I spent a few minutes to give you examples of what you asked for, if you wanted more concrete ones you should have specified.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
I spent a few minutes to give you examples of what you asked for, if you wanted more concrete ones you should have specified.
The past few months have made me incredibly depressed for the future of this country tbh and only solidified my opinion that I don't want to be here anymore. The vitriol unleashed from this referendum has been appalling. The lack of coherent thought or argument, from the leave side especially, on whom the onus was placed to explain how they would shake up the status quo, is terrifying. The jingoism and increased bigotry obvious and farcical.
The reaction from the media and apparently sensible people on here to the high court decision has just topped it all off. Wanting to reclaim parliamentary sovereignty and our judiciary, only to absolutely slate both when they make a decision we don't like. Slating our parliament and saying they couldn't be trusted with such a decision. Then why not just do away with parliamentary democracy? And what is all this talk of 'unelected elites' when talking about judges? Especially when it comes mostly from MPs and journalists, who, from how they go on, seem to consider themselves Clodius Pulcher reborn?
Its so depressing. We're an absolute laughing stock.
The reaction from the media and apparently sensible people on here to the high court decision has just topped it all off. Wanting to reclaim parliamentary sovereignty and our judiciary, only to absolutely slate both when they make a decision we don't like. Slating our parliament and saying they couldn't be trusted with such a decision. Then why not just do away with parliamentary democracy? And what is all this talk of 'unelected elites' when talking about judges? Especially when it comes mostly from MPs and journalists, who, from how they go on, seem to consider themselves Clodius Pulcher reborn?
Its so depressing. We're an absolute laughing stock.
I asked for serious calls to strip old people of the vote, that didn't amount to pissed off youngsters venting on silly forms of media like twitter or from what I understand to be a lifestyle magazine like GQ. Or people of real signifiance who have called for the result to be completely ignored. Even those articles (other than the asylum seeker worker) don't paint all brexiters as racist.
As I said, most importantly, to suggest there is an equivalence between the two sides is just wrong.
In my original post I just said that calls were made to strip old people of the vote, but never specified from who, I'm not sure what GQ has to do with this either. If we are going to exclude non-serious people than the Leave Campaign appears to be pretty clean, it was mostly those who aren't important making racist comments and committing racist acts after Brexit.
Supporters of both sides have made character attacks, misled people to an extent, used fear tactics and made calls for certain democratic processes to be averted. If one is better than other, it really isn't by much and it still doesn't make that side a good one all things considered.
and they got what they voted for, a referendum with possibility of voting exit. Where is any of this not fair? You are a tory voter, although you didn't vote since 2005, this is your party, they caused this, you have no right to be upset cos if you had voted you would have voted for Cameron. Where exactly is your beef with the result? Thickos voting out? thickos voting tories in? I don't know anymore Paul?
Give her time. my mrs thinks she's great for some reason
I'm mentioning GQ because that was the article they linked to in the Breibart article?
I'd consider a lot of the things Gove, Johnson and Leadsom said during the campaign to be foolish and nonsensical tbh but I guess that is just me. Additionally, while the likes of Farage were not a part of the official leave campaign, there can be little doubt that he has done more than most to drive this result.
Yes they have. But as usual, not to the same extent and claiming that two sides have equivalence in something does not make you neutral or objective. Like I said, I've seen little from the remain side as vitriolic as what I've seen in the papers today.
As I said in an earlier post today, the Tories conned the British people, Cameron used the promise of an EU referendum to ensure he got elected with a big majority but he thought the British people wouldn't vote for Brexit, thought he was safe. It all backfired.
I last voted in 2005 but whether I would have voted thereafter even if I had been living in the Uk, I'm not so sure.
Especially now, I would not vote for the Tories now, but I wouldn't vote for Labour either. UKIP? no chance in hell.
What choice is there.
British politics is at a really low point. Perhaps that's why leave want to now by-pass parliament to get Article 50 triggered.
No faith in the EU, no faith in the Uk political system, no faith in the law, what's left mob rule?
She's a bit shit. Stronger willed than Cameron no doubt, but basically in a job because everyone else was a monumental idiot, and not much of a public speaker either.
I don't see how someone could change their allegiance, either a party fits your own opinion or it doesn't, the only thing I can think about if not voting labour is to not vote at all.
Who here voted for Cameron and is moaning about the result? These people need to make themselves known and take responsibility for the state of affairs, Marching is one such person who cannot complain and there are many more.
By proxy Cameron has delivered may as PM, again, he's to blame for todays situation, not exit voters or remain voters, just people that voted for his party, they allowed this to happen.
