I’m not sure we should assume that the level of physical checks by Customs and Border Force at Dover will rise.
Hard border = proper checks, that is no deal and it's an option at the moment.
Ok what is the Lisbon Treaty that comes into effect in 2022? A friend assures me that this is the reason he voted out. He just says that we will be screwed over by it.
It's Project Fear.
Aside from the fact that the "Lisbon Treaty" meme doing the rounds currently is pure fiction as Kimbers says (and if you really want to refute it beyond just going "it's bollocks" then see here: https://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-brexity-lies-that-have-gone-mega.html ),
If your friend is telling you that the reason they voted leave is because of the 'Lisbon treaty' then he isn't just misguided or misinformed, he's outright lying to you. This trope only reared its head a month or two back.
Thanks Kimbers et al, will shut him down tomorrow
We’re not the ones that have been crowing “shut up and get over it” for the last three years and trying to shut down anyone who disagrees with us.
That may be the case, and the debate on the pros and cons of brexit has been won by the remainers for quite obvious reasons. But that still doesn't excuse ridiculous snobbery that is now on display here and around the country. Gleefully pointing out how shit it's all going to be, shouting 'I told you so', and celebrating job losses in brexit voting areas, along with the now common abuse of anyone with a different view doesn't actually get us anywhere does it? And it doesn't solve the problem that brexit has created. As I said some time ago, brexit, for better or worse, is happening because there are more important and more fundamental principles of our system of government at stake which require it to happen. At some point this has all got to come back together, or we risk descending to a place that I'm sure none of us want.
Pray tell, what are these fundamental principles of our system of government that an advisory referendum has put at stake?
I wasn't allowed to vote but Brexit could have a big impact on my family and I.
So if those people who voted Leave have to suffer the Consequences of their decision it is fine by me.
Pray tell, what are these fundamental principles of our system of government that an advisory referendum has put at stake?
That's mudslinging. Stop it at once.
Gleefully pointing out how shit it’s all going to be, shouting ‘I told you so’, and celebrating job losses in brexit voting areas,
Go on lets see the posts.... there might be one or two who are heading that way but aside from out chav/northener hater it's certainly not the majority view.
As I said some time ago, brexit, for better or worse, is happening
and frankly many disagree with you hence much as you want it to go away it's still a debate that is happening and one we are discussing.
So Minford was right, the car industry is screwed, i guess brexiteers are sometimes correct.
As an aside Morgan cars have now been sold to an Italian company. So what choice is there for a British car?
As I said some time ago, brexit, for better or worse, is happening because there are more important and more fundamental principles of our system of government at stake which require it to happen.
Perhaps he is referring to the new and debased definition of 'democracy' which means 1 single, corrupted, advisory vote can take precedence over all other forms of governance.
I still argue that proceeding with Brexit in its current form is far more damaging to the definition and principles of democracy than abandoning Brexit would be.
Democracy requires that all members of a state are allowed to contribute to the governance of the state. Blindly enacting the results of an advisory referendum is not good governance, although arguably the 'good governance' ship had already sailed when David Cameron called the referendum in the first place.
But that still doesn’t excuse ridiculous snobbery that is now on display here and around the country.
You do have a point.
It's easy to think of leavers as backward thinking bigots because they are.
Perhaps he is referring to the new and debased definition of ‘democracy’ which means 1 single, corrupted, advisory vote can take precedence over all other forms of governance.
I do indeed. It's not new though, we've had the same system since time immemorial. And that's the problem with it. Our democratic system is far from perfect, in fact it's barely fit for purpose, but it's what people are used to and understand. There is an unwritten rule buried deep into the people's psyche that when they vote, and there is demonstrable result, it is honoured. That's a much more fundamental principle than being a member of a supra-national trade bloc, even if it bestows benefits and advantages that we will miss when they are taken away. If we mess around with that principle, especially on the basis of a minority, or at best divided consensus, then we're in uncharted waters. It's a bloody dangerous experiment that could lead us into all sorts of chaos and misery, and I'd rather avoid that.
I think the people that said "Don't do it!" "Don't do it!" "Don't do it!" "Don't do it!" "Don't do it!" and were answered with "We know better!" "We know better!" "We know better!" have every right to say "I told you not to ****ing do it!"
and then to add "Now sort this mess out immediately"
Some might argue that an overhaul of that system is so far overdue that one of the few beneficial things that might come about from this madness is that we are governed/represented differently in future...
Edit: by "argue", I think I just mean "hope"...
