapegoat when it suits them to distract from their own failures.
The EU is not perfect and has its faults but still have not seen what the main objections that have suddenly been imposed on the UK are.

The big topics are Freedom of movement, this has been there since day 1. ECJ the same. Laws are mainly trade laws or minimum standards and yet the UK are saying they're going to maintain EU laws and standards so this makes no sense either. Sovereignty, every country is sovereign and the contributions argument is so pedantic it is untrue plus the Uk have the best deal in the EU.
What has the EU deprived the UK of? Being able to do these imaginary famous trade deals.

I really cannot see how the UK will benefit in the slightest by leaving the EU.

 

[Volumiza]

I'm convinced brexit is going to be the thing that gives me blood pressure issues and male pattern baldness. That article

Reading anything from the DM won't help blood pressure!

 

[finneh]

I know this is a bit of an over-worn example now, but I think it works quite well.

Imagine you walk into the pub and order a drink. I give you the drink by throwing it in your face. You are unhappy about this, and would much rather have had the drink to drink. You ask again if you could have the drink, but this time request that it is placed in front of you rather than thrown at you to which I respond that, unfortunately, the only way I can serve you the drink is by throwing it in your face. Armed with this information you now have a choice, do you a) continue to want a drink in this pub, knowing that it will be thrown in your face again or b) decide that maybe you don't want a drink after all?

You can rework that example any which way you want, but it is only when it comes to Brexit that certain portions of this country will argue that you should not be allowed to change your mind once presented with more information. In any other circumstance or walk of life it's patently absurd to try and bind people to a decision that they made before the full facts became clear.

I think this example fails in the eyes of many because they'd say the beer has not yet been received in any form.

In your example as a group you decide by a vote to go to a pub that sells beer, rather than a wine bar. Whilst voting it was obvious that there may have been numerous methods of consuming the beer once you got into the pub. As a group you would have no problem being asked by the bartender whether you wanted the beer to be in a pint glass, in a half, in a pitcher or thrown in your face. Likewise if the only options were a pint glass or thrown in your face you'd have no problem making that decision.

However as a group that had agreed to visit the pub you wouldn't expect the mere existence of numerous methods of consumption to bring the wine bar back into consideration. Let alone vote for any method of consumption in the wine bar compared with one method of consumption at the pub. By its very nature that would be a biased vote. The vote would have to be on the method of consumption in the pub.

Once you'd had your first drink in the pub of course you could ask the group whether they wanted another drink in the pub or to go to the wine bar. In fact you'd probably ask this before getting each round perpetually until the night ended.

Umm, it isn't up to them because they voted to remain, and yet here we are..

I think NI should have the ultimate say in their relationship with the UK and the EU. They voted to remain but also didn't vote to leave the UK either. Realistically I think if the NI population had the options of full EU membership as a fully independent country outside of the UK, quasi-alignment as per the current agreement on the table or full UK membership with a hard border with ROI... I imagine they'd probably opt for the agreement on the table.