Would you Vote ❎ differently now in the European Union Referendum

[Mac_fae_Gillie]

OK lets say we vote again this time thx to all the bulls up by UK Government and MPS on both sides remain win by a few percent. Then 5million Brexit voters sin a petition do we then vote again?? The people have spoken if those in power just got round to sorting it out we can move on.

As for my vote Leave then/Leave now EU is another level of bureaucracy that was fine for EEC but every few years it takes more powers.

You think getting out now is pain in the arse think how it would be in 20years. I love many of the perks of the EU but it breaks its own rules to suit and is on course for a huge fall, really don't want to be part of that.

[Bridge of Djoum]

2 hours ago, The Comedian said:

 

Good post but can I question something. Why should remain be on any ballot paper? 

 

Remaining in the EU was comprehensively beaten in the 2016 referendum. You can argue that what kind of leave we were voting for wasn't clear but you cannot say the same about remain.

 

Everyone from the gutter to the boardroom knew to stay in the EU and carry on as we have been all you had to do was vote remain. A majority did not.

 

Now unless the leave voter's were also too stupid to know what they were voting for, I think it's fair to say a very simple, clearly defined and expensively campaigned for choice was not taken. The goal was empty, ball rolling along the line and the Remain team booted the ball high into the stand.

 

It's a question of how we leave now, if anything. Remain has been rejected and should be accepted as such.

Excellent point.

 

Leave has been democratically voted upon. The only further referendum should be on the terms of Brexit. That won't happen though. 

[Francis Albert]

34 minutes ago, Cade said:

I think the threat of breaching an ACTUAL PEACE TREATY is more of a threat than some angry weathspoons pricks

Have you read the "ACTUAL PEACE TREATY"? I may be a sometime Wetherspoon prick but I have. Border controls would not breach any "ACTUAL PEACE TREATY". They are probably not a good idea and something to be avoided but they would not breach the Good Friday Agreement.

Edited March 24, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Bridge of Djoum]

1 hour ago, Cade said:

The threat of violence by a few gammon faced lunatics being used as an excuse to force through an economy-wrecking hard brexit is no way to run a country.

 

 

Democratically voted for Brexit. Like it or not, it was the will of the people.

 

Or should we do away with democracy and voting and such and have a dictatorship? Best of 3? 5? A game of long bangers to settle disputes?

[JackLadd]

Leave and still leave. Only way I'd vote remain would be if the alternative was independence under SNP.

[Bridge of Djoum]

3 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

Leave and still leave. Only way I'd vote remain would be if the alternative was independence under SNP.

Out of interest, why did you vote Leave?

[luckyBatistuta]

2 hours ago, The Comedian said:

 

Good post but can I question something. Why should remain be on any ballot paper? 

 

Remaining in the EU was comprehensively beaten in the 2016 referendum. You can argue that what kind of leave we were voting for wasn't clear but you cannot say the same about remain.

 

Everyone from the gutter to the boardroom knew to stay in the EU and carry on as we have been all you had to do was vote remain. A majority did not.

 

Now unless the leave voter's were also too stupid to know what they were voting for, I think it's fair to say a very simple, clearly defined and expensively campaigned for choice was not taken. The goal was empty, ball rolling along the line and the Remain team booted the ball high into the stand.

 

It's a question of how we leave now, if anything. Remain has been rejected and should be accepted as such.

 

Yup, everyone who voted remain knew what they were voting for and were happy with their lot. The folk voting to leave, were not happy with that and knew that they were rolling the dice and not knowing how it would all unflold by leaving. Everyone knew that was the case and if we have another vote, is still the case. We might know a little more, but it’s still a case of carry on as before, or the unknown with a leave...so what has actually changed in that respect to justify another vote? 

[frankblack]

46 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

Leave and still leave. Only way I'd vote remain would be if the alternative was independence under SNP.

 

Funnily enough the SNP attitude to Brexit and democratic referendums was one of the reasons I will never vote for them again.

 

Ironically I think the SNP have now set themselves a precedent in campaigning for a "People's Vote" as the same can now be asked by their opponents should the SNP win an Independence Referendum.

 

Brexit is dead in the water, and I said so when May agreed her deal with the EU with a backstop.  I think she as a remainer and has set out to stall and thwart Brexit by stealth and has achieved that.  It will be kicked into the high grass and quietly dropped when the next big crisis happens.

