Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
711 said:
I think he voted Liberal at the last election, didn't he? Which would make him one of the very few here that voted for a party not committed to upholding the referendum vote to leave. Along with any SNP voters of course.
Click to expand...

From what I remember, he said he voted Greens in 2010 but back to the Tories in 2015, as he wanted the referendum.

And realistically, while he was always polite, informed and engaging in conversation, his views pretty much always fell in line with whatever the Tory policies of day happened to be.
 
711 said:
I think he voted Liberal at the last election, didn't he? Which would make him one of the very few here that voted for a party not committed to upholding the referendum vote to leave. Along with any SNP voters of course.
Click to expand...
No chance he voted Lib Dem.
 
Zarlak said:
I didn't say anyone was lied to by Cameron? I'm not sure why that's relevant in any way. You're totally right, he didn't lie to us, but everyone on the leave side did with regards to the NHS, the free movement, the trade we were going to have, the impact on our economy, the immigration issues, the laws that supposedly governed us supposedly enforced by the EU, fecking bananas and pillow cases, that's what made people vote, and they were lies. It's hardly surprising that some of the people who voted to leave when they realised they were voting based on bullshit lies they'd been fed, changed their mind. If there is a second vote and those people who voted leave originally not vote remain then that's clearly the sentiment of the country. When new evidence comes to light, it's always appropriate to allow a reaction to that.

What we're seeing (in general, not with you) is those who are still voting leave for their own agenda, are basically reacting with "feck no, I was about to get what I wanted, feck that we were lied to, I want those muslims out of my country, feck off there can be no second vote, fecking remoaners" when they're conveniently overlooking that if it was the remainers, then the second vote would be exactly the same. It's their own side having changed their mind that would lead to a change in the second result, not seeing many leavers acknowledge or reconcile that.
Click to expand...

Both sides told a pack of lies in reality, its a bit silly that the remain side keeping talking about the lies as if the remain campaign wasn't also lying to the public. Both sides lied and so which ever way you voted, you were lied to and didn't have all the facts, simple as.

EDIT: It is also disingenuous to suggest that the voters were not aware that a deal would have to be negotiated AFTER the vote.

All in all the structure of the referendum was just really poorly setup, and in reality this whole mess was created by a tory government who really didn't believe the vote would result in a LEAVE victory.

Anyway it's a real shame that people keep voting for this tory government, but I guess the alternative (Labour) are also a mess. We need some serious political change in the UK
 
Last edited:
Cassidy said:
Both sides told a pack of lies in reality, its a bit silly that the remain side keeping talking about the lies as if the remain campaign wasn't also lying to the public. Both sides lied and so which ever way you voted, you were lied to and didn't have all the facts, simple as.

EDIT: It is also disingenuous to suggest that the voters were not aware that a deal would have to be negotiated AFTER the vote.

All in all the structure of the referendum was just really poorly setup, and in reality this whole mess was created by a tory government who really didn't believe the vote would result in a LEAVE victory.

Anyway it's a real shame that people keep voting for this tory government, but I guess the alternative (Labour) are also a mess. We need some serious political change in the UK
Click to expand...

I agree that the political system needs to change in the UK. The Remain argument was poorly presented in the media but I don't see what the Remain camp lied about. Here I'm talking about facts, not opinions. Leave lied about facts.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
I agree that the political system needs to change in the UK. The Remain argument was poorly presented in the media but I don't see what the Remain camp lied about. Here I'm talking about facts, not opinions. Leave lied about facts.
Click to expand...

The best thing the leave campaign did was label the remain campaign Project Fear, in many senses it was genius and worked a treat.
In reality it probably should have been called Project Reality.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
The best thing the leave campaign did was label the remain campaign Project Fear, in many senses it was genius and worked a treat.
In reality it probably should have been called Project Reality.
Click to expand...

Agreed, even now after the government themselves have published warnings of what would happen in the event of no deal, the Brexiters still don't believe them and still class it as scaremongering because they now believe it is an invention of Theresa May who they think is a Remainer in disguise while the Remainers think she is for the Brexiters. How easily people are manipulated.
 
