# Second vote ? Why not .?



## bladeplayer (Sep 25, 2018)

So as an outsider (technicaly) and following coverage on different meda outlets if the leave side are so sure leaving is still what the majority want , why not have a second vote .?

The way I see it the ordinary joe soaps on the street now have a good if not better idea of the advantages /disadvantages of the result.. 
I have no doubt both sides enhanced the good and bad to influence the vote their way . 

Now all this is about to get very very serious why not give the people a chance to change their mind , either way, and get a result you know for definite the majority want .. 

Has any1 really got anything to lose by a second vote ? If the majority still see out as the best option,  it will be out, but if some feel they. mistakenly voted or voted without the full info of consequences haven't they got the right to change their minds 

Just interested in how you the real people feel , any of ye want a second vote or happy to go with first result ?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 25, 2018)

I think the problem is even if there is a second vote the result again will be too close to please enough people , because they didnâ€™t go for a â€œneeds to be 70%â€ etc it was always going to cause issues

Also if people did vote to stay in - you would the get them people who voted out demanding a â€œbest of threeâ€

I think the sensible way would be to have another vote and state that we will leave if the result is over 70% of the votes say leave - but I donâ€™t expect that to happen

But I think they do need to have a second vote now more know about the risks and potential rewards


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 25, 2018)

Do the people know more now? They had months of truths(lies) before the last vote. How much of what they've been told since is the truth? Do you think the campaigning during a second round would be truthful? 

We constantly hear that some Leavers will have changed their mind. I wonder how many Remainers have changed theirs?

On the one hand I feel a second vote on whether or not to accept the deal is a very good thing, but not a second vote on Leave or Remain. Second vote on deal/no deal but still leave. Enact the result of the first vote, that's democracy.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Sep 25, 2018)

When do we stop?  Best of 3, best of 5, where?  We voted out; can we please get on with it?


----------



## AmandaJR (Sep 25, 2018)

We voted and it was the vote of the people to leave. "Vote of the People" is something I keep hearing from those wanting another chance to get the result they wanted. It's as if somehow it wasn't the vote of the people to leave - but it was - accept it, move on and focus on how we leave on the best possible terms.

It's also an insult to those that voted leave to suggest they were ignorant to the consequences and now would vote differently.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 25, 2018)

Blue in Munich said:



			When do we stop?  Best of 3, best of 5, where?  We voted out; can we please get on with it?
		
Click to expand...

This is my view as well. We had a vote, carry it out now. No need for another. (I voted Remain incidentally)


----------



## chrisd (Sep 25, 2018)

I reckon that the entire leave process has been deliberately totally cocked up in order to put us in a remain frame of mind and for that reason the democratic will of the people is being undermined, given that remainers have been conducting the negotiations. Even yesterday the BBC were spouting the Government "worst case scenario" papers as what will happen if we leave with no deal, my understanding is that the papers were designed to show the very worst things that could conceivably happen in the most extreme circumstances 

I'm even more determined that we should tell the EU  where to shove it!


----------



## fundy (Sep 25, 2018)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I think the problem is even if there is a second vote the result again will be too close to please enough people , because they didnâ€™t go for a â€œneeds to be 70%â€ etc it was always going to cause issues

Also if people did vote to stay in - you would the get them people who voted out demanding a â€œbest of threeâ€

*I think the sensible way would be to have another vote and state that we will leave if the result is over 70% of the votes say leave* - but I donâ€™t expect that to happen

But I think they do need to have a second vote now more know about the risks and potential rewards
		
Click to expand...

This makes no sense. The bar was set at 50%, 51% voted to leave, lets now vote again and set the bar at 70%???? Can vote 5 times in the next 10 years and neither side will get over 60%! If you set the bar at 70% in a general election you'd never have a ruling party!


----------



## pauljames87 (Sep 25, 2018)

It was a decision that should never have been given to the general public. Nobody is educated enough to know what it would mean. Should be left to the people we pay to make the laws and govern the country.


----------



## BrianM (Sep 25, 2018)

I voted remain, but the majority went for leave, thatâ€™s democracy.
Donâ€™t think Iâ€™d be too impressed if they decided to have another vote and I was in the leave camp.
Letâ€™s just get on with it.


----------



## fundy (Sep 25, 2018)

pauljames87 said:



			It was a decision that should never have been given to the general public. Nobody is educated enough to know what it would mean. Should be left to the people we pay to make the laws and govern the country.
		
Click to expand...

yep but one of them (or those who directed him) was too clever and thought he could create his own legacy by giving the vote to the people and them doing as he expected, it backfired and he sailed off into the sunset leaving everyone else to sort out the mess created


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 25, 2018)

fundy said:



			This makes no sense. The bar was set at 50%, 51% voted to leave, lets now vote again and set the bar at 70%???? Can vote 5 times in the next 10 years and neither side will get over 60%! If you set the bar at 70% in a general election you'd never have a ruling party!
		
Click to expand...

I think with it being a highest result wins there was always going to be the potential for the fallout with have had - yep 51% voted to leave but that leaves just under half the country who voted to stay - that for me isnâ€™t great.

For me the vote should have been at a level that gives a clear result - maybe 70% is too much but with the way it went I think itâ€™s divided the country more than ever. It seems to be a constant battle against both sides and donâ€™t see it getting any better in fact can only see it getting worse the divide. Such a shame that politicians have really ruined our country to the point everyone is prob fed up and he enough. 

I have no idea what the answer is - in or out but Christ I just want whatâ€™s best for the people and not screw ourselves over just to spite the EU


----------



## pauljames87 (Sep 25, 2018)

fundy said:



			yep but one of them (or those who directed him) was too clever and thought he could create his own legacy by giving the vote to the people and them doing as he expected, it backfired and he sailed off into the sunset leaving everyone else to sort out the mess created
		
Click to expand...

Iâ€™ve said from day one it will be stopped by the MPs and hopefully that still happens. Itâ€™s just getting stupid. We had this long to sort out a deal but just stalling after stalling. 

From day one if this was ever going to go well they needed a team of mp,s with a mix of labour, Tory, liberal etc so they could do whatâ€™s best for the country and not have the other parties just vote it down because itâ€™s a Tory plan.

One big mess


----------



## chrisd (Sep 25, 2018)

pauljames87 said:



			Iâ€™ve said from day one it will be stopped by the MPs and hopefully that still happens. Itâ€™s just getting stupid. We had this long to sort out a deal but just stalling after stalling. 

From day one if this was ever going to go well they needed a team of mp,s with a mix of labour, Tory, liberal etc so they could do whatâ€™s best for the country and not have the other parties just vote it down because itâ€™s a Tory plan.

One big mess
		
Click to expand...

And that's why it couldn't be left to our MP'S as they wouldn't have had a free vote and it would have been a party whip vote


----------



## Piece (Sep 25, 2018)

Blue in Munich said:



			When do we stop?  Best of 3, best of 5, where?  We voted out; can we please get on with it?
		
Click to expand...

Yup, nailed it. 99.9% of us won't/don't  know the whole details so it's pointless having another ref. If anything the picture is far more confusing now than it was originally.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Sep 25, 2018)

pauljames87 said:



			It was a decision that should never have been given to the general public. Nobody is educated enough to know what it would mean. Should be left to the people we pay to make the laws and govern the country.
		
Click to expand...

Now where have I heard that before? 

Oh yes......you must mean the same people that took us from the common market to the EU without consulting us?


----------



## fundy (Sep 25, 2018)

The thing is, I dont think any of us genuinely know if we as a country are better off in or out, even still. We get given information in small parcels, never the big picture, there is massive amounts of distraction, distortion and misinformation as people/organisations etc pursue their own agenda at the cost of the country as a whole and the individuals within. the days of independent news reporting etc are very long gone


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 25, 2018)

pauljames87 said:



			Iâ€™ve said from day one it will be stopped by the MPs and hopefully that still happens. Itâ€™s just getting stupid. We had this long to sort out a deal but just stalling after stalling.

From day one if this was ever going to go well they needed a team of mp,s with a mix of labour, Tory, liberal etc so they could do whatâ€™s best for the country and not have the other parties just vote it down because itâ€™s a Tory plan.

One big mess
		
Click to expand...

It was the MP's that were given a free vote, and voted overwhelmingly, to decide whether or not to have the referendum. So you trust the idiots that made the first mistake to now do the right thing, whatever that is?

I agree it should have been a X-party committee to decide what deal is best, but they did set up a x-party committee, chaired by Hilary Benn to overview the negotiations and make suggestions. Guess what, it followed party lines rather than look for the best solutions.

If you are expecting MP's to do the right thing, good luck. It is a mess, and it sure won't get any better.


----------



## drdel (Sep 25, 2018)

The EU has a history of ignoring the opinions expressed and keep nations voting until the result is the one they want. 

Hopefully the UK will not bow to the wishes of the EU and the likes of Clegg, Corbyn and others who have crawled across the channel and briefed Barnier and his cronies against the democratically taken decision - hang them for treason.


----------



## Rlburnside (Sep 25, 2018)

fundy said:



			yep but one of them (or those who directed him) was too clever and thought he could create his own legacy by giving the vote to the people and them doing as he expected, it backfired and he sailed off into the sunset leaving everyone else to sort out the mess created
		
Click to expand...

Yes agree 100%, Cameron promised a vote to appease the right wing of his party and it backfired on him badly, he must shoulder most of blame for the mess the country finds itself in, shameful he just walked away and washed his hands of it, his legacy will be one of the worst PMs we have ever had.

I voted remain and just wish the politicians would respect the vote of the majority and get us out be it for good or bad.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Sep 25, 2018)

IF we did have a 2nd vote and it was to stay - is that not democracy???????

Dont we have a general election every few years to decide what party we want to govern us, whereas this is a decision that may echo down the generations, and yes including the main generations who didnt vote for it!

And okay, if we then need a best out of 3 go with that as well - its too big a decision to have any doubt asked of it. No doubt in my mind that the remainers were a bit blase, and I feel that many couldnt be bothered to vote as it looked a foregone conclusion, allied to many others leavers who did it as a protest vote, but didnt expect it to actually win. In my mind it would DEFINITELY be a different result, and thats why leavers dont want it to happen and hide behind a "well its democracy" standpoint - see opening line.


----------



## MegaSteve (Sep 25, 2018)

Don't believe there will be a second vote... As it is now the 'political classes' have some wriggle room...
They are scared pooh less of another vote going the wrong way loosing them that wriggle room...


----------



## Leftie (Sep 25, 2018)

Liverbirdie said:



			No doubt in my mind that the remainers were a bit blase, and I feel that many couldnt be bothered to vote as it looked a foregone conclusion
		
Click to expand...

Alternatively, no doubt that the leavers were a bit blase, and I feel that many couldn't be bothered to vote as it looked a foregone conclusion ......

As usual in this discussion, many people put forward a one sided blinkered view


----------



## Liverbirdie (Sep 25, 2018)

Leftie said:



			Alternatively, no doubt that the leavers were a bit blase, and I feel that many couldn't be bothered to vote as it looked a foregone conclusion ......

As usual in this discussion, many people put forward a one sided blinkered view 

Click to expand...

Maybees, maybe not - lets have a 2nd vote then and anyone not being bothered to vote can have no qualms.

I think that the number of voters would greatly increase this time.


----------



## Papas1982 (Sep 25, 2018)

Itâ€™s a no from me. 

The argument that more remainers May vote this time is irrelevant imo. If they couldnâ€™t be bothered to vote before, thinking someone else would the they have to live with that. 

We had a vote and the democratic thing to do is honour it. If after a few years eniugh people can be convinced that we should go back, then maybe have a vote and rejoin (they would take us back), but I suspect once it happens (if it does) then after a year or so people will see the world is still turning and it wonâ€™t make any difference. 

Atm, itâ€™s still just he said/she said in regards to what will happen. Pull out, win or without a deal and move on.


----------



## Leftie (Sep 25, 2018)

Liverbirdie said:



			lets have a 2nd vote then
		
Click to expand...

Why???????????????????   We had a vote.  We had a result.  Enact it!  What don't you, and all the others who want to change the result, understand? Nothing has changed since the referendum apart from the lies and attempted manipulation of "expert" opinion (yeh.  On both sides).

The country was given the opportunity to vote in a referendum.  The MAJORITY wanted out - for whatever reason(s).  So out we should go.


----------



## Slab (Sep 26, 2018)

I think everyone agrees itâ€™s been a mess from the beginning and itâ€™s just a bigger mess now & Iâ€™m sure no one knows how to fix it to everyoneâ€™s satisfaction. Subsequent votes wonâ€™t help reverse this

The countries representatives have failed all of the people on an unthinkable scale and not one will be held personally accountable 

There is no 'fix' for this


----------



## User20205 (Sep 26, 2018)

Voted remain. Would still vote remain....but I donâ€™t want a second vote. We need to get on with getting on. The fact weâ€™re still discussing the outcome over 2 years later is a nonsense IMO & undermines any negotiation position that we have. If a significant minority canâ€™t accept the first result, why should the second be any different


----------



## ColchesterFC (Sep 26, 2018)

Liverbirdie said:



			IF we did have a 2nd vote and it was to stay - is that not democracy???????
		
Click to expand...

In my opinion democracy hasn't been served until the result of a vote has been enacted. It would be a bit like Labour winning the next election and everyone that voted Tory demanding a second vote because Labour would wreck the economy and those that voted Labour didn't know what they were voting for. 

If in 5 years time there is support for a referendum on rejoining then let's have one. But I suspect many of those that voted remain wouldn't be happy with it as the terms of re-engagement are likely to be unacceptable to the majority. I think our contributions to the EU budget would be much greater (and we would lose the rebate), possibly having to join the Euro, an EU army etc.


----------



## chrisd (Sep 26, 2018)

Liverbirdie said:



			IF we did have a 2nd vote and it was to stay - is that not democracy???????

Dont we have a general election every few years to decide what party we want to govern us, whereas this is a decision that may echo down the generations, and yes including the main generations who didnt vote for it!

And okay, if we then need a best out of 3 go with that as well - its too big a decision to have any doubt asked of it. No doubt in my mind that the remainers were a bit blase, and I feel that many couldnt be bothered to vote as it looked a foregone conclusion, allied to many others leavers who did it as a protest vote, but didnt expect it to actually win. In my mind it would DEFINITELY be a different result, and thats why leavers dont want it to happen and hide behind a "well its democracy" standpoint - see opening line.
		
Click to expand...

How would "keep voting until you come up with the result that the 1st vote losers want" be democratic?

When do the losing voters at a General Election get a 2nd vote just because the losers aren't happy with the winning party?

Several million voters didn't bother to vote, you can't know that they were, in the majority, remainers

How do you know that 17m leavers were purely protesting and suggest that they didn't really want to leave?

As you "definitely" know it'll be a different result then you have to be one of the remainers who just can't accept losing

If the EU were to give us a deal that we all wanted to vote on I think a majority might want that, but you just want a vote cos we got the 1st one wrong - no chance ðŸ‘Ž

Have you been reading SILH's posts too often and been suckered into to believing his nonsense?


----------



## Del_Boy (Sep 26, 2018)

No need for a 2nd vote - 1st vote went against my opinion but that is democracy.  Anyway if there was a 2nd vote and it was remain.  Would the EU let us remain on the same terms ie us keeping the pound


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 26, 2018)

Wow!

Over 80% saying â€œNoâ€. Surely we should have a second vote on whether or not we have a second vote!


----------



## USER1999 (Sep 26, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			Wow!

Over 80% saying â€œNoâ€. Surely we should have a second vote on whether or not we have a second vote!
		
Click to expand...

May be the remainers haven't come out to vote because it's a bit cold?


----------



## adam6177 (Sep 26, 2018)

If there is a 2nd vote I will NEVER vote again.  Democracy would be over and we'd be a laughing stock.


----------



## Tashyboy (Sep 26, 2018)

As hobbit said in post number 3. But the thing is we are British. Not Scottish. We had a democratic vote and it went the way it went. End of story. To have a second vote sets a very dangerous precedent. Having seen the vote results. I am not alone in thinking that. It seems the minority are the loudest at shouting and moaning.


----------



## Piece (Sep 26, 2018)

adam6177 said:



			If there is a 2nd vote I will NEVER vote again.  Democracy would be over and we'd be a laughing stock.
		
Click to expand...

I wouldn't vote in the second ref because I would feel my vote isn't valued, knowing that it could be tossed in the bin with another ref later on.


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 26, 2018)

There should be a second vote and hopefully then the idiots would step in line and do the right thing.


----------



## Mudball (Sep 26, 2018)

AmandaJR said:



			We voted and it was the vote of the people to leave. "Vote of the People" is something I keep hearing from those wanting another chance to get the result they wanted. It's as if somehow it wasn't the vote of the people to leave - but it was - accept it, move on and focus on how we leave on the best possible terms.

It's also an insult to those that voted leave to suggest they were ignorant to the consequences and now would vote differently.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with the sentiment.. but if you donâ€™t like a PM or itâ€™s Govt, do you get another chance to change it in 5 or less years? Or should we move to once in a lifetime parliament too?


----------



## Dando (Sep 26, 2018)

chrisd said:



			How would "keep voting until you come up with the result that the 1st vote losers want" be democratic?

When do the losing voters at a General Election get a 2nd vote just because the losers aren't happy with the winning party?

*Several million voters didn't bother to vote, you can't know that they were, in the majority, remainers*

How do you know that 17m leavers were purely protesting and suggest that they didn't really want to leave?

As you "definitely" know it'll be a different result then you have to be one of the remainers who just can't accept losing

If the EU were to give us a deal that we all wanted to vote on I think a majority might want that, but you just want a vote cos we got the 1st one wrong - no chance ðŸ‘Ž

Have you been reading SILH's posts too often and been suckered into to believing his nonsense?
		
Click to expand...


Chris, have you forgotten that SILH has stated many times that they would've voted to remain and we all know that he only deals in facts


----------



## Orikoru (Sep 26, 2018)

Yeah, do another vote. All we heard before the initial vote was a pack of lies from both sides. I think in the aftermath and intervening two years most people have a bit of a better understanding. Plus we've witnessed it being managed catastrophically. I feel like quite a few people would vote differently.


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 26, 2018)

Not a fan of a second vote. Voted Remain. Still think Leaving is a mistake. But that's what we voted for and that's what we get. 

What I am in favour of is a full independent investigation into the behaviour and motives of some MP's and MEP's and any found guilty of profiteering from the immediate economic downturn should be tried as Traitors.


----------



## Crazyface (Sep 26, 2018)

bladeplayer said:



			So as an outsider (technicaly) and following coverage on different meda outlets if the leave side are so sure leaving is still what the majority want , why not have a second vote .?

*The way I see it the ordinary joe soaps on the street now have a good if not better idea of the advantages /disadvantages of the result*..
I have no doubt both sides enhanced the good and bad to influence the vote their way .

Now all this is about to get very very serious why not give the people a chance to change their mind , either way, and get a result you know for definite the majority want ..

Has any1 really got anything to lose by a second vote ? If the majority still see out as the best option,  it will be out, but if some feel they. mistakenly voted or voted without the full info of consequences haven't they got the right to change their minds

Just interested in how you the real people feel , any of ye want a second vote or happy to go with first result ?
		
Click to expand...


Really???? I think not. Please tell me what, if anything, we gain from staying in. In all the wind generated by the politicians and all the remoaners afterwards I've still to hear what we gain out of staying in.  You do know we can still go on holiday to Europe don't you? In fact half of Europe NEED us to go on holiday there.


----------



## Crazyface (Sep 26, 2018)

pauljames87 said:



			It was a decision that should never have been given to the general public. Nobody is educated enough to know what it would mean. Should be left to the people we pay to make the laws and govern the country.
		
Click to expand...

 LOL LOL LOL. so we the people are not educated enough by the state to understand what the hell those in power are doing. Seriously!?


----------



## Crazyface (Sep 26, 2018)

Rlburnside said:



			Yes agree 100%, Cameron promised a vote to appease the right wing of his party and it backfired on him badly, he must shoulder most of blame for the mess the country finds itself in,* shameful he just walked away and washed his hands of it,* his legacy will be one of the worst PMs we have ever had.

I voted remain and just wish the politicians would respect the vote of the majority and get us out be it for good or bad.
		
Click to expand...

