Forum menu
Hard Brexit 34.9%
Con/Lab 23.2%
Remain 40.4%
Hang on, everyone's spent the last few months screaming about how labour and tories are both brexit supporting parties, yet now you conveniently leave them out of that category in order to show a majority for remain!
Hard Brexit 34.9%
Con/Lab 23.2%
Remain 40.4%
Crikey, the guardian is still spinning that old line of using total votes?
Give it a rest (the guardian) we know you won't give up.
May I remind the guardian this is the actual total result from 2016 Referendum ...
2016 Referendum Result
Leave 51.9%
Remain 48.1%
Note the Electorate Turnout rate is 72.2%
Rejected ballots 26,033
🤔
Stolen from twitter
Deirdre Heenan
@deirdreheenan
Could someone please explain the role of an MEP to Anne
Widdecombe?Falsely contends that ‘unelected’ EU is stealing sovereignty from UK Parliament.
Gets ‘elected’ as an MEP to represent UK in European Parliament.
As MEP now wants to start interfering in UK parliament matters.
But you do actually have to implement the result of a vote before you hold another.
There was no pre-referendum legislation, or even planning, to implement, back in 2016. That is the point. It was testing popular opinion… it was not asking to ratify anything concrete. If it was, we wouldn't be where we are now… post-referendum trying to create legislation and international agreements to satisfy a mandate provided by people with no sight of what we have since tried to cook up to satisfy them.
And a second loss would of course be a final one for any hopes of remaining.
Yes, but it's the only option since revocation is not happening.
And a second loss would of course be a final one for any hopes of remaining.
We won't even consider a 2nd referendum ... 🤣
It’s pretty difficult to implement a result that is so poorly defined,
No it wasn't.
People were asked if they wanted to leave
People were asked if they wanted to stay
It was that simple the mechanics of it were irrelevant are now used by every tom dick and harry to reinforce their own argument.
Now "you" have politicians imparting their will on the people, whereas before they were just trying to hoodwink the people.
Ransos, what is the Brexit party if it’s not populist? It’s populist far right untill you give me good reason to believe other wise, and you’ll have trouble because it’s so populist and personality based it uses this as a manifesto:
Did you mean to quote someone else? Because you're refuting an argument I haven't made.
People were asked if they wanted to leave
People were asked if they wanted to stay
Yes, as I said, poorly defined. As we know, there are very many options for leaving, none of which appeared on the ballot paper. You may as well argue that a Remain win is a mandate for joining Schengen and the Euro.
This thread is a textbook example of how people, when in conflict, cling ever more tightly to their opinions.
For god’s sake man Farage just won an election on a platform of no deal!
Who's arguing otherwise? Yet he did not win a majority, nor did he do hugely better than last time.
You are right Ransos, I hadn't seen BXP used to mean Brexit party before.
No it wasn’t.
People were asked if they wanted to leave
People were asked if they wanted to stayIt was that simple the mechanics of it were irrelevant are now used by every tom dick and harry to reinforce their own argument.
Now “you” have politicians imparting their will on the people, whereas before they were just trying to hoodwink the people.
The mechanics are not irrelevant. People were being told that due to our supreme Great Britishness we would walk Into negotiations and get whatever deal we wanted. This has turned out to be far more difficult than leavers thought. In 2016 'No Deal' was certainly what nobody thought they would get, and the repercussions of this are huge.
The problem now is that there is a substantial minority now too stubborn and are willing to march the country towards troubled times by saying this is what they always wanted.
2016- we will be leaving the EU with a huge slice of chocolate cake, surely we all want that?
2019- completely out of chocolate cake, we will be leaving with a poo sandwich. I love the taste of poo me. Yum!
Yes, as I said, poorly defined
Hardly. Anyone could vote and understand two choices.
This thread is a textbook example of how people, when in conflict, cling ever more tightly to their opinions.
its not an opinion is it? People were given two choices that is a fact.
Those that liked it waged war information war after.
Those that didn't waged an information war after.
The voters that facilitated the Political situation are now left helpless.
Hardly. Anyone could vote and understand two choices.
Which were not defined. That's the point.
Mods, the rules clearly state trolling isn’t allowed
Get something done about that ****ing clownshoe ^
Leave -> leave EU system
Remain -> remain in EU systemHow hard can that be?
Presented like that, not very hard at all.
Presented with facts (you remember "facts", yes?) as to how the EU works, the thousands of deals, agreements, standards and arrangements that we're involved in and the actual real world complexity of "just leaving", then it's incredibly difficult. As ably demonstrated over the last 3 years of near total lack of progress.
The problem is that implementing the 'leave' option has absolutely gigantic problems as we are seeing. So whilst it's technically correct to say it's a simple question, the ramifications are not. Calling it simple is massively disingenuous and you all know this.
