Forum menu
They are doing what they were told because we had a referendum, in most cases against their personal views…
If all your mates decided to jump off a cliff would you follow them blindly over it. Or would you go, "hang on, this is madness, and try and convince as many of your mates to not jump off a cliff"
herd mentality <> the right thing to do
If all your mates decided to jump off a cliff would you follow them blindly over it.
Mate, I'm not a 9 year old kid.
The situation is complicated by the fact that it's an MP's job to do what their constituents want. So it's absolutely nothing at all to do with 'herd mentality'.
That doesn’t excuse the entire incompetence of how it has been handled since the ref.
That's absolutely true, and I am if anything MORE cross about that than the ref result. This whole mess is the fault of May and Cameron. By even proposing a vote as early as she did, May boxed in parliament.
The situation is complicated by the fact that it’s an MP’s job to do what their constituents want. So it’s absolutely nothing at all to do with ‘herd mentality’.
That is a remarkable contradiction in so few words.
Sentence 1 = A near perfect example of ‘herd mentality’.
Sentence 2 = A statement that Sentence 1 is nothing at all to do with a ‘herd mentality’
Brexit drives you into some odd corners, sometimes....
That is a remarkable contradiction
Don't be ridiculous.
Herd mentality is doing what everyone else is doing just because they are doing it.
It is literally an MP's job to do what his or her constituents want, so if they do what everyone else is doing it's for a defined fundamental principle, not just because everyone else is doing it.
You really are not thinking about this very well at all.
It is literally an MP’s job to do what his or her constituents want
Why bother having them, then? Just do everything via online voting buttons.
It is literally an MP’s job to do what his or her constituents want
Is it not an MP's job to do what they think is best for their constituents while trying to stick to manifesto promises/guides?
Anna Soubry is the obvious tricky one as she was elected as a Tory MP with the Tory manifesto but she is a prominent remain supporter in an area that voted leave. You vote for your MP not the party but people don't seem to realise this.
It is literally an MP’s job to do what his or her constituents want
When will MPs be asking their 2019 constituents "what they want", and how will they be measuring it?
And, remember, their constituents include people who didn't vote for them, as well as people not allowed to vote for them, and not allowed to vote in the last referendum.
It is literally an MP’s job to do what his or her constituents want
And if they all want to pay no tax? Or all want to re-introduce capital punishment?
An MPs job is to do what's in the best interests of their constituents and sometimes that means not doing what they've been brainwashed into believing.
Is no-one going to act like a grown up and tell the kids they're not to play with the chainsaws?
Here's the thing - ALL of those MPs were elected after the referendum, with their consituents having full knowledge of where the candidates personally stood regarding Brexit. As they were elected there must have been sufficient reasons for the voters to support them despite disagreeing with their stance on other issues. If the constituents were so focussed on having given 'an instruction' for one issue then surely they would have voted for the MP who was most likely to deliver on that.
Actually it isn’t an MPs to do exactly what their constituents want. This is why we are in such s fix at the moment. People do not understand how the system is meant to work. You are supposed to elect someone who you will best do the job of representing you and running the country. It is essentially then up to the MP to decide how to do that. This is why capital punishment was abolished when for years the majority of the country supported its use.
It is literally an MP’s job to do what his or her constituents want
It is literally nothing of the sort, and that's the problem. This is "the will of the people" writ large, and it's bollocks.
It may well be in their best interests to do what their constituents want (come reelection time at least), but MPs are the representatives of the people, not their delegates. It is "literally an MP's job" to do what's in the best interests of their constituents.
I want to never to pay taxes again, and I expect most other voters in my constituency would agree with me if I asked. Should my MP get behind that and start battering parliament to attempt to abolish taxation because it's what their constituents want, or should they explain to their ward that it's not going to happen because it's a silly idea and would you like some nice new park benches instead?
Sorry Mols, you're usually the voice of reason but you're wrong on this one.
And if they all want to pay no tax? Or all want to re-introduce capital punishment?
Quite. It is an interestingly inverse version of the Nuremberg Defence, isn’t it.
Sorry Mols, you’re usually the voice of reason but you’re wrong on this one.
