The "Dark Ages" is really a misnomer, and it's a bit of a myth that it was some kind of technological and cultural historical gap. Which I think might make your argument stronger!
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
The "Dark Ages" is really a misnomer, and it's a bit of a myth that it was some kind of technological and cultural historical gap. Which I think might make your argument stronger!
Never got the 'it's what was voted for democratically and therefore must be carried out' argument, else presumably Labour would be voting for the implementation of every Tory manifesto pledge for the same reason.
It’s not dumbed down for young people, it’s dumbs down for dumb people.
You think Piers Morgan leading a political debate is aimed at intellectual adults? It’s the same thing, there are plenty of politically engaged, bright youth out there and they get their political fix from the same sources as “adults”, they also then apply critical thinking to it which is half the issue with the less bright lot.
They’re happy enough to parrot what Farage and Robinson say because they trust them. It’s not that they trust them as a single source of truth either, it’s that they trust they share an agenda and they’re smart enough forward that agenda as long as it gets support.
yeah those stats are bs, they were released by sky who just used the 2015 election turnout numbers
Those stats have been throughout debunked.
Do you have the stats to prove this?
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...eople-referendum-turnout-brexit-twice-as-high
all the links you're posting are from the day after the election when people* were using old data to extrapolate
*sky did it first and everyone quoted them
A test sample of 2002 people is quite small but even that proves my point. 24% less young people voted than people over the age of 65 and 10% less than 55-64.
Voting turnout was almost identical from ages 18-54, so unless we're going to call a 50 year old bloke about to have a quadruple bypass a kid, it's not on the kids.
And if that 50 year old bloke was 3:1 times more likely to vote remain then I would blame him for not turning up as well.
Any way it was a stupid statement made after coming back from the pub on a Friday night so I don't know why I'm even trying to defend it.
If you find the original tweet Sky Data posted their methodology in reply to it. It was a figure arrived at by polling people before the vote, taking their stated intention to vote out of 10 and then applying a filter to the data to make it fit voter demographics in the 2015 election.
It was complete guesswork.
Corbyn just said on TV he can negotiate a better deal because he has developed good relationships with socialist parties across Europe.
Is it just me or does that only work if socialist governments are in power?
Is it just me or does that only work if socialist governments are in power?
Well that seals it, the EU are going to change the rules just for him. What a spineless moron.
Corbyn is more lovable, he looks like a friendly dad whereas May looks doesn't look or act human. Anyway wouldn't negotiating a better deal actually been easier if we had already solved the issues of freedom of movement and the Irish border? We're leaving it so late that there is far less time to negotiate the best deal when two huge issues still remain unsolved.
What does Corbyn's looks or personality have to do with the deal.
Freedom of movement is not negotiable and the Irish Border is either hard (cliff) or not (CU/SM)
I'm still bemused at what both Brexieters and Remainers expect they can negotiate.
The first part wasn't mean to be taken seriously. After that I was trying to say that lack of progress in talks only makes negotiating harder, especially when the UK is refusing to concede that certain things are non-negotiable. The UK cannot leave the SM and CU and have a soft border with Ireland. How can the UK and the EU negotiate further on thousands of issues when it is unclear which Brexit the UK will choose?
Yes this has been the problem all along, kicking the can down the road.
But these first so-called negotiations are really the EU asking which (hard or soft) does the UK want which they still haven't answered. Other than citizens rights and the UK being told what the consequences of their actions are there's not much else to negotiate.
The future relationship afterwards will be the negotiations but that won't be until after the UK has left.
I think Brexitieres somehow think that by having no deal and going to WTO rules suddenly countires will be falling over themselves to do amazing deals with us and the EU will be forced to grovel back to us and beg us to trade more with them giving up access to services and especially financial markets with no free movement in exchange
I think remainiers think that by having no deal it will be so bad for the economy we will have to have another referendum and that somehow europe will just let us back in with a rebate and no requirement to joing the euro
My gut feel - we will fudge a deal somehow for a transition period that will basically be not far from wto terms but giving people / businesses time to put paperwork in place... but ultimatley we will still manage to cnut it up (what was it may said no PM would agree the backstop position that well as its the back stop position has kinda been agreed and as we know untill its all agreed noting is agreed - so long story short it will fall apart)
say 10 years down the line when the economy is limping along and the pound is approx equal in value to the euro I fully expect another referendum this time to join the EU (but with no opt outs and we loose the pound) - so yeah a decade from here everybody will be seeing (cue Mark Kermode impression) "Danny Dyer" as some wise pundit and will basically agree... cameron = twat
I'd agree with most of that but to get the transition period a definitive decision has to be taken now/shortly and that decision will define the outcome of soft or hard but the hard will start in March.
We won’t vote to go back in in 10 years time if we are limping along as you say. I won’t be doing anyway.
Demographics would seem to very stringly suggest otherwise - though of course it depends how economies etc perform in that period but personally I think certainly in the next 20 years we will be back (well if europe will let is which I think isnt certain depending how much we throw our toys out of the pram over the next few months / years)
Referring back to the 2015 election
When people voted they voted for their MP.
Unlike in France for example where you vote directly for the President and every vote counts , in the UK you are actually only voting for your MP.
So if one voted Tory you had a 57% chance of having a pro-Remain MP and if you voted Labour you had a 95% chance you would have a pro-Remain MP.
However, leaders of both parties are vigorously Anti-Remain and directing their MPs who you voted for to go against their beliefs .
In effect there are two dictators and there is not even a sniff of democracy anywhere in British politics.
Referring back to the 2015 election
When people voted they voted for their MP.