Rather sad I thought. He was doing a reasonable job at the time, and even bwed to pressure to have a vote. Don't blame him for walking away. He was a remainer, with knobs on, and wanted no part of leaving the EU, and all those trips and dinners. He wanted to be Prime Minister but being principled he couldn't negotiate for something he didn't believe in. This is why we are in a mess coz all the negotiations are being done by remoaners. Boris and the others should have stepped up and shown us what they could do, and they've now done it. So who to vote for next time? God knows!!!!!


----------



## adam6177 (Sep 26, 2018)

Orikoru said:



			Yeah, do another vote. All we heard before the initial vote was a pack of lies from both sides. I think in the aftermath and intervening two years most people have a bit of a better understanding. Plus we've witnessed it being managed catastrophically. I feel like quite a few people would vote differently.
		
Click to expand...

Do you think that 2 years of scaremongering and lies from the all the major media outlets driven by remainers have put "the people" in a better position to make an informed decision?  If anything things are FAR worse now that pre vote as we've been barraged daily with doom and gloom from the media.

It would be an absolute brain washing farce if there were to be another vote.


----------



## pauljames87 (Sep 26, 2018)

Crazyface said:



			LOL LOL LOL. so we the people are not educated enough by the state to understand what the hell those in power are doing. Seriously!?
		
Click to expand...

What about all the misleading and wrong information given out by both sides to sway voters? 300 million a week for the nhs? How many leave votes did that sway? When it was completely untrue.

The public donâ€™t have enough facts to make a decision either way. We donâ€™t know what we fully get to the EU or understand the importance of what we do get. Maybe we underestimate it.

Far too much doubt .

Maybe their should have been a vote on if it should be decided by the commons if we should leave or not by those in the know. The public should never have the final say

And the margin was far too close. Split the country down the middle... and also under 18s get no say in the vote which is standard yet the older generation will have to live with the aftermath of this mess a lot less than say a 16 year old leaving school last summer 

Itâ€™s far far too important a decision for people who donâ€™t have the entire facts in front of them.


----------



## Orikoru (Sep 26, 2018)

adam6177 said:



			Do you think that 2 years of scaremongering and lies from the all the major media outlets driven by remainers have put "the people" in a better position to make an informed decision?  If anything things are FAR worse now that pre vote as we've been barraged daily with doom and gloom from the media.

*It would be an absolute brain washing farce if there were to be another vote.*

Click to expand...

That's what happened before. All those 'major media outlets' wanted us out and made sure it happened.


----------



## USER1999 (Sep 26, 2018)

Orikoru said:



			That's what happened before. All those 'major media outlets' wanted us out and made sure it happened.
		
Click to expand...

Are these the same major media outlets that now want us in?


----------



## Orikoru (Sep 26, 2018)

murphthemog said:



			Are these the same major media outlets that now want us in?
		
Click to expand...

According to Adam, yeah.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 26, 2018)

So we should leave the decision to our elite, the MP's, because the public are too stupid? Please watch each of the party conferences, see the MP's being interviewed and if anyone still believes that all 650 odd are an elite then I will laugh until my head falls off. I heard the Labour shadow Education Sec the other day and she can't put a sentence together. The Education Sec!!!!


----------



## Crazyface (Sep 26, 2018)

pauljames87 said:



			What about all the misleading and wrong information given out by both sides to sway voters? 300 million a week for the nhs? How many leave votes did that sway? When it was completely untrue.

The public donâ€™t have enough facts to make a decision either way. We donâ€™t know what we fully get to the EU or understand the importance of what we do get. Maybe we underestimate it.

Far too much doubt .

Maybe their should have been a vote on if it should be decided by the commons if we should leave or not by those in the know. The public should never have the final say

And the margin was far too close. Split the country down the middle... and also under 18s get no say in the vote which is standard yet the older generation will have to live with the aftermath of this mess a lot less than say a 16 year old leaving school last summer

Itâ€™s far far too important a decision for people who donâ€™t have the entire facts in front of them.
		
Click to expand...


Oh well then let's have the 16 year old help in the decision making process. Most of them still think money grows on trees and the magic fairies wash and iron their clothes. Get a grip man! If this is what you think, you shouldn't vote either.


----------



## patricks148 (Sep 26, 2018)

i feel sorry for all the leavers who voted to have control over our borders and immigration from the EU, esp when we get more from outside and supposedly have control over that and now the Tories are saying we will get more immigration from the Indian subcontinent as part of a trade deal...


----------



## woody69 (Sep 26, 2018)

Crazyface said:



			LOL LOL LOL. so we the people are not educated enough by the state to understand what the hell those in power are doing. Seriously!?
		
Click to expand...

I don't understand what is so funny. He is absolutely correct. 

It is why we elect governments to make these sort of decisions. Your average person doesn't understand the consequences to trade, borders, the economy etc. etc or the complexities of all the 100s of agreements we have in place in our relationship with the EU, the benefits it brings the downsides etc etc. it was just whittled down to mostly untrue soundbites. Still, this is all moot because the vote did happen.


----------



## USER1999 (Sep 26, 2018)

So an MP who was elected on the basis of promoting weekly bin collections is suddenly an expert in absolutely everything (esp financials)? These ifiots in parliament are no more clued in than the rest of us.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Sep 26, 2018)

I voted to leave and would do so again. This view is reinforced by all the squabbling and obstructions put in the way by the EU who are determined to cause us as much strife as possible in our attempt to leave. Negotiating a leave strategy should not be difficult but clearly the other countries do not want us to leave because they will lose a cash cow.


----------



## Tashyboy (Sep 26, 2018)

Unfortunately this thread like many others on Brexit has descended into the usual. He told lies, but he told bigger lies. The discussion is about a vote, and the over riding result at the moment is shove your second vote


----------



## Tashyboy (Sep 26, 2018)

murphthemog said:



			So an MP who was elected on the basis of promoting weekly bin collections is suddenly an expert in absolutely everything (esp financials)? These ifiots in parliament are no more clued in than the rest of us.
		
Click to expand...

PMSL when your spelling of idiots cane up as ifiots


----------



## woody69 (Sep 26, 2018)

murphthemog said:



			So an MP who was elected on the basis of promoting weekly bin collections is suddenly an expert in absolutely everything (esp financials)? These ifiots in parliament are no more clued in than the rest of us.
		
Click to expand...

An individual MP, possibly not. The Government as a whole, yeah. That's their job. 

I work within Financial Services relating to regulatory change. I don't know everything there is to know, but as a collective in my company we work together to come up with the solution we feel benefits the company most.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 26, 2018)

While I voted 'Remain', I can't see how can anyone actually justify having another vote! If there was another one, I'd certainly be inclined to vote Leave' because of that result! 

There has been no new information. The calls for another referendum are being led by those who never wanted to leave and see the current 'difficulty' of negotiations as an opportunity to reverse the result! They are corrupting the democratic process imo!

Any 'vote on the deal negotiated' would simply be another opportunity, no different to the above, for those 'Remainers' who can't accept the result! What's really needed is a pragmatic, but reasonable, approach to the negotiations - that were always going to be difficult! The brinkmanship of the EU team is thoroughly understandable. But they need to be informed of the possible consequences - to the EU and its member states - should reasonable concessions not be made!

Unfortunately, the real sticking point, imo, will come down to the Irish border - as (almost) all other borders are 'controlled' already. As none of the parties involved want a 'hard' border, some sort of quantum leap in ideas/resolution seems to be required!


----------



## ColchesterFC (Sep 26, 2018)

patricks148 said:



			i feel sorry for all the leavers who voted to have control over our borders and immigration from the EU, esp when we get more from outside and supposedly have control over that and now the Tories are saying we will get more immigration from the Indian subcontinent as part of a trade deal...
		
Click to expand...

I don't see why you'd need to feel sorry for them if they voted for control over immigration as that's exactly what we will have. 

If we require skills that those from the Indian subcontinent provide then we will allow those people to come here and that would equally apply to someone from anywhere in the world. A skills based visa system allowing people, from all around the world, in professions we need that can be adjusted according to our requirements is surely better than simply allowing anyone to come here purely because they happened to be born in an EU country.


----------



## Crazyface (Sep 26, 2018)

woody69 said:



			I don't understand what is so funny. He is absolutely correct.

It is why we elect governments to make these sort of decisions. Your average person doesn't understand the consequences to trade, borders, the economy etc. etc or the complexities of all the 100s of agreements we have in place in our relationship with the EU, the benefits it brings the downsides etc etc. it was just whittled down to mostly untrue soundbites. Still, this is all moot because the vote did happen.
		
Click to expand...

So we're thicko's then? Tell us the facts and lets us judge. Them that still don't know but care, can ask  a mate to explain it. Not telling us the facts harmed the remain arguement.


----------



## Crazyface (Sep 26, 2018)

murphthemog said:



			So an MP who was elected on the basis of promoting weekly bin collections is suddenly an expert in absolutely everything (esp financials)? These ifiots in parliament are no more clued in than the rest of us.
		
Click to expand...

Correct


----------



## patricks148 (Sep 26, 2018)

ColchesterFC said:



			I don't see why you'd need to feel sorry for them if they voted for control over immigration as that's exactly what we will have.

If we require skills that those from the Indian subcontinent provide then we will allow those people to come here and that would equally apply to someone from anywhere in the world. A skills based visa system allowing people, from all around the world, in professions we need that can be adjusted according to our requirements is surely better than simply allowing anyone to come here purely because they happened to be born in an EU country.
		
Click to expand...

i was joking of course i don't feel sorry for them


----------



## woody69 (Sep 26, 2018)

drive4show said:



			I voted to leave and would do so again. This view is reinforced by all the squabbling and obstructions put in the way by the EU who are determined to cause us as much strife as possible in our attempt to leave. Negotiating a leave strategy should not be difficult but clearly the other countries do not want us to leave because they will lose a cash cow.
		
Click to expand...

The squabbling and obstructions as you call it is because it is their club and we want to leave. For want of a better example it's like you saying you no longer wanted to pay the membership fee to your golf club and then getting the hump when they said you weren't allowed to play in their competitions anymore.


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 26, 2018)

Crazyface said:



			So we're thicko's then? Tell us the facts and lets us judge. Them that still don't know but care, can ask  a mate to explain it. Not telling us the facts harmed the remain arguement.
		
Click to expand...

Not a single person in the Country, or the World is intelligent enough to know exactly what will happen when we leave. Globalised economics is far too complex even for those fully immersed in it. Throw in Trade/Borders/Science/Immigration etc etc and its beyond comprehension.
But yeah, Derek from Sunderland can explain it to his mate Brian. Good one ðŸ¤£


----------



## woody69 (Sep 26, 2018)

Crazyface said:



			So we're thicko's then? Tell us the facts and lets us judge. Them that still don't know but care, can ask  a mate to explain it. Not telling us the facts harmed the remain arguement.
		
Click to expand...

The vast majority of the population (on both sides) is ignorant yes. You don't have to take it so personally.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Sep 26, 2018)

woody69 said:



			The squabbling and obstructions as you call it is because it is their club and we want to leave. For want of a better example it's like you saying you no longer wanted to pay the membership fee to your golf club and then getting the hump when they said you weren't allowed to play in their competitions anymore.
		
Click to expand...

Isn't it more like wanting to leave the club and then being banned from paying to play at that club. We don't want to be a member of the club but would be happy to pay to play there. Or if you were happy to be paying 1000's of pounds per year in to the club and pro shop in order to be able to play there after you left but the club decided that they were going to put obstacles in your way to stop you doing it. In much the same way as the EU is trying to put barriers in the way of us being able to spend billions of pounds a year on goods from the EU.


----------



## pauljames87 (Sep 26, 2018)

Crazyface said:



			Oh well then let's have the 16 year old help in the decision making process. Most of them still think money grows on trees and the magic fairies wash and iron their clothes. Get a grip man! If this is what you think, you shouldn't vote either.
		
Click to expand...

there is a valid argument that a 16 yo today will be more effected by these decisions than a 70yo .. yet they have no say in the decision..  not saying let them vote but its another example why it cant be left to the general public because most vote on selfish reasons and not for the greater good. I voted remain on the fact I dont want my personal situation to change at all its how I like it., however that might be selfish on other peoples needs.. same for people who voted leave they might be voting because of their own reasons

it should be left to the MPs. thats what they are paid for.


----------



## Crazyface (Sep 26, 2018)

woody69 said:



			The squabbling and obstructions as you call it is because it is their club and we want to leave. For want of a better example it's like you saying you no longer wanted to pay the membership fee to your golf club and then getting the hump when they said you weren't allowed to play in their competitions anymore.
		
Click to expand...

Not really. We don't want anything to do with them.


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 26, 2018)

ColchesterFC said:



			Isn't it more like wanting to leave the club and then being banned from paying to play at that club. We don't want to be a member of the club but would be happy to pay to play there. Or if you were happy to be paying 1000's of pounds per year in to the club and pro shop in order to be able to play there after you left but the club decided that they were going to put obstacles in your way to stop you doing it. In much the same way as the EU is trying to put barriers in the way of us being able to spend billions of pounds a year on goods from the EU.
		
Click to expand...

Almost. It's like leaving the Club then asking for preferential Pay to Play privileges and entry into the Board Comps. We're being knocked back and wil most likely have to pay the full whack to play and no Comps. 
This analogy lark could run all day.


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 26, 2018)

Crazyface said:



			Not really. We don't want anything to do with them.
		
Click to expand...

Oh FFS. We still want to trade with them. Please tell me you don't think we won't be dealing with them at all!!!!!!


----------



## Dando (Sep 26, 2018)

bluewolf said:



*Not a single person in the Country, or the World is intelligent enough to know exactly what will happen when we leave. *Globalised economics is far too complex even for those fully immersed in it. Throw in Trade/Borders/Science/Immigration etc etc and its beyond comprehension.
But yeah, Derek from Sunderland can explain it to his mate Brian. Good one ðŸ¤£
		
Click to expand...

apart from SILH who knows it will be a complete disaster and the World will stop spinning the second we leave


----------



## adam6177 (Sep 26, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			Oh FFS. We still want to trade with them. Please tell me you don't think we won't be dealing with them at all!!!!!!
		
Click to expand...

I think thats one of the biggest misconceptions of all.....that leavers somehow wanted no trading, no immigration and to be a great big Island full of racists.  Whereas it was just about making our own decisions, our own deals and having more control over who comes in.

A mate of mine works in the construction industry and he hires workers for his sites....he has said many a time that he'd rather employ people from Poland/Romania etc as they work harder than the English workers who are far more "entitled".

It's about control.


----------



## USER1999 (Sep 26, 2018)

Tashyboy said:



			PMSL when your spelling of idiots cane up as ifiots
		
Click to expand...

I noticed that before posting, and left it in anyway!


----------



## pauljames87 (Sep 26, 2018)

Crazyface said:



			Not really. We don't want anything to do with them.
		
Click to expand...

Only if we want to completely tank the economy


----------



## Pathetic Shark (Sep 26, 2018)

1.   We had a vote -  the country democratically voted to leave.
2.   The people shouting loudest for a second vote are the ones who lost.  Who would sure as hell not be doing that if they had won.
3.   No-one could have foreseen the complications over leaving Europe.    Now we have to rely on the elected politicians, too many of whom are doing what they want and not what the country wanted.
4.   The EU are going to do everything they can to screw Britain over leaving to try to stop anyone else doing the same.


----------



## woody69 (Sep 26, 2018)

adam6177 said:



			I think thats one of the biggest misconceptions of all.....that leavers somehow wanted no trading, no immigration and to be a great big Island full of racists.  Whereas it was just about making our own decisions, our own deals and having more control over who comes in.

A mate of mine works in the construction industry and he hires workers for his sites....he has said many a time that he'd rather employ people from Poland/Romania etc as they work harder than the English workers who are far more "entitled".

It's about control.
		
Click to expand...

And ironically one of the other biggest misconceptions is we do make our own decisions, have a say in all deals and maintain control over who comes in. Funny old world isn't it.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 26, 2018)

woody69 said:



			I don't understand what is so funny. He is absolutely correct.

It is why we elect governments to make these sort of decisions. Your average person doesn't understand the consequences to trade, borders, the economy etc. etc or the complexities of all the 100s of agreements we have in place in our relationship with the EU, the benefits it brings the downsides etc etc. it was just whittled down to mostly untrue soundbites. Still, this is all moot because the vote did happen.
		
Click to expand...

The vast majority of MP's are totally clueless. Their only job in parliament, which many of them don't even do, is to turn up and vote. And then they vote according to how the Whip tells them to. A nodding donkey could do that job.

The best of them become cabinet minister and then, bizarrely, get shifted from, e.g. Health to Foreign Office. Yeah, of course they are experts overnight - double lol with a lol on the side to go.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 26, 2018)

Crazyface said:



			So we're thicko's then? ....
		
Click to expand...




Crazyface said:



			...We don't want anything to do with them.
		
Click to expand...

H'mm!


----------



## woody69 (Sep 26, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			The vast majority of MP's are totally clueless. Their only job in parliament, which many of them don't even do, is to turn up and vote. And then they vote according to how the Whip tells them to. A nodding donkey could do that job.

The best of them become cabinet minister and then, bizarrely, get shifted from, e.g. Health to Foreign Office. Yeah, of course they are experts overnight - double lol with a lol on the side to go.
		
Click to expand...

I never claimed they are experts, but they are certainly more informed than average joe and their job is to research and listen to actual experts who do understand all the nuances to come to a collective decision. I am not disagreeing that there are quite a few idiots in parliament, like there are in any organisation.


----------



## Junior (Sep 26, 2018)

I've no allegiance to any political party, however, it does make me chuckle when people start slagging Teresa May off.  Imagine doing this negotiation right now ?  She has a more difficult job to do than of any our Prime Ministers in recent times and it is ultimately in a no win situation.  What ever is negotiated,  people will think we have been screwed over.  

As Bluewolf says , no one will 100% know what will happen as a result of all this, so a second vote is pointless.


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 26, 2018)

adam6177 said:



			I think thats one of the biggest misconceptions of all.....that leavers somehow wanted no trading, no immigration and to be a great big Island full of racists.  Whereas it was just about making our own decisions, our own deals and having more control over who comes in.

A mate of mine works in the construction industry and he hires workers for his sites....he has said many a time that he'd rather employ people from Poland/Romania etc as they work harder than the English workers who are far more "entitled".

It's about control.
		
Click to expand...

Whilst I agree with your point, it should be noted that it's just as big a misconception that we don't already have the vast majority of this already.


----------



## adam6177 (Sep 26, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			Whilst I agree with your point, it should be noted that it's just as big a misconception that we don't already have the vast majority of this already.
		
Click to expand...

I dont disagree at all, but for me it doesnt go far enough hence my vote.


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 26, 2018)

Can I just say, before this thread goes sideways, that this is a great little discussion. No arguing or pig headedness. The way it should be I suppose. 

Commence arguing ðŸ˜‚


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 26, 2018)

adam6177 said:



			A mate of mine works in the construction industry and he hires workers for his sites....he has said many a time that he'd rather employ people from Poland/Romania etc as they work harder than the English workers who are far more "entitled".

It's about control.
		
Click to expand...

I've employed people from all over the world, a couple of hundred, and done 10x that number of interviews. Everything from cleaners up to senior managers. There's good and not so good from every country. I've never come across the "entitled," although I have come across those that are supremely confident they are the best for the job. What I have experienced is those that stereotype individuals based on where they are from actually are part of the problem, not the solution.


----------



## woody69 (Sep 26, 2018)

Crazyface said:



			Really???? I think not. *Please tell me what, if anything, we gain from staying in.* In all the wind generated by the politicians and all the remoaners afterwards I've still to hear what we gain out of staying in.  You do know we can still go on holiday to Europe don't you? In fact half of Europe NEED us to go on holiday there.
		
Click to expand...

Here are a few gains - http://www.cbi.org.uk/insight-and-a...t-2-benefits-of-eu-membership-outweigh-costs/


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 26, 2018)

woody69 said:



			Here are a few gains - http://www.cbi.org.uk/insight-and-a...t-2-benefits-of-eu-membership-outweigh-costs/

Click to expand...

Obviously can't argue with the material gains achieved, they're facts. However, I would very much argue against some of the projections. For example, the CBI said in their doc that access to the Â£48tn global opportunities with Japan and the US wouldn't be achievable outside of the EU. I wonder how unachievable that would be if Corporation Tax was halved and the fetters taken off creative subsidies?

Anyone with half a brain could create a doc with loose projections based on the knowns but add a bit of creativity around tax breaks and incentives and all of a sudden those numbers take on a different slant.