The only valid argument for a second referendum is if the original referendum was illegitimate and it's a stretch to say that. I don't think the public were any less informed than usual GEs.

As much as I'd prefer a second referendum in my view it would be circumventing democracy, a vote should follow through to action and a terrible precedent would be set if we overturn referendums and GEs.

We will end up voting to go back in and when we do they'll be difficult challenges as part of those negotiations and huge compromises. Can people really say they'd accept a second referendum in that situation too?
 
Smores said:
The only valid argument for a second referendum is if the original referendum was illegitimate and it's a stretch to say that. I don't think the public were any less informed than usual GEs.

As much as I'd prefer a second referendum in my view it would be circumventing democracy, a vote should follow through to action and a terrible precedent would be set if we overturn referendums and GEs.

We will end up voting to go back in and when we do they'll be difficult challenges as part of those negotiations and huge compromises. Can people really say they'd accept a second referendum in that situation too?
Click to expand...

Why do you think this? I'd say that your average Joe - including remain supporters - had no idea what they were asked to vote on. The only comparison to a GE would be if people were voting for new parties they don't know much about. Either way GEs are held every five years to curb this type of thing.
 
Last edited:
Why do people keep asking what you would do about a referendum if the roles were reversed. You are either for a ref or not right? Unless we are just expecting hypocrisy as standard? Well... I guess we are, evidently...

What's good for one is good for the other, you can't pick and choose.
 
Vidyoyo said:
Why the heck do you suspect the public had enough knowledge about the EU to even dream of having a voice? Your average Joe - including remain supporters - had no idea what they were voting for.
Click to expand...
When the referendum was made official the choice was made though.
Either ignore the result or stand by it, having another one doesn't make sense.
 
cyberman said:
When the referendum was made official the choice was made though.
Either ignore the result or stand by it, having another one doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

I stand by my point. There's no way the electorate properly informed themselves about the topic and it's only in the year or so that's past that people have been forced to engage with it properly.

The realities of a potential Brexit are no longer just the stuff of two chinless dudes discussing it on TV. It's now part of debates at work about hire policies, freezing wages and possibly moving offices or warehouses to somewhere in Europe. It's become more manifested in people's every day lives and has a much different atmosphere to the one that preceded the vote.

I'd say it's a good reason for a second vote but you can feel free to differ.
 
Last edited:
villain said:
Nope, that comment was pretty tongue-in-cheek tbf. I'm a middle class Southerner after all.

You're conflating two different things.
They marched to get a second referendum because the outcome of the first referendum wasn't ideal.

If Americans marched to get Hilary sworn in because she won the popular vote - yeah I'd think that's pretty embarrassing too.

That's different to marching against Trump because he's racist, sexist or whatever -ist he shows himself to be.



Not everyone was southern & middle class obviously, I think it's pretty obvious I wasn't identifying every single person who attended it.

But I was in the area and spoke with a bunch of people who were marching, and that helped form my opinion that it's pointless marching to change a democratically voted decision.
March for the policies that will impact the decision, march against MPs who helped push the Brexit agenda in the first place - those are things that can have tangible effects in the future.

But marching to try to reverse the decision that millions of people voted for? What's the point, and where does it stop?

We get a second referendum and Brexit is reversed. Does the Leave campaign do the same as Remain and we get a third referendum?
We get a second referendum and Brexit is voted for again - do we march to try and get it changed again?
Click to expand...

Marching for these things will literally have no effect on anything whatsoever.
 
oates said:
Valuable input. Maybe you've a perfectly good reason for insulting us? I know we can be difficult but we're one of 4 countries that puts the most money in the pot. I think we've paid our dues as we've gone along.
Click to expand...

Come off it Oates, you're a reasonable bloke!

Even if Fener hadn't been from the UK, surely you can see how people from within the EU, having spent years listening to the British complain about the union, listening to their government blame all it's failings on Brussels and then listening to the nonsense, lies and disdain with which the rest of us have been treated over the last few years of this process, might be inclined to think "feck them, let them go and see how green the grass is on the outside... the self important feckers".

