Re: Brexit
 

On the same side ?

Re: Brexit
 

We are not and have never been on the same side.

Re: Brexit
 

Yes there was plenty of information, information that was half true or totally false along with the other information that was true. People had a vote based on that, it's not undemocratic to want a second referendum based on what we now know.

---------- Post added at 01:53 ---------- Previous post was at 01:50 ----------

My point totally which plenty of people don't seem to agree on. This is not a game, there is no winning or losing side, we are all in this together and we all want the best for the country we live in. We might disagree on the best way for that to happen but I just don't get those that are choosing to call those that want a second referendum to be eroding away democratic rights.

Re: Brexit
 

Everything in the modern world consists of lies and deceit, all choices are made knowing this . . no reason to treat one vote different from all the others we've had over the past 20 years or so.

I agree there's no 'winning or losing' in this, but people are turning it into that by complaining 'it isn't fair' :p:

Re: Brexit
 

No it doesn't, there is no ambiguity, two wrongs don't make a right, end of no matter what side you are on.

You know what I think of when I hear about someone winning, stock piling food, having the army on stand by and turning Kent into a lorry park, now that's winning.

If every one knew what they were voting for how come so much of it has come as a surprise, particularly to the people leading us, it coming as a shock that Dover is so important and our leaving deal being rubbish for not giving us any mps in the European parliament being two particular stand out moments from the shining wits running this fiasco.

And many of the leavers on this thread are fair weather, where were you when I was all but a lone voice here saying we should leave, I don't recall you boring us all with hegemony back then.

---------- Post added at 07:55 ---------- Previous post was at 07:54 ----------

You'd better be very soon because we're all in the same boat

Re: Brexit
 

What do we know now, that we didn’t before the referendum, that would have fundamentally changed how people may have voted?

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

Well given the choice between May or Corbyn even the Italians would be infinately better

Re: Brexit
 

Nothing says "freedom" like being made to be available by your employers out of normal working hours, especially in these days of ever-increasing work-related stress.

"Boo hiss" to those who want people to have a reasonable work/life balance, the nasty bar-stewards...

Re: Brexit
 

You're getting a bit socialist these days Hugh, there's a Liberal Democrat in there somewhere ;)

Re: Brexit
 

Some will only be happy when we are all on the losing side, isolated and overwhelmed by the likes of China, USA and Russia. Rather than being part of the EU where there is strength in numbers.

Re: Brexit
 

Now then , you're talking common sense, no need for that on this thread !

Re: Brexit
 

You're totally missing the point. The fact of the matter is that it should be the UK that decides UK matters. Especially when we are supposed to have already been told in the Maastricht Treaty that we didn't have to follow the EU rules on these matters. Let's face it, if it was that beneficial to business, they wouldn't force it upon us. The EU is constantly going on about "levelling the playing field". IE No EU country is allowed to have an advantage over France and Germany. No surprise that Germany had working hours limits before the Treaty imposed them on most other EU countries.



If working hours is a health and safety issue, then that should include what you can and cannot do outside working hours. Eg Little point in having a working hours limit if the person also does another job or hobby that isn't resting. What would have the biggest impact on H&S, working 50 hours in a week, or going out each night till the early hours at a club(or whatever) and drinking heavily and/or taking drugs?

Re: Brexit
 

Corbyn's stance on Brexit should put a stop to that. ;)

Re: Brexit
 

No surprise where JC has parked his car. Next to Putin's tank and BoJo's bicycle.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...still-13766113

---------- Post added at 13:11 ---------- Previous post was at 13:10 ----------

I wondered where the Liberal Democrats were hiding. ;)

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

If you need to ask that then I don't believe this topic I or you.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

+1

It's just the usual remainer nonsense bollocks init ;)

Re: Brexit
 

I'm not answering a question that people should already know or if they don't a quick Google should help. It's been widely reported on many times and I don't want to get drawn into an argument over it. My original point still stands. This isn't a game to me, there is no winners or losers but a second referendum based on what we know now is not anti-democratic. That goes for people who voted leave or remain.