As for protecting British jobs... oh please don't make me laugh. The German company I retired from moved production from the UK to a Southern European country based on tax breaks, incentives and labour rates. Being in the EU didn't protect 400 UK jobs, and that was a few years before Brexit was even a twinkle.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Sep 26, 2018)

Leftie said:



			Why???????????????????   We had a vote.  We had a result.  Enact it!  What don't you, and all the others who want to change the result, understand? Nothing has changed since the referendum apart from the lies and attempted manipulation of "expert" opinion (yeh.  On both sides).

The country was given the opportunity to vote in a referendum.  The MAJORITY wanted out - for whatever reason(s).  So out we should go.
		
Click to expand...

So you dont believe in democracy then?

Whose showing their bias now?


----------



## Liverbirdie (Sep 26, 2018)

chrisd said:



			How would "keep voting until you come up with the result that the 1st vote losers want" be democratic?

When do the losing voters at a General Election get a 2nd vote just because the losers aren't happy with the winning party?

Several million voters didn't bother to vote, you can't know that they were, in the majority, remainers

How do you know that 17m leavers were purely protesting and suggest that they didn't really want to leave?

As you "definitely" know it'll be a different result then you have to be one of the remainers who just can't accept losing

If the EU were to give us a deal that we all wanted to vote on I think a majority might want that, but you just want a vote cos we got the 1st one wrong - no chance ðŸ‘Ž

Have you been reading SILH's posts too often and been suckered into to believing his nonsense?
		
Click to expand...

Firstly, a general election happens every 3-5 years on average - so its different, this is possibly for good.

I didnt say that 17m leavers were a protest vote - dont know where you got that one from.

If the vote had gone the other way but packs of lies had been proven to be told by the remainers, would you not want a second vote, or would you just toddle off home with an "ah well"......

No I think for myself and havent read any of the previous threads on Brexit.

Any more guff you want debunking?


----------



## Liverbirdie (Sep 26, 2018)

Tashyboy said:



			As hobbit said in post number 3. But the thing is we are British. Not Scottish. We had a democratic vote and it went the way it went. End of story. To have a second vote sets a very dangerous precedent. Having seen the vote results. I am not alone in thinking that. It seems the minority are the loudest at shouting and moaning.
		
Click to expand...

The main reason is that it was such a close vote, if it was 60/40 it wouldnt be a conversation.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 26, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			As for protecting British jobs... oh please don't make me laugh. The German company I retired from moved production from the UK to a Southern European country based on tax breaks, incentives and labour rates. Being in the EU didn't protect 400 UK jobs, and that was a few years before Brexit was even a twinkle.
		
Click to expand...

I could reel off a whole host of factories in the UK in the electronics industry that closed, when the most efficient in the group, and production moved to other parts of the EU due to all of those things mentioned. That line of defence, as you mention, is cobblers.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 26, 2018)

We may be worse off, we may be better off when we leave but this is a side issue, we never voted for either, we voted to leave or stay in the Eu period and as the majority voted to leave then we should leave.  No Deal that keeps us in any of the Eu's institutions is acceptable as it contradicts the democratic outcome of the referendum.   Detail like the Irish border, air travel, custom checks etc are not unsurmountable issues to fix.   No more referendums, let's just get on and make the best of it.


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 26, 2018)

SocketRocket said:



			We may be worse off, we may be better off when we leave but this is a side issue, we never voted for either, we voted to leave or stay in the Eu period and as the majority voted to leave then we should leave.  No Deal that keeps us in any of the Eu's institutions is acceptable as it contradicts the democratic outcome of the referendum.   Detail like the Irish border, air travel, custom checks etc are not unsurmountable issues to fix.   No more referendums, let's just get on and make the best of it.
		
Click to expand...

The government is in no way bound to abide by the outcome of the referendum, let alone accept it blindly if it knows it's to the detriment of the country.


----------



## woody69 (Sep 26, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			Obviously can't argue with the material gains achieved, they're facts. However, I would very much argue against some of the projections. For example, the CBI said in their doc that access to the Â£48tn global opportunities with Japan and the US wouldn't be achievable outside of the EU. I wonder how unachievable that would be if Corporation Tax was halved and the fetters taken off creative subsidies?

Anyone with half a brain could create a doc with loose projections based on the knowns but add a bit of creativity around tax breaks and incentives and all of a sudden those numbers take on a different slant.

As for protecting British jobs... oh please don't make me laugh. The German company I retired from moved production from the UK to a Southern European country based on tax breaks, incentives and labour rates. Being in the EU didn't protect 400 UK jobs, and that was a few years before Brexit was even a twinkle.
		
Click to expand...

Can you point me to the bit within the link that discusses membership to the EU protects British jobs? I couldn't see it.


----------



## pauljames87 (Sep 26, 2018)

Kellfire said:



			The government is in no way bound to abide by the outcome of the referendum, let alone accept it blindly if it knows it's to the detriment of the country.
		
Click to expand...

A point that Is overlooked far too much 

The way the Toryâ€™s are playing it you would think they wnna look so bad that a general is called.. labour come in.. cancel brexit and in doing so ignore â€œthe will of the peopleâ€ making them unelectable for a long time...

They didnâ€™t count on one thing... Corbyn making himself unelectable !


----------



## drdel (Sep 26, 2018)

I've led many 'projects' helping companies restructure their European operations. Believe me trying to move stuff from France or Germany is next to impossible. So anyone who thinks the EU creates a level playing field is delusional, France and Germany take the rules they like and ignore the rest.

A second vote will clarify nothing and will embolden the EU into forcing us to adopt the Euro.


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 26, 2018)

drdel said:



			I've led many 'projects' helping companies restructure their European operations. Believe me trying to move stuff from France or Germany is next to impossible. So anyone who thinks the EU creates a level playing field is delusional, France and Germany take the rules they like and ignore the rest.

A second vote will clarify nothing and will embolden the EU into forcing us to adopt the Euro.
		
Click to expand...

ðŸ¤£ More Project Fear ðŸ˜‰ðŸ˜‰


----------



## chrisd (Sep 26, 2018)

Liverbirdie said:



			allied to many others leavers who did it as a protest vote, but didnt expect it to actually win. nd thats why leavers dont want it to happen and hide behind a "well its democracy" standpoint - see opening line.
		
Click to expand...




Liverbirdie said:



			Firstly, a general election happens every 3-5 years on average - so its different, this is possibly for good.

I didnt say that 17m leavers were a protest vote - dont know where you got that one from.

If the vote had gone the other way but packs of lies had been proven to be told by the remainers, would you not want a second vote, or would you just toddle off home with an "ah well"......

No I think for myself and havent read any of the previous threads on Brexit.

Any more guff you want debunking?
		
Click to expand...




Liverbirdie said:



			Firstly, a general election happens every 3-5 years on average - so its different, this is possibly for good.

I didnt say that 17m leavers were a protest vote - dont know where you got that one from.

If the vote had gone the other way but packs of lies had been proven to be told by the remainers, would you not want a second vote, or would you just toddle off home with an "ah well"......

No I think for myself and havent read any of the previous threads on Brexit.

Any more guff you want debunking?
		
Click to expand...

When we vote at a General Election we know it's for a limited period, when we voted for Brexit we knew it was permanent  

No, you didn't say ALL 17m were a protest vote but suggested it was a significant number which isn't provable 

No, I wouldn't have wanted a 2nd vote, just like many Remainers who don't because they rely on democracy. Also, lies WERE told by both sides  

No, I can happily debunk all guff myself thanks


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 26, 2018)

chrisd said:



			When we vote at a General Election we know it's for a limited period, when we voted for *Brexit we knew it was permanent *

No, you didn't say ALL 17m were a protest vote but suggested it was a significant number which isn't provable

No, I wouldn't have wanted a 2nd vote, just like many Remainers who don't because they rely on democracy. Also, lies WERE told by both sides 

No, I can happily debunk all guff myself thanks
		
Click to expand...

Sorry Chris but surely that canâ€™t be true as surely in a democracy we can have a vote to rejoin etc and also wasnâ€™t the initial vote actually more of a â€œguidelineâ€ etc etc as opposed to be â€œlegally binding â€œ

Lots of presumptions possibly

Remember democracy does mean things can be discussed and things can be voted on again and things can change etc 

If the government decided to follow a democratic process and have another vote to see if people still want to leave when they know what deal or no deal we will get or not get then that still being part of democracy


----------



## Tashyboy (Sep 26, 2018)

woody69 said:



			The vast majority of the population (on both sides) is ignorant yes. You don't have to take it so personally.
		
Click to expand...

I would suggest that some people
 ( like me ) have actually seen the effects of the EU and have been affected by the EU and would be more ignorant to Stay in the EU than say shove your club. Some might be ignorant and may of been persuaded by lies to vote Brexit. In the same token some people have not been affected by the EU and were taken in by the Remain lies and voted to stay. Come what may none of that warrants a second vote.


----------



## chrisd (Sep 26, 2018)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Sorry Chris but surely that canâ€™t be true as surely in a democracy we can have a vote to rejoin etc and also wasnâ€™t the initial vote actually more of a â€œguidelineâ€ etc etc as opposed to be â€œlegally binding â€œ

Lots of presumptions possibly

Remember democracy does mean things can be discussed and things can be voted on again and things can change etc

If the government decided to follow a democratic process and have another vote to see if people still want to leave when they know what deal or no deal we will get or not get then that still being part of democracy
		
Click to expand...

Not really arguing that there can't/ shouldn't be another vote Phil, but it can't just be because the losers don't like the fact that they lost. A 2nd vote on the terms would be ok by me if it was really on that one subject but you and i both know that the real reason for calling for it is simply to appease the SILH's of the country and to remain in the EU


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 26, 2018)

Kellfire said:



			The government is in no way bound to abide by the outcome of the referendum, let alone accept it blindly if it knows it's to the detriment of the country.
		
Click to expand...

The government had a vote on having a referendum that was passed by a large majority, they also put a booklet through all our doors promising to carry out the result of the referendum.  This talk of the government not being bound by the outcome is naive balderdash and we all know it. If the result had been to stay would you be saying that its not binding so should be ignored?  Of course you wouldn't so please give up on this nonsense.


----------



## woody69 (Sep 26, 2018)

Tashyboy said:



			I would suggest that some people
( like me ) have actually seen the effects of the EU and have been affected by the EU and would be more ignorant to Stay in the EU than say shove your club. Some might be ignorant and may of been persuaded by lies to vote Brexit. In the same token some people have not been affected by the EU and were taken in by the Remain lies and voted to stay. Come what may none of that warrants a second vote.
		
Click to expand...

Can you give me a little more information on how you have been affected by the EU? I'm interested to hear what it was. 

Likewise, can you expand upon your statement on the lies told by the remain camp?

Either way, I agree with your last sentence. Another vote isn't necessary IMHO.


----------



## bobmac (Sep 26, 2018)

If there was a vote on whatever deal/no deal we end up with, what choices would be on the voting form?


----------



## Blue in Munich (Sep 26, 2018)

pauljames87 said:



*there is a valid argument that a 16 yo today will be more effected by these decisions than a 70yo* .. yet they have no say in the decision..  not saying let them vote but its another example why it cant be left to the general public because most vote on selfish reasons and not for the greater good. I voted remain on the fact I dont want my personal situation to change at all its how I like it., however that might be selfish on other peoples needs.. same for people who voted leave they might be voting because of their own reasons

it should be left to the MPs. thats what they are paid for.
		
Click to expand...

There is equally a valid argument that if it turns out to be beneficial to the country then the 16 year olds will gain far more from it than the 70 year olds who are being pilloried for voting selfishly.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 26, 2018)

Liverbirdie said:



			Firstly, a general election happens every 3-5 years on average - so its different, this is possibly for good.

I didnt say that 17m leavers were a protest vote - dont know where you got that one from.

If the vote had gone the other way but packs of lies had been proven to be told by the remainers, would you not want a second vote, or would you just toddle off home with an "ah well"......

No I think for myself and havent read any of the previous threads on Brexit.

Any more guff you want debunking?
		
Click to expand...

Packs of lies had been told by the remainers.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 26, 2018)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Sorry Chris but surely that canâ€™t be true as surely in a democracy we can have a vote to rejoin etc and also wasnâ€™t the initial vote actually more of a â€œguidelineâ€ etc etc as ops of presumptions possibly

*Remember democracy does mean things can be discussed and things can be voted on again and things can change etc*

If the government decided to follow a democratic process and have another vote to see if people still want to leave when they know what deal or no deal we will get or not get then that still being part of democracy
		
Click to expand...

To be democratic the result of a vote must be enacted before the matter can be voted on again.


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 26, 2018)

I've seen numerous mentions on here regarding Countries that have voted agaist the EU, then have been "forced" to have another vote so that the "correct decision" was reached. The most famous of these obviously being the Republic of Ireland.

Now here's the interesting thing. There was recently a poll in Ireland regarding whether they'd like to leave the EU. 90% voted against leaving. 90%!!! Even allowing for statistical error and inherent bias, that's still a huge number. It's almost as though they almost made a huge mistake, but at the last minute recognised that they didn't have to commit themselves to it.

Anyhoo, here's an article from the time about that decision. The language is pretty striking is it not?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....ntisfree/2008/dec/13/eu-ireland-lisbon-treaty

Oh, and here's an article showing the recent poll. 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....to-stay-in-eu-poll-reveals-1.3488112?mode=amp


----------



## Fade and Die (Sep 26, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			I've seen numerous mentions on here regarding Countries that have voted agaist the EU, then have been "forced" to have another vote so that the "correct decision" was reached. The most famous of these obviously being the Republic of Ireland.

Now here's the interesting thing. There was recently a poll in Ireland regarding whether they'd like to leave the EU. 90% voted against leaving. 90%!!! Even allowing for statistical error and inherent bias, that's still a huge number. *It's almost as though they almost made a huge mistake, but at the last minute recognised that they didn't have to commit themselves to it.*

Anyhoo, here's an article from the time about that decision. The language is pretty striking is it not?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....ntisfree/2008/dec/13/eu-ireland-lisbon-treaty

Oh, and here's an article showing the recent poll.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/more-than-90-of-irish-people-want-to-stay-in-eu-poll-reveals-1.3488112?mode=amp

Click to expand...



Oh they was making a big mistake alright, they have taken 50 Billion Euros out of the EU since they joined...... Do you really think if the British were on such a gravy train we would have wanted out? 

https://www.irishexaminer.com/break...crease-by-200m-after-brexit-hayes-825498.html


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 26, 2018)

Fade and Die said:



			Oh they was making a big mistake alright, they have taken 50 Billion Euros out of the EU since they joined...... Do you really think if the British were on such a gravy train we would have wanted out?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/break...crease-by-200m-after-brexit-hayes-825498.html

Click to expand...

The article you've quoted states that since 2014, Ireland have been a net contributor. This means that they've used the Â£50b to improve infrastructure and industry. They've improved the Economy to such a point that they've started paying back that "debt". I'd say that makes them a success story, does it not. 
And since they've become a net contributor, they've still voted to stay by a margin of 9:1. 
Can you imagine where they'd be if they hadn't joined?


----------



## Liverbirdie (Sep 26, 2018)

SocketRocket said:



			Packs of lies had been told by the remainers.
		
Click to expand...

I have no doubt there was but what I felt was the biggest whopper was the figures bandied out and about how much they would pump into the NHS with it - that was by far and away the biggest one.

Can I also ask why a second vote isnt democratic?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 26, 2018)

SocketRocket said:



			Packs of lies had been told by the remainers.
		
Click to expand...

Biggest lie told was on the side of a bus was it not


----------



## Liverbirdie (Sep 26, 2018)

chrisd said:



			When we vote at a General Election we know it's for a limited period, when we voted for Brexit we knew it was permanent  - Exactly what I said.

No, you didn't say ALL 17m were a protest vote but suggested it was a significant number which isn't provable. - \polls have suggested that it would have been enough to alter the vote - even if 5-10% of those that voted leave did it as a protest and either didnt vote, or voted the other way would see a different result.

No, I wouldn't have wanted a 2nd vote, just like many Remainers who don't because they rely on democracy. Also, lies WERE told by both sides  - Easy to say that now, and yes lies were told by both sides, but the big one was by the leavers.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Fade and Die (Sep 26, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			The article you've quoted states that since 2014, Ireland have been a net contributor. This means that they've used the Â£50b to improve infrastructure and industry. They've improved the Economy to such a point that they've started paying back that "debt". I'd say that makes them a success story, does it not.
And since they've become a net contributor, they've still voted to stay by a margin of 9:1.
Can you imagine where they'd be if they hadn't joined?
		
Click to expand...

Its true they are a tiny net contributor now but in 2008 when they had their "Rethink" they had been on "benefits" for 35 years. I'm saying that this may have influenced their U turn. 
Just like the GB having paid nearly Half a TRILLION pounds since 1973 might have influenced our decision to leave.


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 26, 2018)

Fade and Die said:



			Its true they are a tiny net contributor now but in 2008 when they had their "Rethink" they had been on "benefits" for 35 years. I'm saying that this may have influenced their U turn.
Just like the GB having paid nearly Half a TRILLION pounds since 1973 might have influenced our decision to leave.
		
Click to expand...

Strange that it would influence an immediate U Turn but not the original vote!! Are you saying that they didn't have enough information during the first vote, but when presented with better info they changed their minds? Then went on to improve their economy and become a net contributor?

It almost seems like you're making the argument for a 2nd vote ðŸ¤”ðŸ˜‰


----------



## woody69 (Sep 26, 2018)

SocketRocket said:



			Packs of lies had been told by the remainers.
		
Click to expand...

Can you be more specific?


----------



## Fade and Die (Sep 26, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			Strange that it would influence an immediate U Turn but not the original vote!! Are you saying that they didn't have enough information during the first vote, but when presented with better info they changed their minds? Then went on to improve their economy and become a net contributor?

It almost seems like you're making the argument for a 2nd vote ðŸ¤”ðŸ˜‰
		
Click to expand...


Maybe they got cold feet in the face of project fear!.........

 Maybe they realized they would have to start paying their way and didn't fancy it. Bit like the Scots...... maybe its a Celtic trait?


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 26, 2018)

Fade and Die said:



			Maybe they got cold feet in the face of project fear!.........

Maybe they realized they would have to start paying their way and didn't fancy it. Bit like the Scots...... maybe its a Celtic trait? 

Click to expand...

Hang on. You can't have it both ways. First off they changed their minds because they became better informed. Then they changed their minds because they were lied to!! Either way, they appear to have made the right choice in the 2nd vote. A 2nd vote that had avid Euro sceptics of the time frothing at the mouth and claiming it was anti democratic etc. 
Now they're overwhelmingly in favour of the EU in only 10 years. Maybe we could learn something. Probably not though ðŸ˜‰


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 26, 2018)

woody69 said:



			Can you be more specific?
		
Click to expand...

Do I really have to explain. Just look at project fear from Cameron and Osborne.


----------



## Fade and Die (Sep 26, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			Hang on. You can't have it both ways. First off they changed their minds because they became better informed. Then they changed their minds because they were lied to!! Either way, they appear to have made the right choice in the 2nd vote. A 2nd vote that had avid Euro sceptics of the time frothing at the mouth and claiming it was anti democratic etc.
Now they're overwhelmingly in favour of the EU in only 10 years. Maybe we could learn something. Probably not though ðŸ˜‰
		
Click to expand...

In the words of Foxholer......Er No!

I said the Irish had a good reason for remaining. They was trousering loads of loot.

I said WE have a good reason for leaving....they are bleeding us white. (imo)

The reason the Irish changed their mind i do not know but if i had to guess i would say that they was subjected to an endless barrage of democracy deniers wailing on about how disastrous it would be.  

And can you really say anyone is better informed? No one knows whats going to happen, I expect we will end up somewhere between Project Fear and Project Bullshit, and much like the Millennium Bug most people will be unaffected.


----------



## chrisd (Sep 26, 2018)

When we vote at a General Election we know it's for a limited period, when we voted for Brexit we knew it was permanent - Exactly what I said. - except you used this to try and justify having another go at a "once only vote" and not accept the true democracy of the original vote

No, you didn't say ALL 17m were a protest vote but suggested it was a significant number which isn't provable. - \polls have suggested that it would have been enough to alter the vote - even if 5-10% of those that voted leave did it as a protest and either didnt vote, or voted the other way would see a different result. - or as I'd put it "If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle" I've seen Governments at General Elections formed with smaller majorities but never a re vote cos we didn't like the result

 I wouldn't have wanted a 2nd vote, just like many Remainers who don't because they rely on democracy. Also, lies WERE told by both sides - Easy to say that now, and yes lies were told by both sides, but the big one was by the leavers. - simply not true, "project fear" was every much a pack of lies as any told by brexiteers and if we voted again the two sides would lie again.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 26, 2018)

Fade and Die said:



			In the words of Foxholer......Er No!

