Forum menu
If people list as their reasons for voting to leave things that are either impossible or nothing to do with the EU I'm happy to call them thick, there were also plenty of people who told us that they were sick of these experts and they could easily understand all the issues without any help - some of them might not have been the smartest people too.
As we can see by the startling progress and the way the EU is simply signing off on anything the UK proposes that us on the remain side were wrong, so badly wrong in fact I'm not sure how we missed it all. It's not as if most of this was covered before the vote or in the last few months.
The UK needs to work out how to do the right thing here.
Don't worry we'll get there, it's painful watching the slow-motion car crash but it will end eventually.
Of course it will be hugely expensive and damaging by the time it's finished, but that's life.
The UK needs to work out how to do the right thing here.
There is no way to do anything now that doesn't end up with the country in a worse place than it was in before all this or that it's in now.
Call off Brexit (which realistically is far and away the most sensible option) would result in riots, the right wing press would be stirring up all sorts of treason / against the will of the people arguments and the Tory party would fall to pieces (not that the last bit is bad other than the sudden Government vacuum it would create).
Proceeding with Brexit in whatever haphazard, bumbling along, unplanned, making-it-up-as-they-go manner the Government manages means the country gets shafted whatever happens and we end up in some sort of transitional no man's land for the next 10 years trying to patch things up and with each side blaming the other for ****ing it all up so spectacularly.
It's all he's got cougar.
To be fair he also employs 'ha, ha, ha, Scottish people' and 😯
he stick THM likes to beat us with
What an odd comment. I am merely responding the regular if not constant flow of argument - see the previous page - which questions the validity of the resul because people were unable to (ie, are too thick as some said directly) to distinguish fact from lies or that there was no plan or vision etc. In your case you even question the whole validity of referendums and claim that you were ill qualified to vote.
Your argument goes back to Aristotle so may be you are as clever as he is. Personally I am a strong advocate of personal freedom combined with the associated need to take responsibility. I think people should have a say and be held responsible for their decisions and I am in favour of devolving power in general rather than centralising it.
Hence I am happy to have a referendum - although not too often and not with 50:50 decisions points (can't think of a better term). And I am happy to accept the result of GEs and the referendum in this case and try to make the best of what I believe IS a bad job.
I also try to understand why people voted the way they did - who do people fall for the Trumps, Bojos, Goves, Sturgeons and Salmonds of this world. The people who really are thick are those that simple dismiss the result and the voters instead of seeking to understand why the vote the way they do.
Oh and even worse, then try to out lie the liers such as those listed above. They win the whole packet of biscuits and (as you cougar encourage us to do) should be taken up on their nonsense when they post it. It's your green light. You made this point many times.
thecaptain - Member
Don't worry we'll get there
Question is where is that?
Call off Brexit (which realistically is far and away the most sensible option) would result in riots, the right wing press would be stirring up all sorts of treason / against the will of the people arguments and the Tory party would fall to pieces (not that the last bit is bad other than the sudden Government vacuum it would create).
The prospect of rioting pensioners and Farage trying to march without needing a fag break actually makes me quite happy....
ha, ha, ha, Scottish people'
Equally odd if not odder. As I noted many times the great Scottish people were far too canny to fall for Salmonds BS. You should be proud of that. They stand head and shoulders above the rUK.
Hence why I, my wife and mini THM chose to be educated there 😉
Oh what I mean by "get there" is work out that the least damaging option is to call it off (perhaps via an endless "transition" or some similar membership-in-all-but-name).
Or get a bespoke deal that is not a million miles away from what we had?
Can someone summarise the last 1000 pages?
Most posters think Brexit is stupid.
There was a similar article in the Independent by Richard Branson which said that in a few years time Britain would realise it's mistake and ask to rejoin.
THM I'm sure you will portray it as a "bespoke deal" but actually it will be a humongous and humiliating climb - down on the UK side.
The only deal the UK can get is bespoke. It's yet another soundbite that is meaningless.
in a few years time Britain would realise it's mistake and ask to rejoin.
Which would be a short conversation.
Which would be a short conversation.
requiring unanimous consent from a group of countries economically damaged by Brexit.