Well - I'm playing devil's advocate a bit but this is actually part of the problem. It's not really defined what an MP's job actually is, as I said about 500 pages ago. However, since they owe their position to taking up a position aligned with their electorate, it's very hard to actually go against what they say when it's explicitly expressed.
In your example, yes, you'd like never to pay taxes, but the government knows that's not possible so they don't offer you a referendum on it. If they did, and the electorate voted to abolish taxes, they'd have a hard time not doing it. Otherwise, why have a referendum in the first place?
You are being too rational about this - politics isn't rational. As I said - the ****-up is Cameron's, for having it in the first place, and May's for triggering A50 so quickly. Those two things are the root cause of this. Not any kind of 'herd' mentality.
If you were an MP and you didn't back Brexit in a leave constituency, then you'd lose your seat to someone who did. Any party whipping against Brexit would lose seats to one that did. The cat was out of the bag as soon as the result was announced. MPs cannot put it back, not without some very clever manoeuvring. And cleverness is in short supply.
You are supposed to elect someone who you will best do the job of representing you and running the country.
Yes.. UNLESS there's a plebiscite based on popular sentiment - then the whole system blows up. As I said - they're boxed in.
Is no-one going to act like a grown up and tell the kids they’re not to play with the chainsaws?
See how well that goes down at the next election, go on.
Yes.. UNLESS there’s a plebiscite based on popular sentiment – then the whole system blows up. As I said – they’re boxed in.
Careful. You're one step away from being called a nazi sympathiser.
So JC Junckers has just said they've made no progress and that a 'No Deal' Brexit looks increasingly likely
What a surprise! Who'd have think it eh?
She could have saved the taxpayer the plane fare
The only question is how many Tory's this will provoke to jump ship as No Deal looks like an increasing certainty, given that she absolutely refuses to face up to the ERG headbangers and tell them they can't have their unicorns BECAUSE UNICORNS AREN'T *ING REAL!!!!
I just can't see any other outcome now than Rees Mogg and his lunatic mates gleefully hurling us all over the cliff edge
Somebody please *ing beam me up?!!!
If you were an MP and you didn’t back Brexit in a leave constituency, then you’d lose your seat to someone who did.
Actually, a basic knowledge of the FPTP system tells us that's not true at all.
Referendum -
Leave 57%
Remain 43%
Election -
Remain party get 43% of the vote
Brexit party get 38% of the vote
Brexit NOW party get 12% of the vote
Brexit!!!!!!11!11!1!ONE! party get 7% of the vote
Careful. You’re one step away from being called a nazi sympathiser.
Nazi sympathiser or useful fool it all leads to the same result, no point claiming to be a socialist or even a centrist if every line drawn in the middle ground has to be surrendered and redrawn further to the right to appease the far right agenda. It will never stop without making a stand and resisting the madness.
With you desire to acquiesce to the far right, in 10 years time the policies of Farage and jrc will be the middle ground. They will never give up until we return to a medieval feudal system, and they will still want to go further right then.
Actually, a basic knowledge of the FPTP system tells us that’s not true at all.
I know how it works. I just disagree.
Careful. You’re one step away from being called a nazi sympathiser.
Just to be clear, I am a hardcore remainer, and would love nothing more than A50 to go in the bin immediately. What I am trying to explain to you is why that can't happen now, and it's not necessarily the fault of the MPs. Simply slinging mud at them for not doing what you (and I) want does not help anyone.
It will never stop without making a stand and resisting the madness.
Absolutely, but MPs can't do that now, after the ref - society has to.
A50 to go in the bin immediately. What I am trying to explain to you is why that can’t happen now
Why not? Is's easy enough to say "due to the intransiance of the EU we're cancelling A50, while we investigate all other brexit options, before...blahblahblah"
Once again we get to scapegoat the EU, while buying time to work out how best to leave/regain our collective sanity...
Is no-one going to act like a grown up and tell the kids they’re not to play with the chainsaws?
It's OK. Now we are outside of the clutch of EU regulations, it's British chainsaws for all. It was all them forriners fault for not letting you play. I've personally seen to it that you can now play.