I said the Irish had a good reason for remaining. They was trousering loads of loot.

I said WE have a good reason for leaving....they are bleeding us white. (imo)

The reason the Irish changed their mind i do not know but if i had to guess i would say that they was subjected to an endless barrage of democracy deniers wailing on about how disastrous it would be. 

And can you really say anyone is better informed? No one knows whats going to happen, I expect we will end up somewhere between Project Fear and Project Bullshit, and much like the Millennium Bug most people will be unaffected.
		
Click to expand...

Ireland like Greece went on a spending fest with Eu money, Germany were happy to let them when they were buying their products. Eventually the bubble burst and the EU cut off the money supply, the UK were very generous in helping to bail them out.  They had the option of remaining with Eu austerity or going bankrupt.

Were better off out from this failed project.


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 26, 2018)

Fade and Die said:



			In the words of Foxholer......Er No!

I said the Irish had a good reason for remaining. They was trousering loads of loot.

I said WE have a good reason for leaving....they are bleeding us white. (imo)

The reason the Irish changed their mind i do not know but if i had to guess i would say that they was subjected to an endless barrage of democracy deniers wailing on about how disastrous it would be. 

And can you really say anyone is better informed? No one knows whats going to happen, I expect we will end up somewhere between Project Fear and Project Bullshit, and much like the Millennium Bug most people will be unaffected.
		
Click to expand...

Still avoiding the actual point though. Did Ireland make the right choice the 2nd time around. All the evidence points to a "YES". 

Also quite telling that you reference the Millenium Bug. You are aware of the vast amounts of work that went on in the background to make it look like it was not a problem? I would look into it. It's quite eye opening.


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 27, 2018)

SocketRocket said:



			Ireland like Greece went on a spending fest with Eu money, Germany were happy to let them when they were buying their products. Eventually the bubble burst and the EU cut off the money supply, the UK were very generous in helping to bail them out.  They had the option of remaining with Eu austerity or going bankrupt.

Were better off out from this failed project.
		
Click to expand...

Ireland has already paid over E400m in interest payments alone since 2010. And is still a net contributor to the EU. 
And if Irelands banks needing money makes them a basket case Economy then heaven forbid you take a closer look at our financial institutions at the same time ðŸ˜‚


----------



## ColchesterFC (Sep 27, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			The article you've quoted states that since 2014, Ireland have been a net contributor. This means that they've used the Â£50b to improve infrastructure and industry. They've improved the Economy to such a point that they've started paying back that "debt". I'd say that makes them a success story, does it not.
And since they've become a net contributor, they've still voted to stay by a margin of 9:1.
Can you imagine where they'd be if they hadn't joined?
		
Click to expand...

Is it possible that Ireland are a net contributor now because "poorer" countries than them have joined the EU? In the earlier years were Ireland considered one of the poorer countries but as the EU expanded new worse off countries than them have joined they have moved up the list to the point that they now contribute rather than receive?


P.S. I have no idea which is why I'm asking this as a question rather than making a suggestion or statement.


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 27, 2018)

ColchesterFC said:



			Is it possible that Ireland are a net contributor now because "poorer" countries than them have joined the EU? In the earlier years were Ireland considered one of the poorer countries but as the EU expanded new worse off countries than them have joined they have moved up the list to the point that they now contribute rather than receive?

P.S. I have no idea which is why I'm asking this as a question rather than making a suggestion or statement.
		
Click to expand...

It's a good question and I couldn't really explain fully why they're now a net contributor. I'm not convinced that the contributions are based on a sliding scale of success though. It's worth looking into ðŸ‘

Edit - Just re-checked and a countries EU contributions are calculated using GNI (gross national income). This means that as the Irish economy has grown at an individual level (not just a Corporate one) then their contributions have grown.


----------



## Dando (Sep 27, 2018)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Biggest lie told was on the side of a bus was it not
		
Click to expand...

Itâ€™s only a lie if they promised that money would be spent on the NHS


----------



## MegaSteve (Sep 27, 2018)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Biggest lie told was on the side of a bus was it not
		
Click to expand...


Nope... It came from the mouth of #evilinasuit Carney... And, to make it worse he's started to pedal the same line again...

Now, this would be bad enough if it was Labour that was running the house...
But it's not... It's the tory boys 'n girls whose cornerstone of electioneering, for the last 4/5 decades, has been house ownership for the many...


----------



## chrisd (Sep 27, 2018)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Biggest lie told was on the side of a bus was it not
		
Click to expand...

Most of the prominent leavers had said long before voting day that the bus was not accurate and disassociated themselves from it, I especially remember Farage saying that it was not necessarily  the right amount of money but that the money not given to the EU annually would benefit the UK


----------



## adam6177 (Sep 27, 2018)

I notice the bus thing has come back up again and for me it is the biggest cop out of them all and is a lazy argument.  The slogan on the side of the bus said "we send the EU Â£350 million a week lets fund our NHS instead vote leave".

Firstly, that slogan was written by a campaign team for brexit and NOT by those that have the power to make a decision on how to fund the NHS.
Secondly, it quite clearly does NOT say that of the Â£350 million any of it would be used to fund the NHS, let alone all of it.

Those that use it as the "lies" argument have chosen to read between the lines, make up their own story and spin their own agenda trying to make out it was some kind of promise, it quite clearly was not a promise of any sort but showed how the money could be used.


----------



## AmandaJR (Sep 27, 2018)

Isn't there already a 50+ page thread on this? Get back on there and continue to argue about everything Brexit apart the second vote this one is about!


----------



## ColchesterFC (Sep 27, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			It's a good question and I couldn't really explain fully why they're now a net contributor. I'm not convinced that the contributions are based on a sliding scale of success though. It's worth looking into ðŸ‘

Edit - Just re-checked and a countries EU contributions are calculated using GNI (gross national income). This means that as the Irish economy has grown at an individual level (not just a Corporate one) then their contributions have grown.
		
Click to expand...

I'm offshore so our internet is rubbish but is there somewhere that shows EU contributions each year? Just wondering if Ireland is now a net contributor because its annual payments have increased considerably or because EU payments to Ireland have decreased significantly?

As an example (figures plucked from thin air) if Ireland have been paying Â£500 million per year since they joined and up to 2014 were receiving Â£750 million from the EU but after 2014 they were still paying Â£500 million but only getting Â£300 million back  (because the rest was being given to the new poorer countries) then they have become a net contributor without any change to their economy.


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 27, 2018)

bladeplayer said:



			So as an outsider (technicaly) and following coverage on different meda outlets if the leave side are so sure leaving is still what the majority want , why not have a second vote .?

The way I see it the ordinary joe soaps on the street now have a good if not better idea of the advantages /disadvantages of the result..
I have no doubt both sides enhanced the good and bad to influence the vote their way .

Now all this is about to get very very serious why not give the people a chance to change their mind , either way, and get a result you know for definite the majority want ..

Has any1 really got anything to lose by a second vote ? If the majority still see out as the best option,  it will be out, but if some feel they. mistakenly voted or voted without the full info of consequences haven't they got the right to change their minds

Just interested in how you the real people feel , any of ye want a second vote or happy to go with first result ?
		
Click to expand...

Hey Bill. How about we throw it back to you. As a representative of a country that rejected the EU, then had a 2nd vote forced upon you, then voted for the EU. 

How did you feel then and how do you feel now. I'm genuinely interested in your POV as I'm sure we can learn something ðŸ‘


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 27, 2018)

ColchesterFC said:



			I'm offshore so our internet is rubbish but is there somewhere that shows EU contributions each year? Just wondering if Ireland is now a net contributor because its annual payments have increased considerably or because EU payments to Ireland have decreased significantly?

As an example (figures plucked from thin air) if Ireland have Benn paying Â£500 million per year since they joined and up to 2014 were receiving Â£750 million from the EU but after 2014 they were still paying Â£500 million but only getting Â£300 million back  (because the rest was being given to the new poorer countries) then they have become a net contributor without any change to their economy.
		
Click to expand...

I think it's a bit of both. Their contributions have increased along with independent wealth. Their money back has decreased as most of the major infrastructure work has been completed. I'm far from an expert though so I'm happy to be corrected.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 27, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			I've seen numerous mentions on here regarding Countries that have voted agaist the EU, then have been "forced" to have another vote so that the "correct decision" was reached. The most famous of these obviously being the Republic of Ireland.

Now here's the interesting thing. There was recently a poll in Ireland regarding whether they'd like to leave the EU. 90% voted against leaving. 90%!!! Even allowing for statistical error and inherent bias, that's still a huge number. It's almost as though they almost made a huge mistake, but at the last minute recognised that they didn't have to commit themselves to it.

Anyhoo, here's an article from the time about that decision. The language is pretty striking is it not?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....ntisfree/2008/dec/13/eu-ireland-lisbon-treaty

Oh, and here's an article showing the recent poll.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/more-than-90-of-irish-people-want-to-stay-in-eu-poll-reveals-1.3488112?mode=amp

Click to expand...

Irish law requires that changes to EU Treaties require an amendment to the Irish Constitution. An amendment to the Irish Constitution requires a referendum. That referendum rejected it, so the Irish government and EU renegotiated the treaty and came up with one that was acceptable to the Irish electorate in the (required) referendum. It was not the EU that forced the Irish to have another vote; it was the Irish electorate that required the EU to change the treaty so that it was acceptable to the Irish electorate! According to both major polls subsequent to the rejection, the major reason was simply that the treaty was not understood! Irish identity, neutrality and a lack of trust of politicians were other major reasons!

That strikes me as a demonstration of the power the electorate can have over those that 'rule'!

The Irish (effectively) renegotiated the treaty, adding protection for their concerns. 

The Irish economy happened to be significant trouble when the 2nd referendum took place. Membership of the EU meant that significant assistance/support could/would be obtained from the EU, so that, along with the renegotiation 'changed the minds' of the Irish electorate and the 2nd referendum was passed by a 2:1.

The subsequent success of the Irish economy could be deemed a success story for the EU also! I believe that this 'success story' is the reason for the overwhelming desire by the Irish to stay in the EU.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 27, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			...As a representative of a country that rejected the EU, *then had a 2nd vote forced upon you*, then voted for the EU.
...
		
Click to expand...

See above why the bit in bold is a myth!


----------



## Liverbirdie (Sep 27, 2018)

chrisd said:



			When we vote at a General Election we know it's for a limited period, when we voted for Brexit we knew it was permanent - Exactly what I said. - except you used this to try and justify having another go at a "once only vote" and not accept the true democracy of the original vote

No, you didn't say ALL 17m were a protest vote but suggested it was a significant number which isn't provable. - \polls have suggested that it would have been enough to alter the vote - even if 5-10% of those that voted leave did it as a protest and either didnt vote, or voted the other way would see a different result. - or as I'd put it "If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle" I've seen Governments at General Elections formed with smaller majorities but never a re vote cos we didn't like the result

I wouldn't have wanted a 2nd vote, just like many Remainers who don't because they rely on democracy. Also, lies WERE told by both sides - Easy to say that now, and yes lies were told by both sides, but the big one was by the leavers. - simply not true, "project fear" was every much a pack of lies as any told by brexiteers and if we voted again the two sides would lie again.
		
Click to expand...

Lets boil it down to one thing - how is a second vote undemocratic?

I know it wasnt via referendum but if "we" hadnt changed our mind in 1940, we may still have been very much a forced part of Europe, even now!!!!


----------



## USER1999 (Sep 27, 2018)

Liverbirdie said:



			Lets boil it down to one thing - how is a second vote undemocratic?
		
Click to expand...

Because the result of the first vote has not been acted upon?


----------



## Liverbirdie (Sep 27, 2018)

murphthemog said:



			Because the result of the first vote has not been acted upon?
		
Click to expand...

It still doesnt make a 2nd vote undemocratic, especially if its a one-way journey.


----------



## bobmac (Sep 27, 2018)

Liverbirdie said:



			Lets boil it down to one thing - how is a second vote undemocratic?
		
Click to expand...

If you wanted to buy a new car and the choice was BMW or MERC, your family have a vote. They all vote BMW but you want the Merc. 
Do you buy the BMW or wait a few months and have another vote?


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 27, 2018)

Foxholer said:



			See above why the bit in bold is a myth!
		
Click to expand...

Was it mandatory that the Irish should have the 2nd vote? Could they have just rejected the Treaty and left it there?

The 2nd vote was railed against by Eurosceptics. They howled about a lack of democracy and EU bullies. Even the British media shook their fists at the EU "Henry Ford" style of democracy. 

Once again you're attempting to divert and dilute the (good natured and informative) discussion.


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 27, 2018)

bobmac said:



			If you wanted to buy a new car and the choice was BMW or MERC, your family have a vote. They all vote BMW but you want the Merc.
Do you buy the BMW or wait a few months and have another vote?
		
Click to expand...

Why not test drive both and then ask again? Point out all the features that were previously missed. Debunk the MPG figures and find them out for yourself. Quite simply the best way to do it.


----------



## bobmac (Sep 27, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			Why not test drive both and then ask again? Point out all the features that were previously missed. Debunk the MPG figures and find them out for yourself. Quite simply the best way to do it.
		
Click to expand...

Even if the BMW road tax is Â£0 and the Merc is Â£500 (or Â£250m)


----------



## Papas1982 (Sep 27, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			Why not test drive both and then ask again? Point out all the features that were previously missed. Debunk the MPG figures and find them out for yourself. Quite simply the best way to do it.
		
Click to expand...

But we havenâ€™t given brexit a test drive have we?

Weâ€™ve had years as part of the Eu, during that time eniugh people decided they wanted out. Why now should we refuse to honour their choice?

Until we leave, itâ€™s all just ifs and buts, we canâ€™t say it has been worse as we havenâ€™t had it yet.


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 27, 2018)

bobmac said:



			Even if the BMW road tax is Â£0 and the Merc is Â£500 (or Â£250m)
		
Click to expand...

That's 2 very different cars ðŸ¤£


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 27, 2018)

Papas1982 said:



			But we havenâ€™t given brexit a test drive have we?

Weâ€™ve had years as part of the Eu, during that time eniugh people decided they wanted out. Why now should we refuse to honour their choice?

Until we leave, itâ€™s all just ifs and buts, we canâ€™t say it has been worse as we havenâ€™t had it yet.
		
Click to expand...

We weren't always in the EU.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 27, 2018)

After 43years of EU membership, Ireland became a net contributor in 2016. In terms of what they pay and what they receive in terms of subsidies and spending on infrastructure projects there's about â‚¬500m difference. Pocket change compared to what the 3 major contributors hand over but not to be sniffed at when you consider where the economy was from 2008 through to 2014.

What is a concern for Ireland is a demand for a big increase this year, up 35% on last year, and a projected increase by a further â‚¬400m for next year to cover the UK's departure. This represents an increase of 52% in 2 years. Beyond that there is the new budget under discussion for a start date of Jan 1st 2021, which includes funding for centrally controlled border guards(federalism at its worst) and the EU army that Macron and Merkel are pushing for.


----------



## Papas1982 (Sep 27, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			We weren't always in the EU.
		
Click to expand...

When we joined the EU it was for trade, not the all encompassing ruling body it is now. 

We have been in it long enough now that those under 50 wonâ€™t have lived or worked much prior to it forming. So itâ€™s not like most of the electorate really can compare before and after.


----------



## bobmac (Sep 27, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			That's 2 very different cars ðŸ¤£
		
Click to expand...

Just like staying in the EU and leaving then, 2 very different situations.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 27, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			Was it mandatory that the Irish should have the 2nd vote? Could they have just rejected the Treaty and left it there?
...
		
Click to expand...

Well, the Lisbon Treaty would have been stymied, so the EU had to get Irish agreement. 

So, effectively, Yes, there had to be a 2nd vote. 



bluewolf said:



			...
The 2nd vote was railed against by Eurosceptics. They howled about a lack of democracy and EU bullies. Even the British media shook their fists at the EU "Henry Ford" style of democracy.
...
		
Click to expand...

Propaganda! 

Their (anti-EU) reasons for doing so were nothing to do with the real reason for the 2nd vote - which was Irish (and EU) law!

The cries for a 2nd referendum on UK leaving EU are (at least seem to me to be) for completely different reasons!


bluewolf said:



			...
Once again you're attempting to divert and dilute the (good natured and informative) discussion.
		
Click to expand...

You jest, surely! If not please explain!


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 27, 2018)

Foxholer said:



			Well, the Lisbon Treaty would have been stymied, so the EU had to get Irish agreement.

So, effectively, Yes, there had to be a 2nd vote.


Propaganda!

Their (anti-EU) reasons for doing so were nothing to do with the real reason for the 2nd vote - which was Irish (and EU) law!

The cries for a 2nd referendum on UK leaving EU are (at least seem to me to be) for completely different reasons!


You jest, surely! If not please explain!
		
Click to expand...

No, there didn't have to be a 2nd vote. The EU needed one but Ireland didn't have to hold one. They could have sat back and claimed that IREXIT was IREXIT. 

Not Propaganda, unless you agree that all the recent Brexit coverage is also Propaganda. In which case, my original post stands. 

Not joking. Your petty hair splitting is one of the reasons that good discussions deteriorate. You have no concept of the limitations of forum discussions. I'm not the first person to ask that you either put me on ignore or learn some restraint and don't respond please


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 27, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			After 43years of EU membership, Ireland became a net contributor in 2016. In terms of what they pay and what they receive in terms of subsidies and spending on infrastructure projects there's about â‚¬500m difference. Pocket change compared to what the 3 major contributors hand over but not to be sniffed at when you consider where the economy was from 2008 through to 2014.

What is a concern for Ireland is a demand for a big increase this year, up 35% on last year, and a projected increase by a further â‚¬400m for next year to cover the UK's departure. This represents an increase of 52% in 2 years. Beyond that there is the new budget under discussion for a start date of Jan 1st 2021, which includes funding for centrally controlled border guards(federalism at its worst) and the EU army that Macron and Merkel are pushing for.
		
Click to expand...

The increased demand was known when they ran the recent poll. They still voted 9:1 in favour.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 27, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			No, there didn't have to be a 2nd vote. The EU needed one but Ireland didn't have to hold one. They could have sat back and claimed that IREXIT was IREXIT.
...
		
Click to expand...

Twaddle!
As membership of the EU was/is bound within the Irish Constitution - through various amendments, it would have unconstitutional to do so - unless a referendum took place to enact that action!



bluewolf said:



			...
Not Propaganda, unless you agree that all the recent Brexit coverage is also Propaganda. In which case, my original post stands.
...
		
Click to expand...

Propaganda and B/S! 
Newspapers and politicians peddling their own views by making statements that mislead or are simply not based on facts! 

And certainly much of Brexit coverage, by both sides, WAS propaganda - the Bus text being the most obvious (and successful imo) example. 



bluewolf said:



			...
Not joking. Your petty hair splitting is one of the reasons that good discussions deteriorate. You have no concept of the limitations of forum discussions. I'm not the first person to ask that you either put me on ignore or learn some restraint and don't respond please
		
Click to expand...

I reserve the right to 'correct' any errors of fact I deem significant!


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 27, 2018)

Foxholer said:



			Twaddle!
As membership of the EU was/is bound within the Irish Constitution - through various amendments, it would have unconstitutional to do so - unless a referendum took place to enact that action!


Propaganda and B/S!
Newspapers and politicians peddling their own views by making statements that mislead or are simply not based on facts!

And certainly much of Brexit coverage, by both sides, WAS propaganda - the Bus text being the most obvious (and successful imo) example.


I reserve the right to 'correct' any errors of fact I deem significant!
		
Click to expand...

You should probably use that God Complex to inform the then Irish Prime Minister who clearly wasn't as well versed in Irish constitutional law as you. 

 On the eve of the June 2009 European council meeting, the then Irish prime minister, Brian Cowen, wrote to his counterparts saying that without legally binding guarantees he was unwilling to hold a referendum. With such guarantees, the government was prepared to go back to the electorate to ask â€œis this your final answer?â€

A direct quote from an article in the Guardian by Bridgid Laffan.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Sep 27, 2018)

bobmac said:



			If you wanted to buy a new car and the choice was BMW or MERC, your family have a vote. They all vote BMW but you want the Merc.
Do you buy the BMW or wait a few months and have another vote?
		