Presented like that, not very hard at all.
Presented with facts (you remember “facts”, yes?) as to how the EU works, the thousands of deals, agreements, standards and arrangements that we’re involved in and the actual real world complexity of “just leaving”, then it’s incredibly difficult. As ably demonstrated over the last 3 years of near total lack of progress.
The question during 2016 Referendum is very clear to me.
I made up my mind based on my own views (see my reasoning few pages back).
I Did not even rely on any of the media information coz they are all rubbish.
My view is that once we have left the main parties or politicians can argue until their face turn blue if they wish in terms of the way to govern the nation.
The problem is that implementing the ‘leave’ option has absolutely gigantic problems as we are seeing. So whilst it’s technically correct to say it’s a simple question, the ramifications are not. Calling it simple is massively disingenuous and you all know this.
Once left you have the democratic rights to choose the "best" party that can solve whatever issues the country may face. It may be easy but it may be not but they all depend on the calibre of the people (politicians) you choose to represent your views.
Should the UK leave the European Union or remain? What’s so difficult to understand about that? I know remainers are desperate to grasp any straw in order to reverse the result of the 2016 vote, but in the eyes of leavers it’s very simple.
Fair points, and yes of course remainers want to frustrate and ideally reverse the implementation of Brexit, by definition they don't want it... That isn't really news.
The question put to us in 2016 was a simple one, and therefore the answer was pretty straight forward, and yet here we find ourselves three years on, not Brexited and without the promised "deal"...
What were Leave voters promised in exchange for their votes back in 2016?
All sorts, by people who, having made those promises promptly evaporated, Nige buggered off to the States for a bit to try and reinvent himself as an alt-right political consultant and meeja personality, BoJo pulled back from the race for PM and then deliberately got himself kicked out of the cabinet so he could sit on the back benches grumbling along with the other ERG agitants, Gove sucked up so he could keep a cabinet position. Two leave supporting Brexit ministers came and went without really achieving much...
So the attempt that's been made at Brexit has been driven by a former remainer, micro managing a process for which Leavers were either too incompetent or simply didn't want to be involved having started it and made promises for the outcome... May (and by extension the whole country) was at least partly set up to fail by the people who campaigned hardest for Brexit it seems.
The Brexit we're getting at present, either no deal or a disappointing deal doesn't seem to live up to a fair chunk of Leavers expectations perhaps because some of its biggest advocates had no part in the delivery. So it seems reasonable to ask the British public if they're really sure...
And let's be clear, a second referendum win for whatever sort of Leave was chosen would be unequivocal. So those with belief in Brexit and a confidence that it is "the will of the people" surely have nothing to fear... Right?
Mods, the rules clearly state trolling isn’t allowed
Get something done about that **** clownshoe ^
Let me guess, everyone who has responded to one particular forumite - including one or two mods have carefully explained the nuances of a complex issue which have not been read or understood by the poster in question, the poster has then attempted a non-sequitur or two to throw everyone off kilter. What's the betting that they are now repeating exactly the same things word for word that they posted here in 2016 without having absorbed a single word of what has been carefully explained since?
Honestly, it's like banging your head against a brick wall. Just give it up, it doesn't matter how carefully you explain anything, nor does it matter if you've supplied articles to helpfully explain stuff. Save your time and sanity by merely rereading this thread from circa July 2016. The obtuseness and absurdity is very definitely deliberate and the individual concerned seems to revel in it.
Which were not defined
How much more can you define two options on a ballot paper about 48% seems to be the right amount of defining. Everyone went in there and had the same two options on the paper.
Only afterwards did the losing team start panicking and want things defining to the nth degree.
No one said can we define all this before the vote. They we're quite happy knowing two options existed and they would be picking one of them.
The shit happened once the clown in parliament started their infighting.
philxx1975
Member
Only afterwards did the losing team start panicking and want things defining to the nth degree.
Well, no. Now everyone needs it defining, and it's the problem that's absolutely crippled the "winning" team- the fact that there was a majority for brexit, but there's no majority for any one particular form of brexit.
Which is why, when presented with an option to leave, a load of leavers voted it down. That's not an issue that only exists in parliament; plenty of leavers don't want "no deal" while other leavers think that May's deal doesn't count as brexit at all.
Only afterwards did the losing team start panicking and want things defining to the nth degree.
Were the winning side assuming the Irish border would sort itself out?
Only afterwards did the losing team start panicking and want things defining to the nth degree.
Well the EU were probably keen for things to be defined too, and you know at least some of the people who had voted for Brexit were probably keen to know what their vote had bought them.
But yeah you keep on with the "sore losers" and "it's really easy" narratives...