Re: Brexit
 

Breunion Boys - Britain Come Back

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Come-Back.html


:sick:


Pass the ear plugs! The boy band who want to sing to you about stopping Brexit... and think their musical arguments and gyrating dance moves will keep Britain in the EU

Re: Brexit
 

HAHA!!! Just on this song alone I want the golden xfactor buzzer to fast forward leave

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

So what about the UK becoming a federal state?

Re: Brexit
 

I don't need to justify anything, it's been all over the media.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

Which is why I pulled you up on calling people who wanted a second referendum which you said goes against democracy.

Re: Brexit
 

Never going to be allowed to happen, as it would give us English a say over our own affairs. The current situation is one that wouldn't be tolerated anywhere else in the world.

Re: Brexit
 

Nothing has changed as far as I'm concerned . . I voted out and it's still looking good.

To suggest I didn't realise the consequences of my vote is a little condecending IMO

Re: Brexit
 

Where did I state you didn't realise the consequences of your vote?

Re: Brexit
 

And don't forget there's nothing undemocratic about trying to steal your vote from you.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

You don't mention me by name, but you allude that I (and others) didn't really know what we were voting for, and that we were swayed by lies & deceit.

Re: Brexit
 

But it's not, that's the whole point.

---------- Post added at 17:28 ---------- Previous post was at 17:26 ----------

I said some people. If you don't fall into that category then I don't see what the problem is.

Re: Brexit
 

I was actually swayed to vote leave by the actual behaviour of the corrupted and cancerous EU, not by any campaigning by any side.

But by all means - lets keep having the same vote over and over - it's the Anti-Democratic EU way. :rolleyes:

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

You speak for yourself, stop speaking for the other 17.4 million. While you might be happy, others aren't.

Re: Brexit
 

Answer the question. Otherwise I doubt your credibility.

Re: Brexit
 

We know lots of things. I think it's a bit unrealistic to ask one person to name everything. It sounds like you have a counterpoint waiting in the wings, perhaps you would instead like to share that with us?

Re: Brexit
 

Firstly - Kindly, do not ever tell others what to do!!!

Secondly, If he or I want to speak for the 17.4 Million who voted for Brexit - we will.

You have made your point for the last day or so - quite a number of people do not agree with you, time to move on now in this discussion.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

Why should he be allowed to speak for some people that disagree with him, that needs calling out, he has his own opinion, fine but an argument shouldn't be then brought forward for 17.4 million people who might think different.. Some people want a second referendum based on what we know now.

Oh that's clever isn't it. You WILL speak for 17.4 million people and yet you're calling out those that want a second referendum, undemocratic. Speak for yourself not for others if you want true democracy.

---------- Post added at 18:15 ---------- Previous post was at 18:13 ----------

Of course they have a counterpart which is why I won't answer as I can't be bothered getting into an argument over it. The facts are there in the media for those that want to know. I just can't stand the people shouting down others saying people are going against democracy because some want a second referendum based on what we know now.

---------- Post added at 18:17 ---------- Previous post was at 18:15 ----------

I said I couldn't be bothered getting into an argument over it when it's all in the media of the lies and half truths. I also said that goes for both side be it leave or remain.

Re: Brexit
 

And as it has been said to you now, several times, some members do not agree with you, you've made your point, the people who disagree with you, have made theirs - they don't agree with you, so now I am stepping in and telling you to move on with this discussion - this directive is not open to debate.

Re: Brexit
 

To be perfectly frank and honest, what many know now is how much crying and gnashing of teeth is being done by the remain camp.

Re: Brexit
 

I didn’t realise he had a minder, i’m Sure he can speak for himself.

He claims a second referendum is justifiable based on what we now know.