Click to expand...

I wont qualify this with an answer as its so unlike the subject matter.


----------



## woody69 (Sep 27, 2018)

SocketRocket said:



			Do I really have to explain. Just look at project fear from Cameron and Osborne.
		
Click to expand...

So, you're saying you can't be specific?


----------



## chrisd (Sep 27, 2018)

Liverbirdie said:



			Lets boil it down to one thing - how is a second vote undemocratic?

I know it wasnt via referendum but if "we" hadnt changed our mind in 1940, we may still have been very much a forced part of Europe, even now!!!!
		
Click to expand...

Because,it is undemocratic (as Murph has said)

You can't tell people that it's a one off vote where the result will lead down a certain path, then when the losers moan you give them a 2nd, 3rd vote


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 27, 2018)

chrisd said:



			Because,it is undemocratic (as Murph has said)

You can't tell people that it's a one off vote where the result will lead down a certain path, then when the losers moan you give them a 2nd, 3rd vote
		
Click to expand...

A true democracy would allow for a change of mind.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Sep 27, 2018)

Kellfire said:



			A true democracy would allow for a change of mind.
		
Click to expand...

A 2nd vote would take away the democracy of the first one.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 27, 2018)

If we have a 2nd, when would we get the third? Could we vote whether to stay in or out every 3 yrs?

Democracy is fine but you also need stability and to avoid chaos and confusion.


----------



## patricks148 (Sep 27, 2018)

lets face it its all David Cameron's fault, just a yes /no with no thought for how the question and what the majority should be to carry through leaving. then buggered of leaving a right mess.


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 27, 2018)

drive4show said:



			A 2nd vote would take away the democracy of the first one.
		
Click to expand...

No it wouldn't, because if the voting public want Brexit, the vote will still say yes to leaving the EU. 

Why do people struggle to understand this? :\


----------



## Tashyboy (Sep 27, 2018)

woody69 said:



			Can you give me a little more information on how you have been affected by the EU? I'm interested to hear what it was.

Likewise, can you expand upon your statement on the lies told by the remain camp?

Either way, I agree with your last sentence. Another vote isn't necessary IMHO.
		
Click to expand...

The EU were given the opportunity to support British Mining, my industry with the same subsidies that are/ were given to other countries in the EU. The industry would of eventually closed but the blow was softened. The help never came. Lies from thre main camp, The EU will help industry and trade. I am proof they will pick and choose who they help.


----------



## Dando (Sep 27, 2018)

If only Delc was still here to give us his opinion on the matter


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 27, 2018)

Kellfire said:



			No it wouldn't, because if the voting public want Brexit, the vote will still say yes to leaving the EU.

Why do people struggle to understand this? :\
		
Click to expand...

A fundamental part of the democratic process is "agenda control." This is when the decision enacting process is handed back to a government. For it to be a true democracy the representative politician must enact the result of a vote. This doesn't take away the opportunity of a second/third/fourth vote, but for it to be a true democracy the loop must be closed between asking the citizens what they want, first vote, and then enacting what they voted for.

Why do you struggle to understand this?


----------



## drdel (Sep 27, 2018)

I struggle with the question a second vote would ask.

If it was YES or NO to EU membership that would totally undermine democracy.

But what other form of words are there that distills the issue to one question. You can't have multiple questions because, as any mathematician will soon tell you, when there are millions of voters the differences will be very narrow and so any result could just be 'random' errors so potentially dogged by insufficient margin.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 27, 2018)

Kellfire said:



			No it wouldn't, because if the voting public want Brexit, the vote will still say yes to leaving the EU.

Why do people struggle to understand this? :\
		
Click to expand...

How many other votes would you allow and how often would you allow them? This is such a seismic issue that for the stability of the country we can not keep having it. We had a vote, we don't need another to double check or triple check. It ends up being like Mrs Doyle asking Ted if he wants a cup of tea, "are you sure, are you sure, go on, go on, have one"


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 27, 2018)

Dando said:



			If only Delc was still here to give us his opinion on the matter
		
Click to expand...

He'd probably tell us the first vote is null and void because it took place under the auspices of British Summer Time, not GMT, hence a percentage of votes were cast after the polls should have closed.


----------



## chrisd (Sep 27, 2018)

Kellfire said:



			A true democracy would allow for a change of mind.
		
Click to expand...

I trust that you're just joking


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 27, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			You should probably use that God Complex to inform the then Irish Prime Minister who clearly wasn't as well versed in Irish constitutional law as you.

On the eve of the June 2009 European council meeting, the then Irish prime minister, Brian Cowen, wrote to his counterparts saying that without legally binding guarantees he was unwilling to hold a referendum. With such guarantees, the government was prepared to go back to the electorate to ask â€œis this your final answer?â€

A direct quote from an article in the Guardian by Bridgid Laffan.
		
Click to expand...

Oh Dear! Try re-reading the article! 

Earlier on in the article is the following....

*"Both Denmark and Irelandheld second referendums on EU treaties within 18 months of the first ballot. There is a widespread perception that these second votes were held at the behest of the EU and that these small states were bullied into doing so. *

*This fundamentally misrepresents the political dynamics involved. In all cases governments, with the support of their parliaments, engaged in a sophisticated political exercise of managing the cross-cutting dynamics of domestic and EU-level politics. The exercise of national political authority was to the fore." *

If you read on, you should note that the article actually confirms my post about the reasons for the original 'No' vote and the changes made to the original Lisbon Treaty. 

So the article actually backs up what i posted earlier - and have posted a couple of times before too! Though I'd challenge the connection between the *requirement *for a 2nd Irish referendum an the *wish* for a 2nd Brexit one, simply by those who wish to obtain a different result!

Cowen's statement was from a very strong 'negotiating' position! Without a 'Yes' result from a 2nd referendum, the Lisbon Treaty would fail to be ratified!


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 27, 2018)

woody69 said:



			So, you're saying you can't be specific?
		
Click to expand...

I can be but all you need to do is look back at the project fear lies that cameron, osborne and their mates put out. Surely you can recall that or do you have a brexit only filter on your memory.


----------



## Dando (Sep 27, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			He'd probably tell us the first vote is null and void because it took place under the auspices of British Summer Time, not GMT, hence a percentage of votes were cast after the polls should have closed.
		
Click to expand...

I miss being call a "swivel eyed loon"


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 27, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			A fundamental part of the democratic process is "agenda control." This is when the decision enacting process is handed back to a government. For it to be a true democracy the representative politician must enact the result of a vote. This doesn't take away the opportunity of a second/third/fourth vote, but for it to be a true democracy the loop must be closed between asking the citizens what they want, first vote, and then enacting what they voted for.

Why do you struggle to understand this?
		
Click to expand...

I understand your premise. I just disagree with it.

There is no legal reason why the first referendum had to be acted upon? True or false? True.

There is no legal reason why a second referendum could not be undertaken? True or false? True.

That's all that actually matters and it's clear that the voting public know a lot more about the process now than they did so any result would be a better indication of the public's view.


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 27, 2018)

chrisd said:



			I trust that you're just joking
		
Click to expand...

So in your mind a democracy is where a decision is made and adhered to forever?


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Sep 27, 2018)

Kellfire said:



			No it wouldn't, because if the voting public want Brexit, the vote will still say yes to leaving the EU.

Why do people struggle to understand this? :\
		
Click to expand...

What if a 2nd vote resulted in a vote to stay in the EU? Everyone had the opportunity to vote last time but many didn't, what about the democratic choice made by the 52% last time?


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 27, 2018)

Kellfire said:



			No it wouldn't, because if the voting public want Brexit, the vote will still say yes to leaving the EU.

Why do people struggle to understand this? :\
		
Click to expand...

Your logic is like a man who puts a gun to his head and says to his wife "dont look so smug, your going to get it next"


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 27, 2018)

drive4show said:



			What if a 2nd vote resulted in a vote to stay in the EU? Everyone had the opportunity to vote last time but many didn't, what about the democratic choice made by the 52% last time?
		
Click to expand...

Then we'd almost certain remain because it's what the leading politicians want.


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 27, 2018)

SocketRocket said:



			Your logic is like a man who puts a gun to his head and says to his wife "dont look so smug, your going to get it next"
		
Click to expand...

It really isn't. You're still _really _struggling to understand something incredibly simple.

Forget your own personal wants from this process. Forget the propaganda on both sides. Think of the black and white of it.

If the public want Brexit, they'll vote for it again.

If they now don't, they won't.

The will of the people (only now with more knowledge) would be revealed by a second referendum. This may demonstrate a change of opinion. This wouldn't be a circumvention of democracy, it would be allowing the public to change their mind.

No matter what the result of a potential second referendum, the government wouldn't have to reverse the Brexit process as it's NOT legally binding.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 27, 2018)

Kellfire said:



			I understand your premise. I just disagree with it.

There is no legal reason why the first referendum had to be acted upon? True or false? True.

There is no legal reason why a second referendum could not be undertaken? True or false? True.

That's all that actually matters and it's clear that the voting public know a lot more about the process now than they did so any result would be a better indication of the public's view.
		
Click to expand...

Its not my premise. And its not my problem that you don't understand the definition of democracy as written by far more intelligent people than you or i.

As for the rest of your post, you're spot on. But if you want true democracy you are wrong to say a second vote has to be had before enacting the result of the first vote. And that's where you make a choice  about a citizen led democracy.

And I look at your last sentence a little quizzically. Do the public know more than they did? There's been lots of opinions and projections but there was before the first vote too. Have some Remainers changed their minds and well as some Leavers changed theirs? I know of two young Remainers who have said they will vote Leave if there's a second vote. Both because they feel the call for a second vote is an affront to democracy. One of them has also stated that she doesn't like the way the EU have behaved.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 27, 2018)

I guess if the public still want to leave the EU a second vote would 100% confirm that , people know a little more about the process , they know that we could leave with no deal etc etc. They could sort out a deal and then go to the public and say â€œthis is what deal we have agreed with the EU â€œ - â€œ do you still want to leave ?â€ 

If the desire to leave is that strong then the vote will be academic but if itâ€™s what I think that people are still very much unsure then it would be another close vote 

Letâ€™s be honest though - if we did leave and struggled do we think we wouldnâ€™t be welcomed back


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 27, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			Its not my premise. And its not my problem that you don't understand the definition of democracy as written by far more intelligent people than you or i.

As for the rest of your post, you're spot on. But if you want true democracy you are wrong to say a second vote has to be had before enacting the result of the first vote. And that's where you make a choice  about a citizen led democracy.

And I look at your last sentence a little quizzically. Do the public know more than they did? There's been lots of opinions and projections but there was before the first vote too. Have some Remainers changed their minds and well as some Leavers changed theirs? I know of two young Remainers who have said they will vote Leave if there's a second vote. Both because they feel the call for a second vote is an affront to democracy. One of them has also stated that she doesn't like the way the EU have behaved.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't say a second vote has to happen. I'm saying that having it would not stop democracy. 

And yes, the public certainly know much more and I think any suggestion to the contrary is fanciful at best. 

Some protest votes would be reversed in both directions, for sure. But it would still be a democratic referendum.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Sep 27, 2018)

chrisd said:



			Because,it is undemocratic (as Murph has said)

You can't tell people that it's a one off vote where the result will lead down a certain path, then when the losers moan you give them a 2nd, 3rd vote
		
Click to expand...

So changing circumstances in government/finance/borders etc should not ever be reacted to - ever?

Ok, as hypothetical of which German car to pick???? - what if the EU states decided to impose massive trade tarriffs on UK goods, and positively encouraged all EU members to not buy British when they can get the same goods from other EU member states, or even internationally. If this was to lead to massive factory closures, back to Maggie-esque 4 million unemployed - what the hell, we're British, we'll muddle through, guv'nor.

As said, what if we hadnt have changed our mind in 1940 after a few years of appeasement?


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 27, 2018)

Kellfire said:



			I didn't say a second vote has to happen. I'm saying that having it would not stop democracy.

And yes, the public certainly know much more and I think any suggestion to the contrary is fanciful at best.

Some protest votes would be reversed in both directions, for sure. But it would still be a democratic referendum.
		
Click to expand...

*sigh* 

Maybe you missed the first sentence in my post you quoted. May I suggest you look up the definition of democracy, specifically the terms of handing back "agenda control" to the politicians after a vote. But I'll try again; until the result of a vote has been enacted you haven't completed the democratic loop. If you want to disagree with the definition of democracy, fine but don't then hide behind "it would not stop democracy." Yes it would. The continuation of democracy is campaigning for a second vote AFTER the first vote has been enacted.


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 27, 2018)

Foxholer said:



			Oh Dear! Try re-reading the article!

Earlier on in the article is the following....

*"Both Denmark and Irelandheld second referendums on EU treaties within 18 months of the first ballot. There is a widespread perception that these second votes were held at the behest of the EU and that these small states were bullied into doing so. *

*This fundamentally misrepresents the political dynamics involved. In all cases governments, with the support of their parliaments, engaged in a sophisticated political exercise of managing the cross-cutting dynamics of domestic and EU-level politics. The exercise of national political authority was to the fore." *

If you read on, you should note that the article actually confirms my post about the reasons for the original 'No' vote and the changes made to the original Lisbon Treaty.

So the article actually backs up what i posted earlier - and have posted a couple of times before too! Though I'd challenge the connection between the *requirement *for a 2nd Irish referendum an the *wish* for a 2nd Brexit one, simply by those who wish to obtain a different result!

Cowen's statement was from a very strong 'negotiating' position! Without a 'Yes' result from a 2nd referendum, the Lisbon Treaty would fail to be ratified!
		
Click to expand...

Oh dear. You've once again fundamentally misunderstood the point your failing to make. The Irish were not constitutionally obliged to have a 2nd referendum. The Government and the EU wanted one. They also needed to agree specific changes to the Treaty before going back to the Polls. 

If you're point about The Referendum being obligatory was true then Cowan wouldn't have had any negotiating position. He'd have had an advisory role at best. For him to be in a strong position, he'd have to have had something to offer. Something like..... I don't know.... a 2nd referendum possibly?


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 27, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			*sigh*

Maybe you missed the first sentence in my post you quoted. May I suggest you look up the definition of democracy, specifically the terms of handing back "agenda control" to the politicians after a vote. But I'll try again; until the result of a vote has been enacted you haven't completed the democratic loop. If you want to disagree with the definition of democracy, fine but don't then hide behind "it would not stop democracy." Yes it would. The continuation of democracy is campaigning for a second vote AFTER the first vote has been enacted.
		
Click to expand...

There is no LEGAL democratic need for the result of the first vote being enacted. There is no loop.


----------



## chrisd (Sep 27, 2018)

Kellfire said:



			So in your mind a democracy is where a decision is made and adhered to forever?
		
Click to expand...

Now you're just being silly ðŸ˜

Everyone knew that this was an in/out vote and, under the rules of this referendum, the powers that be pledged to enact the will of the people. We voted by the required method to leave and democracy requires the will of the people to be carried out. It, in this instance, would be undemocratic to usurp the majority vote by asking for a 2nd, 3rd or say, 4th vote "to get it right" I personally voted in the referendum in the 70's to join the Common Market and once the vote was won no one asked for a second vote - now it's a sign of the times when you don't get what you want just ask for another go!


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 27, 2018)

Kellfire said:



			There is no LEGAL democratic need for the result of the first vote being enacted. There is no loop.
		
Click to expand...

This is technically correct as the referendum was not put through as a binding result. However, in political and real world terms, the public and politicians voted and campaigned based on it being binding. It is a Mr Loophole approach to use that argument. Technically correct, morally wrong. If the govt do not enact the result then all faith in govt, elections etc would drop off a cliff. Credibility would dissolve.


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 27, 2018)

chrisd said:



			Now you're just being silly ðŸ˜

Everyone knew that this was an in/out vote and, under the rules of this referendum, the powers that be pledged to enact the will of the people. We voted by the required method to leave and democracy requires the will of the people to be carried out. It, in this instance, would be undemocratic to usurp the majority vote by asking for a 2nd, 3rd or say, 4th vote "to get it right" I personally voted in the referendum in the 70's to join the Common Market and once the vote was won no one asked for a second vote - now it's a sign of the times when you don't get what you want just ask for another go!
		
Click to expand...

Would it be undemocratic? I don't know. 

Would it be legal? Yes. 

If it's legal, then it's Democratic I suppose. Or maybe not. Who knows. 

By the way, I'm not really a fan of the "We didn't whinge" brigade. What do you think got you the referendum in the first place?


----------



## drdel (Sep 27, 2018)

There is a massive assumption that were a second vote taken on a  'deal' and the public rejected that deal the EU will then say 'fine'?

There is absolutely no guarantee after a second vote everything is as before: in fact we must acknowledge that Juncker, Macron, Barnier and more want much greater integration and tat would mean the UK agreeing to a dramatically increasing budget with less rebate. Adopting the Euro would be highly likely and with that the Bank of England would loose the ability to manage our exchange rate and/or engage in more QE. Our defence and security would need to recognise and be part of the EU Defence Force, etc.

Once Article 50 was tabled and signed the dynamics of the UK and EU irreversibly changed just by having a second vote in the UK (on what we don't know) doesn't reset the clock to pre-Art 50!!


----------



## chrisd (Sep 27, 2018)

Liverbirdie said:



			So changing circumstances in government/finance/borders etc should not ever be reacted to - ever?

Ok, as hypothetical of which German car to pick???? - what if the EU states decided to impose massive trade tarriffs on UK goods, and positively encouraged all EU members to not buy British when they can get the same goods from other EU member states, or even internationally. If this was to lead to massive factory closures, back to Maggie-esque 4 million unemployed - what the hell, we're British, we'll muddle through, guv'nor.

As said, what if we hadnt have changed our mind in 1940 after a few years of appeasement?
		
Click to expand...

I don't see what 'has changed' we are in the negotiating stage, nothing was known about government/finance/boarders when we voted so let's see what they decide as "The deal" surely you're not suggesting that you, I, or anyone knows what will be agreed as a divorce at this stage? I'm not sure that I'd want to look at staying in just to satisfy a bunch of unelected EU wassocks who think negotiating is just a case of saying "no" and threatening us.

I haven't been involved in the "car" discussion but the Germans would suffer hugely if we didn't buy their cars and I'm pretty sure as the Germans and French own the EU they wouldn't put up with that scenario - we, of course, could by Japanese cars assembled in this country and provide valuable employment 

I really don't see what 1940 has to do with a 2nd Brexit vote


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 27, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			Oh dear. You've once again fundamentally misunderstood the point your failing to make. *The Irish were not constitutionally obliged to have a 2nd referendum.* The Government and the EU wanted one. They also needed to agree specific changes to the Treaty before going back to the Polls.
...
		
Click to expand...

Yes they were! Either on acceptance of the Lisbon Treaty (with amendments that made it more likely for a 'Yes' result) or, perhaps, for withdrawl from the EU (IREXIT) - as that was the consequence of not accepting the Lisbon Treaty and the existing EU related amendments in the Irish Constitution! 

But i agree - the Irish Ggovernment and the EU preferred a 2nd Lisbon Treaty referendum to an IREXIT one and recognising/being convinced of the need for specific changes for a 'Yes' result, made those changes! Cowen's quote was part of his, successful, argument for the EU to make (Ireland related/specific) changes to increase the likelihood of a 'Yes' result! 



bluewolf said:



			...
If you're point about The Referendum being obligatory was true then Cowan wouldn't have had any negotiating position. He'd have had an advisory role at best. For him to be in a strong position, he'd have to have had something to offer. Something like..... I don't know.... a 2nd referendum possibly?
		
Click to expand...

Well, *he was in a very strong position* - the Lisbon treaty was in limbo until/unless Ireland obtained a 'Yes' result at a 2nd referendum or left the EU (via a referendum and long period of exit negotiation of course - as Article 50 only  'arrived' as part of Lisbon Treaty!).


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 27, 2018)

Kellfire said:



			There is no LEGAL democratic need for the result of the first vote being enacted. There is no loop.
		
Click to expand...




chrisd said:



			Now you're just being silly ðŸ˜

Everyone knew that this was an in/out vote and, under the rules of this referendum, the powers that be pledged to enact the will of the people. We voted by the required method to leave and democracy requires the will of the people to be carried out. It, in this instance, would be undemocratic to usurp the majority vote by asking for a 2nd, 3rd or say, 4th vote "to get it right" I personally voted in the referendum in the 70's to join the Common Market and once the vote was won no one asked for a second vote - now it's a sign of the times when you don't get what you want just ask for another go!
		