[frankblack]

34 minutes ago, luckyBatistuta said:

 

Yup, everyone who voted remain knew what they were voting for and were happy with their lot. The folk voting to leave, were not happy with that and knew that they were rolling the dice and not knowing how it would all unflold by leaving. Everyone knew that was the case and if we have another vote, is still the case. We might know a little more, but it’s still a case of carry on as before, or the unknown with a leave...so what has actually changed in that respect to justify another vote? 

 

You can say exactly the same for Independence - there is still no detail on what would happen in the event of a yes vote and wasn't at the last referendum.

[luckyBatistuta]

39 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

You can say exactly the same for Independence - there is still no detail on what would happen in the event of a yes vote and wasn't at the last referendum.

 

You’re spot on, there will be remainers demanding another Brexit vote because they didn’t know all the facts, yet also turn around and say there shouldn’t be another Indyref, because the vote returned a No, yet they didn’t know all the facts concerning that vote. 

 

 

 

[indianajones]

7 hours ago, Bridge of Djoum said:

The information to educate themselves was there before. 

 

People were fed lies and false promises. 

 

Politics 101!

[frankblack]

Just now, luckyBatistuta said:

 

You’re spot on, there will be remainers demanding another Brexit vote because they didn’t know all the facts, yet also turn around and say there shouldn’t be another Indyref, because the vote returned a No, yet they didn’t know all the facts concerning that vote. 

 

 

 

 

 

I think you need reading glasses if you think that is what I said.

[luckyBatistuta]

1 minute ago, frankblack said:

 

 

I think you need reading glasses if you think that is what I said.

 

‘Will read back  typing in between jobs here.

[Bridge of Djoum]

2 minutes ago, indianajones said:

 

People were fed lies and false promises. 

 

Politics 101!

Exactly. Folk seeming to think misinformation by politicians started with Brexit.

[CJGJ]

18 hours ago, portobellojambo1 said:

I originally voted to leave and I would vote to leave again now. Any attempt at another people vote would totally destroy democracy, the people voted and the majority vote was to leave. You cannot them have another vote just so you get a result that may suit those in parliament who hold sovereignty.

 

I do understand why the other countries in the European Union want us to stay in. The vast majority of them are up to their necks in debt and depend on money coming from the EU to keep them afloat. The main contributors financially are Germany, France and the United Kingdom. With the removal of the finance provided by the UK the onus would fall on German and French citizens to maintain the level of payments somehow, something they won't want to do. Their industries, most notably the car industries, are already in panic mode at the thought of the UK leaving. My thoughts were and will remain that once the UK is out other countries will follow very quickly.

So why bother having general elections every few years ?

 

According to your view once a vote has taken place thats it............madness and many laws have been repealed once the consequences are clear

The voting population were cheated by a series of lies misinformation and with no idea of just what they were voting for

 

It has beceome clearer now and that is why you and others are seemingly trying to avoid a new vote when things may well change.,,the total waffle about destroying democracy is totally drama queen acting from you

 

Perhaps you and others should have faith in your point of view, have a new vote and when you win then no one can complain........but if you lose accept the public have acted with a far better idea of the consequences and in doing so made an informed decision.

[shaun.lawson]

8 hours ago, Bridge of Djoum said:

You have zero self awareness. Not a crumb of it. The arrogance of your posting, both here and on other platforms is known by many. 

 

Please, just do one.

 

I'd suggest it's people who actually applaud a post which says, in not so many words, "they, a union of 27 countries, and the largest single market in the world, need us, a small island in the North Atlantic which voted to impoverish ourselves and have embarrassed ourselves on the world stage for 3 years, more than we need them" who have zero self-awareness, old chum. 

 

And do tell me about my arrogance when you go around calling Scottish independence supporters, "the most crashing bores on the planet". 

 

5 hours ago, Cade said:

It's telling that even after more than 40 years as a member of the evolving community, so many Brits don't have a clue how it actually works; even our so-called leaders don't have a scooby about how things actually operate in the EU.

The lies, misinformation, mistaken assumptions and general ignorance of EU mechanisms pervading all strata of UK society is staggering and shameful.

 

 

 

This. Well said. It's still going on on this thread too. Evidence, if ever it was needed, that we get the politicians we deserve.

Edited March 24, 2019 by shaun.lawson

[shaun.lawson]

6 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Didn't vote for reasons I won't bore you with

 

Let me get this straight. You've spent the last 33 months on this forum insisting you were a Remainer, while making the most ridiculously blockheaded Brexit arguments imaginable... all the while you didn't even vote in the most important decision Britain's faced since the war?