I claim we knew enough before the first referendum and I don’t believe there has been any new information that has come to light after the referendum that we didn’t know before.

So if Mythica believes otherwise then share it, I don’t see what the issue is.

Re: Brexit
 

Do you mean you were 50/50 then Mick? you hid it well ;)
What did you see as the disadvantages of leaving the EU?

Are our MPs any less 'corrupt' ? Look at all the lies during the Brexit vote, cash for questions, MP expense scandals etc etc.... Can't remember any major corruption scandals on the same level in the EU ( apart from Farage never turning up and getting paid and claiming his EU pension which we'll have to fund for him..)

Re: Brexit
 

I'll move on when people stop mentioning my name in their posts. They also need to move on and stop calling out people saying they are being undemocratic like the post above. You can't shut down one side of the argument, that's not very democratic.

Re: Brexit
 

One side-effect of Brexit is that other legislation is not being implemented. This was characterised by a recent Evening Standard cartoon which showed a drone representing Brexit and all the grounded aeroplanes representing the legislation that wasn't going to happen.

One thing I didn't realise until checking on the drone story today was that drone legislation which could have helped prevent the Gatwick situation was canned by Chris Grayling as he diverted his civil servants to work on Brexit instead.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...xit-chaos.html

Re: Brexit
 

I said that some people want a second referendum based on what we know now which isn't undemocratic. I've not once stated personally I want one.

Re: Brexit
 

At the risk of annoying Mick (apologies)

I'm interested in how many 'some' is of the 33.5 million who voted, and the percentage of the 'some' who want a second referendum because they didn't vote in the first one.

Re: Brexit
 

What's the point of asking a question you know I have no answer to? I know all people aren't happy as I've spoken to people that aren't happy.

Re: Brexit
 

Stop avoiding the question it is very irritating. You’re not a politician.

I’ve made my case, I don’t believe there has been any fundamental difference in what we know now to what we knew then.

If that is your argument for some people wanting a second referendum.

So if you believe there are differences in knowledge that would legitimise a second referendum please share with us.

Or perhaps one your minders could?

Re: Brexit
 

No further questions M'lud

:)

Re: Brexit
 

It's all freely available in the press and has been spoke about plenty of times before. I'm not avoiding anything, just don't want to be brought into that argument.

---------- Post added at 18:53 ---------- Previous post was at 18:52 ----------

There wasn't really a question anyway was there. Some people want a second referendum which is fact. My point of talking about this is it's not undemocratic to want one.

Re: Brexit
 

Oh really ?

When team members issue an instruction, you do not argue, ever.

To everyone else - this discussion on whether A second referendum is Democratic or not, needs to move on - we've been on this now for several pages.

Time to draw a line under this particular avenue of debate, it is quite clear people do not agree either way. We really need to step away from divisive arguments where there is quite clearly no chance of a consensus.

And a final reminder - people who do not follow team instructions, there is still time to be added to Paul's Xmas holiday list. (Being added = Account time out until after the new year). :)

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

Do you think politicians and the set up in this country is any better? I don't. We need to stop being high and mighty and think we're perfect and Johnny foreigner isn't. No one is better than anyone else.

Who will be the enemy when the EU is gone? Inner state faceless perfidious hegemonic bureaucrats ? They'll always be someone to hate/blame as long as little Englanders exist.

Re: Brexit
 

You don’t want to be brought into the argument?

You’re making the argument ............( or rather you’re not) failing and looking very foolish.

You can’t back up your assertion. You’ve been asked several times to back it up, but you refuse instead telling us to google it.

It seems you can’t be arsed to google it either to back up your own statement, ( but i bet secretly you did, but couldn’t Find anything)

No, but you say they want one because there is “ new information “ out there that wasn’t there before the first referendum.

So what is the new information, it’s a simple request and if this info is all over the web it shouldn’ Be easy to copy and paste, so what’s the problem?