Remember, UKIP polled 14% of the vote. Whilst I can't stand their policies, or people, not gaining a single MP on 14% of the vote leaves a nasty taste.
And therein lies the problem with our electoral system that got us into the whole referendum/Brexit mess. FPTP and splitting teh tory vote.
I know how it works. I just disagree.
Even though I've shown exactly how it works? With my working and everything.
Why not? Is’s easy enough to say “due to the intransiance of the EU we’re cancelling A50, while we investigate all other brexit options, before…blahblahblah”
Id like to think this would happen if a deal can't get through parliment. But Mays going to hang everything on one final my deal or no deal vote. Some remainers will hope if her deal fails, as above she'll bin A50 rather than go no deal. It's a dangerous gamble which I don't think will pay of. May's totally convinced brexit has to be delivered without freedom of movement (will of the people). Unless enough MP's realise that were going no deal March 30th.
Even though I’ve shown exactly how it works? With my working and everything.
I'm quite aware of the principle expressed in your working - but your situation is hypothetical, I do not necessarily think the real situation is going to be like that. Nor do the politicians, apparently.
Just to be clear, I am a hardcore remainer, and would love nothing more than A50 to go in the bin immediately
Doesn't really matter, I said exactly the same a few pages back and they still called me a far right sympathiser.
With you desire to acquiesce to the far right
You see?
Honestly, has the anti-brexit movement really got to the point where anyone who disagrees with them on any matter is a far right sympathiser? Get a grip on yourselves.
But Mays going to hang everything on one final my deal or no deal vote.
But, as I understand it, whatever she proposes can be ammended, no? So I would expect there to be some amendments to come for both 2ref and revocation. Whether or not they succeed is anyone's guess.
Why not? Is’s easy enough to say “due to the intransiance of the EU we’re cancelling A50, while we investigate all other brexit options, before…blahblahblah”
But... who is going to actually "say" this? May? She wants Brexit. Parliament? They need a) the opportunity to vote and b) the majority to vote in a suitable . way. I don't see these things happening. Hence - likely No Deal.
Why not? Is’s easy enough to say “due to the intransiance of the EU we’re cancelling A50, while we investigate all other brexit options, before…blahblahblah”
But that doesn't give any improvement to anyone (individual or business) who is trying to do medium or long term planning. Rather than having a threshold in a few weeks, there's uncertainty way beyond that. Result is that more decisions are deferred or go in favour of options where there is certainty so we see stagnation or loss to the UK. That could be someone not buying a new TV/fridge/car/house because they want to see how things pan out or it could be a global corporation deciding where to invest to meet its demands for the next 20 years.
But then even with a full retraction, anyone doing due diligence would wait until at least an election down the road to see how much backlash their is from remaining and whether we just rebound into a leave scenario again.
Why not? Is’s easy enough to say “due to the intransiance of the EU we’re cancelling A50, while we investigate all other brexit options, before…blahblahblah”
We have two main parties with not much to choose between them, both of whom depend on large numbers of leave voters. If one of them says 'we want to cancel A50' the other one will gain those votes and defeat them in the next five or more elections. I would guess that remain voters would be less likely to switch sides than leavers, being more politically aware. I for example am not sure I could ever vote Tory, regardless of Brexit.
If on the other hand a second referendum is proposed, the campaign groups can do the campaigning, and either party can be seen to be respecting the result if remain wins.
If A50 is revoked or there's a second ref which comes out remain, there won't be another ref. No-one's going to want to go through this again except the nutters. And there aren't enough of them.
Well – I’m playing devil’s advocate a bit but this is actually part of the problem. It’s not really defined what an MP’s job actually is
Mate, we've been shooting the breeze on here for years. I'm well aware that removing the fence-post ends from the crack of your arse is going to require extensive surgery. (-: You did just assert what an MPs job "literally" is not half a dozen posts previously though, did you not?
In your example, yes, you’d like never to pay taxes, but the government knows that’s not possible so they don’t offer you a referendum on it. If they did, and the electorate voted to abolish taxes, they’d have a hard time not doing it. Otherwise, why have a referendum in the first place?
You’d like to leave the EU, but the government knows that’s not possible so they don’t offer you a referendum on it. If they did, and the electorate voted to leave the EU, they’d have a hard time not doing it. Otherwise, why have a referendum in the first place?