Indeed, here is some advance footage from that conversation as our reverse-Brexit bulldogs head back to rejoin.
Hence why I, my wife and mini THM chose to be educated there
Does St Andrews actually count as Scotland?
Well THM has no understanding of Scotland that is clear from his comments but then given his tiny narrow worldview its hardly surprising. anything that is not hard right tory is clearly incomprehensible to him
In your case you even question the whole validity of referendums and claim that you were ill qualified to vote.
Absolutely true - as has been demonstrated with the whole referendum thing, there's a reason why we elect a government to run the country; the people are not qualified to make such an enormous decision. I know I wasn't.
I also try to understand why people voted the way they did
Sensible, I understand that - but since the popular vote was mostly based around ending immigration/taking back control/350 million a week for the NHS, and were therefore based on falsehoods, it's hard to reach any other conclusion than "you were suckered into voting leave, fool".
Absolutely true - as has been demonstrated with the whole referendum thing, there's a reason why we elect a government to run the country; the people are not qualified to make such an enormous decision. I know I wasn't.
The main reason we delegate government to politicians is because it is impracticable to run the country by plebiscite. No one is qualified to evaluate the detail, we rely on politicians to weigh up the arguments and then make a judgement. It is perfectly reasonable on big constitutional issues for the arguments to be laid before the people so they can make their own judgement based on their life experience.
"you were suckered into voting leave, fool".
Well we will have more control, albeit you may think the cost is too high. We will have more influence over our immigration policy, and would the few who say they were influenced by the £350 million have really changed their mind if £200 million was used instead? And anyway the OBR forecast is that our contribution net of rebate will be £325 million by 2021.
So why don't we have a referendum on capital punishment. It's a fairly major issue, simple enough for the public to understand.
And tax cuts, we all like a nice tax cut after all.
Well that approach ought to kill off any argument DrJ
I mean we shouldn’t leave the question hanging
Or a referendum on legality of homosexuality or a referendum on whether muslims should be allowed in the country.
I think the results would show people exactly what sort of country we live in.
Can’t think of any tax puns
So why don't we have a referendum on capital punishment. It's a fairly major issue, simple enough for the public to understand.
Because there is not a significant body of opinion calling for one.
Really? I have seen many - at least as much as called for a EU referendum. which you must remember is all brought about by factional infighting in the tory party and promoted by non UK newspaper owners. There was no outcry in the UK until the concerted campaign to whip up xenophobia by some factions in the tory party and the aforementioned newspaper owners
Well THM has no understanding of Scotland that is clear from his comments but then given his tiny narrow worldview its hardly surprising. anything that is not hard right tory is clearly incomprehensible
You would be better off ignoring him. Then you can keep happily posting stuff that is untrue to your hearts content in your own little fantasy world.
Mefty as we know (from TJ's own sources) the majority support the government getting on with things including those like myself who voted to remains. But the hard core remoaners will keep trying to suppress the majority.
Is this the longest ever STW thread? I don't remember ever seeing a 1000+ page thread before.
Now, as many as 53% of the British public back a second referendum, according to a poll by Survation for the Mail on Sunday.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/survation-poll-shows-public-is-overwhelmingly-opposed-to-hard-brexit-2017-6
its not untrue it depends on where you look if you must lecture us on truth, it would be beneficial if what you said was actually true.
Likewise whilst they may support your "getting on with it view" they also oppose the hard Brexit option they are getting on with. Again you can argue it either way.
Junkyard - and a clear majority now for a remain vote in a second referendum according to the polls
It is perfectly reasonable on big constitutional issues for the arguments to be laid before the people so they can make their own judgement based on their life experience.
I don't think it is. I'm not qualified to make a judgement about it, and I'd wager that furious Brexit mentalists you see in Question Time audiences aren't, either. Either way, it didn't happen in this case, though, did it.
Because there is not a significant body of opinion calling for one.
I wouldn't have particularly said there was a significant enough body of opinion calling for a referendum on EU membership. Propose a referendum on politician's wages, then you'd see a significant body with a strong opinion.