---------- Post added at 19:18 ---------- Previous post was at 19:15 ----------

Sorry, I posted before I read this.

Just asking someone to back up their statements, but they won’t so you’re right, i’ll Leave it. They’re the ones that look daft.

Re: Brexit
 

I'm sorry but if people were too dim to read between the lines when it came to voting they shouldn't have voted at all.

The information was out there when the campaign started for the referendum. We are no longer in the 1950's were information was limited as we have the internet now and tv.

If people didn't do their own research prior to voting well it's nobodys fault. I knew myself the EU weren't going to play ball its common sense to know that the EU wouldn't let any country leave and retain the same rights as a member.

The whole point was to go for gold and see what comes out at the end. I just don't think we have pushed hard enough.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

To assist anyone interested in understanding what we know now compared to the heady days of June 2016, this recent article provides a list of 100 such things.
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top...exit-1-5824690

Re: Brexit
 

We also know that Theresa May is useless. I defy anyone to argue with that !

Re: Brexit
 

l can't argue with that although the opposition leader is just as useless IMO.

Re: Brexit
 

Welcome back Old Boy...oh sorry, it's not. :D
Whilst you're correct about JC's uselessness, we knew that before June 2016. And Theresa May wasn't exactly a star performer at the Home Office was she? So we had some clues even back then.

Re: Brexit
 

that’s called a debate/ discussion, you are on a “discussion forum”

If you’re not prepared to enter into a debate, that you started, then what are you doing here?


conveniently for you.

---------- Post added at 20:40 ---------- Previous post was at 20:18 ----------

At least some one stepped in. But posted from a Remain backside wiping rag.

1. We knew we there would be a divorce bill.

2. “Could” ? Not would.

3 a prediction to 2033 :Rolf:

4. We knew it would be at the very least 2years.

5. We knew we would leaving all EU institutions, treaties and agreements, but could negotiate new relations

6. A prediction to 2033 :rolf:

7. Interesting, not read the Times article, I wonder where all the money goes?

8. “Could”

9. We’ll only an idiot would think the pound wouldn’t be affected, but not economic Armageddon as predicted.


10. Wow, a real deal breaker!

11. Really, we’ve got to 11 and this is it?

12. Could......ffs.

13. Could.......ffs

14. Quite possibly the funniest, and really? 14 and we’re here?

15. Would, followed immediately by could...............

16. Is just plain incorrect.

17. Could....

18. Could......

19. May.......

I’ve read enough , this is just a list of all the project fear stories that have appeared in the press, there is nothing substantive in this list from a remainer rag.

Re: Brexit
 

I won't get over-involved in historic situations as I prefer to look forwards, not backwards. But just taking Pierre's first point. Nigel Farage was claiming as recently as 2017 that there would be no divorce bill. We now know that that is false. As an MEP, if he didn't know this then I suspect many others didn't either. And who can forget it taking a Brexit Secretary some two years to understand the importance of the Calais-Dover crossing for UK trade?
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...b09e5f6cce7a5b

Re: Brexit
 

I get a bit fuzzy about the whole....time being linear...thing.

But as I recall, July 2017, was after all the months in 2016........

It was stated in all literature that U.K. would have to pay into the EU for any future relationship.....

That said.. I concede, there appears to be no mention of a “divorce bill” with the EU, I would argue it’s semantics, but l’ll concede when I have to, on that one point.

Re: Brexit
 

The basis of the EU claiming a "divorce" bill was we had previously agreed a 5 year budget. If that is the case then if the budget had been set for 20 years, would we be liable for another 15 years on top. That would be just silly.


How could we really disagree with anything in that budget? It's not really allowed to disagree with Germany/France. There is nothing in the budgets than set out who is going to provide what money. That is in separate rules which are linked to being a member of the EU. The budgets specify money that would come back to the UK, but now it won't. For those reasons alone there is no real legal basis for most of the "divorce" bill.