It's obviously not every one of you - 48% and probably a few more at this stage are much sounder. But unless you lads are going to deal with the clowns at the helm, you can't expect the rest of us not to want them dragged down a peg or two.

There was a poll a few months ago in which a sizeable percentage of your country said leaving Europe was more important to them than peace in Northern Ireland. On the whole, Britain has more than earned a little bit of insulting.
 
Vidyoyo said:
Why do you think this? I'd say that your average Joe - including remain supporters - had no idea what they were asked to vote on. The only comparison to a GE would be if people were voting for new parties they don't know much about and they went with, in many cases, their hearts not their heads.

Either way GEs are held every five years to curb this type of thing. The only equivalent would be asking people in or out of the EU every 5 years, which obviously isn't feasible.
Click to expand...

This is true. 17.4 million is a colossal number of so-called angry people. Pre-June 2016 you'd think that just about everyone, in their daily lives would be seeing anti EU sentiment wherever they looked. You would think that there would be arguments all over the place. Marches, protests, TV documentaries, civil unrest even. But no. I was not aware of any of it apart from news reports regarding the Ukip cause and a small group of backbenchers being a thorn in the side of successive Tory governments.

There may have been some sentiment expressed by some groups regarding the political direction the EU was heading. Immigration was seen to be a problem but the net figures were as high from non-EU as they were from the EU and we supposedly had control over non-EU.

However, I do not know anyone who could tell me what EU regulations were causing their daily lives to be a misery, or how much the UK paid in net contributions to the block. Nor did anyone seem that bothered that the ECJ could trump the UK Courts.

The majority of people, like me, may have had minor issues with the EU but not to the degree that they would want to vote themselves a worse standard of living out of pure principle. The case was not that strong for most I would say.

The mere act of asking the question will lead people to think that they must answer it one way or another (perhaps 'Not Bothered' should have been on the ballot paper). Human nature suggests that people will inevitably find things to be disgruntled about even though they were not particularly worried about them before.

Farage is a an excellent speaker, he is clever and knows exactly what levers to pull. He played to the immigration fears and extended that to suggest that the influx of EU immigrants was directly responsible for the deterioration of the lot of poor disenfranchised people in depressed regions. He and the other Brexiteers whipped up a sentiment almost akin to the rise of Nazism. When people have nothing they always look for someone to blame. Back then it was Jewish people and this time it was EU immigrants.

They convinced the masses that there was no good side to immigration.

For me it was a protest vote and a very large proportion of the 17.4 million had no idea of the consequences.

You will find very few those who will admit to it - this is why you get loud voices on the radio and TV debates shouting "we knew what we were voting for".

Some of them did. But an awful lot didn't.

Should we have another referendum? No.

Should we ignore the referendum? No.

We have to suck it up - in the least painful way possible.

I don't know what that is. Nobody does.
 
diarm said:
Come off it Oates, you're a reasonable bloke!

Even if Fener hadn't been from the UK, surely you can see how people from within the EU, having spent years listening to the British complain about the union, listening to their government blame all it's failings on Brussels and then listening to the nonsense, lies and disdain with which the rest of us have been treated over the last few years of this process, might be inclined to think "feck them, let them go and see how green the grass is on the outside... the self important feckers".

It's obviously not every one of you - 48% and probably a few more at this stage are much sounder. But unless you lads are going to deal with the clowns at the helm, you can't expect the rest of us not to want them dragged down a peg or two.

There was a poll a few months ago in which a sizeable percentage of your country said leaving Europe was more important to them than peace in Northern Ireland. On the whole, Britain has more than earned a little bit of insulting.
Click to expand...
Seriously @diarm it was a bit tongue in cheek but with what you've said remembering you are only talking about just over half of the people who voted (finding the issue important enough), picked the Leave option. The rest of us, nearly half of the voters love Europe and the EU to bits. For me as well as Freedom of Movement, Employee Rights instituted by the EU -( never a chance of the Tories keeping them once we leave ) is what I appreciate about being part of a growing part of the world, equality in workers rights all over Europe, just imagine what we'll lose?