The language of "winning" and "losing" is somewhat telling - the politicians who ensured that the referendum went the way of Leave back in 2016 have not been able to answer fundamental questions about how we will indeed leave and how we can maintain unfettered access to our closest trading partners while at the same time having our own market rules and regulations.
The Brexiteers have had quarter of a century to come up with a plan, as have the heaviest hitters amongst them since 2016 and yet here we are - the best plan that they have is a long way from what was originally mooted and seems to be to leave the EU with no arrangements in place and to expect a favorable trade deal to land in our laps whilst we bargain from a position of considerable weakness.
If Brexit is going to be a thing then it will need years, probably decades to happen. The fact that we're being pushed as hard as possible with indecent haste to an outcome that will likely destroy both farming and manufacturing in the UK is as clear an indication as you can get that those who've spent decades campaigning for Brexit (or for making the European Union the scapegoat of every bad political decision since 1973) that they are worried that public opinion will change once the patriotic hubris has died down.
The "Leavers" promised the "easiest deal" without any clarification of what it actually was - our best and finest having negotiated for 2 years came up with the square root of bugger-all.
Anyone saying that leaving without a deal was their choice is an outright liar - it's just complete and utter failure. Leavers wilfully ignored the Good Friday Agreement without understanding the ramifications and it being completely incompatible with leaving the Customs Union.
In some ways, I wish the nasty little Englander nationalists like Boris, the Brexit party and the ERG are actually made to own this shit and live with the consequences, but as we know their MO is to runaway and snipe from the sidelines without actually doing anything.
The likely legacy of this shit show will be the break up of the UK and 20-30 years of economic strife which will hit the poor the hardest. Well done Leavers for ****ing it up for everyone!
They haven't **** up for everybody though,some of them will be lining their pockets at the expense of everyone else in the UK.
Hang on, everyone’s spent the last few months screaming about how labour and tories are both brexit supporting parties, yet now you conveniently leave them out of that category in order to show a majority for remain
What it shows is that the die hard remainer vote is bigger than the die hard no deal brexit vote and that there are at least as many people willing to abandon the two main parties for remain. .
Something you have been arguing was not the case for the past year.
This should be taken into account when deciding on a second referendum
Only afterwards did the losing team start panicking and want things defining to the nth degree.
Given that the things to be defined is basically EVERYTHING THAT WE CURRENTLY TAKE FOR GRANTED, then yes, I'd kind of like to see it defined. Like it or not, it WILL impact on literally every single thing you and I and everyone else on this little island currently has and does - from things like the price and availability of common goods in the shops to almost every aspect of legal practice to healthcare (availability of medicines, testing protocols), the ability to travel to and from Europe (as well as live, study, work or retire there), the associated knock-on things around airports, ferry ports etc. If, along with all that, it could also be defined how and when my unicorn gallops down form the sunlit uplands with a blue passport on its golden horn, that'd be nice too.
So far no-one has managed any of that.
Anyone saying that leaving without a deal was their choice is an outright liar – it’s just complete and utter failure
Agreed.
If you go back and read the various Op Eds written by the likes of the 55 Tufton Street mob and Brexiteer conservatives like Raab, Hannan etc then it was clear that we would need access to the EU's markeplace to make it work - the idea is to deregulate, buy everyone else's Alibaba tat and then flood the EU with substandard goods via a leaky border, either via Dover or via Northern Ireland. Hannan himself promised that we could leave the EU, opt out of GDPR and then continue to provide exactly the same services as before but without having to bother with ensuring our compliance. It's utterly deluded and completely nuts.
Boris & Davis et al spent months from July 2016 trying to find ways of making it work. If they'd have found a way then we would be out by now.
the mechanics of it were irrelevant
But that isn't true, is it? Otherwise why would the Brexit cheerleaders be sabotaging the government's proposed "mechanics" and calling them traitors for the manner of leaving they have proposed and negotiated?
In some positive news from last night, the delightful Mr Yaxley-Lennon lost his deposit as the North West told the nasty little scrotes to **** right off
Corbyn can **** off, his change of tune AFTER the EU election just pisses me off even more. Where was he when we needed him before? **** him, even less likely to vote for the weasely little **** now.
It was testing popular opinion… it was not asking to ratify anything concrete.
This nonsense over and over again. The referendum was presented to the British people as their chance to decide EU in or out. The advisory thing is just remainers clutching at straws, it was never mentioned in any shape or form to the public untill after the result. In case you missed it this is from the front page of the leaflet that went through every door in the UK.
[url= https://i.postimg.cc/Kjr49GYh/Screenshot-20190527-183034-Google.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.postimg.cc/Kjr49GYh/Screenshot-20190527-183034-Google.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
P.s
I'm fully aware of the "legal" status of the referendum.