We live in very strange times. It's a mistake to underestimate the government's ability to make really stupid decisions if they think it's in their (not our) interests.
We have two main parties with not much to choose between them, both of whom depend on large numbers of leave voters. If one of them says ‘we want to cancel A50’ the other one will gain those votes and defeat them in the next five or more elections.
What if they both said it? What happens then?
You’d like to leave the EU, but the government knows that’s not possible so they don’t offer you a referendum on it. If they did, and the electorate voted to leave the EU, they’d have a hard time not doing it. Otherwise, why have a referendum in the first place?
And that's exactly why it's Cameron's **** up.
What if they both said it? What happens then?
They won't, because whichever one does it first the other will immediately not have to, to hoover up a shit ton of votes. They would have to co-operate with each other. And it seems Corbs and May are far too intransigent for that. But, you never know...
They won’t, because whichever one does it first the other will immediately not have to, to hoover up a shit ton of votes.
I haven't seen the opposition doing much opposing of late. I appreciate it's about as likely as me growing a second willy, but if Corbyn and May put on a united front and announced it together...? As I said, we live in very strange times.
(Boo, ninja edit there...!)
What i really hate is the fact that it wasn't a clear cut vote, basically it was 52/48, so so a bloody close run thing on a referendum that was not actually legally binding.
You then in the coming months have it come out of the woodwork, the efforts and funding of "Leave.eu" and Cambridge Analytica and there clear non-legal influencing of that vote, why hasn't there been a Government sanctioned investigation of their influence and how that was allowed to happen?
It seems to be 52% voted Leave in a non legally binding referendum heavily influenced by non-legal actions, but hey-ho lets crack on and destroy the country to save some face...
Or do i read that wrong?
If on the other hand a second referendum is proposed, the campaign groups can do the campaigning, and either party can be seen to be respecting the result if remain wins.
Yes, which is why we would be having a 2nd referendum by now if we had 2 parties that had a clue. Doesn't remove the obvious risk of the Leave vote winning again though but you haven't lost anything if that happens.
It seems to be 52% voted Leave in a non legally binding referendum heavily influenced by non-legal actions, but hey-ho lets crack on and destroy the country to save some face…
I think the legal term is "it stinks". A bit like a turd eh?
The reason we haven't had one yet is that Brexiters see it as tantamount to revocation, because they think they might not win - so the same effect applies.
Which is moronic, if you think about it, but that's democracy for you.
What I’ve never understood is why the Conservative Party at the top made a decision in 2016 to own Brexit, to become the Brexit party. [Brexit] should have been a cross-party exercise, a cross-party committee, maybe the liaison committee. But for some reason, somebody somewhere thought embracing this turd was gonna be a political bounty
No argument with that.
Without a 2nd ref. there's still an opportunity for the grown ups (anyone seen one?) to pull A50. With one there's a risk that the same dirty tricks of divide and conquer will be played out on social media and Leave will scrape another "victory".
At least I'm hoping beyond hope that that's the reason that this has still not been put to a 2nd vote.
It is literally an MP’s job to do what his or her constituents want
Actually it isn't. We have a representative democracy, where we elect a MP to represent us. They choose how they do this. Its actually, like literally, the cornerstone of UK democracy. See Edmund Burke's speech to the Electors of Bristol 3rd November 1774.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html
Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
What i really hate is the fact that it wasn’t a clear cut vote, basically it was 52/48, so so a bloody close run thing on a referendum that was not actually legally binding.
You then in the coming months have it come out of the woodwork, the efforts and funding of “Leave.eu” and Cambridge Analytica and there clear non-legal influencing of that vote, why hasn’t there been a Government sanctioned investigation of their influence and how that was allowed to happen?
It seems to be 52% voted Leave in a non legally binding referendum heavily influenced by non-legal actions, but hey-ho lets crack on and destroy the country to save some face…
Or do i read that wrong?
You read it right. The only thing that isn't an on-record fact, is the level to which the illegal funding and influencing affected the vote but it's not unreasonable to put it at a t least 2% in my view.