 

Amazing.

[frankblack]

15 minutes ago, CJGJ said:

So why bother having general elections every few years ?

 

According to your view once a vote has taken place thats it............madness and many laws have been repealed once the consequences are clear

The voting population were cheated by a series of lies misinformation and with no idea of just what they were voting for

 

It has beceome clearer now and that is why you and others are seemingly trying to avoid a new vote when things may well change.,,the total waffle about destroying democracy is totally drama queen acting from you

 

Perhaps you and others should have faith in your point of view, have a new vote and when you win then no one can complain........but if you lose accept the public have acted with a far better idea of the consequences and in doing so made an informed decision.

 

General Elections give the public the chance to put in a new government and change things - that is fine and good.

 

Leave Voters find it unacceptable that a decision was taken by the public and has not been invoked by the government yet remainers think it is acceptable to kill it before it can be.

 

I think Theresa May, a staunch remainer, has engineered exactly what she wanted - block Brexit by offering up a completely unacceptable deal at the last minute to Westminster knowing it will get thrown out along with a no deal.  The biggest obstruction to Brexit has been Theresa May, and its a dead duck and has been since the minute she agreed a deal with the EU including a backstop.

[shaun.lawson]

16 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

its a dead duck and has been since the minute she agreed a deal with the EU including a backstop.

 

 

No. The idea of have our cake and eat it Brexit has always been a dead duck. And the idea of Brexit while leaving the customs union has always been a dead duck because of the Irish border and the Good Friday Agreement.

 

The backstop is there to prevent hostilities breaking out again. It's there so we keep our word from the Good Friday Agreement. It's there to protect the people of Northern Ireland and Ireland. Do you even give a damn about any of that?

[frankblack]

7 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

 

No. The idea of have our cake and eat it Brexit has always been a dead duck. And the idea of Brexit while leaving the customs union has always been a dead duck because of the Irish border and the Good Friday Agreement.

 

The backstop is there to prevent hostilities breaking out again. It's there so we keep our word from the Good Friday Agreement. It's there to protect the people of Northern Ireland and Ireland. Do you even give a damn about any of that?

 

 

The leave mandate was not for a deal that worsened the position by leaving the UK subserviant to EU laws, make our own trade deals, or control immigration.

 

If Theresa May or the EU were unwilling to deliver this TM should have stopped pissing around and got us out on a No Deal with two years notice to plan for that outcome.

 

I don't think she had any intention of getting such a deal and thus engineered a remain scenario by stalling and misleading the public.

Edited March 24, 2019 by frankblack

[Francis Albert]

15 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

 

No. The idea of have our cake and eat it Brexit has always been a dead duck. And the idea of Brexit while leaving the customs union has always been a dead duck because of the Irish border and the Good Friday Agreement.

 

The backstop is there to prevent hostilities breaking out again. It's there so we keep our word from the Good Friday Agreement. It's there to protect the people of Northern Ireland and Ireland. Do you even give a damn about any of that?

Shaun. Genuine question. Have you read the Good Friday Agreement. If so where does it say border controls would breach it?

 

[shaun.lawson]

8 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

 

The leave mandate was not for a deal that worsened the position by leaving the UK subserviant to EU laws, make our own trade deals, or control immigration.

 

If Theresa May or the EU were unwilling to deliver this TM should have stopped pissing around and got us out on a No Deal with two years notice to plan for that outcome.

 

I don't think she had any intention of getting such a deal and thus engineered a remain scenario by stalling and misleading the public.

 

Christ on a bike. The Leave mandate was based on a pack of lies and was completely undeliverable.

 

1. We cannot have 'frictionless trade' with the EU while leaving the single market.

 

2. We cannot have a soft border in Ireland and uphold the Good Friday Agreement while leaving the customs union.

 

3. We cannot have 'frictionless trade' with the EU while imposing immigration controls.

 

If you didn't understand the EU's rules when you voted, that's up to you. And No Deal is a catastrophe scenario, which to my astonishment, is still being totally underestimated by some people on here. 

 

Leave voters voted, in many cases, for something which could not be delivered. It's not that Leave can't be delivered at all; of course it can. But what Leave voters, who didn't bother to inform themselves of how the EU works, voted for cannot be delivered. It never could: regardless of who the PM is, regardless of which party is in government.