@dazh in my heart I suspect you may be right, but at the moment I feel like I’m on an acceptance curve, and right now the level of anger I am feeling towards Brexit and those who voted for it is so high I simply can’t think about it rationally. I’m afraid it will get worse before it gets better...
timbog, you've articulated my feelings very well. I kinda know that it's almost inevitable now, but I haven't really accepted it, and am clinging to that last vestige of hope that it may be averted.
Oh, and the anger, too... 😠
There is an unwritten rule buried deep into the people’s psyche that when they vote, and there is demonstrable result, it is honoured.
Do I even have to point out the issues with that sentence?
It’s a bloody dangerous experiment that could lead us into all sorts of chaos and misery, and I’d rather avoid that.
It already is leading us into all sorts of chaos and misery (potentially...) so when do we stop it?
When do we give the population the education in 'what is democracy' that they evidently so badly need?
When do we set a precedent for the next generation of politicians so that they don't just hold their own diversionary bullshit referenda without thinking about the consequences?
If we continue with Brexit because 'this is what people now think democracy means' then all it does is vindicate that belief, next thing we know we're having referenda on gun ownership, capital punishment, banning Islam etc. etc.
@timbog160, @fadda, you can feel it is inevitable, but the question then becomes what brexit. That hasn't even started, argue for EFTA, EEA, etc.
Brexit either ends now, or will drag on for decades.
If brexit ends now, then the trials and recriminatons begin, which will drag on for decades.
There is no win, the choice is really about how bad it is going to be.
Looks like others have it covered already, but I came here just to reply to the "we must leave" talk with "and then what?"
how ****g terrifying must this be for people with cancer
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47462762
and people still think brexit is a good idea!?!
It’s a bloody dangerous experiment that could lead us into all sorts of chaos and misery, and I’d rather avoid that.
You are describing 'spiking' of Brexit, there.
But you are also neatly describing Brexit itself.
As noted above, the question is now really one of cost. We can accept a cost that is basically loss of 'face' if you want to portray it like that and a few people might get nasty.
Or we ruin our economy and end up with exactly the same results, only in a far, far worse way.
And having another vote certainly doesn't mess with that 'unwritten rule' as it is not stopping anyone from voting. It's hardly unusual to ask for confirmation of an action once the details become clear.
how ****g terrifying must this be for people with cancer
Didn't this get mentioned aaaages ago? And get breezily waved away as "project fear"?
The news is that it is now so late in the day, that appointments and tests need to be "prioritised" now, no matter what happens in a few weeks time. The "wait and see" period is over.
Let's not forget all of our exports that are at sea that don't know if they will be allowed into their destination.
Anyone that still wants this **** up is a weapons grade ****.
all the brexiteers have been bullied off this thread by the righteous indignation of people who think they are the only ones who should be given a say on the matter.
All the brexiters have been shot down on this thread for they said absolutely nothing that made sense.
Norman Lamont(remember him? the guy who almost broke Britain in 1992),had his ass handed to him on a plate by Mark Carney at the treasury select committee yesterday, I think Carney would have expected a former Chancellor to have a grip on financial matters of the country. I'm surprised he kept his cool when answering questions from this ****ing idiot. And that's my view of brexiters, they are ****ing idiots to be treated with utter contempt.
Some good will come of this. Much to the detriment of those who believed in Brexit.
There is an unwritten rule buried deep into the people’s psyche that when they vote, and there is demonstrable result, it is honoured.
Aside from the notion that 48:52 is barely a "demonstrable result,"
At this stage, you cannot argue that the referendum result hasn't been honoured. We've spent almost three years honouring it, at vast expense and considerable damage to the country already. Concluding after three years of trying that it can't be done safely without catastrophic impact to the nation and collateral damage to the rest of the world isn't ignoring the result, no matter how leave might like to spin it otherwise.
I blame teflon Cameron and all the idiots who voted for him. Anyone who voted for him and now wants to remain is a special kind of idiot.
The Tory branch of the independents criticizing May for not standing up to the ERG but lauding DC and his centrist ways are also idiots.
Aside from the notion that 48:52 is barely a “demonstrable result,”
? Of course it's demonstrable. Or are you suggesting they miscounted?
At this stage, you cannot argue that the referendum result hasn’t been honoured.
To the people out there who voted to leave, we clearly haven't left yet, so as far as they're concerned they haven't yet honoured the result. The referendum didn't say 'we will try to leave' it said 'we will leave'. There's nothing ambiguous about this, which is why we now hear cries of 'get on with it'.
I blame teflon Cameron and all the idiots who voted for him. Anyone who voted for him and now wants to remain is a special kind of idiot.
Back at the general election, I had a massive row with someone whereby I basically said this election isnt about parties as per normal, its about stopping the conservatives getting in so they can't old the referendum. I was heartily derided at the time, with a 'no way people would vote to leave anyway' response. If it wasnt so utterly rubbish for the country I'd be feelign pretty smug right now.