@TJ Again it depends where you look the majority seem to both want to not have another even though they would vote to remain though the % wax and wane on both issues. I dont think there can be any debate that they do not support a hard brexit *
That said its not a definitive picture, we could all cherry pick if we wish but deep down I think none of want to claim surveys, given their recent results, are definitive proof of the view of the populus.
Its just arguing for the sake of it and accusing folk of lying when they only state one viewpoint
* Given 48% are against it anyway no view will get a majority but i am not even sure the majority of leavers want this and it was certainly not what they were arguing for pre referrenduum
Interesting article on who might be pulling the strings behind Hard Brexit:
[url= https://tompride.wordpress.com/2017/10/13/how-theresa-may-is-being-shepherded-to-a-hard-brexit-by-a-multibillionaire-dubai-based-new-zealand-fund-manager/ ]Legatum[/url]
In its mission statement, Legatum openly admits its aim is to influence the British government on Brexit, and what it calls “other stakeholders”:But why would a New Zealand private capital investment firm based in Dubai be so interested in a hard Brexit anyway?
Fortunately, the (far) right-wing US pressure group Heritage Foundation helpfully explains it all (to its readers in the US anyway):
Legatum Institute’s Special Trade Commission Advances Brexit Policies Designed to Promote Economic Freedom and Prosperity – for the United Kingdom and (Eventually) the World
According to the Heritage Foundation, Legatum is campaigning to set up a bilateral free trade agreement between the UK and the United States, which will “liberalise” UK regulations on the environment and workplace:
Yeah~ hard crash out, sidle up to America with all it entails. There’s absolutely no intention of a deal with the EU.
If people use the wail as a source it's always good to check the underlying data as its v unlikely a wail headline will be true.
Sure enough - wrong (unless sur action haven't published the new poll). They show that the majorly remain in favour of a soft Brexshit and that while there is a majority in favour of voting on the final deal, there is not support for another referendum. They also believe that our barely competent leader is much better placed than the leader of the opposition to lead us through the process - what a sorry state of affairs.
Still who needs facts or cares what people actually think?
.....they also said:
Voters disagree with Theresa May’s mantra “no deal is better than a bad deal”, with 58% against leaving the EU without a deal,
Nice and fresh
No deal better than bad deal 74%
Any deal better 26%
[url= http://interactive.news.sky.com/SMSLXIII_NODEAL_111017_FP.pdf ]Tabs here[/url]
Most people don't understand "no deal is better than a bad deal".
It does sound quite good though.
"No deal is better than a bad deal" is meaningless- because yes, you absolutely could have a bad deal that's worse than no deal. The question is how likely that is. So hypothetically, yes, no deal could be better than a bad deal. Practically, it probably won't be.
I wonder why the Sky and Survation polls tell a different story from one another...?
Nationally representative sample of 1,023 Sky customers interviewed by SMS 11 October 2017. Data weighted to the profile of the population.
Given that by definition they are Sky customers I doubt the above statement is actually possible.
How do they account for the part of the population that thinks Sky is a work of evil and will not buy Sky products? A small but real part of the population that you cannot weight Sky customers to represent.
Am I correct in thinking a simple way to understand a hard Brexit is that it would be the equivalent of creating a border with passport controls and huge amounts of paperwork for moving goods and services between anything south of Lancashire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire and the rest of the country? I suppose there is also a difference between a free trade agreement like that between the eu and Canada and a single market. I am thinking free trade equals very low or nonexistent tariffs but with paperwork and a single market is like trading in the same country.
I wouldn't have particularly said there was a significant enough body of opinion calling for a referendum on EU membership. Propose a referendum on politician's wages, then you'd see a significant body with a strong opinion.
Consevatives had a manifesto pledge to hold a EU referendum in 2015, the LibDems did in 2010, and Labour has one with regarded to the EU constitution in 2005. Then there is UKIP winning the most seats in the European Parliament elections. That is more than sufficient, there is no other issue that I can think of that has that "traction".
referendum on legality of homosexuality or a referendum on whether muslims should be allowed in the country.
In would bet you my house the UK would vote yes to to the first and no to the second.