 

Finally, one other thing. To me, it says everything about the UK that, unlike the EU, we prioritise the movement of money over the movement of people. Goods and services, yes; human beings, no. It's quite repulsive. But it's clearly how very many British people view the world (except when it's them who want to move abroad, that is).

[Cade]

The Good Friday Agreement makes a hard brexit legally impossible.

This is why the backstop is a legal imperative.

Everybody should have perhaps thought that through beforehand.

[Francis Albert]

45 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Let me get this straight. You've spent the last 33 months on this forum insisting you were a Remainer, while making the most ridiculously blockheaded Brexit arguments imaginable... all the while you didn't even vote in the most important decision Britain's faced since the war?

 

Amazing.

Ok i will bore you. Never insisted I was a remainer nor said that I voted remain. All I said was that I was an unenthusiastic remain supporter. My wife is an ardent leaver. We were both out of the country in June 2016. There was no point in us obtaining a postal vote as our votes would simply cancel each other out

 In fact in agreeing this truce I was favouring leave because I might have waivered while there was no chance my wife would

 Ok?

 

 

[shaun.lawson]

10 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Shaun. Genuine question. Have you read the Good Friday Agreement. If so where does it say border controls would breach it?

 

 

I think you should read this. Stop thinking about money, and start thinking about people.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/31/ireland-hard-border-brexit-backstop-good-friday-agreement

[frankblack]

1 minute ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Christ on a bike. The Leave mandate was based on a pack of lies and was completely undeliverable.

 

1. We cannot have 'frictionless trade' with the EU while leaving the single market.

 

Trade goes both ways.

 

A deal was deliverable but is one clearly wasn't on then no deal should have been the immediate target to plan for such an exit.  Then you see the politicians start to sweat and see who blinks first.

 

1 minute ago, shaun.lawson said:

2. We cannot have a soft border in Ireland and uphold the Good Friday Agreement while leaving the customs union.

 

That is debatable.  Technology is there to support such a system, but I can't be arsed going over this ground as I am about done for the night.

 

1 minute ago, shaun.lawson said:

3. We cannot have 'frictionless trade' with the EU while imposing immigration controls.

 

If you didn't understand the EU's rules when you voted, that's up to you. And No Deal is a catastrophe scenario, which to my astonishment, is still being totally underestimated by some people on here. 

 

Leave voters voted, in many cases, for something which could not be delivered. It's not that Leave can't be delivered at all; of course it can. But what Leave voters, who didn't bother to inform themselves of how the EU works, voted for cannot be delivered. It never could: regardless of who the PM is, regardless of which party is in government.

 

Finally, one other thing. To me, it says everything about the UK that, unlike the EU, we prioritise the movement of money over the movement of people. Goods and services, yes; human beings, no. It's quite repulsive. But it's clearly how very many British people view the world (except when it's them who want to move abroad, that is).

 

Again, it works both ways.  If the EU want to trade with us then we can also be stubborn.

 

You say it couldn't be delivered but TM ensured that with completely gutless leadership.  It would have been interesting to see the EU negotiating with the right wing of the Tory party who would have put no deal on the table from the outset.

 

Its good to see your position is down to the usual stereotypes of leave voters - too stupid, racist, lied to, etc, etc.

 

My parents voted in the 70s to join the common market not what it has become now, which is why they wanted out.

[luckyBatistuta]

2 hours ago, frankblack said:

 

You can say exactly the same for Independence - there is still no detail on what would happen in the event of a yes vote and wasn't at the last referendum.

 

I voted Yes, not knowing what would happen if we won the vote. I was gutted when the result came through, but fully accepted it, as that was the will of the people who took the time to vote. I’m over it and at no point have I ever demanded another one to get the result I really wanted.

 

1 hour ago, luckyBatistuta said:

 

there will be remainers demanding another Brexit vote because they didn’t know all the facts, yet also turn around and say there shouldn’t be another Indyref, because the vote returned a No, yet they didn’t know all the facts concerning that vote. 

 

 

 

 

Apologies for picking you up wrong bud. This part of my post still stands on its own though. Too many people not prepared to accept the result of any vote these days.

 

28 minutes ago, CJGJ said:

So why bother having general elections every few years ?