All sorts of things create delays with the Dover-Calais crossing. EG weather, strikes, problems with the Eurotunnel. Everything carries on. It won't be a total blockade of any sort. Any delays in lorries for the continent getting into the UK, will be doubled when they return. That will create a lack of available lorries in the EU as they will be held up in the UK. It will add 1 or 2 days to each return journey. Similar to a bad weather situation.

Re: Brexit
 

The exam question was: What do we know now that we didn't know in June 2016. A Brexit Secretary has fessed up that he didn't get the importance of Dover-Calais until recently and we now know that despite their denials until recently, there will be a divorce bill. The article I linked to listed some 100 other things.

How significant the above two issues are is a separate question entirely which doubtless people will have different views depending on their viewpoints and knowledge.

Re: Brexit
 

So where was the basis for the "divorce" bill set out before the vote? It's just a relatively made up number. with no basis in law. The agreement to a "divorce" bill was just made to try and smooth over an agreement with the EU. It is usual to set out the costs of ending an agreement when the agreement is started.


What was or wasn't known in June 2016, couldn't possibly have been known beforehand, as it depends on what, if any, agreement can be made with the EU. The rest of the EU will also have problems, but they are under the impression that we will give in to any, and all of their demands.

Re: Brexit
 

Leading Brexiters were stating as fact in 2016 that there would be no divorce bill. We've subsequently learnt that this is wrong regardless of whether or not a transition phase is successfully agreed by the UK Parliament.

Due to the divided UK position and the superior size of the EU, many Leavers are now wising up to the fact that the statement "They need us more than we need them" was a a little misleading. I fear Leavers are in for a disappointing few years if they expect the balance of power to change. As I said back in 2016, sorry, but size matters in negotiations. That's why your local corner shop can't match your local supermarket's prices.

Re: Brexit
 

If you're going to compare (or use as an analogy) supermarkets with the EU, it simply reinforces my belief we'd be better off without either :D

Re: Brexit
 

And yet France, with an economy run on local business rather than huge chains is set to overtake the UK in terms of GDP rankings.

Re: Brexit
 

Lets put the vote on that on hold until we can get clarification ;)

Re: Brexit
 

She is only useless if she has a 2nd referendrum, before the 1st is carried out. ;)

Re: Brexit
 

She's useless because while everyone is concentrating on Brexit the rest of our infrastructure,social,welfare and health is gradually eroding away.

Re: Brexit
 

I thought we had various Government ministers/departments looking after that stuff.

Re: Brexit
 

Like this..

https://www.hsj.co.uk/nhs-long-term-...024043.article

https://www.gponline.com/gp-contract...rticle/1521574

And this..

https://www.theguardian.com/social-c...er-social-care

And this..

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...-public-policy

https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/65369...w-to-get-help/

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...iversal-credit

Re: Brexit
 

With a limited supply of money and limited legislative timetable Brexit is affecting their ability to do these things.

Wasted time/resources planning for a no deal scenario despite it not being Government policy to seek that outcome.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.o...costing-brexit

Re: Brexit
 

I'm sure the Brexit elite are pleased that you believe that. The reality is somewhat different, as we've seen with the drone legislation being stopped, to take one of many examples.

This cartoon sums it up quite nicely. :D
https://www.instagram.com/p/Brm5nHEHVVQ/

Re: Brexit
 

You lot will grasp any straw to further your silly claims :rolleyes:

The UK infrastructure, social welfare and health has been eroding since well before Brexit was ever mentioned.

Brexit will be the cause of Global warming in your next tirade I imagine

Re: Brexit
 

And them drones that's brexit.:)

Re: Brexit
 

That may be true, however the time, money and effort wasted on Brexit is delaying solutions and funding.

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/ci...-looms-closer/

It’s not just wages too, accommodation, IT infrastructure, pension contributions all attract a cost.