For decades now we've had the Mail and Telegraph featuring the likes of BloJo ranting at straight bananas, completely made up stories designed to whip up your average bunch of middle class little englanders. Just remember - as I really wish Mr Macron did that it ain't all of us. Of course the DM and Tellywobble never did remind their readers that Britain had a veto on any of the more silly and sensible directives/policies.

The trouble with wishing 'the feckers' get what they want is that they drag the rest of us with them, bathwater and all. It's all very well hoping they get what they deserve but we don't all deserve it. We're not ALL feckers, well not for the same reasons.

In any case, read a bit further, the exchange ended happily to my mind. And by the way, we discovered that Fener is from the UK, ha!
 
Honest John said:
The mere act of asking the question will lead people to think that they must answer it one way or another (perhaps 'Not Bothered' should have been on the ballot paper).
Click to expand...

That's a good point. For something as potentially life changing as this perhaps Cameron should've just said that there's no requirement to vote but we will only leave the EU if over half of the people in the UK registered to vote (at the time of the referendum), vote leave. Democracy served and promise upheld albeit not in the manner that the Brexiteers would've wanted.
 
Honest John said:
This is true. 17.4 million is a colossal number of so-called angry people. Pre-June 2016 you'd think that just about everyone, in their daily lives would be seeing anti EU sentiment wherever they looked. You would think that there would be arguments all over the place. Marches, protests, TV documentaries, civil unrest even. But no. I was not aware of any of it apart from news reports regarding the Ukip cause and a small group of backbenchers being a thorn in the side of successive Tory governments.

There may have been some sentiment expressed by some groups regarding the political direction the EU was heading. Immigration was seen to be a problem but the net figures were as high from non-EU as they were from the EU and we supposedly had control over non-EU.

However, I do not know anyone who could tell me what EU regulations were causing their daily lives to be a misery, or how much the UK paid in net contributions to the block. Nor did anyone seem that bothered that the ECJ could trump the UK Courts.

The majority of people, like me, may have had minor issues with the EU but not to the degree that they would want to vote themselves a worse standard of living out of pure principle. The case was not that strong for most I would say.

The mere act of asking the question will lead people to think that they must answer it one way or another (perhaps 'Not Bothered' should have been on the ballot paper). Human nature suggests that people will inevitably find things to be disgruntled about even though they were not particularly worried about them before.

Farage is a an excellent speaker, he is clever and knows exactly what levers to pull. He played to the immigration fears and extended that to suggest that the influx of EU immigrants was directly responsible for the deterioration of the lot of poor disenfranchised people in depressed regions. He and the other Brexiteers whipped up a sentiment almost akin to the rise of Nazism. When people have nothing they always look for someone to blame. Back then it was Jewish people and this time it was EU immigrants.

They convinced the masses that there was no good side to immigration.

For me it was a protest vote and a very large proportion of the 17.4 million had no idea of the consequences.

You will find very few those who will admit to it - this is why you get loud voices on the radio and TV debates shouting "we knew what we were voting for".

Some of them did. But an awful lot didn't.

Should we have another referendum? No.

Should we ignore the referendum? No.

We have to suck it up - in the least painful way possible.

I don't know what that is. Nobody does.
Click to expand...

Agree with a lot of this apart from 2 points.
Farage is not an intelligent speaker - as soon as he comes up against anyone with any intelligence he cannot back any of his arguments up, he may appeal to a certain section of the public but all that reveals is the standard of education in the UK.

Secondly how long does the UK have to suck it up. There have been many references during this farce to how resilient the British are and fight against all odds whereas now they're expected to roll over and accept their fate. I find this extremely sad.
 
Honest John said:
We have to suck it up - in the least painful way possible.

I don't know what that is. Nobody does.
Click to expand...

Surely the least painful way is the Norway option which seems to be completely off the table right now.

Given how tight the race was, that seems to be most logical option.
 