Click to expand...




Lord Tyrion said:



			This is technically correct as the referendum was not put through as a binding result. However, in political and real world terms, the public and politicians voted and campaigned based on it being binding. It is a Mr Loophole approach to use that argument. Technically correct, morally wrong. If the govt do not enact the result then all faith in govt, elections etc would drop off a cliff. Credibility would dissolve.
		
Click to expand...

Pretty much answers the question of democracy and the need to enact the result. Some might say its a stupid decision, whilst others will say its the best opportunity the UK has had in several generations. Personally, I'm a Remainer, and from a very selfish standpoint. Being newly resident here in Spain, how this pans out affects me greatly. Healthcare, pensions, travel and even the right to vote in local elections. However, I respect the vote, and democracy.

Do I think its good for the UK? Not in the short term. Do I think it will be long term? Possibly.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 27, 2018)

drdel said:



			There is a massive assumption that were a second vote taken on a  'deal' and the public rejected that deal the EU will then say 'fine'?
...
		
Click to expand...

Indeed, a massive assumption! I don't believe the EU would say 'fine'! That is, after all what the 'negotiations' have been all about!

So, that wouldn't be an problem for the EU. It would be a UK Government problem - as to what to do next, when the EU says 'no more negotiation'!



drdel said:



			...
There is absolutely no guarantee after a second vote everything is as before: in fact we must acknowledge that Juncker, Macron, Barnier and more want much greater integration and tat would mean the UK agreeing to a dramatically increasing budget with less rebate. Adopting the Euro would be highly likely and with that the Bank of England would loose the ability to manage our exchange rate and/or engage in more QE. Our defence and security would need to recognise and be part of the EU Defence Force, etc.
...
		
Click to expand...

Agreed. But unlikely imo - as (apart from a likely increase in contribution requirements) that would very likely trigger another pretty convincing calls for (another) Brexit!

I believe you are scaremongering somewhat! I don't believe adopting the Euro would be part of any (initial) 'back to the fold deal'. I'm definitely anti any UK involvement in an expansion of' 'EU Defence Force' though - something I've always considered 'too federalistic' for the EU to run!


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 27, 2018)

Hobbit said:





Kellfire said:



			There is no LEGAL democratic need for the result of the first vote being enacted. There is no loop.
		
Click to expand...




chrisd said:



			Now you're just being silly ðŸ˜

Everyone knew that this was an in/out vote and, under the rules of this referendum, the powers that be pledged to enact the will of the people. We voted by the required method to leave and democracy requires the will of the people to be carried out. It, in this instance, would be undemocratic to usurp the majority vote by asking for a 2nd, 3rd or say, 4th vote "to get it right" I personally voted in the referendum in the 70's to join the Common Market and once the vote was won no one asked for a second vote - now it's a sign of the times when you don't get what you want just ask for another go!
		
Click to expand...




Lord Tyrion said:



			This is technically correct as the referendum was not put through as a binding result. However, in political and real world terms, the public and politicians voted and campaigned based on it being binding. It is a Mr Loophole approach to use that argument. Technically correct, morally wrong. If the govt do not enact the result then all faith in govt, elections etc would drop off a cliff. Credibility would dissolve.
		
Click to expand...

Pretty much answers the question of democracy and the need to enact the result. Some might say its a stupid decision, whilst others will say its the best opportunity the UK has had in several generations. Personally, I'm a Remainer, and from a very selfish standpoint. Being newly resident here in Spain, how this pans out affects me greatly. Healthcare, pensions, travel and even the right to vote in local elections. However, I respect the vote, and democracy.

Do I think its good for the UK? Not in the short term. Do I think it will be long term? Possibly.
		
Click to expand...

Notwithstanding the arguments of chrisd and LT (which I agree with) there is nothing within my knowledge of the meaning of 'democracy' that requires the result of a democratic decision (of any sort) to be 'enacted' before another democratic decision reverses/cancels the process. 

Should the Government decide - or be convinced - that another referendum is reuired, that would not be un-democratic. 

There are probably many 'democratic decisions' that have brought down governments - though most have been enacted first! Thatcher's Poll Tax and Labour's Dodgy Dossier being a couple!


----------



## Captainron (Sep 27, 2018)

Brexit is going to cause flipping chaos. All our EMEA management is talking about is the worst case scenario. I am very sceptical about this ending well for the person on the street. 

We shall just have to wait and see


----------



## Fade and Die (Sep 27, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			Would it be undemocratic? I don't know.

Would it be legal? Yes.

If it's legal, then it's Democratic I suppose. Or maybe not. Who knows.

By the way, I'm not really a fan of the "We didn't whinge" brigade.* What do you think got you the referendum in the first place?*

Click to expand...

That would be democracy....... but I wouldnâ€™t expect you to understand


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 27, 2018)

Fade and Die said:



			That would be democracy....... but I wouldnâ€™t expect you to understand 

Click to expand...

I'm interested to know why?

And what you're actually saying is that whinging till you get a referendum is Democracy. And whinging till you get a second referendum is treasonous. Brilliant thinking ðŸ‘ðŸ‘


----------



## MegaSteve (Sep 27, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			And what you're actually saying is that whinging till you get a referendum is Democracy.
		
Click to expand...

I don't seem to recollect the whinging for a second vote starting immediately after the result to stay in was declared...
It was 40+ years ago mind...


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 27, 2018)

MegaSteve said:



			I don't seem to recollect the whinging for a second vote starting immediately after the result to stay in was declared...
It was 40+ years ago mind...
		
Click to expand...

So your issue is timing?


----------



## MegaSteve (Sep 27, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			So your issue is timing?
		
Click to expand...


The 'issue' is the demands for a second vote before the result of the latest vote has been enacted...


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 27, 2018)

MegaSteve said:



			The 'issue' is the demands for a second vote before the result of the latest vote has been enacted...
		
Click to expand...

We'll never agree on whether that is acceptable or not and I don't want to argue it. 
My view is that people whinge. When that whinging is picked up by the MSM then the cause tends to accelerate. There was plenty of opposition to Europe that just wasn't accelerated until the advent of ukip. The cause against Brexit is accelerated now as it's already a main news story.


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 27, 2018)

Foxholer said:



			Yes they were! Either on acceptance of the Lisbon Treaty (with amendments that made it more likely for a 'Yes' result) or, perhaps, for withdrawl from the EU (IREXIT) - as that was the consequence of not accepting the Lisbon Treaty and the existing EU related amendments in the Irish Constitution!

But i agree - the Irish Ggovernment and the EU preferred a 2nd Lisbon Treaty referendum to an IREXIT one and recognising/being convinced of the need for specific changes for a 'Yes' result, made those changes! Cowen's quote was part of his, successful, argument for the EU to make (Ireland related/specific) changes to increase the likelihood of a 'Yes' result!



Well, *he was in a very strong position* - the Lisbon treaty was in limbo until/unless Ireland obtained a 'Yes' result at a 2nd referendum or left the EU (via a referendum and long period of exit negotiation of course - as Article 50 only  'arrived' as part of Lisbon Treaty!).
		
Click to expand...

Right. I'm going to make it simple. 
Ireland were given the opportunity to change their mind before the result of the referendum was enacted. That proved to be a good decision. They used EU money to improve their infrastructure and are now a net contributor. They then voted in favour of the EU by a margin of 9:1.........

They did not have to have a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. The second referendum was "imposed" on them by the Government. If they so wanted they could have acted on the results of the initial referendum. They didn't. 

Now, I'm going to ignore you from now on. It's better for my sanity. You're not really adding anything, just criticising what others post. Be more original in future please.


----------



## MegaSteve (Sep 27, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			We'll never agree on whether that is acceptable or not and I don't want to argue it.
My view is that people whinge. When that whinging is picked up by the MSM then the cause tends to accelerate. There was plenty of opposition to Europe that just wasn't accelerated until the advent of ukip. The cause against Brexit is accelerated now as it's already a main news story.
		
Click to expand...


I agree, for something to go forward someone has to pick up the baton... And, as you suggest, in this case UKIP being the main carrier in recent times... We [the UK] did have a bit of a history of sending 'eurosceptics' to represent us at Brussels prior to UKIP though...


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 27, 2018)

MegaSteve said:



			I agree, for something to go forward someone has to pick up the baton... And, as you suggest, in this case UKIP being the main carrier in recent times... We [the UK] did have a bit of a history of sending 'eurosceptics' to represent us at Brussels prior to UKIP though...
		
Click to expand...

True. We were always an uncomfortable fit. I don't think we ever really integrated into the EU as a people. We distanced ourselves at every opportunity. Both Left and Right found reasons to distrust them. Some were genuine, some were pure paranoia. I'm not surprised they never really trusted us back ðŸ¤”


----------



## Fade and Die (Sep 27, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			True. We were always an uncomfortable fit. I don't think we ever really integrated into the EU as a people. We distanced ourselves at every opportunity. Both Left and Right found reasons to distrust them. Some were genuine, some were pure paranoia. I'm not surprised they never really trusted us back ðŸ¤”
		
Click to expand...

Agree with this, I reckon itâ€™s a geographical thing. We are and think like an Island race. 
Borders changed in continental Europe constantly over the last 200 years, but not ours. (We just fought them allðŸ˜)


----------



## Liverbirdie (Sep 27, 2018)

chrisd said:



			Now you're just being silly ðŸ˜

Everyone knew that this was an in/out vote and, under the rules of this referendum, the powers that be pledged to enact the will of the people. We voted by the required method to leave and democracy requires the will of the people to be carried out. It, in this instance, would be undemocratic to usurp the majority vote by asking for a 2nd, 3rd or say, 4th vote "to get it right" I personally voted in the referendum in the 70's to join the Common Market and once the vote was won no one asked for a second vote - now it's a sign of the times when you don't get what you want just ask for another go!
		
Click to expand...

So technically we've had 2 votes on going into (or out of) Europe?

Madness, Mr. Speaker!!!!!


----------



## Liverbirdie (Sep 27, 2018)

chrisd said:



			I don't see what 'has changed' we are in the negotiating stage, nothing was known about government/finance/boarders when we voted so let's see what they decide as "The deal" surely you're not suggesting that you, I, or anyone knows what will be agreed as a divorce at this stage? I'm not sure that I'd want to look at staying in just to satisfy a bunch of unelected EU wassocks who think negotiating is just a case of saying "no" and threatening us.

I haven't been involved in the "car" discussion but the Germans would suffer hugely if we didn't buy their cars and I'm pretty sure as the Germans and French own the EU they wouldn't put up with that scenario - we, of course, could by Japanese cars assembled in this country and provide valuable employment

I really don't see what 1940 has to do with a 2nd Brexit vote
		
Click to expand...

Well you just brought 1970 into it, so why can't I bring 1940 into it?

The point being that a decision can be made that is incorrect and it takes a brave man/woman to change it. Yes, this is a referendum, but the analogy still counts.

If there was a 2nd vote and it was still leave, I wouldnt argue 1 more word.

A second vote is just as useful as a 2nd thread on the subject.......oh.


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 27, 2018)

Fade and Die said:



			Agree with this, I reckon itâ€™s a geographical thing. We are and think like an Island race.
Borders changed in continental Europe constantly over the last 200 years, but not ours. (We just fought them allðŸ˜)
		
Click to expand...

Very true. We are a Nation apart. I do quite like our island mentality. 

What does make me uncomfortable is the attitude that some exhibit that claims that we're better because we're British. As though we have a divine right to succeed. We aren't better. We're different. And not even that different. We're not braver or stronger or smarter (I'm better looking though). We really need to start focusing on our similarities rather than our minute differences.


----------



## chrisd (Sep 27, 2018)

Well you just brought 1970 into it, so why can't I bring 1940 into it? - well, I did vote in 1973 but 1940???

The point being that a decision can be made that is incorrect and it takes a brave man/woman to change it. Yes, this is a referendum, but the analogy still counts. - 17m people reckon it was correct and there's no proof it's incorrect

If there was a 2nd vote and it was still leave, I wouldnt argue 1 more word. - bet you would ðŸ˜€

A second vote is just as useful as a 2nd thread on the subject.......oh. - but much less democratic


----------



## Liverbirdie (Sep 27, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			We're not braver or stronger or smarter (I'm better looking though).
		
Click to expand...

We're bloody good liars, as well.


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 27, 2018)

Liverbirdie said:



			We're bloody good liars, as well.

Click to expand...

Just cos I'm not your type. We'll see how irresistible I am when I sleep at yours in November. ðŸ˜‚


----------



## chrisd (Sep 27, 2018)

Liverbirdie said:



			So technically we've had 2 votes on going into (or out of) Europe?

Madness, Mr. Speaker!!!!!
		
Click to expand...

Yep, we voted to go in, bearing in mind it was just a "Common Market" so a trading bloc and little else


----------



## Liverbirdie (Sep 27, 2018)

chrisd said:



			Well you just brought 1970 into it, so why can't I bring 1940 into it? - well, I did vote in 1973 but 1940???

The point being that a decision can be made that is incorrect and it takes a brave man/woman to change it. Yes, this is a referendum, but the analogy still counts. - 17m people reckon it was correct and there's no proof it's incorrect

If there was a 2nd vote and it was still leave, I wouldnt argue 1 more word. - bet you would ðŸ˜€

A second vote is just as useful as a 2nd thread on the subject.......oh. - but much less democratic
		
Click to expand...

I thought you were at the Congress of Vienna, Chris.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Sep 27, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			Just cos I'm not your type. We'll see how irresistible I am when I sleep at yours in November. ðŸ˜‚
		
Click to expand...

Halloween ll.


----------



## chrisd (Sep 27, 2018)

Liverbirdie said:



			I thought you were at the Congress of Vienna, Chris. 

Click to expand...

1814 to 1815, long way to go for something that only lasted one minute ðŸ˜


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 27, 2018)

Kellfire said:



			It really isn't. You're still _really _struggling to understand something incredibly simple.

Forget your own personal wants from this process. Forget the propaganda on both sides. Think of the black and white of it.

If the public want Brexit, they'll vote for it again.

If they now don't, they won't.

The will of the people (only now with more knowledge) would be revealed by a second referendum. This may demonstrate a change of opinion. This wouldn't be a circumvention of democracy, it would be allowing the public to change their mind.

No matter what the result of a potential second referendum, the government wouldn't have to reverse the Brexit process as it's NOT legally binding.
		
Click to expand...

You are the one struggling to understand something incredibly simple. The government of the day decided to let the people decide whether we stay or leave the EU. The people decided to leave and that was conclusive.  Only people that lost the vote are now asking for a rerun of the vote as they lost it.     To satisfy the referendum we must leave, the terms we leave on is subject to negotiations between the uk government and the EU negotiators.  Parliament and the House of Lords have been given the right to vote on the final deal, so accept it or leave with no deal.  Thats it, no second referendum,  no bleating about busses or Labours six tests.  Period.


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 28, 2018)

SocketRocket said:



			To satisfy the referendum we must leave
		
Click to expand...

This is where your entire argument falls down because this is totally FALSE.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 28, 2018)

Kellfire said:



			This is where your entire argument falls down because this is totally FALSE.
		
Click to expand...

Its not false at all. Like your thoughts on the matter, its an opinion.


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 28, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			Its not false at all. Like your thoughts on the matter, its an opinion.
		
Click to expand...

Of course it's false. Morally, he believes we need to leave to satisfy the referendum.

But legally, and that is what defines "must" in this case, we don't.


----------



## User20205 (Sep 28, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			Its not false at all. Like your thoughts on the matter, its an opinion.
		
Click to expand...

In as much as itâ€™s not legally binding?? Whether thereâ€™s a moral obligation of any govt to implement is a separate conversation. I donâ€™t think any govt could survive a non implementation, internally or externally


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 28, 2018)

Kellfire said:



			Of course it's false. Morally, he believes we need to leave to satisfy the referendum.

But legally, and that is what defines "must" in this case, we don't.
		
Click to expand...

Like I said, that's your opinion. You can split as many hairs as you feel you need to but its still just an opinion. The argument could be made that the govt of the day must do it or forever be in the political wilderness.


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 28, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			Like I said, that's your opinion. You can split as many hairs as you feel you need to but its still just an opinion. The argument could be made that the govt of the day must do it or forever be in the political wilderness.
		
Click to expand...

It's not an opinion! 

The reaction to it not being acted out does not change the fact the government did not legally need to take us out of the EU.

Stop mixing up opinion and fact!


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 28, 2018)

Kellfire said:



			It's not an opinion!

The reaction to it not being acted out does not change the fact the government did not legally need to take us out of the EU.

Stop mixing up opinion and fact!
		
Click to expand...

Read the second sentence of my post AGAIN! I used the word MUST too. Surely itâ€™s not too hard for you to understands the semantics and nuances!! 

I am well aware of the legality but unlike you I recognise the the practicality and danger of ignoring the vote.

BTW I used exclamation marks too, to shout back at you....hope that helps


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 28, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			I recognise the the practicality and danger of ignoring the vote.
		
Click to expand...

Please, show me where I've said otherwise. I'll do you a favour. You can't.


----------



## bobmac (Sep 28, 2018)

Kellfire said:



			Please, show me where I've said otherwise. I'll do you a favour. You can't.
		
Click to expand...

Of course as a statement of fact, the government doesn't have to take us out of the EU, but in the real world where pedants don't live, it's also a recognised fact that no government would go against the vote and expect to keep their job.


----------



## drdel (Sep 28, 2018)

Kellfire said:



			Of course it's false. Morally, he believes we need to leave to satisfy the referendum.

But legally, and that is what defines "must" in this case, we don't.
		
Click to expand...

For someone who claims to provide simplified versions of the argument you make a number of 'false' judgements and assertions.

A binary referendum was held. Having then posed the question to decide between A or B the process is not finished until either A or B is enacted in line with the outcome.

The UK's form of government relies on elected representatives in the HoC and those in the HoL to make decisions for the majority's benefit.  The government of the time decided, exceptionally, to give the population a choice on a matter that bridged normal political beliefs.

Having given our representatives the decision 'they' are bound to follow through on the population's decision.

Sending the decision back to the population can *only* be because 'they' (obviously the 'losers') didn't like to first result even though these are the minority.

So there is no 'legal', political or moral basis for a new People's Vote, but there is a legal, political and moral basis for the first vote to be honoured.


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 28, 2018)

You're completely wrong about the legal aspect.


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 28, 2018)

drdel said:



			For someone who claims to provide simplified versions of the argument you make a number of 'false' judgements and assertions.

A binary referendum was held. Having then posed the question to decide between A or B the process is not finished until either A or B is enacted in line with the outcome.

The UK's form of government relies on elected representatives in the HoC and those in the HoL to make decisions for the majority's benefit.  The government of the time decided, exceptionally, to give the population a choice on a matter that bridged normal political beliefs.

Having given our representatives the decision 'they' are bound to follow through on the population's decision.

Sending the decision back to the population can *only* be because 'they' (obviously the 'losers') didn't like to first result even though these are the minority.

So there is no 'legal', political or moral basis for a new People's Vote, but there is a legal, political and moral basis for the first vote to be honoured.
		
Click to expand...

The referendum was not legally binding. It may very well be political suicide to ignore it. It may be morally, ethically wrong. But it's not compulsory.


----------



## chrisd (Sep 28, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			The referendum was not legally binding. It may very well be political suicide to ignore it. It may be morally, ethically wrong. But it's not compulsory.
		
Click to expand...


No, but the fact that Article 50 was triggered as a result of the vote tells us all that the politicians were bound by the referendum


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 28, 2018)

chrisd said:



			No, but the fact that Article 50 was triggered as a result of the vote tells us all that the politicians were bound by the referendum
		
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. They chose to act on it but they weren't legally bound to it.

How can such a black and white issue cause so much argument?


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 28, 2018)

Kellfire said:



			Please, show me where I've said otherwise. I'll do you a favour. You can't.
		
Click to expand...

Don't get arrogant Mark, it doesn't suit you. 

Try keep it on a grown up level, there's a good little boy.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Sep 28, 2018)

Could the fact that Cameron spent millions of pounds on leaflets for every household in the UK affect whether the result of the vote was legally binding? In that leaflet they promised to implement the result of the referendum. Could that be considered a form of contract and make it legally binding?