 

According to your view once a vote has taken place thats it............madness and many laws have been repealed once the consequences are clear

The voting population were cheated by a series of lies misinformation and with no idea of just what they were voting for

 

It has beceome clearer now and that is why you and others are seemingly trying to avoid a new vote when things may well change.,,the total waffle about destroying democracy is totally drama queen acting from you

 

Perhaps you and others should have faith in your point of view, have a new vote and when you win then no one can complain........but if you lose accept the public have acted with a far better idea of the consequences and in doing so made an informed decision.

 

 

Haven’t been on this thread much, so not sure if you’ve already said this, but out  of curiosity CJGJ, do you want another Indyref?

[Jambo-Jimbo]

2 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

Trade goes both ways.

 

A deal was deliverable but is one clearly wasn't on then no deal should have been the immediate target to plan for such an exit.  Then you see the politicians start to sweat and see who blinks first.

 

 

That is debatable.  Technology is there to support such a system, but I can't be arsed going over this ground as I am about done for the night.

 

 

Again, it works both ways.  If the EU want to trade with us then we can also be stubborn.

 

You say it couldn't be delivered but TM ensured that with completely gutless leadership.  It would have been interesting to see the EU negotiating with the right wing of the Tory party who would have put no deal on the table from the outset.

 

Its good to see your position is down to the usual stereotypes of leave voters - too stupid, racist, lied to, etc, etc.

 

My parents voted in the 70s to join the common market not what it has become now, which is why they wanted out.

 

The electorate of the UK didn't get a vote to join the common market (EEC) in 1973 all that was decided by the Heath government & parliament, what the British people did get a vote on in 1975 was whether we wanted to stay in the common market (EEC) or not, which was won with a 67% majority, to stay in, that's the vote your parents took part in.

 

Incidentally the 1975 referendum was the first ever national referendum held in the UK and the overall turnout was only 64% of the electorate, with some 15 million of the electorate not voting in the referendum for whatever reason, which meant that around about 36% of the electorate didn't vote.

The question on the ballot paper was a simple one "Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (the common market) with a box for either YES or NO, nowhere on the ballot paper was there any mention that a YES vote would eventually lead to closer political union etc etc with the 'European Community', mmmm now where have I heard that argument before, you know claims that that wasn't on the ballot paper or claims that the electorate were lied to.

[Francis Albert]

2 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

I think you should read this. Stop thinking about money, and start thinking about people.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/31/ireland-hard-border-brexit-backstop-good-friday-agreement

I have read that. To repeat. Have you read the Good Friday Agreement and can you point out where it says a border soft or hard would breach it?

[shaun.lawson]

2 hours ago, frankblack said:

 

Trade goes both ways.

 

A deal was deliverable but is one clearly wasn't on then no deal should have been the immediate target to plan for such an exit.  Then you see the politicians start to sweat and see who blinks first.

 

 

That is debatable.  Technology is there to support such a system, but I can't be arsed going over this ground as I am about done for the night.

 

 

Again, it works both ways.  If the EU want to trade with us then we can also be stubborn.

 

You say it couldn't be delivered but TM ensured that with completely gutless leadership.  It would have been interesting to see the EU negotiating with the right wing of the Tory party who would have put no deal on the table from the outset.

 

Its good to see your position is down to the usual stereotypes of leave voters - too stupid, racist, lied to, etc, etc.

 

My parents voted in the 70s to join the common market not what it has become now, which is why they wanted out.

 

And what has it become now? It has political institutions which are unpopular... so Leave should very obviously have involved leaving the political institutions. That's it.

 

I've lost count of how many people who say "I/my parents voted to join the Common Market", yet who then demand we leave the Common Market. It's bizarre. 

 

In terms of what you say above: the UK is one country, with a population of 66m people. The EU has 27 other members, with a population of 450m. Please explain to me how it'd have been a question of "who blinked first" when they have all the cards, and we have none? When they have almost 7 times the population we do? When the same rules you complain about apply to every single EU member state - and to Norway, and Switzerland, and Turkey with its association agreement, and others?

 

"Hello, is that Sky Sports? I'd like to cancel my subscription. But I demand all the channels regardless - and if you don't give me them, I'm going to throw my toys out of my pram and blame you". 

 

You do realise this is exactly the same as the Yes campaign arguing they'd have had any cards in a negotiation with rUK - and saying they'd renege on what they owed if rUK didn't give them what they wanted? Point 1, no they wouldn't have, especially given what's happened to oil prices; point 2, way to make yourself a pariah state immediately. Which is what those demanding the UK don't pay our dues would turn it into to.