? Of course it’s demonstrable. Or are you suggesting they miscounted?
I really don't want to start picking this apart again, it's been done to death. But my point is, it's a statistically insignificant majority.
If you were a scientist testing a product, say a new drug or something, and from a set of 33.5 million samples you found that the drug was effective 52% of the time and placebo 48% of the time, do you think that would be "demonstrable" enough to get to market?
To the people out there who voted to leave, we clearly haven’t left yet, so as far as they’re concerned they haven’t yet honoured the result.
So what?
The referendum didn’t say ‘we will try to leave’ it said ‘we will leave’. There’s nothing ambiguous about this, which is why we now hear cries of ‘get on with it’.
I don't recall the referendum saying either of those things. Cameron said they would honour the result (in the same breath as saying he'd stand by it, which he did, for about three hours after the result came in).
Three years ago this would have been understandable, but anyone crying "just get on with it" at this point in time is simply a shouty idiot. And we've spent far too much time and money pandering to the whims of shouty idiots who have no idea what they want but really really want it a lot.
Of course it’s demonstrable. Or are you suggesting they miscounted?
I think the point is that if it hadn't been passed as an advisory vote then the criteria for changing the status quo would have been defined in advance and 50.1% would not have been the threshold. The fact that naive promises were then made about the "referendum result" has led us to the current situation.
If you were a scientist testing a product...
Obviously by demonstrable I mean being clear on the fact that one side won beyond all doubt. Even if the majority was statistically small, there is no way you can argue that the referendum result was anything other than a win for leave. As for analogies with drug testing, that's entirely irrelevant. That unwritten rule I mentioned which everyone understands doesn't work lilke that, it's a simple binary question of who won and who lost.
Anyway, fear not, nervous remainers, the revolution is on it's way... 😉
https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-uk-eu-referendum-just-what-britain-needs/
Have we covered how much easier it'll be to die of cancer, Post-Brexit?
Another big positive that I didn't see down the side of a bus
If we live in a world where unwritten rules people think they understand holds more clout than actual written rules people misunderstand then we truly are ****ed.
The referendum showed that we are a country divided. We should be working to heal that divide, not talking about "sides." Because ultimately whatever the outcome we all (well, most of us) still have to live here, we're all on the same "side" of being UK citizens and we're all going to be affected. This "us and them" mentality, both leave vs remain and the UK vs the EU27, is utterly toxic.
Obviously by demonstrable I mean being clear on the fact that one side won beyond all doubt. Even if the majority was statistically small, there is no way you can argue that the referendum result was anything other than a win for leave.
The question was...
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
The people of Britain advised the government of the time that there was a tiny majority in favour of leaving the EU.
The Government have tried to leave, they've failed to reach an agreement with all parties.
The act of trying to leave honours the result.
For some reason they didnt describe the (suspected IRA) incendiary devices sent to Waterloo, heathrow and city airport on the bus either
BBC article
, it’s a statistically insignificant majority
I’ve said it before, it is a statistically very highly significant majority. The chances of such a result by chance in a sample size of 33 million is about 1 in 10^22.
It is however not a POLITICALLY significant majority because the likelihood of relatively modest changes in opinion due to circumstances might lead to a swing that would overturn the result. A difference of at least 10% should have been prespecified as politically significant. Any country used to running referendums would have done this.
Any country used to running referendums would have done this.
It's ok, we'll have a chance to do again in a year or so 🙂
How soon before I can put a petition on gov.uk to re-join the EU?
We could have left and joined again by now!
Also if tests showed that 52% of people were cured of cancer by taking a new drug that drug would be on the market very quickly.
Any country used to running referendums would have done this.
The chances are they wouldn't, instances of a requirement for a super majority are rare, minimum turnout requirement are quite common but they are set relatively low.
Anyway this is an incredibly stale debate, the same points get made again and again and none of them were ever particularly good and have quite clearly been superseded now.
if tests showed that 52% of people were cured of cancer by taking a new drug that drug would be on the market very quickly.
That's not what I meant (and I appreciate I worded it badly). If out of the successful results 52% were on the drug and 48% taking a placebo, it wouldn't.
The chances are they wouldn’t, instances of a requirement for a super majority are rare, minimum turnout requirement are quite common but they are set relatively low.
An advisory vote does not require a supermajority, a mandatory vote (such as an election) does. Seemingly we now have a Schrodinger's Referendum where it's simultaneously both advisory and mandatory depending on whether it suits Leave's agenda or not.
Not to mention if it was mandatory it would have bene declared void by the courts