----------



## User20205 (Sep 28, 2018)

Youâ€™re arguing about different things. 
Is the vote legally binding, no. It canâ€™t be viewed in isolation. Practically it is, thatâ€™s all that matters.
What would happen, hypothetically, if the govt didnâ€™t follow the â€˜willâ€™ of the people?


----------



## chrisd (Sep 28, 2018)

Kellfire said:



			No it doesn't. They chose to act on it but they weren't legally bound to it.

How can such a black and white issue cause so much argument?
		
Click to expand...


Read what I said  - I agreed it wasn't legally binding by starting with  No,


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 28, 2018)

chrisd said:



			No, but the fact that Article 50 was triggered as a result of the vote tells us all that the politicians were bound by the referendum
		
Click to expand...

Not at all. But it's another matter we'll apparently never agree on, so pointless arguing. 
A more interesting discussion would be whether Art 50 was able to be rescinded.


----------



## ger147 (Sep 28, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			Not at all. But it's another matter we'll apparently never agree on, so pointless arguing.
A more interesting discussion would be whether Art 50 was able to be rescinded.
		
Click to expand...

The A50 issue is currently on its way to the European courts to be ruled on...


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 28, 2018)

I can't believe we have had so many pages on whether it was legal or not. Pedants of the world unite.

Dave offers a referendum, one simple question, in or out. Two sides develop, public money is given to both, months of debate, build up etc, we have the vote. Vote goes against what Dave and the establishment want. Ta da, 'only kidding' says Dave. No problem says the whole of the UK, we knew the last 3 months were just a bit of a lark. Lets just carry on as before.

Do some people really live in the world as described above?


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 28, 2018)

Lord Tyrion said:



			I can't believe we have had so many pages on whether it was legal or not. Pedants of the world unite.

Dave offers a referendum, one simple question, in or out. Two sides develop, public money is given to both, months of debate, build up etc, we have the vote. Vote goes against what Dave and the establishment want. Ta da, 'only kidding' says Dave. No problem says the whole of the UK, we knew the last 3 months were just a bit of a lark. Lets just carry on as before.

Do some people really live in the world as described above?
		
Click to expand...

You do realise that your 2nd paragraph has little to do with your 1st. And your 3rd is beneath you ðŸ‘ðŸ˜‰


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 28, 2018)

I'm sorry but we have had numerous pages on a pedants question / point. The argument seems to be we don't HAVE to leave because of a technicality on the referendum bill. It is a Loophole Nick point. 

For those of us who have accepted the result has happened and see others scrambling around looking for reasons not to follow through with it it is like banging your head against a wall. I'm sorry you don't like the post but it is borne out of frustration. Read the posts being made on this subject, it is what it feels like


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 28, 2018)

Lord Tyrion said:



			I'm sorry but we have had numerous pages on a pedants question / point. The argument seems to be we don't HAVE to leave because of a technicality on the referendum bill. It is a Loophole Nick point.

For those of us who have accepted the result has happened and see others scrambling around looking for reasons not to follow through with it it is like banging your head against a wall. I'm sorry you don't like the post but it is borne out of frustration. Read the posts being made on this subject, it is what it feels like
		
Click to expand...

Read them again then. We've had about 2 pages on whether it would be legal. The rest has been about whether it would be right!
And with all due respect, the legality of the question is relevant. If it wasn't legal then the whole thread would be theoretical.

Oh, and FWIW, I voted against having the ref again and commented as much on this thread.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 28, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			Right. I'm going to make it simple.
Ireland were given the opportunity to change their mind before the result of the referendum was enacted. That proved to be a good decision. They used EU money to improve their infrastructure and are now a net contributor. They then voted in favour of the EU by a margin of 9:1.........

They did not have to have a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. The second referendum was "imposed" on them by the Government. If they so wanted they could have acted on the results of the initial referendum. They didn't.
...
		
Click to expand...

Dear oh dear! You really don't seem to have any understanding of the Irish referendum at all! Either that or you are attempting to put a completely different (and false) spin on the events!

Try actually reading some of the info about the Lisbon Treaty - even the article you quoted from! Here's a ref to a Wiki entry that I can't fault - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland Btw. That article also refers to a previous referendum - on the Treaty of Nice - that was rejected in the 1st referendum, but approved in the 2nd (after changes were negotiated).


bluewolf said:



			...
Now, I'm going to ignore you from now on. ...
		
Click to expand...

Feel free to do so! I've no problem with that! It won't change my approach to your posts though!


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 28, 2018)

Only 2, it feels soooooooooo many more. I agree about the legality, as have so many others, but is a pointless exercise. It was sold as the decision will be enacted upon. It was not sold as advisory. Everyone took part in it as being enacted upon, politicians, journalists, the public. It's crazy to keep going down that route.


----------



## Fade and Die (Sep 28, 2018)

Hereâ€™re the thing, do you think that we've ever really been properly informed before a vote? All politicians spout nonsense, and we always vote for someone at an election who backtracks on what they said they'd do, so why is this any different?........I'll tell you why it's different, it's different because the upper-middle classes think they've been done over, that's why. The bottom line is that the great unwashed have spoken, and as much as the centre-left and their Guardian-reading chums don't like it, that's how it goes.
And we need to do it quickly because there's a dam bursting in Europe right now, mainly caused by the migration cock-up, and populist parties will rule the roost, nearly all of them anti-EU, so soon there'll be nothing to exit from.


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 28, 2018)

Foxholer said:



			Dear oh dear! You really don't seem to have any understanding of the Irish referendum at all! Either that or you are attempting to put a completely different (and false) spin on the events!

Try actually reading some of the info about the Lisbon Treaty - even the article you quoted from! Here's a ref to a Wiki entry that I can't fault - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland Btw. That article also refers to a previous referendum - on the Treaty of Nice - that was rejected in the 1st referendum, but approved in the 2nd (after changes were negotiated).

Feel free to do so! I've no problem with that! It won't change my approach to your posts though!
		
Click to expand...

In my very last ever comment to you. In your haste to prove your intelligence you've tripped over your own feet in an almost comedic manner. After your initial mistake, you've done nothing but wriggle and squirm. I'm now going to treat you and your postings in much the same way I treat the old gent in the clubhouse who once birdied the 18th at St Andrews. I'm going to put on a vacant smile, nod every 12 seconds and watch the players tee off on the first.....

Oh, and I'll be sure to let Wiki know that you've given their post your seal of approval. I'm sure they'll be just as excited as I am.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 28, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			In my very last ever comment to you. In your haste to prove your intelligence you've tripped over your own feet in an almost comedic manner. After your initial mistake, you've done nothing but wriggle and squirm. I'm now going to treat you and your postings in much the same way I treat the old gent in the clubhouse who once birdied the 18th at St Andrews. I'm going to put on a vacant smile, nod every 12 seconds and watch the players tee off on the first.....

Oh, and I'll be sure to let Wiki know that you've given their post your seal of approval. I'm sure they'll be just as excited as I am.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Liverbirdie (Sep 28, 2018)

I hope we're all European today, lads and lasses.


----------



## MegaSteve (Sep 28, 2018)

Liverbirdie said:



			I hope we're all European today, lads and lasses.

Click to expand...


Well, that shouldn't change whatever the outcome...


----------



## Fade and Die (Sep 28, 2018)

Liverbirdie said:



			I hope we're all European today, lads and lasses.

Click to expand...

Absolutely 100%

Love Europe Hate the EU


----------



## drdel (Sep 28, 2018)

Those arguing for a second vote need to state what would the question be....


----------



## MegaSteve (Sep 28, 2018)

drdel said:



			Those arguing for a second vote need to state what would the question be....
		
Click to expand...

Well, I am neither in favour of or 'arguing' for a second vote...
Or, even believe it will happen...
But, to keep it simple, the question should be something along the lines of...
Should the first vote be reversed... Yes or No...


----------



## Pathetic Shark (Sep 28, 2018)

drdel said:



			Those arguing for a second vote need to state what would the question be....
		
Click to expand...

1. Do you want to stay in the EU?
2.  Do you want to leave the EU (any vote for this option is subject to ridicule and criticism until another similar vote is arranged at a later date)


----------



## ColchesterFC (Sep 28, 2018)

drdel said:



			Those arguing for a second vote need to state what would the question be....
		
Click to expand...

Should the UK......
1) Accept the negotiated deal
2) Reject the deal and return for further negotiations
3) Reject the deal and leave with no deal

That would respect the result of the first vote and would satisfy those wanting a vote on the final deal. Obviously it wouldn't satisfy a lot of those who voted remain as when they say we "should have a 2nd referendum on the final deal" what they actually mean is " we want to stop Brexit by whatever means possible.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Sep 28, 2018)

Or alternatively....

Should the UK....
1) Remain in the EU.
2) Stay in the EU.


----------



## bladeplayer (Sep 28, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			Hey Bill. How about we throw it back to you. As a representative of a country that rejected the EU, then had a 2nd vote forced upon you, then voted for the EU.

How did you feel then and how do you feel now. I'm genuinely interested in your POV as I'm sure we can learn something ðŸ‘
		
Click to expand...

Hiya Mate yea we got the feeling we were going to have as many votes as we needed the gov to get the result they needed . When it got rejected they made changes and went back to the people and enough people changed their minds  , don't think we were ever going to b allowed to hold up the EU decisions for too long as we are too small to survive alone .. So a 2nd no vote would possibly have lead to a 3rd vote . Too much esp farming is bolstered by the EU means we will always behave ..

Can't say despite following it I have enough knowledge of the ground feeling in UK .. Seems to me a lot that pushed it then realised oops this might happen  maybe it's time to step back let others take the blame and we will build our political future on the back of it with a scapegoat to lay all the blame on .. 
I fee this country is now bracing itself for a hard border over here which wil I am told have big implications on the peace process
My Inditial thoughts on brexit was there was too much "we will be fine" without the planing of how will we be fine


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 28, 2018)

Blue in Munich said:



			When do we stop?  Best of 3, best of 5, where?  We voted out; can we please get on with it?
		
Click to expand...

You voted to leave the EU - and of the UK electorate who voted you were part of the small majority.  But what did you vote for in respect of the quite separate process of re-engaging with the EU once we have left?

Come to think of it - when did you actually have the opportunity to make such a vote - because I think I must have missed it as I voted in the respect of leaving or remaining in the EU - but not - that I was aware of - of how we re-engage.


----------



## drdel (Sep 28, 2018)

ColchesterFC said:



			Should the UK......
1) Accept the negotiated deal
2) Reject the deal and return for further negotiations
3) Reject the deal and leave with no deal

That would respect the result of the first vote and would satisfy those wanting a vote on the final deal. Obviously it wouldn't satisfy a lot of those who voted remain as when they say we "should have a 2nd referendum on the final deal" what they actually mean is " we want to stop Brexit by whatever means possible.
		
Click to expand...

Foul - only one binary question !!

If you have 3 options 'averaging' says it be indeterminant. so what if it was split.. third each?


----------



## Fade and Die (Sep 28, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			You voted to leave the EU - and of the UK electorate who voted you were part of the *small majority*.  But what did you vote for in respect of the quite separate process of re-engaging with the EU once we have left?

Come to think of it - when did you actually have the opportunity to make such a vote - because I think I must have missed it as I voted in the respect of leaving or remaining in the EU - but not - that I was aware of - of how we re-engage.
		
Click to expand...


Cough cough.......


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 28, 2018)

bladeplayer said:



			Hiya Mate yea we got the feeling we were going to have as many votes as we needed the gov to get the result they needed . When it got rejected they made changes and went back to the people and enough people changed their minds  , don't think we were ever going to b allowed to hold up the EU decisions for too long as we are too small to survive alone .. So a 2nd no vote would possibly have lead to a 3rd vote . Too much esp farming is bolstered by the EU means we will always behave ..

Can't say despite following it I have enough knowledge of the ground feeling in UK .. Seems to me a lot that pushed it then realised oops this might happen  maybe it's time to step back let others take the blame and we will build our political future on the back of it with a scapegoat to lay all the blame on ..
I fee this country is now bracing itself for a hard border over here which wil I am told have big implications on the peace process
My Inditial thoughts on brexit was there was too much "we will be fine" without the planing of how will we be fine
		
Click to expand...

Thanks mate. That's the response I was hoping for. I agree about the BlasÃ© attitude. Too many people are telling me that we'll be fine. No one is telling me how we'll be fine. 
The Irish border is a clusterf*** waiting to happen. 
The fact that we now apparently have a Government Dept solely focused on food supplies is hilarious. 
I'm on the edge of applying for a German passport just to be on the safe side ðŸ˜‚


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 28, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			Thanks mate. That's the response I was hoping for. I agree about the BlasÃ© attitude. Too many people are telling me that we'll be fine. No one is telling me how we'll be fine.
The Irish border is a clusterf*** waiting to happen.
The fact that we now apparently have a Government Dept solely focused on food supplies is hilarious.
I'm on the edge of applying for a German passport just to be on the safe side ðŸ˜‚
		
Click to expand...

You could do Wurst.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 30, 2018)

Obviously all those on here who voted to remain and have since declared that they have accepted the democratic result will vote to leave if a 2nd vote ever comes about. 

Or where they telling porkies.


----------



## bluewolf (Oct 1, 2018)

Old Skier said:



			Obviously all those on here who voted to remain and have since declared that they have accepted the democratic result will vote to leave if a 2nd vote ever comes about. 

Or where they telling porkies.
		
Click to expand...

Nope. My mind has certainly not been changed. If anything, I'm more convinced than ever that it's a terrible move. 
I voted Remain. I'd vote Remain again if the opportunity arose. I'm just not advocating a second vote.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Oct 1, 2018)

drdel said:



			Foul - only one binary question !!

If you have 3 options 'averaging' says it be indeterminant. so what if it was split.. third each?
		
Click to expand...

I don't think it really matters. Whatever the outcome of a second referendum (if there were to be one) there would then be calls for another vote. If leave won again remainers would argue that because it was too sunny on the day of the vote many remain voters were unable to go to the polling stations as they didn't have sunglasses. And if remain won leave voters would say that it was one all and we needed a deciding third vote.


----------



## Kellfire (Oct 1, 2018)

Old Skier said:



			Obviously all those on here who voted to remain and have since declared that they have accepted the democratic result will vote to leave if a 2nd vote ever comes about. 

Or where they telling porkies.
		
Click to expand...

What a nonsense argument.


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 1, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			...As a representative of* a country that rejected the EU*...
		
Click to expand...

Twaddle!


----------



## Old Skier (Oct 1, 2018)

Kellfire said:



			What a nonsense argument.
		
Click to expand...

No argument from me. No politician in power will go for a second vote.


----------



## Kellfire (Oct 1, 2018)

Old Skier said:



			No argument from me. No politician in power will go for a second vote.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed, I don't think it will happen. But if it were to, damn right I'd vote remain again as it's still the right option.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Oct 1, 2018)

Kellfire said:



			Agreed, I don't think it will happen. But if it were to, damn right I'd vote remain again as it's still the right option.
		
Click to expand...

(Just for fun......) Oh no it isn't.


----------



## MegaSteve (Oct 1, 2018)

ColchesterFC said:



			(Just for fun......) Oh no it isn't. 

Click to expand...


He's behind you!


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 1, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			You voted to leave the EU - and of the UK electorate who voted you were part of the small majority.  But what did you vote for in respect of the quite separate process of re-engaging with the EU once we have left?

Come to think of it - when did you actually have the opportunity to make such a vote - because I think I must have missed it as I voted in the respect of leaving or remaining in the EU - but not - that I was aware of - of how we re-engage.
		
Click to expand...

And here is the entire crux of the dilemna that May has! And why Cameron and Osborne had to vacate their positions!

The vote was about whether to leave or not! It wasn't about the actual deal should the result be 'Leave'! 

It is now up to the politicians and public servants to sort out the details about how we leave - how to implement the result of the referendum. Whether that involves further reference to the public (I very much doubt it will - to avoid an 'undesirable result!) or to Parliament. But it certainly provides an opportunity for Bozo to make a play for PM - something that's actually quite separate from the Brexit argument. May's position is severely restricted by the tiny majority the Conservatives got in the election - made even smaller by her (quite reasonable imo) decision to hole another election; losing the overall majority and having to do a (very dodgy!) deal to stay in power!


----------



## oxymoron (Oct 1, 2018)

Cameron tried to negotiate with the EU and was shot down so why does anyone think things would be any different now ?
All this animosity is pathetic, why can people just accept that others will have a different view on things , no one(at this time )
can predict the future even though they are supposed experts, so i think its time to take a deep breath and start to look for the best in this situation.
It is time to negotiate not demand . Perhaps it time to put country before party\politics and get a grip there is too much at stake to start a pissing contest
in Westminster .


----------



## User62651 (Oct 1, 2018)

Foxholer said:



			And here is the entire crux of the dilemna that May has! And why Cameron and Osborne had to vacate their positions!

The vote was about whether to leave or not! It wasn't about the actual deal should the result be 'Leave'!

*It is now up to the politicians and public servants to sort out the details about how we leave *- how to implement the result of the referendum. Whether that involves further reference to the public (I very much doubt it will - to avoid an 'undesirable result!) or to Parliament. But it certainly provides an opportunity for Bozo to make a play for PM - something that's actually quite separate from the Brexit argument. May's position is severely restricted by the tiny majority the Conservatives got in the election - made even smaller by her (quite reasonable imo) decision to hole another election; losing the overall majority and having to do a (very dodgy!) deal to stay in power!
		
Click to expand...

This, we had our say not only in EU ref 2016 but also in 2015 because an in/out EU ref was in Camerons manifesto and we voted that into power alone (not in coalition....unfortunately), UK public gave him the mandate. No-one to blame but ourselves.
However I do blame Labour for putting Ed Milliand up as leader instead of his brother, fairly inept he was (remember the stone tablet of promises!). So who did they replace him with.... Corbyn....couldn't make it up! SNPs successes have also not helped Labour of course.
No second EU vote, just get on with Brexit, if it's terrible it's our own fault for voting it in. If it's great....then great.


----------



## Crazyface (Oct 1, 2018)

maxfli65 said:



			This, we had our say not only in EU ref 2016 but also in 2015 because an in/out EU ref was in Camerons manifesto and we voted that into power alone (not in coalition....unfortunately), UK public gave him the mandate. No-one to blame but ourselves.
However I do blame Labour for putting Ed Milliand up as leader instead of his brother, fairly inept he was (remember the stone tablet of promises!). So who did they replace him with.... Corbyn....couldn't make it up! SNPs successes have also not helped Labour of course.
No second EU vote, just get on with Brexit, if it's terrible it's our own fault for voting it in. If it's great....then great.

Click to expand...

Spot on. Camerons problem was that he wasn't in touch with his voters. My guess is that this is where the most of the out vote came from.


----------



## IanM (Oct 1, 2018)

Exactly how many votes should we have?

Answer (accdording to politicos) :  As many as it takes till you plebs vote the way you were supposed to.


----------



## jp5 (Oct 1, 2018)

Farage did say that a 52-48 result would be unfinished business, so is a tad hypocritical for him to bemoan those wanting a say on the final deal.

I don't really want another vote but not sure why the Leave lot are so petrified of it. Surely they trust that the people will make the right judgment on the final deal?


----------



## MegaSteve (Oct 1, 2018)

jp5 said:



			Farage did say that a 52-48 result would be unfinished business, so is a tad hypocritical for him to bemoan those wanting a say on the final deal.

I don't really want another vote but not sure why the Leave lot are so petrified of it. Surely they trust that the people will make the right judgment on the final deal?
		
Click to expand...


Petrified?... Nope!    Frustrated?... Highly!

You can have as many votes, you feel necessary, once the first vote has been enacted...
Which doesn't seem unreasonable to me...


----------



## jp5 (Oct 1, 2018)

MegaSteve said:



			Petrified?... Nope!    Frustrated?... Highly!

You can have as many votes, you feel necessary, once the first vote has been enacted...
Which doesn't seem unreasonable to me...
		
Click to expand...

Which is fair enough. The problem is there is no consensus on what constitutes enacting the first referendum. Seeing a lot of commentary saying that Mrs May's plan would constitute "Brexit In Name Only" and not satisfy the vote.


----------



## bluewolf (Oct 1, 2018)

Foxholer said:



			Twaddle!
		
Click to expand...

You really are just a tiny little man aren't you? I'm guessing you didn't get enough bitty as a child........


----------



## OnTour (Oct 1, 2018)

Best of 5 surely. rock paper scissors surely next vote for prime minister should be best of 3 etc. 

votes done except it move on.