 

Good lord: you actually brought up the issue of 'technological solutions' to the Irish border - when those solutions don't exist, and when the backstop has been specifically brought in until such time as they exist and can be implemented! Who told you they exist? Owen Paterson?

 

Seriously... the level of complete and utter bollocks which people continue to spout on all this is just astounding. Are there hard Brexit-supporting parents on here? If so, do they teach their kids to ignore all facts, all reason, all evidence? It's like dealing with religious fundamentalists at times. "If only we'd pray harder. If only we'd be stronger. If only we had a different leader who was pure and true to our blind faith".

 

But you know what the real issue is? It's people who are absolutely terrified of admitting they got such an important decision completely wrong. And by God, will they do anything - absolutely anything - to persuade themselves otherwise.

Edited March 24, 2019 by shaun.lawson

[shaun.lawson]

7 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I have read that. To repeat. Have you read the Good Friday Agreement and can you point out where it says a border soft or hard would breach it?

 

If you've read it, and are still asking that question, you clearly don't understand either the article or the spirit of the GFA - let alone the context of The Troubles. 

[ri Alban]

9 hours ago, frankblack said:

 

Trade goes both ways.

 

A deal was deliverable but is one clearly wasn't on then no deal should have been the immediate target to plan for such an exit.  Then you see the politicians start to sweat and see who blinks first.

 

 

That is debatable.  Technology is there to support such a system, but I can't be arsed going over this ground as I am about done for the night.

 

 

Again, it works both ways.  If the EU want to trade with us then we can also be stubborn.

 

You say it couldn't be delivered but TM ensured that with completely gutless leadership.  It would have been interesting to see the EU negotiating with the right wing of the Tory party who would have put no deal on the table from the outset.

 

Its good to see your position is down to the usual stereotypes of leave voters - too stupid, racist, lied to, etc, etc.

 

My parents voted in the 70s to join the common market not what it has become now, which is why they wanted out.

Has this technology you say exists, have x-ray vision that sees in the back of trucks.

[ri Alban]

7 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

I have read that. To repeat. Have you read the Good Friday Agreement and can you point out where it says a border soft or hard would breach it?

Frannie, you know what it says, and only a trouble maker would deny it's legitimacy.

[ri Alban]

13 hours ago, Bridge of Djoum said:

Democratically voted for Brexit. Like it or not, it was the will of the people.

 

Or should we do away with democracy and voting and such and have a dictatorship? Best of 3? 5? A game of long bangers to settle disputes?

Brexit should go ahead. So too should Indyref2, as that is also the will of the people, rubber stamped by the Scottish Parliament. And backed by the polls for pro remain before during and after the EUref.

We were told during 2014 that the only way to stay in the EU was to vote no. Now the only way to join is by voting Yes. 

 

You can't take away people's rights by ballot or you end up with civil war.

 

[ri Alban]

Is auld Chuck making trade deals with Cuba.

[Governor Tarkin]

On 24/03/2019 at 04:10, shaun.lawson said:

 

Most of the posts on this thread are sensible, reflective and balanced. This one is so full of puffed-up arrogance, insularity and sheer mindboggling delusion, it's terrifying.

 

Truly, more deluded than anything any Hibs fan has ever come out with. 

 

 

Oh ma sides!

[frankblack]

8 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

And what has it become now? It has political institutions which are unpopular... so Leave should very obviously have involved leaving the political institutions. That's it.

 

I've lost count of how many people who say "I/my parents voted to join the Common Market", yet who then demand we leave the Common Market. It's bizarre. 

 

In terms of what you say above: the UK is one country, with a population of 66m people. The EU has 27 other members, with a population of 450m. Please explain to me how it'd have been a question of "who blinked first" when they have all the cards, and we have none? When they have almost 7 times the population we do? When the same rules you complain about apply to every single EU member state - and to Norway, and Switzerland, and Turkey with its association agreement, and others?

 

"Hello, is that Sky Sports? I'd like to cancel my subscription. But I demand all the channels regardless - and if you don't give me them, I'm going to throw my toys out of my pram and blame you". 

 

You do realise this is exactly the same as the Yes campaign arguing they'd have had any cards in a negotiation with rUK - and saying they'd renege on what they owed if rUK didn't give them what they wanted? Point 1, no they wouldn't have, especially given what's happened to oil prices; point 2, way to make yourself a pariah state immediately. Which is what those demanding the UK don't pay our dues would turn it into to.