A party may reflect one's personal opinion or moreover what they represent for what will be more advantageous for one's personal circumstances. If the party one had been voting for, no longer represents what you want or believe, then I see no problem switching to another party which better represents that. It's not like supporting a football team, if United were bottom of the Conference I'd still support them but if the Tories turned into the party they are now, I couldn't bring myself to vote for them.
Then you have no power to do anything because no-one represents your views.
Well, isn't that clever from Tusk. So that's the best he could manage then is it."I suggest Mr Johnson should buy a cake, eat it and ee what's left" Donald Tusk
Newsnight is torturing a Daily Mail cnut on the disgraceful attacks on the judiciary (including the openly gay ex Olympic fencer line).
Not Sacha Baron Cohen's best character, if I'm being perfectly honest. He usually manages to make seem somewhat believable.
Is Daily Mail cnut or openly gay ex Olympic fencer the Cohen character? Either has potential.
the Daily Mail guy on Newsnight was doing a Wenger. "I did not see it."
@712 raised a pertinent point earlier. On the one hand you have a majority of the electorate voting for Leave (garnering more support than anything in our political history); whilst on the other, you have two-thirds of the Commons favouring the EU, and in many cases further integration. The MPs' past actions, instincts and beliefs, all spell difficulty in honouring a Brexit. There is a quite understandable concern, that some repeat of the Lisbon Treaty will be committed.
Too early to say at this point. Certainly there are things i disagree with her on, but most of that dates back to her time as Home Secretary.
The most controversial decision that she has thus far nade relates to grammar schools, yet i find this more preferable than the mass academisation being advanced by CamBorne. They both got their just desserts however, but not for the long overdue decision to hold a referendum. Staging a vote was the right thing, even if the intentions were lacking; it was their openly bad decisions which we should be glad to be rid of them for. Cameron, more than Osborne, was good for the Tories though.
Too early to say at this point. Certainly there are things i disagree with her on, but most of that dates back to her time as Home Secretary.
The most controversial decision that she has thus far nade relates to grammar schools, yet i find this more preferable than the mass academisation being advanced by CamBorne. They both got their just desserts however, but not for the long overdue decision to hold a referendum. Staging a vote was the right thing, even if the intentions were lacking; it was their openly bad decisions which we should be glad to be rid of them for. Cameron, more than Osborne, was good for the Tories though.
Last edited:
Some Saturday morning motivation courtesy of Boris:
I am sure that you all gave it a standing ovation back in June.
I am sure that you all gave it a standing ovation back in June.
Too busy laughing at the idea of the country, that once claimed (at its height) the largest empire in history, obtaining independence.
Some Saturday morning motivation courtesy of Boris:
I am sure that you all gave it a standing ovation back in June.
I wonder he prepared a second pro EU argument for that too
Ministers preparing for early general election after Tory MP quits over Brexit
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...brexit/ar-AAjV60G?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=mailsignout
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...brexit/ar-AAjV60G?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=mailsignout
Those four policies were the Leave manifesto for most. This was further demonstrated by Boris' closing remarks during the biggest TV debate of the campaign. Moreover, Remain's apocalyptically predictions of the economy have also been shown to be suspect, and they too swung voters (took me a good hour on the phone to pull one friend of mine back from the brink).
It seems to me, that what is a workable Brexit for Remainers, amounts to very little in way of actual change in our relationship with the EU. More of a rebranding exercise, if anything.
Last edited:
I don't understand this article 50 controversy. The UK voted to leave the EU and you have to trigger article 50 to leave. So what is everyone getting their knickers in a twist about?
It is quite funny how you cherry-pick, what the mandate of the government is instead of acknowledging, that almost everyone had his own understanding of the meaning of "brexit".
a) How does the internal British process of triggering Art. 50 work?
=> This determines how much say/leverage the parliament gets in the process, which could influence the negotiations. The leave campaign and government is getting "their knickers in a twist", because they fear that parliament might fancy a "soft-Brexit".
b) Could GB un-do Art.50 once it got invoked? ("hey we decided we don't want to leave afterall. It was all just a practical joke")
=> This question is irrelevant in reality, because it is not going to happen.
They knew it meant we had to leave the EU though didn't they? The mechanism for which is triggering article 50 isn't it?
The rest is a fair debate not entirely in our hands but the leaving part isn't up for discussion is it?
On this point I think it doesn't get a say in the process it decides the govt which will though. The EU won't be negotiating with parliament will it? it will be negotiating with the govt Parliament supports or later doesn't either way we will have to trigger article 50.