Re: Brexit
 

There is nothing silly about important UK policies being ignored and put on the back burner because of Brexit.

l am more interested in these important policies and how we can improve things in these important areas for the people of this country rather then a internecine civil war in both HMG and the opposition which is effectively putting most of these important policies on the back burner until this Brexit shambles is sorted out which might be never..

Re: Brexit
 

:nono:

And that will be the last time you use that term in this thread - you're usually the first to complain when people use "Remoaner" - follow the first post rules:

Re: Brexit
 

Remainers fury over Brexit fuelled by CONTEMPT for working classes - report






ACADEMICS have argued that Remainers’ anti-Brexit fury is fuelled by a deep-seated contempt for Britain’s working class who they feel should NEVER have been allowed a say in the future of the nation.












Brexiteer and historian Robert Tombs said his academic group called Briefings for Brexit has unearthed evidence that those protesting most vehemently over Britain’s EU referendum result have nothing but scorn for the nation’s largely white working class, and the fact their decision has so clearly shaped the future of the country. Mr Tombs says Remainers are motivated by “identity politics” and associate Brexit with the working class and are arrogantly taking their fury out on Leave campaigners because they simply cannot get over the fact those deemed insignificant by comparison have carved out the UK’s future without them. He contends this superiority complex is the real reason behind the “Remainer Revolt”, rather than any real love for Brussels. Mr Tombs told the Daily Telegraph: “Hard-line Remainers... have been and are willing to push their campaign beyond legitimate politics as previously understood. “First, they have encouraged foreign authorities to resist the policy of the UK, and have thereby done much to sabotage that policy.

“Second, they have attempted to de-legitimise legal votes, using arguments that would take us back 150 years and more – essentially, that ordinary people are incapable of taking a major national decision and that they must therefore be overruled.”


https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...is-theresa-may

Re: Brexit
 

That’s magnificent journalism right there. This guy has “unearthed evidence” and fails to provide any whatsoever!

It’s essentially an emotive opinion piece laced with some dog whistle terms for the benefit of his audience.

Edit: turns out the source IS an opinion piece from the Telegraph

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...empts-subvert/

Re: Brexit
 

A totally independent article, written by a frequent contributor to Briefings for Brexit...

Re: Brexit
 

Totally agree with that.It explains the venom and undemocratic attitude many of them have,they behave like petulant children mostly and that's why most comments are not worth a reply ..

Just a sarcastic comment here and there will do when i can be arsed lol :):)

Re: Brexit
 

Not much different than most of the stuff linked to by the remain camp then, just somebodies opinion . .

Re: Brexit
 

Well he is making an accusation he should clearly be able to back up.

Re: Brexit
 

By the same token - whenever we see a scare story from the Project fear department, they need to back up their "opinion".

Works both ways. ;)

Re: Brexit
 

Certain things like economic projections are by their nature estimates (based on certain assumptions). Both sides make guesses of what they think the EU will/will not do and their motives going forward.

That article is something that he should be able to out and out prove.

I do think there’s an absence of facts on both sides and that article is tantamount to name calling.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

:tu:

Re: Brexit
 

Well... someone brought blue passports into the conversation which can only be for nostalgia. Even though Croatia use blue and are in the EU.

Re: Brexit
 

Funny that isn’t it, a recent example on here, just last night, is proof that is sometimes difficult to achieve !

Re: Brexit
 

Every one has an opinion, doesn't make them right. It's a strange quirk occurring at the moment that hauliers who go to Switzerland and experience delays at the border are treated the same as some berk who has never left Coventry and given the same amount of air time on telly to espouse their views.

Someone else's opinion that's been ignored is Patrick Minford who said manufacturing would largely be eliminated post brexit, wonder who voted for that? I do kind of get the Minford ignoring though to be fair, he has been wrong before after all, let's hope he is again for the sake of them oop north

Re: Brexit
 

Now 75, Patrick Minford tends to be heard through Economists for Free Trade (formerly Economists for Brexit).