 

Good lord: you actually brought up the issue of 'technological solutions' to the Irish border - when those solutions don't exist, and when the backstop has been specifically brought in until such time as they exist and can be implemented! Who told you they exist? Owen Paterson?

 

Seriously... the level of complete and utter bollocks which people continue to spout on all this is just astounding. Are there hard Brexit-supporting parents on here? If so, do they teach their kids to ignore all facts, all reason, all evidence? It's like dealing with religious fundamentalists at times. "If only we'd pray harder. If only we'd be stronger. If only we had a different leader who was pure and true to our blind faith".

 

But you know what the real issue is? It's people who are absolutely terrified of admitting they got such an important decision completely wrong. And by God, will they do anything - absolutely anything - to persuade themselves otherwise.

 

The issue of the Irish border isn't clear cut but TM agreeing to the backstop has ensured her bill won't ever pass in parliament so arguing about this is academic.

 

At no point was I suggesting the UK act like Indy supporters and walk away from their debts.  To clarify, I would have wanted the UK to negotiate hard and if it became impossible to get a deal in our interests then invoke a no deal process with at least a year to spare.

 

As for your hysterical points about hard brexit, Leave voters would prefer a good deal but would accept a properly planned no deal outcome rather than no brexit.

[frankblack]

1 hour ago, ri Alban said:

Brexit should go ahead. So too should Indyref2, as that is also the will of the people, rubber stamped by the Scottish Parliament. And backed by the polls for pro remain before during and after the EUref.

We were told during 2014 that the only way to stay in the EU was to vote no. Now the only way to join is by voting Yes. 

 

You can't take away people's rights by ballot or you end up with civil war.

 

 

I take it you would accept a People's Vote on the terms of independence with the option to revoke it outright (in the unlikely scenario the SNP win an independence referendum)?

 

The SNP were campaigning over the weekend for one for Brexit, so surely would accept one for Independence?

[AlphonseCapone]

2 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

I take it you would accept a People's Vote on the terms of independence with the option to revoke it outright (in the unlikely scenario the SNP win an independence referendum)?

 

The SNP were campaigning over the weekend for one for Brexit, so surely would accept one for Independence?

 

Not everyone that supports independence supports the SNP therefore they don't need to agree with their views. 

 

One of the biggest reasons I don't back a People's Vote is that I'd find that totally unacceptable after a successful independence vote. So I disagree on principle and on the precedence it might set. And I don't give a shit what the SNP view is on that. 

[doctor jambo]

9 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

I have read that. To repeat. Have you read the Good Friday Agreement and can you point out where it says a border soft or hard would breach it?

The border issue is easy, we don’t put one in no matter what

No tariffs with the eu, and if the Irish put one in that’s up to them.

the republic base thei economy on low corp tax and must be crapping themselves that Uk slash ours and all the biggies move- suspect that is the govt plan.

the deal is all about stopping us doing that 

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

I take it you would accept a People's Vote on the terms of independence with the option to revoke it outright (in the unlikely scenario the SNP win an independence referendum)?

 

The SNP were campaigning over the weekend for one for Brexit, so surely would accept one for Independence?

 

I certainly would, if we're truly interested in the best interests of democracy it makes sense to ask two questions.

First you ask "do you want this in principle?" and if that's a yes "do you still want this now we know more about the reality?" once the details are padded out.

 

I remember even people like Reese-Mogg had no problem with the concept of a confirmatory vote during the referendum campaign, strange that he's so dead against it now. 

 

As above, the SNP don't own the concept of Scottish independence by the way, there are plenty of things I disagree with them on and I probably wouldn't vote for them despite being largely supportive of independence. What they think and do doesn't reflect on anyone other than the SNP.

[doctor jambo]

7 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

I certainly would, if we're truly interested in the best interests of democracy it makes sense to ask two questions.

First you ask "do you want this in principle?" and if that's a yes "do you still want this now we know more about the reality?" once the details are padded out.

 

I remember even people like Reese-Mogg had no problem with the concept of a confirmatory vote during the referendum campaign, strange that he's so dead against it now. 

 

As above, the SNP don't own the concept of Scottish independence by the way, there are plenty of things I disagree with them on and I probably wouldn't vote for them despite being largely supportive of independence. What they think and do doesn't reflect on anyone other than the SNP.