Yup, as I've seen on Labour Party forums there's open talk of voting for the Lib Dems, Greens etc. Corbyn has gone from hero in 2017 to zero today, the anger over the wipeout of Labour MEPs in Scotland is compounded by the very obvious open goal that was missed.
This nonsense over and over again. The referendum was presented to the British people as their chance to decide EU in or out.
So why haven't we left yet?
So why haven’t we left yet?
Have your head in a bucket of sand for the last 3yrs ?
I always thought the Ref was very badly handled, but I’m not sure there was a much easier way that would have done what CMD wanted.
They could have spent 2 years in talks with the EU to thrash out the deal and then have the ref, but it would have made a difficult neg pretty much impossible.
CMD wanted UKIP out of business, but he was too cocky and didn’t expect the sort of backing certain people would throw at it. He allowed a situation where they could (and did) promise anything.
“Easiest negotiation ever.”
“£250bn a week for the NHS.”
“No ones saying anything about leaving the single market.”
“A very close relationship with the EU, but outside it”.
What did we get?
One of the hardest negotiation in British History both with the EU and at home.
Freedom of movement must end and we can’t be part of the Single Market without it.
And the mythical WTO
I personally don’t see why the hardest leavers are so afraid of a 2nd ref based on the way things will actually be? If a one-man-party that didn’t exist a year ago can take 33% of a national election and Leave maintain a healthy position in the polls through 3 years of this, why not have a confirmation, fact based vote and leave then? Or would they prefer risking a new/major party standing on re-joining the EU at the next election on worse terms then we left on? A confirmation vote removes that risk and personally I’ll never moan about the vote again - we deserve all we get, good or bad.
And yet again a full page of people wanting to pick up on what they don't want to hear.
Only afterwards did the losing team start panicking and want things defining to the nth degree.
Here's what happened you put yourselves in this position
Everyone went in there and had the same two options on the paper.
The denial and blame is beyond hysterical from some.
But yeah you keep on with the “sore losers” and “it’s really easy” narratives…
It is really easy. You stick two fingers up to Juncker et al and get on with it.The problem is the lazy bastards in this country might have to work for a living and the politicians might ave to grow some spines.
It really is about time for a change, of course there's an element of sore losers the national interest for half the country is at risk.The others will be dead by the time it actually gets played out at this rate.
How much more can you define two options on a ballot paper about 48% seems to be the right amount of defining. Everyone went in there and had the same two options on the paper.
And again, the two options were not defined. Leaving or remaining can take many different forms.
So Corbyn’s saying today, post-electoral-carnage that he now supports a referendum. Well he didn’t yesterday.
Channel 4 news is now reporting that this change of policy has come as news to the shadow cabinet
So much for restoring party democracy. Jeremy, Len and Seamus are behaving like the old Soviet Politburo.
They must think we’ve all just fallen out of a ****ing tree
The sixth formers are still onside for ‘the revolution’ though. They’ve made their own new hashtag, bless ‘em...
https://twitter.com/zoeparamour/status/1132987905901826048?s=21
And again, the two options were not defined. Leaving or remaining can take many different forms.
Oh do shut up you quite happily ticked one of the boxes at the time if you weren't sure you shouldn't have STOP blaming everyone else.
Oh do shut up you quite happily ticked one of the boxes if you weren’t sure you shouldn’t have STOP blaming everyone else.
The DUP galvanised their support to vote for Brexit in the referendum. A plan was put to them and all they did was whinge about it.
"Oh well you see that's not the sort of Brexit we want and we will never, never NEVER support it!"
Also if you mentioned we would be facing WTO to most voters in the referendum in 2016, they would more likely be squeezing into lycra thinking they would be going to battle with a tag team from the World Wrestling Federation ffs!
Suggesting we would trade with the rest of Europe without any arrangements in place was PROJECT FEAR… now it the default being promoted by those that put us in this weak position. Classic bait and switch. To pretend that there is no material difference between what was promised in 2016, and what is likely now, is a highly dubious position to take.
I'm a fervent remainer and believe the UK will be irrevocably damaged by leaving the EU. However, I think it's time to do just that as advocated by Dazh et al on this thread; we need to honour the vote and give the ****ers that voted for it what they want and let them suffer the consequences.
If health and social care fail then so be it.
If jobs are decimated so be it.
If the welfare state contracts massively, so be it.
If the disenfranchised poor (who seem to be partially instrumental in this) suffer then so be it - they are voting for it so they should have it.
Obviously, if we do manage to reinvigorate the economy, regain the empire and move forward in a country of prosperity then it will have been worth it.
If not, ****'em.
I really am past ****ing caring.
Balls to the lot of them; I'm looking after me and mine from now on.