FlawlessThaw said:
Surely the least painful way is the Norway option which seems to be completely off the table right now.

Given how tight the race was, that seems to be most logical option.
Click to expand...

I think I've said this fifty times but Norway does not solve the Irish Border nor does it solve the biggest problem of customs checks at the other ports and airports.
It's better than no deal but it is still a disaster.
 
Smores said:
The only valid argument for a second referendum is if the original referendum was illegitimate and it's a stretch to say that. I don't think the public were any less informed than usual GEs.

As much as I'd prefer a second referendum in my view it would be circumventing democracy, a vote should follow through to action and a terrible precedent would be set if we overturn referendums and GEs.

We will end up voting to go back in and when we do they'll be difficult challenges as part of those negotiations and huge compromises. Can people really say they'd accept a second referendum in that situation too?
Click to expand...
Imagine having another vote a few years after a GE, craziness.
 
MoskvaRed said:
If the referendum had offered two clearly defined, realistic alternatives, then I would be willing to respect the result. The problem is that the Leave option was conpletely open-ended and was promoted by Farage, Fox, Johnson etc as a relatively painless process thanks to the inevitable intercession of desperate German car manufacturers and Italian prosecco producers. In October 18, there is no longer any room for delusion as to tbe fact that leaving involves serious downsides and costs and, if we wish to avert complete disaster, compromises. Such a once in a generation upheaval must be decided on the facts, not on bluster and lies. Ideally parliament would make that decision but, as Cameron was moronic enough to throw it open to a referendum in 16, then it can only be settled by s second referendum.
Click to expand...

I think it was much more naivety. Despite what people seem to think on here, he is an incredibly genuine and good natured person (I know I'm going to get slaughtered for this but go feck yourselves) who endowed the British public with more sense than they deserved to be endowed with. The likes of Johnson got it right by relying on the mob mentality and the lowest common denominator. He knew the British public are, at least 50%, thick as shit and racist as hell, and played on that to get the result he wanted, in the hope that he would get the top job out of it. That somewhat backfired on him, but he still has designs on No10 and will do what he has to do to get there, sooner or later.
 
Smores said:
The only valid argument for a second referendum is if the original referendum was illegitimate and it's a stretch to say that. I don't think the public were any less informed than usual GEs.

As much as I'd prefer a second referendum in my view it would be circumventing democracy, a vote should follow through to action and a terrible precedent would be set if we overturn referendums and GEs.

We will end up voting to go back in and when we do they'll be difficult challenges as part of those negotiations and huge compromises. Can people really say they'd accept a second referendum in that situation too?
Click to expand...

The terrible precedent set is making a decision of this staggering magnitude on a binary question in the first place. Given the transparently obvious confusion across the country right now and the very narrow margin in the original vote (and let's not even go into the misinformation campaign run by the millionaire elite run Leave campaign) it is difficult to see how it is undemocratic to vote again. GE's are completely different for many reasons, not least the fact that within half a decade we all get to vote again.
 
Smores said:
The only valid argument for a second referendum is if the original referendum was illegitimate and it's a stretch to say that. I don't think the public were any less informed than usual GEs.
Click to expand...

That could only possibly be true if it was a legally binding referendum, which it never was, never has been.
 
Seriously, the more I think about it I want a second referendum. It's no more embarrassing then the last few years. It's no more undemocratic than refusing the chance to change your mind 2 years after the fact when new information and context have come to light.

Make the vote more clear cut, require a proper majority, stipulate that it's final, then be done with it. Remain or Leave...

If there's another march or whatever give me a heads up... I don't think it's that likely but I'm down regardless.
 
afrocentricity said:
Seriously, the more I think about it I want a second referendum. It's no more embarrassing then the last few years. It's no more undemocratic than refusing the chance to change your mind 2 years after the fact when new information and context have come to light.

Make the vote more clear cut, require a proper majority, stipulate that it's final, then be done with it. Remain or Leave...

If there's another march or whatever give me a heads up... I don't think it's that likely but I'm down regardless.
Click to expand...

Make a funny sign.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.