The snp did a Theresa May , tried to accommodate all- keep the queen the pound etc. It doesn’t work. All in or independent . Go for it or dont

[frankblack]

26 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Not everyone that supports independence supports the SNP therefore they don't need to agree with their views. 

 

One of the biggest reasons I don't back a People's Vote is that I'd find that totally unacceptable after a successful independence vote. So I disagree on principle and on the precedence it might set. And I don't give a shit what the SNP view is on that. 

 

19 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

I certainly would, if we're truly interested in the best interests of democracy it makes sense to ask two questions.

First you ask "do you want this in principle?" and if that's a yes "do you still want this now we know more about the reality?" once the details are padded out.

 

I remember even people like Reese-Mogg had no problem with the concept of a confirmatory vote during the referendum campaign, strange that he's so dead against it now. 

 

As above, the SNP don't own the concept of Scottish independence by the way, there are plenty of things I disagree with them on and I probably wouldn't vote for them despite being largely supportive of independence. What they think and do doesn't reflect on anyone other than the SNP.

 

Respect for those opinions.

 

A People's Vote now on Brexit would kill it because the electorate would never accept TM's deal, and I suspect similar for Independence if the deal hit joe public in the pocket.

[Unknown user]

7 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

 

Respect for those opinions.

 

A People's Vote now on Brexit would kill it because the electorate would never accept TM's deal, and I suspect similar for Independence if the deal hit joe public in the pocket.

 

Then that's what should happen IMO. I really don't like the idea of avoiding a question because you fear the answer in a democracy.

[doctor jambo]

6 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Then that's what should happen IMO. I really don't like the idea of avoiding a question because you fear the answer in a democracy.

I take a different view.

government as we know it has the job to protect minorities from the ignorance of the masses.

If you posed the question to the public " do you think we should accommodate travelling communities in this country"

Or  "would you favour the return of the death sentence"

the results may be abhorrent to many- the government should not ask questions of its populace that will give an answer that is harmful.

This is one such instance. They abrogated responsibility to all their citizens.

[Cade]

Yet again FA tries to claim that the GFA and the Irish Border issue don't exist.

 

 

It's been spelled out several times, so here I go again:

The GFA enshrines in law that NI and Irish citizens MUST have the same rights.

This includes the right of freedom of movement.

Any kind of border control violates that.

 

 

[Unknown user]

5 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

I take a different view.

government as we know it has the job to protect minorities from the ignorance of the masses.

If you posed the question to the public " do you think we should accommodate travelling communities in this country"

Or  "would you favour the return of the death sentence"

the results may be abhorrent to many- the government should not ask questions of its populace that will give an answer that is harmful.

This is one such instance. They abrogated responsibility to all their citizens.

I do actually agree with that, beware populism!

But with the situation we're in it's complicated, the subject has been opened up to referendum (ffs) and a lot of people are going to be furious if their voice isn't heeded after being asked. 

 

We're in this position because of an abdication of responsibility from the politicians in this country. **** those guys, especially David Cameron. 

 

[doctor jambo]

17 minutes ago, Smithee said:

I do actually agree with that, beware populism!

But with the situation we're in it's complicated, the subject has been opened up to referendum (ffs) and a lot of people are going to be furious if their voice isn't heeded after being asked. 

 

We're in this position because of an abdication of responsibility from the politicians in this country. **** those guys, especially David Cameron. 

 

I agree.

It was a question that should never have been asked.

It was grossly irresponsible ( I count Scottish Indy in the same bracket)

yet now we have asked it, onwards we go.

I am very  much of the "never ask a question you don't want an answer to" camp.

And yes, not a big Cameron fan, but he was a street ahead of May.

Imagine agreeing to give the EU £39 billion up front before we knew if we would get stiffed.

f-that.

 

[Taffin]

47 minutes ago, Cade said:

Yet again FA tries to claim that the GFA and the Irish Border issue don't exist.

 

 

It's been spelled out several times, so here I go again:

The GFA enshrines in law that NI and Irish citizens MUST have the same rights.

This includes the right of freedom of movement.

Any kind of border control violates that.

 

 

 

 

There are lots of things that are changing due to to Brexit that were previously (currently) enshrined in law. Why is this one any different?

 

Genuine question, I'm not particularly au fait with the GFA.

[Francis Albert]

4 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Frannie, you know what it says, and only a trouble maker would deny it's legitimacy.

Yes I know what it says. That's my point.