Unlike in France for example where you vote directly for the President and every vote counts , in the UK you are actually only voting for your MP.
So if one voted Tory you had a 57% chance of having a pro-Remain MP and if you voted Labour you had a 95% chance you would have a pro-Remain MP.
However, leaders of both parties are vigorously Anti-Remain and directing their MPs who you voted for to go against their beliefs .
In effect there are two dictators and there is not even a sniff of democracy anywhere in British politics.
In all fairness, pretty much all of those Tory MP's stood on a platform wherein they agreed to support a referendum on the issue, and to respect the result depending on how people voted. Both parties are free to get rid of their elected leaders if they wish - nevertheless they won't because they prioritise party politics and their own positions over the good of the country. As most political leaders do.
I think there are a ton of problems with Brexit, but this isn't one. MP's aren't bound to follow any particular view due to anything other than the notion of party loyalty. And people re-elected many of those MP's in 2015, thus validating their current stances on Brexit. Shambolic though they may be.
It is a problem when one of the main points of the referendum was about the EU being supposedly undemocratic whereas the UK seemingly being just about the most undemocratic in Western Europe and that's even before mentioning the House of Lords.
Well yes, there are a ton of problems with UK democracy, i.e. the very fact that we have a flawed FPTP system in the first place, but I struggle to see MP's who don't agree with Brexit implementing it when they were elected while saying they would do after it was voted for as being particularly problematic. That's just how politics works. Albeit (again) it doesn't deflect from the genuine clusterfeck Brexit is.
Wonder what Jeremy Hunt makes of this?
Yes but really the point I was making is that if someone voted in 2015 if they voted Tory and especially Labour plus they were pro-Remain you would have hoped your interests were being looked after.
Whereas say as a Labour voter you find out that although almost all the MPs think the same way as you, it turns out that the Leader of the party is against your interests and has his own personal agenda which leads to there being no opposition to the path the country is going in.
Plus Corbyn declared himself as pro-Remain - an out and out lie.
It's just a part of the giant confidence trick Brexit has been.
Last edited:
The juxtaposition of that being true and the pretense he's somehow a refreshing, honest, straight-talking politician. He's every bit as conniving an manipulative as any of them, he's just shit at it.
Which one is it? He should have been more pro-EU in the referendum or he's lying about being pro-EU at all?
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=41651&display=everyvote
If you go through his voting record on the EU his "it could be better and we should help reform it" was a lot more consistent with his views than "OMG THE WORLD WILL END" approach more establishment figures who used sometimes used the EU as a scapegoat, ala Cameron, took.
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=41651&display=everyvote
If you go through his voting record on the EU his "it could be better and we should help reform it" was a lot more consistent with his views than "OMG THE WORLD WILL END" approach more establishment figures who used sometimes used the EU as a scapegoat, ala Cameron, took.
His "campaigning for" Remain consisted of speeches where he outlined everything he didn't like about the EU before adding unconvincingly at the end that on balance it might be an idea if we stayed, perhaps.
He also wouldn't do anything for the official remain campaign.
He also wouldn't do anything for the official remain campaign.
idk sounds like he criticised the bits he didn't like before and praised the bits he liked anyway, with added calls for EU reforms, what's "typical slimy politician" about that?
And why should he have done anything for the official remain campaign? That's what killed Labour in Scotland, and Corbyn rightfully concluded that being pally with David Cameron wasn't going to work him as it didn't for Clegg or Milliband.
Here's a longer speech. I'm listening to it now, doesn't seem to open with a long ramble about how much the EU sucks. Nah, my ears must be betraying me, there's no history of people bullshitting about what Jeremy said or did so these accusations can't possibly be revisionist.
Last edited:
So which one is it? Is he pro-Remain or not. If you wish to reform the Eu you do it from the inside, because once you're out that's it.
You don't go by the drivel the politicians spout, you go by their actions.
He's supposed to be the opposition to the government but somehow manages to let the worst ever PM have an easy ride.
He wants to leave the CU/SM - that's a hard Brexit, he doesn't want to be in it at all.
I'd never heard of Corbyn before the run-up to the referendum and when I started following it I gathered Labour were pro-EU and was waiting for some stirring continuous opposition from him. Never came apart from a few mealy-mouthed speeches and it was obvious he was not pro-Remain.
And all this bowlocks about the will of the people - does that also mean that because the Tories get voted in at the GE because of the will of the people he just lies down and let the Tories get away with everything. The answer is yes he does.
He's a spineless coward.
That's why I posted his parliamentary voting record which among other things shows he voted for the Lisbon treaty.
Does he though? He's voted against all of the governments Brexit bills and is constantly criticising her, maybe that's not made it to France, who knows.
1+1=3 maths here
this is just a stupid opinion piece
Criticise his Brexit position for being stupid all you guys want, it's very stupid, but why do you have to make such easily falsifiable claims when you're at it?
This is sort of true, but to be honest Labour's problems in Scotland went far beyond the referendum itself and had been festering for roughly a decade, as Holyrood elections had demonstrated. If anything, in fact, that's actually a vindication of Corbyn because a lot of the frustration with Labour came not necessarily from their referendum stance in itself but from their generally meek policies from Blair-Miliband.
It's a criticism I used at the time - that they were 'red Tories' for working alongside Cameron etc, but I feel like it's a bit silly and trite now - politicians should be able to unite on issues they feel are genuinely important and crucial to the country. Splintering into lots of different factions during such an incisive vote where there's no real strategy certainly doesn't help. Although granted a lot of the criticism for Corbyn over the Brexit vote is a tad overblown - Davie C's ultimately 100 times more culpable for all that went on there.