Yeah but leaving to where exactly? What's the destination of this departure? What will future treaties between the EU and UK look like, and what is the roadmap to achieve this future status? Most importantly how does the UK government satisfy it's incredibly demanding population while also creating a better status for each of the other 27 countries in the EU? After all that is what May and Johnson have been promising to anyone willing to listen and they keep increasing the expectations on all sides... at some point they will have to deliver more than reiterations of the obvious.
But do you guys need the approval of the parliament to ratify an international treaty, that's the question?
Basically who holds the legislative power in the UK, in most countries it's the parliament?
Until Article 50 is triggered the UK has not officially "resigned" from the EU. If it doesn't trigger article 50 then the UK remains in the EU.
As for the apocalypse of the economy. The uncertainty has already severely damaged Sterling and high probability of mounting inflation - this is stage one.
Those Brexiters who believe they have already left the EU, the apocalypse starts in Stage 2 if and when Article 50 is triggered. Stage 3 will be if and when the UK leaves the EU, probably 2020 at the earliest when in all likelihood they will have no trade deals in place because they cannot negotiate until they leave.
The length of time to negotiate these deals is not a matter of a few months or even a few years which could leave the UK in limbo during the majority of the
2020s.
Can keep repeating the same thing over and again but doubt it will ever sink in because Brexiters don't want to face reality.
As for the apocalypse of the economy. The uncertainty has already severely damaged Sterling and high probability of mounting inflation - this is stage one.
Those Brexiters who believe they have already left the EU, the apocalypse starts in Stage 2 if and when Article 50 is triggered. Stage 3 will be if and when the UK leaves the EU, probably 2020 at the earliest when in all likelihood they will have no trade deals in place because they cannot negotiate until they leave.
The length of time to negotiate these deals is not a matter of a few months or even a few years which could leave the UK in limbo during the majority of the
2020s.
Can keep repeating the same thing over and again but doubt it will ever sink in because Brexiters don't want to face reality.
yes, but my comment wasn't really aimed at you, but at @Nick 0208 Ldn
Leaving isn't up for discussion, but how the agreement that follows will look like.
The EU will negotiate with the government, but the british parliament might be able to influence the mandate of the government.
The conundrum here is, that usually the government negotiates these things and puts them to parliament afterwards to vote for/against it. That gives the parliament power/leverage/influence, because they government has to present an agreement, that the parliament can agree up on.
Yet the same process makes no sense in this specific instant, because once Art.50 is triggered, there is no going back. Even if the parliament doesn't like the outcome of the negotiations, it can't object anymore. It is too late, because the UK will be out regardless.
The position of the government is, that this doesn't matter and parliament has just to suck it up. Parts of the parliament seems to be uneasy with this. The question now is, can the parliament tell the government before the negotiations begin "These are your goals, that you should try to achieve in the negotiation-process."
Parliament elects the PM, if it doesn't support the PM anymore then they hold a vote of no confidence and if that is carried then he or she is no longer PM.
Parliament doesn't do the negotiation, the Govt which the PM selects does.
Before we can start negotiations we have to trigger article 50.
Its not that hard to follow but the remoaners can't seem to accept they lost the referendum and can't prevent the UK leaving the EU which will happen in due course.
Also there seems to be this idea that there is a soft brexit option despite Tusk repeatedly saying there isn't. The remoaners are fools in this regard, demanding a result which can't be achieved.
You did vote Remain didn't you, Mr Remoaner
It has nothing to do with negotiations but about who makes the laws in the UK. You are confusing the law proposal and the law making, the law making is the role of the parliament and since a treaty is a source of law, it has to be voted by the parliament.
Not really.
They can put forward a vote of no confidence in the PM and get a new PM but that isn't likely. Everyone is getting all excited about a fight already decided by the referendum. We will have to trigger article 50 and we will be out of the EU and the deal we get will be the deal we get and Parliament had its chance to stop all this by voting down the referendum bill. They didn't they supported Cameron and they can't complain about it all now the result is in.
Some people don't want to leave. Duh.
Yes I voted remain and I think I am more convinced now that I was right to do so but the principle of democracy is that you get a vote along with a lot of other people and if they outvote you then they get to do what they voted for which in this case is to leave the EU. I am not moaning about it so I am not a remoaner. I was a remain voter though.
Is this simple enough for you to understand so that we can move on?
Parliament isn't trying to do the negotiations. What makes you think they are?
If there has to be a vote on triggering article 50 then that is what has to happen, I am saying that I don't think it will change a thing because either parliament passes the vote to allow May to trigger A50 or it doesn't. If it doesn't then I think May goes to the country and wins a massive majority and comes back and passes it and then triggers it, none of which will make a blind bit of difference to the deal we get in the end.