What on Earth? What’s going on!
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
What on Earth? What’s going on!
I think from what I have seen that there is essentially 2 camps within peoples vote
One wants to cut ties with labour and take a much more pro remain (and if necessary rejoin stance) plus push right now for a final vote (even though it looks unlikely) - this will probably involve closer ties with the libs than currently exist
One wants to remain a broader church and try to keep labour on board
suspect stuff like this would have helped trigger it
The UK didn't want to head in a different direction in terms of everything. They wanted the EU to adapt on some issues.
I think blaming "the media" or saying "people are just too dumb to understand", is merely what losers say when any democratic exercise goes against them. Show me a country or region where only the people who understand all the issues and are untainted by media can vote and I'll show you a dictatorship.
My view is that fundamentally voting follows the money in people's pockets. Euroscepticism across the EU follows the fact that EU citizens feel that on the whole they are poorer than they were a decade or two ago and that EU policies have either not helped that or actively exacerbated it. Certainly that's the view on immigration (the belief that an uncontrolled oversupply in labour with no corresponding increase in demand for that labour has repressed wages)
As I said Farage is a symptom so he's completely irrelevant.
That’s a very simplistic argument and a load of tosh to boot.
You don't think there's a correlation between voting for the status quo when things are economically good and voting for a change when things are economically bad? I'd disagree.
This is confusing - I thought Labour also wanted a General Election rather than a Referendum?
I think thats a full on General election tweet against the "yellow tories" ... problem is peoples vote always tried to set itself apart from party politics and be issue focused... i dont think it caused the issues within the pv campaign but probably brought them more into focus today and helped things blow up
When you say the UK, who do you mean by the UK, the 17million out of 64million. The main issues that have been raised are immigration (surprise) , sovereignty (ridiculous), paying a tiny amount of money to stop losing a fortune.
Who is a loser, not me. This exercise for me is a study of how people can vote to make themselves far worse off by believing lies. It's fascinating.
The biggest losers will be the Brexiters who voted for this, only at the moment they think they've won, what they've won they can't tell us.
You seriously think any other nation would vote to leave the EU. Of course euroscepticism exists in all countries but like everything else not everyone agrees with everything.
The immigration is a total fallacy , even now the tune has changed, it's no longer immigrants they object to, supposedly but now it's different immigrants they want.
UKIP and BP exists because of Farage so it is totally relevant. He's a con-man and a parasite who use gullible people to feed him.
He doesn't even bother to say how much better the UK will be. Occasionally he'll rant on about unelected bureaucrats and soforth.
Sooner or later the UK will leave and then we'll see how much better off the UK will be.
Surely if life will be so much better, why do they need a deal, why are people told to stockpile essential foods and medecines, why is the UK government spending £100m on advertising, why are the UK paying ferry companies for additional space, it's not the space that's the problem, that exists already - the rest of the EU aren't - we don't need to. Someone, somewhere must know what these benefits are.
Yeah fairly sure you're correct on that but it's raising the motion in the first place that might be the issue unless Labour are on board.
I'd be surprised if the 16-17 year old vote didn't have the numbers so I'm curious why the Lib Dems aren't pushing for it.
When I say the UK I mean the UK by any normal democratic metric... Which is generally the group with the largest proportion of votes. That's how the direction of any democratic country is decided. If the UK votes for Corbyn whose policies I believe would be far more damaging to the UK economy than Brexit for example, he'd be prime minister and the country would go along with those policies.
If the UK is worse off out of the EU after we've left, parties who want to rejoin will become more popular and will be voted in with a mandate to rejoin. That's democracy but of course for democracy to operate you have to honour a democratic result, find out if the country has made a collective wrong decision and if that occurs you correct that in the future. Do I believe Corbyn was a conman at the last election... Promising a swath of de facto bribes to buy as many votes as possible? Yes I do. However I have to believe that the country is collectively smart enough to see through this, which in truth they did as he didn't win. If they were "stupid" and voted Corbyn in I wouldn't be blaming social media and the unintelligent electorate, I'd be disappointed that the opposition weren't effective enough in countering his pie in the sky promises.
What's smart or dumb, sane or insane, logical or illogical is immaterial (and subjective of course).
Farage might be a conman or parasite, likewise Johnson, May, Corbyn, Sturgeon etc... In fact who was the last political leader who wasn't wholly substandard? However if he didn't exist then someone else would. He's merely the "best" man to fill the void. Farage didn't turn up in any recognisable capacity until 2006 bear in mind - two years after UKIP won 2.65m seats at the EU elections.
I can only assume that they have gamed it through and are worried that if.
1. They raise the motion for the election labour and conservatives wont support it
2. If conservatives raise the motion then they will pull it should libs try to tag it on
i would guess it would be seen as divisive and trying to throw a spanner in the works plus there really isn't much time in terms of the logstics for how pewople would register in time for a 9th December date - I think if a second referendum gets passed they (and the SNP) would push very hard for the 16 years olds to be included.
Pushing for the 16 year olds probably means they have to go the vote of no confidence route to get an election and that requires getting labour to do for it and it also adds 2 weeks onto the process meaning either campaigning over Xmas or an election in feb and needing a new extension.
I have no regard whatsoever for Corbyn and if you really want to close down the UK economy, have Brexit and Corbyn, Brexit would be worse though. Corbyn may end up boosting the national debt but I don't see how the UK operates under Brexit.