When you cut the through the fug of political squabbling, media hyperbole and the full on lies told to the public, that's exactly where we are.
Perhaps the saddest thing for me is that good proportion of leavers, when interviewed, basically just say, 'meh, lets just get it over with' The fact is was a bad decision from the start is neither here or there for them.
Have we done Brian Bilston?
HOLD MY HAND WHILE WE JUMP OFF THIS CLIFF
‘Let’s jump off this cliff – it’ll be fun! A right laugh!’
urged all the people (well, I mean just over half
of those who had bothered to speak up at all).
I peered down at the rocks; it was a long way to fall.
I said, ‘This cliff’s more than three hundred feet high
and my doctor tells me if I jump I will die.’
‘Cliff-jumping’s fine!’ they said. ‘Don’t trust doctors, trust us!
We read all about it on the side of a bus.’
Worried, I met up with my local MP.
I shared my concerns. He was forced to agree:
‘Why the rocks below would smash you to bits!
Where did you get this idea of jumping off cliffs?’
‘It was the will of some of the people,’ I said
and his expression changed to another instead.
‘I think,’ he revised, ‘you’re being melodramatic.
The problem is you. You’re undemocratic.’
On the clifftop, we waited. In silence we stood.
Then a voice: ‘Remind me, why is cliff-jumping good?’
But we looked down at our shoes, baffled and stumped.
Then, out of embarrassment, we held hands and jumped.
meh, lets just get it over with’
Very much this, my dad voted for brexit because he didn't like the gravy train in Brussels, a couple I know voted for brexit in the belief it wouldn't actually win, a plumber I know voted brexit to stem the Eastern European competition (that's one I do understand his personal reasons at least) and the Co I work for invited ukip into the works to give a speach and don't think they'll be affected because they manufacture in UK & they hope brexit will stuff up their competition - not sure they've balanced that against economic downturn.... The least the government could do is give the electorate a second chance & to appease the leavers say that it has to be at least say 55% in favour of remaining otherwise we are still leaving?
Actually it isn’t. We have a representative democracy, where we elect a MP to represent us. They choose how they do this. Its actually, like literally, the cornerstone of UK democracy.
Where's it written down?
I was expressing one possible opinion. But the point is that the referendum forced them to vote for A50 even if they didn't want to.
You read it right. The only thing that isn’t an on-record fact, is the level to which the illegal funding and influencing affected the vote but it’s not unreasonable to put it at a t least 2% in my view.
Sigh. This is a bit like a football team losing a match with a last minute controversial penalty decision against them. The fans howl afterwards about how unfair it is and how the referee is incompetent. Sometimes the referee even admits he made a mistake. But do they replay the match? No. They accept it and move on, because they recognise that however unfair it may be, and despite the fact the rules may not have been adhered to, a decision needs to be made in order to facililtate the continued operation of the league*.
*this is a silly analogy I admit but it's a fairly true picture of where we are.
You're implying there were proper 'rules' for the referendum;)
To torture the football analogy further, any team breaking financial fair play are sanctioned and anyone in administration are relegated. Just playing an unregistered or banned player can result in a 3-0 forfeit. Shall I go on?
Of course, football rules, whilst not perfect, have been refined over many years and challenged in the courts on occasion...
Did anyone see this week's Jon oliver (last week tonight)? The main feature was on brexit. Nothing new to add but really displayed the absurdity and tragedy of it all. An outsider's perspective - absolutely INSANE, and they've got trump as a marker. Included footage of Boris J lookin pathetic, oafish and sweaty on his f'in bike
This is a bit like a football team losing a match
No, it really isn't. Aside from anything else, a football match ends whereas democracy is an ongoing process. It's more like saying Manchester United won the cup last year so we shouldn't have a cup final next year.
Besides, as I said on the previous page or so, this "us and them" leave / remain won / lost mentality is ****ing toxic because ultimately we're all on the same team. No one side is going to win or lose anything, we're betting on the entire country not half of it and with a few rich exceptions we will all end up winning or losing.
Did anyone see this week’s Jon oliver (last week tonight)?