----------



## Kellfire (Oct 1, 2018)

OnTour said:



			Best of 5 surely. rock paper scissors surely next vote for prime minister should be best of 3 etc.

votes done except it move on.
		
Click to expand...

I'd love us to except the first vote, but sadly we'll have to accept it.


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 1, 2018)

Kellfire said:



			I'd love us to except the first vote, but sadly we'll have to accept it.
		
Click to expand...

Cheap remark.


----------



## Kellfire (Oct 1, 2018)

SocketRocket said:



			Cheap remark.
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, should I just assume someone means the opposite of what they say?


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 1, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			You really are just a tiny little man aren't you? I'm guessing you didn't get enough bitty as a child........
		
Click to expand...




bluewolf said:



			In my very last ever comment to you....
		
Click to expand...

More twaddle! That also breaks Forum rules!


----------



## Old Skier (Oct 1, 2018)

Foxholer said:



			More twaddle! That also breaks Forum rules!
		
Click to expand...

Blumin heckers.  You don't post on arrse as well do you. ðŸ˜£ðŸ˜£


----------



## bluewolf (Oct 1, 2018)

Foxholer said:



			More twaddle! That also breaks Forum rules!
		
Click to expand...

ðŸ¤£ðŸ¤£ðŸ¤£
Your fascination with me is reaching Mark Chapman-esque levels...


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 1, 2018)

Kellfire said:



			I'm sorry, should I just assume someone means the opposite of what they say?
		
Click to expand...

You're not really sorry and you understood exactly what was posted. There are enough pedantic posters on here already.


----------



## Kellfire (Oct 1, 2018)

SocketRocket said:



			You're not really sorry and you understood exactly what was posted. There are enough pedantic posters on here already.
		
Click to expand...

Wow you saw through my fake apology. You're a genius. x


----------



## Tashyboy (Oct 1, 2018)

90 votes and 286 comments most probably repeating the same old same old


----------



## Tashyboy (Oct 1, 2018)

maxfli65 said:



			This, we had our say not only in EU ref 2016 but also in 2015 because an in/out EU ref was in Camerons manifesto and we voted that into power alone (not in coalition....unfortunately), UK public gave him the mandate. No-one to blame but ourselves.
However I do blame Labour for putting Ed Milliand up as leader instead of his brother, fairly inept he was (remember the stone tablet of promises!). So who did they replace him with.... Corbyn....couldn't make it up! SNPs successes have also not helped Labour of course.
No second EU vote, just get on with Brexit, if it's terrible it's our own fault for voting it in. If it's great....then great.

Click to expand...

And this sensible point of view placed solely on facts, has no place on a forum where Rammel comments rule the roost. Well said Maxy


----------



## Tashyboy (Oct 1, 2018)

Kellfire said:



			I'd love us to except the first vote, but sadly we'll have to accept it.
		
Click to expand...

As the forums official English Literature expert is that accept or except. ðŸ˜‰ Or vica versa.


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 1, 2018)

Tashyboy said:



			As the forums official English Literature expert is that accept or except. ðŸ˜‰ Or vica versa.
		
Click to expand...

Yes!

PS. It's forum's! And it's 'language', not 'literature'! And probably 'unofficial' might be a better term too!


----------



## Tashyboy (Oct 1, 2018)

Foxholer said:



			Yes!

PS. It's forum's! And it's 'language', not 'literature'! And probably 'unofficial' might be a better term too!



Click to expand...

ðŸ˜ðŸ˜


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Oct 2, 2018)

Foxy n Bluewolf
Pack it in please

Thank you


----------



## woody69 (Oct 9, 2018)

Tashyboy said:



			The EU were given the opportunity to support British Mining, my industry with the same subsidies that are/ were given to other countries in the EU. The industry would of eventually closed but the blow was softened. The help never came. Lies from thre main camp, The EU will help industry and trade. I am proof they will pick and choose who they help.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry for the delay in replying, but been away and just seen this. I'm confused as to how you can blame the EU for the collapse of the mining industry though? Surely that is all on Thatcher? I can't find any material/evidence that the UK Government requested additional subsidies from the EU and they were rejected. Are you able to point me towards some? Interested to learn more.


----------



## Tashyboy (Oct 10, 2018)

woody69 said:



			Sorry for the delay in replying, but been away and just seen this. I'm confused as to how you can blame the EU for the collapse of the mining industry though? Surely that is all on Thatcher? I can't find any material/evidence that the UK Government requested additional subsidies from the EU and they were rejected. Are you able to point me towards some? Interested to learn more.
		
Click to expand...

I am not blaming the EU for the collapse of the mining industry at all, far from it. And to an extent yes Thatcher set the ball rolling re the end of mining, but Labour did it's fair share of closing just as many mines and helping to kill the industry. The EU towards the end of the industry could of got involved and supplied cash to help with a soft closure of the industry. Instead of the hard closure. You won't find any links to additional or any come to that point any subsidies from the EU. When the last few pits were struggling financially. The banks would give no more loans, ( the land/assets were split from mining to make the industry unviable) the miners were told that the government had applied to the EU for a grant to extend the industry. The EU were aware that the mining unions were pushing for a grant.  Eventually we found out that the Tory government went through the false process of applying for a grant, we were informed all along that "these things take time". The Tory government never applied, but more importantly, the EU knew they had not applied and never said owt. We found out when it was to late. So yes  I do blame the EU and Labour and deffo the Tory's and Thatcher.

Outta interest, don't know where you can look to see re EU subsidies to the UK industry, but saw an intersting Facebook post the other day. It listed how many UK companies have shut factories and production in this country and taken there production into the EU. With the aid of EU money. Tax payers money being used to ship jobs out of this country. A link to that would be helpful.


----------



## Hobbit (Oct 10, 2018)

Tashyboy said:



			Outta interest, don't know where you can look to see re EU subsidies to the UK industry, but saw an intersting Facebook post the other day. It listed how many UK companies have shut factories and production in this country and taken there production into the EU. With the aid of EU money. Tax payers money being used to ship jobs out of this country. A link to that would be helpful.
		
Click to expand...

Can't help you with any links Tashy but I am very aware of how Tata Steel dropped Teesside, and got a huge grant from the EU to set up in the Netherlands. Tata Steel also got paid Â£650 million when it mothballed the plant - I think they should have paid that back when they didn't un-mothball it. 

I'm also aware that my last employer moved some manufacturing from the UK to elsewhere in the EU - it wasn't a consolidation of two plants into one, it was close one in the NE and set up a new one elsewhere.


----------



## Tashyboy (Oct 10, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			Can't help you with any links Tashy but I am very aware of how Tata Steel dropped Teesside, and got a huge grant from the EU to set up in the Netherlands. Tata Steel also got paid Â£650 million when it mothballed the plant - I think they should have paid that back when they didn't un-mothball it.

I'm also aware that my last employer moved some manufacturing from the UK to elsewhere in the EU - it wasn't a consolidation of two plants into one, it was close one in the NE and set up a new one elsewhere.
		
Click to expand...

Hobbit my last post was long enough without dragging it on even more, but the Facebook post gave a list of companies who have located elsewhere in the EU. It was astonishing. It made the Remain arguement that leaving the EU will/ May cost jobs weak and hypocritical to say the least. Staying in the EU has cost the UK jobs and we the taxpayer have paid for it.


----------



## User62651 (Oct 10, 2018)

Tashyboy said:



			Hobbit my last post was long enough without dragging it on even more, but the Facebook post gave a list of companies who have located elsewhere in the EU. It was astonishing. It made the Remain arguement that leaving the EU will/ May cost jobs weak and hypocritical to say the least. *Staying in the EU has cost the UK jobs and we the taxpayer have paid for it.*

Click to expand...

That's a very sweeping statement and most likely not true. The EU migrants that are such an issue to Brexiteers are here because of jobs. Some sectors suffered some have prospered. Thought Tories are bragging about unemployment being lowest ever? We're still in EU with this low unemployment. Perhaps your sector suffered as did steel, textiles, all older industires. That's globalisation, not EUs fault. With Brexit we want more globalisation, markets in the raw, trade with whom we want so if anything using your argument we'll lose even more jobs to places that can produce cheaper. Anyway the coal we got cheaper from elsewhere in Europe, causing UK pit closures, back when Maggie was fighting Scargill was from Poland long before Poland joined EU.


----------



## Tashyboy (Oct 10, 2018)

The coal you got cheaper was because it was subsidised by other countries governments and and EU taxpayers monies ðŸ‘. Your money.


----------



## Hobbit (Oct 10, 2018)

maxfli65 said:



			That's a very sweeping statement and most likely not true. The EU migrants that are such an issue to Brexiteers are here because of jobs. Some sectors suffered some have prospered. Thought Tories are bragging about unemployment being lowest ever? We're still in EU with this low unemployment. Perhaps your sector suffered as did steel, textiles, all older industires. That's globalisation, not EUs fault. With Brexit we want more globalisation, markets in the raw, trade with whom we want so if anything using your argument we'll lose even more jobs to places that can produce cheaper. Anyway the coal we got cheaper from elsewhere in Europe, causing UK pit closures, back when Maggie was fighting Scargill was from Poland long before Poland joined EU.
		
Click to expand...

I thought that the EUâ€™s protectionism, using tariffs, would protect industries. Tashy could probably speak with more info but I thought the German coal fields received protection from cheap Polish coal when Poland joined the EU.


----------



## woody69 (Oct 10, 2018)

Tashyboy said:



			Hobbit my last post was long enough without dragging it on even more, but the Facebook post gave a list of companies who have located elsewhere in the EU. It was astonishing. It made the Remain arguement that leaving the EU will/ May cost jobs weak and hypocritical to say the least. Staying in the EU has cost the UK jobs and we the taxpayer have paid for it.
		
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the Facebook post in question, but perhaps you are referring to something similar to the one discussed in this article and calls out the facts - https://infacts.org/eu-not-paying-uk-firms-outsource/


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 10, 2018)

Tashyboy said:



			The coal you got cheaper was because it was subsidised by other countries governments and and EU taxpayers monies ðŸ‘. Your money.
		
Click to expand...

The UK  (aka UK Taxpayers) also subsidises UK coal production - to the tune of Â£365 million according to this May 2017 report! 

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...bsidises-coal-sector-with-356-million-a-year/


----------



## Tashyboy (Oct 11, 2018)

Foxholer said:



			The UK  (aka UK Taxpayers) also subsidises UK coal production - to the tune of Â£365 million according to this May 2017 report!

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...bsidises-coal-sector-with-356-million-a-year/

Click to expand...

Foxy, did you actually read that report in detail coz me flippin blood is boiling.
1, The UK is accused of not being transparent in its subsidies process, which emphasises my point of not applying for the EU grant.
2, The grant was not used for coal mining/ coal mines/pits. Coz there's none left. It was used for the coal sector.
3, The grants/our tax was used towards subsidies to coal fired power stations to burn coal from foreign countries which recieved EU grants to burn imported coal. So the taxpayer paid twice.
4, The German government subsidise its industry to the tune of Â£1.7 billion.

That report emphasised why I voted leave.


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 11, 2018)

Tashyboy said:



			Foxy, did you actually read that report in detail coz me flippin blood is boiling.
...
		
Click to expand...

Yes I did - the report that that article refers to to get that figure! 

I'm not a fan of subsidies for existing industries, but those figures don't seem too outlandish to me - given the differing sizes of countries and the nature of the actual coal.

Btw. Do you agree that Coal extraction for use to produce energy should be eliminated asap?


----------



## Tashyboy (Oct 11, 2018)

Foxholer said:



			Yes I did - the report that that article refers to to get that figure!

I'm not a fan of subsidies for existing industries, but those figures don't seem too outlandish to me - given the differing sizes of countries and the nature of the actual coal.

Btw. Do you agree that Coal extraction for use to produce energy should be eliminated asap?
		
Click to expand...

Without a shadow of a doubt foxy. Whats puzzles me is that the technology is there to burn fossil fuels cleaner. In essence to capture the co. But governments would not pay towards it. Provably especially the Chinese. But governments are prepared to Frack. Odd. 
Back to Coal and CO. Trump pulled out of the Paris agreement because of the favours given to China and India to continue to pollute the world for X number of yearsand produce products whilst the west world is shackled into producing under strict Co guidelines. No wonder he had a Bee in his bonnet.


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 11, 2018)

Tashyboy said:



			...
Back to Coal and CO. Trump pulled out of the Paris agreement because of the f*avours given to China and India to continue to pollute the world* for X number of yearsand produce products whilst the west world is shackled into producing under strict Co guidelines. No wonder he had a Bee in his bonnet.
		
Click to expand...

I believe that was simply an excuse! My view is that Trump pulled out of the agreement in order to support the extremely bad US energy producers! And as by far the #1 polluting nation, it is essential that US reduces its carbon footprint! Otherwise, we are doomed!

I'm actually in favour of a 'staggered' approach for countries who need to use the likes of coal for energy, but a plan needs to be agreed to get there faster than 'more advanced' naions. It seems to me that while 'bad' energy production is a consequence of 'less 'universally advanced' nations' (i.e where use of polluting fuel may be the most convenient form of energy production in certain areas of the country), those countries also have something of a head-start, compared to others, when adopting the latest technology! 

And it seems something of an anomoly that certain of those in that position (China & India specifically) have both nuclear weapons and significant space programs!

But it's the US that is the major polluter - by far! - in the world! Until there's a commitment to do something about that, then very little progress can be made overall! The head in the sand denial of 'climate change' as a phenomenon by Trump etc. is extremely disturbing!


----------



## Crazyface (Oct 11, 2018)

Here's a thought. Maybe, Mrs T was planning for the future. We've got loads of coal left and are merrilly burning  other countries stocks. In a few hundred years time they'll have none and we will have.....LOADS. 
Maye a bit bonkers.....


----------



## Tashyboy (Oct 11, 2018)

Foxholer said:



			I believe that was simply an excuse! My view is that Trump pulled out of the agreement in order to support the extremely bad US energy producers! And as by far the #1 polluting nation, it is essential that US reduces its carbon footprint! Otherwise, we are doomed!

I'm actually in favour of a 'staggered' approach for countries who need to use the likes of coal for energy, but a plan needs to be agreed to get there faster than 'more advanced' naions. It seems to me that while 'bad' energy production is a consequence of 'less 'universally advanced' nations' (i.e where use of polluting fuel may be the most convenient form of energy production in certain areas of the country), those countries also have something of a head-start, compared to others, when adopting the latest technology!

And it seems something of an anomoly that certain of those in that position (China & India specifically) have both nuclear weapons and significant space programs!

But it's the US that is the major polluter - by far! - in the world! Until there's a commitment to do something about that, then very little progress can be made overall! The head in the sand denial of 'climate change' as a phenomenon by Trump etc. is extremely disturbing!
		
Click to expand...

Right foxy, you will have to bear with me coz am going back and forwards with this site and facts. But.
The top five CO2 producers are, ( (2012) and largest cause of pollution
1, China, 8.1 Billion metric tons ,        coal
2, USA, 5.27 billion metric tons ,        coal
3, India,1.83 billion metric tons,          coal
4, Russia,1.78 billion metric tons,        Coal and gas
5, Japan, 1.26 billion metric tons.        Coal and gas.

Now as much as coal and gas is gonna kill the planet. Nuclear energy puts the eeby jeebies up me. Ironically the country that is poisoning the planet the most is supplying us with nuclear technology. How's that work out. Re Trump, he made a pact in his manifesto that he would protect coal mining jobs in the USA. But the stats I show are from 2012, he knew for five years that China and India were two of the three largest polluters and yet nowt was being done about them. He played his get outta jail free card.


----------



## hors limite (Oct 11, 2018)

Bloody hell, off topic or what? Can anyone tell me the number of active members of the forum? I ask because of the extraordinary disparity between the numbers who have taken the trouble to vote on the original question and the numbers who have viewed.


----------



## Tashyboy (Oct 11, 2018)

hors limite said:



			Bloody hell, off topic or what? Can anyone tell me the number of active members of the forum? I ask because of the extraordinary disparity between the numbers who have taken the trouble to vote on the original question and the numbers who have viewed.
		
Click to expand...

It's the norm for any topic on the forum, me and foxy are having a bit of man love. Summat that's not to common on here sometimes.


----------



## Hobbit (Oct 11, 2018)

hors limite said:



			Bloody hell, off topic or what? Can anyone tell me the number of active members of the forum? I ask because of the extraordinary disparity between the numbers who have taken the trouble to vote on the original question and the numbers who have viewed.
		
Click to expand...

I think there's something wrong with the algorithms anyway.

Total votes; 90............................... but if you add up each section it = 94
Then add the three percentages together = 104%

As for the number that voted 'v' the number that viewed; sounds like the vote on the day. Lots of can't be bothered.


----------



## Fade and Die (Oct 11, 2018)

Tashyboy said:



			Right foxy, you will have to bear with me coz am going back and forwards with this site and facts. But.
The top five CO2 producers are, ( (2012) and largest cause of pollution
1, China, 8.1 Billion metric tons ,        coal
2, USA, 5.27 billion metric tons ,        coal
3, India,1.83 billion metric tons,          coal
4, Russia,1.78 billion metric tons,        Coal and gas
5, Japan, 1.26 billion metric tons.        Coal and gas.

Now as much as coal and gas is gonna kill the planet. Nuclear energy puts the eeby jeebies up me. Ironically the country that is poisoning the planet the most is supplying us with nuclear technology. How's that work out. Re Trump, he made a pact in his manifesto that he would protect coal mining jobs in the USA. But the stats I show are from 2012, he knew for five years that China and India were two of the three largest polluters and yet nowt was being done about them. He played his get outta jail free card.
		
Click to expand...

So unless 5 billion from the list do their bit I can't see me buying an electric car making much of a dent.


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 11, 2018)

Tashyboy said:



			Right foxy, you will have to bear with me coz am going back and forwards with this site and facts. But.
The top five CO2 producers are, ( (2012) and largest cause of pollution
1, China, 8.1 Billion metric tons ,        coal
2, USA, 5.27 billion metric tons ,        coal
3, India,1.83 billion metric tons,          coal
4, Russia,1.78 billion metric tons,        Coal and gas
5, Japan, 1.26 billion metric tons.        Coal and gas.

Now as much as coal and gas is gonna kill the planet. Nuclear energy puts the eeby jeebies up me. Ironically the country that is poisoning the planet the most is supplying us with nuclear technology. How's that work out. Re Trump, he made a pact in his manifesto that he would protect coal mining jobs in the USA. But the stats I show are from 2012, he knew for five years that China and India were two of the three largest polluters and yet nowt was being done about them. He played his get outta jail free card.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, China is the larger CO2 producer - 2015 figures indicate 10.5B tonnes, so increasing. But with 4 times the population of US and a 'developing' economy, that's not altogether surprising and, from memory, was recognised in the Kyoto (or subsequent) protocol. CO2 production per person in China is about half that of US. There's certainly plenty of scope for reducing pollution by both countries - as there in India, Russia and others.

Renewables (particularly non-Hydro ones) will eventually become the predominant power source imo. But what shape the planet will be in when that happens, I fear to think!


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 11, 2018)

Fade and Die said:



			So unless 5 billion from the list do their bit I can't see me buying an electric car making much of a dent.
		
Click to expand...

And, unless charged by renewable power, a good chunk of fossil fuels is still used to provide an electric power too! Healthier cities though!


----------



## Fade and Die (Oct 11, 2018)

Foxholer said:



			And, unless charged by renewable power, a good chunk of fossil fuels is still used to provide an electric power too! Healthier cities though!
		
Click to expand...

True, but sooner we go full nuclear the better. Renewables are a massive waste of time and money. Only viable long term solution is nuclear.


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 12, 2018)

Fade and Die said:



			True, but sooner we go full nuclear the better. Renewables are a massive waste of time and money. Only viable long term solution is nuclear.
		
Click to expand...

I used to be of the same opinion, but have 'softened' somewhat after a few 'disasters'! I'm not sure the cost-effectiveness of fission compared to the danger potential warrants its long term use. And getting rid of the waste is still an issue - launching it into the sun would be my favoured method, but getting it away from Earth is the critical danger stage of that exercise! There will always be the temptation to 'extend' the life of generators beyond 'safe' life during economic low periods!

Fusion reactors MIGHT be the answer, but these are still theroretical/experimental - and/so hugely expensive!

In the mean time, I believe it's worth workplaces providing solar powered recharging facilities for vehicles. That would 'solve' the fallacy of electric vehicles being 'green' - as they would (at least very nearly) be.


----------