Having said that I have no regard for any of the current group of UK politicians.
Farage has been an MEP since 1999 and although not leader he was founder member and one of the reasons why UK are in the situation they are now.
My view in all of this is that if you're going to vote for a change, vote for something that has a chance of being better. No politician is offering anything positive other than clear and obvious nonsense.
Still doesn't change the 50m:5m population ratio argument being put forward previously.
According to recent (2018) figures, Scotland's total population is around 9-10% of the UK's overall population; Wales is around 4-5%, NI around 2.9-3%, England's population around 82-84% of total UK populace, which explains why the Referendum vote in England (whichever way it went) was always going to hold sway as far as the UK as an entity in the EU was concerned.
It think most rational leavers wanted an orderly disintegration, I certainly did. So I agree that the Brexit Farage is now discussing doesn't have a mandate, however remaining also doesn't have a mandate. In terms of whether something is "better" or not again that's subjective. Even if what's "better" for everyone were solely their disposable income, and even if every possible means of leaving the EU guaranteed to make us poorer over the next decade; what can't be guaranteed or proven is what the net effect would be in 25 or 40 years.
That's before even considering where the EU will be in 25 years... Financially and politically. In my view it will be EU wide tax harmonisation and the continued exploitation of the third world for Western gain.
Where the EU would be in 25 years would have been influenced by the UK as they did with the promotion of the single market and the incorporation of Eastern European countries. Outside it they have no influence.
I live in France and they have their own laws and it has the added advantage of being in the EU, not that I live in the EU and happen to be in France.
As for exploitation of the third world, whether you agree or not, leaving the EU will not change that.
ECOWAS, which I have brought up before is both a political and economic union of West African countries who are looking to more integration, including currency etc. There is a Trade agreement on the table with the EU signed by all ECOWAS members except Nigeria. Having a lot of experience dealing with West African countries, selling to and buying from them, they are no less protectionist than the EU for example. The biggest exploiter over the last 15 years or so is not the EU or the USA but China.
Morgan has a nerve on that front bench.
This is really quite poor from Corbyn....
I'm sorry, but Corbyn is utterly pathetic, and his excuses are utterly lame.
And yet Boris' will be the one who loses his vote 
Because you have evidence if this? Or because it suits your bias?
Sounds like 9th December then, ho ho ho
It would be influenced by the UK, but only as one of 28 members. The assumption must be that leave voters wanted 100% of the power to shape their own futures, rather than a fraction of this (even if you are it's a fraction of a much bigger pie).
I don't disagree regarding China... But voting against the EU and it's practices isn't impliedly voting for something as bad or worse. A person can vote to leave the EU because they feel it's impossible to effect certain changes whilst still feeling its unlikely (albeit more likely) to effect those changes outside of it.
A 1% chance of enacting free trade policies that doesn't destroy the loves of people in the third world is better than no chance. I note your ECOWAS example but this is a somewhat one sided and exploitative agreement.
Last edited:
I do love an all nighter on election night 
I do love an all nighter on election night
The last few have come with awfully cruel and never ending hangovers.
Don't you have to be 90 to not look like a lazy b'stard using a postal vote? Not being serious here.
But how do you influence the UK's trade policies, can you stop the UK selling arms to Saudi. The Uk are a large member of the EU not just one of 28 and have always being extremely influential since they joined.
The ECOWAS deal is zero tariffs for exports to the EU whereas the ECOWAS countries can charge tariffs on 25% EU goods imports. One-sided but which way?
I normally get one
I work away regularly so makes voting much easier for me
Lazy bastard!
I know as I said wasn't being serious. I do like walking into the polling station and putting my vote in the box though.
He might be 90.
Govt. Loses
Ayes - 299
Noes - 70
Ayes - 299
Noes - 70
Why did anyone vote no?
My point is that individuals have very little means of influencing anything, but the smaller the government and the more power it has the greater the chance that it is accountable to the people it represents. A government of 70m is always going to be more accountable than a government of 500m. Likewise a government of 1m would be more accountable than 70m and a government of 15 people would be more accountable than 1m.
My view is you can't effectively govern two regions as different as London and the Midlands whilst being equitable to both... Let alone London and Iasi.
In terms of trade my understanding is that zero tariffs apply to raw materials being imported from many African nations (materials that are not manufactured or harvested in the EU due to high cost), but that value added goods that are made in the EU are subject to tariffs to repress competition.
A government that can't even top 300 votes for its own election proposal, good grief.
Why do sky news pundits assume that the mps who didn't vote for an election 30mins ago will certainly vote for one tomorrow? (I get that it only needs a simple majority, but 299 doesn't get one!?)
But a small government would have less influence on the whole world. The Uk will become a small country in terms of world trade and influence, one of only a small number of countries that aren't in a partnership with others.
On the trade agreement that has yet to be signed it is all products.
When selling from African countries we were always promoting finished products or semi-finished products to the EU or USA or elsewhere. The cost of manufacturing products in the EU/USA is too expensive compared to Africa not the other way round.
Far from a politics guy but I think it would be a bill tomorrow, which makes it different because you can make amendments to it along the way (like tweaking the date or lowering the voting age if its doable, etc).
Sky News saying they think the Bill tomorrow will have enough votes, they think Lib Dems and some SNP will back it, but I am struggling to see it getting enough numbers. And the Bill is amendable, and if amended in a way that is unacceptable to the Govt., it can be pulled by them.