Yeah. It served as a very good primer for a US audience who whilst might not necessarily be following UK politics religiously will probably have a better handle on it than the average American, just by dint of them being the sort of person who watches LWT in the first place. My overriding thought though was that it should be mandatory viewing over here as well.
Sigh. This is a bit like a football team losing a match with a last minute controversial penalty decision against them. The fans howl afterwards about how unfair it is and how the referee is incompetent. Sometimes the referee even admits he made a mistake. But do they replay the match? No. They accept it and move on, because they recognise that however unfair it may be, and despite the fact the rules may not have been adhered to, a decision needs to be made in order to facililtate the continued operation of the league*.
It would be more like losing a pre season friendly against a team of ringers, then afterwards being told it was actually the league decider.
I say it had nothing new to add but I'd not seen the Dutch boyband pleading for the UK to stay before 🙂
Sigh. This is a bit like a football team losing a match with a last minute controversial penalty decision against them.
Bigger sigh. No it isn’t. Read Cougar’s post because it sums up ‘why’ very well.
ION,
I've just received an office-wide email inviting me to a work's do, they're going out for drinks.
In Wetherspoons.
On March 29th.
Was having a "discussion" with some brexiteers a couple of weeks ago.
We got onto the topic of the need for immigrants. I pointed out that the UK is at almost full unemployment. I challenged the brexiteers that if we were to significantly reduce the number of immigrants, where would the people come from to fill the jobs?
One of the responses was "it'll be ok as brexit will cause a recession so companies will lay folk off anyway so therefore there will be less jobs going therefore we don't need the immigrants"
On one hand, he's right.
On the other hand, I'd like to use that hand to punch his stupid face into a bloody pulp
Did anyone see this week’s Jon oliver (last week tonight)?
A colleague in Portugal mentioned to me about how funny the 'brexit box' part was. However he stopped laughing when I told him I was indeed stockpiling medicine and food. At least he stopped laughing eventually when he realized I was not joking.
Sigh. This is a bit like a football team losing a match with a last minute controversial penalty decision against them. The fans howl afterwards about how unfair it is and how the referee is incompetent. Sometimes the referee even admits he made a mistake. But do they replay the match? No. They accept it and move on
You would think so, eh?
https://www.dawn.com/news/94681
Such was the furore surrounding the goal that Arsenal immediately offered to replay the tie and they won the second match 2-1.
ION,
I’ve just received an office-wide email inviting me to a work’s do, they’re going out for drinks.
In Wetherspoons.
On March 29th.
Do you work for Leave.EU?
*this is a silly analogy I admit but it’s a fairly true picture of where we are.
if we are going for silly analogies why not use a cycling one.
Spear wins the tour de france.
Spear is then found to have been doping and so loses the title and is chased in the courts for other things.
The major problem with the referendum is, if it had been binding, then there is a good chance it would have been ruled invalid due to the relaxed approach to campaigning by some.
However since it isnt there is limited scope to intervene.
So we are in the odd situation where it is being treated as binding despite the fact that if it was there would be lots of awkward legal questions to answer about its validity.
I’ve just received an office-wide email inviting me to a work’s do, they’re going out for drinks.
In Wetherspoons.
On March 29th.
Do you work for Leave.EU?
Or are you going there to **** the place up?
Do you work for Leave.EU?
I questioned the email (with reference to needing a new Irony-o-meter). I got back,
"No idea what you mean, I am not so in to what goes on with Brexit lol ;o)"
Le sigh.
On the back of a few things this past week.
I've always been pretty left-wing and believed in supporting those less fortunate in society via taxation and redistribution of wealth. It always seemed to be the fairest thing to do.
Since the vote I've heard people spout on about 'taking back control', 'making Britain great again', 'Beating the Germans once and for all', 'getting rid of the ****s' and such bollocks.
I've read on here, and elsewhere, how the working class in deprived areas want Brexit and don't give a **** about people like me who want opportunities for our children above and beyond a minimum wage job or continuing to claim benefits; this has been confirmed by conversations with the dimmer end of my family who have, since the closure of the pits, sat on the dole moaning about how they deserve more of everything, and are fervent supporters of a no deal Brexit 'cos Britain is great and we'll win out against those nasty foreigners in the end.
They really do believe that they are poor because loads of foreigners are coming over here being given shedloads of cash and free houses.
They don't care that Brexit will reduce opportunities for others as they have no aspirations for themselves or their kids so it doesn't matter if they mess up other peoples lives.
So if it all goes to shit then they deserve what is coming to them; we can easily absorb a 20% hike in living costs if necessary, lets hope they can.
From now on I will be in it for me and mine.
They can **** right off.
I am currently being bombarded with schlager music, and for the first time feel myself coming over all brexity.
I’m currently having a joust with a couple of dimwits on Facebook about all this. One has clearly bought the alt-right playbook. He claims to be anti every ‘ism’ and pro ‘getting rid of the whole lot and starting again according to what the people want’. His mate, on the other hand reposts Katie Hopkins articles.
They’re getting quite angry now.
Which is nice.
Will this thread die after march 29th?
Or will a new one start
Nope, this thread, like brexit will carry on ruining your lives for years to come😁
I don't know if any of you followed proceedings in the Court of Appeal today on whether the referendum was held legally or was fraudulent.
Well the outcome was that it wasn't fraudulent because it was advisory. But, "Judges have confirmed categorically that had the vote been mandatory the referendum would have been quashed".
So there you have it. By declaring "it's non-binding but we'll honour the result", there is no redress for illegal behaviour.
Will this thread die after march 29th?
Or will a new one start
The new thread will be 'When should we join the EU'?
That makes sense in legal terms but none at all otherwise. What a bonkers country we live in.
I don’t know if any of you followed proceedings in the Court of Appeal today on whether the referendum was held legally or was fraudulent.
Well the outcome was that it wasn’t fraudulent because it was advisory. But, “Judges have confirmed categorically that had the vote been mandatory the referendum would have been quashed”.
So there you have it. By declaring “it’s non-binding but we’ll honour the result”, there is no redress for illegal behaviour.
Got a link to a news report.. my googling shows nothing and nothing obvious on the guardian.. I'd have thought they'dd have jumped at that
If you want to truly go through the looking glass then have a chat with the far left brexiteers
Two of them drink in my local and I was stupidly talking to them about Brexit last Friday night. Both retired on good final salary pensions, both list Dennis Skinner as their political hero. Both love Corbyn and are labour through and through, they’re both educated and intelligent. Decent blokes usually. Both are rabidly anti-EU! Brexit at any cost! (They’re hardly likely to be the ones paying the cost, obviously)
Anyway, after much debate with me finding it increasingly incomprehensible that they could support what is clearly such a right wing project, one of the stated, and I’ll quote him directly:
“We need to get our sovereignty back! The EU is just a German dictatorship! It’s basically them just completing the work of the third reich”
I mean.... where do you even start with that?
I didn’t even bother. Just shook my head in complete bewilderment and went to rejoin the real world
Got a link to a news report.. my googling shows nothing and nothing obvious on the guardian.. I’d have thought they’dd have jumped at that
Tweets from Liz Webster https://twitter.com/abcpoppins
It was mentioned the other day, and I'd been wondering myself, did the pro-Brexit STW'ers stop posting on this thread because they realized they had no valid defense, or did they give up posting in the face of not being able to convince anyone of their beliefs?
Liam's been busy...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47319533
Actually he hasn't. Oh well, never mind.
Hopefully some Brexiteers will be along in a minute to tell us again how this is a GOOD thing.
Sigh. This is a bit like a football team losing a match with a last minute controversial penalty decision against them. The fans howl afterwards about how unfair it is and how the referee is incompetent.
a football match is a hobby, not an economy that relies on trade networks to feed and provide for 67 million people.
so no, not really.
That makes sense in legal terms but none at all otherwise. What a bonkers country we live in.
It misrepresents the decision the Court threw it out because Parliament voted a bill through to trigger Article 50 and that supersedes other considerations. For the referendum to be non-advisory then it needs to automatically bring into effect an act of parliament that is already on the statute book.
Blimey, what a tangled web we weave.
+1 dangerousbeans. I will never vote Labour or Tory again, simply for the party that offers the lowest tax and the easiest time for me and my non-British wife.
I couldn't give two ****s about the working classes anymore.