Brexit (Old)

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Angua

The leave choice on the ballot paper, was not the leave sold to us by the leave campaign. - What we were sold, is a huge part of the problem May is trying to resolve, somewhat unsuccessfully.

But it was the ballot paper that people voted on. They were also influenced by the Remain campaign and the 52% still voted Leave.

Actually, looking into what Leave said, is it the £350m/week you're concerned about? if so, nobody ended up believing it was £350m because that sum was well debunked during the campaign.

Is it the naivety of people like Fox and Davis who thought it would be the easiest negotiation ever? Do you seriously believe that Leavers needed to take that into account as a partial basis for their decision?

The problem that TM is trying to resolve is the rigidity of the EU and its unsurprising desire to see us well stiffed. We hurt them most, in retaliation, by leaving on No Deal.




---------- Post added at 09:43 ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Some of the posts are bordering on personal abuse - desist this behaviour or infractions will be issued.

I understand passions can run high on this subject, but posters either need to calm down, or leave the thread until they can discuss the subject without perjorative comment, or they will be aided in this.

TLDR - calm down, cut the personal insults.

Can I say "....idiots like Fox and Davis"?

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

But it was the ballot paper that people voted on. They were also influenced by the Remain campaign and the 52% still voted Leave.

Actually, looking into what Leave said, is it the £350m/week you're concerned about? if so, nobody ended up believing it was £350m because that sum was well debunked during the campaign.

Is it the naivety of people like Fox and Davis who thought it would be the easiest negotiation ever? Do you seriously believe that Leavers needed to take that into account as a partial basis for their decision?

The problem that TM is trying to resolve is the rigidity of the EU and its unsurprising desire to see us well stiffed. We hurt them most, in retaliation, by leaving on No Deal.




---------- Post added at 09:43 ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 ----------



Can I say "....idiots like Fox and Davis"?

Voting remain = status quo. What is there to really be sold in such a situation?

The Ballot paper was a bald question. The leave campaign sold voters a more flexible leave option. Insisting that ALL voters chose the bald leave option based on the ballot paper alone has always been the problem.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Angua

Voting remain = status quo. What is there to really be sold in such a situation?

The Ballot paper was a bald question. The leave campaign sold voters a more flexible leave option. Insisting that ALL voters chose the bald leave option based on the ballot paper alone has always been the problem.

The wiser Leave voters understood that Remain does not mean Status Quo. The EU is morphing towards federalism; the Euro might collapse; Turkey might join the EU. No chance of preserving Status Quo, which I concede never did us too much harm.

A referendum has to be a bald question. The people voting can work it out for themselves.

The only problem is the anti-democratic approach of many Remainers wishing to defeat the 1st Referendum; i.e. play the EU's nasty game.

[jfman]

The EU may be forging closer links but we’ve continued to hold an opt out for our interests on almost all of it.

Turkey will not join the EU for the forseeable future, each member state is able to veto such a proposal including Greece. I’m not even sure Erdogan wants to join anyway.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by jfman

The EU may be forging closer links but we’ve continued to hold an opt out for our interests on almost all of it.

Turkey will not join the EU for the forseeable future, each member state is able to veto such a proposal including Greece. I’m not even sure Erdogan wants to join anyway.

I think Erdogan would struggle over the requirements on EU Human Rights for a start.

[Sephiroth]

None of those selective comments matter. The Referendum result was LEAVE and those of you wishing to thwart that are anti-democratic, especially if you allow yourselves into being fooled by the “status quo” argument.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

But it was the ballot paper that people voted on. They were also influenced by the Remain campaign and the 52% still voted Leave.

Actually, looking into what Leave said, is it the £350m/week you're concerned about? if so, nobody ended up believing it was £350m because that sum was well debunked during the campaign.

Is it the naivety of people like Fox and Davis who thought it would be the easiest negotiation ever? Do you seriously believe that Leavers needed to take that into account as a partial basis for their decision?

The problem that TM is trying to resolve is the rigidity of the EU and its unsurprising desire to see us well stiffed. We hurt them most, in retaliation, by leaving on No Deal.




---------- Post added at 09:43 ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 ----------



Can I say "....idiots like Fox and Davis"?

I was referring to personal abuse of other CF posters.

---------- Post added at 12:49 ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

None of those selective comments matter. The Referendum result was LEAVE and those of you wishing to thwart that are anti-democratic, especially if you allow yourselves into being fooled by the “status quo” argument.

Disagreeing with someone is not "anti-democratic".

It could be argued that trying to shut down others' differing views by calling them "anti-democratic" is, in itself, anti-democratic...

That's like saying anyone who protests or disagrees with whover is elected in a national election is "anti-democratic" - no, it is freedom of assembly and free speech.

[Mythica]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

None of those selective comments matter. The Referendum result was LEAVE and those of you wishing to thwart that are anti-democratic, especially if you allow yourselves into being fooled by the “status quo” argument.

The referendum result was leave based on half truths/lies. Wanting another referendum based on what we know now is not anti-democratic.

[denphone]

More cabinet divisions at the heart of government this morning.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ond-referendum

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The wiser Leave voters understood that Remain does not mean Status Quo. The EU is morphing towards federalism; the Euro might collapse; Turkey might join the EU. No chance of preserving Status Quo, which I concede never did us too much harm.

A referendum has to be a bald question. The people voting can work it out for themselves.

The only problem is the anti-democratic approach of many Remainers wishing to defeat the 1st Referendum; i.e. play the EU's nasty game.

Ah, so according to you, you can selectively choose what remain meant to voters, but not what leave was sold as.

[1andrew1]

Main prediction from the FT's Brexit Briefing column is that the government will ask the EU for an extension of the withdrawal process. This ups the chances of another referendum, a general election or a new attempt at pushing Mrs May’s deal/similar through Parliament.
It also predicts that Theresa May will not be prime minister by December 31 2019 and if there is an election, Jeremy Corbyn will not win it.
https://www.ft.com/content/125e4aea-...f-6183d3002ee1

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

None of those selective comments matter. The Referendum result was LEAVE and those of you wishing to thwart that are anti-democratic, especially if you allow yourselves into being fooled by the “status quo” argument.

If these “selective” comments don’t matter you are effectively saying facts and reality don’t matter. Which is an astonishing position to hold.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

An abstention is an abstention - it is a decision not to voice an opinion, for whatever reason, for or against. It isn’t uncommon to hear those who are on the losing side in a vote try to co-opt the abstainers to their side of the argument, on the basis that those people didn’t support whatever was proposed, but that really won’t do. An abstention is an abstention and that’s it. You can’t use it to infer anything, with the single exception of votes where a quorum is required, in which case the rules do effectively make an abstention into a vote for the status quo.

We do not use quorums in British public voting, with one exception, that being the 1979 Scottish devolution referendum, where one was set, and devolution did not happen, despite there being a yes vote, because the quorum was not met. The result was a running sore in Scottish politics that wasn’t truly healed until Labour re-ran the referendum at its first available opportunity, in 1998.

Your argument is based on the predicate that the referendum design itself was appropriate. I and many others disagree with this position. National structural changes should necessitate a supermajority (or quorum in your terminology above) to supply a mandate that can be viewed as authoritative and representative. What we had in 2016 was neither in my opinion.

You can and probably will say I am wrong and that is your right and I respect that. You cannot, however, say I do not have the right to say it. Posting replies with dunces hats, words like "pathetic, traitor, loser, anti-democratic," just reveals the anger felt at being presented with an opposing point of view. Anger not originating from some sense of democratic idealism, rather anger at the prospect of something so long waited for being taken away.

Engineering a referendum that was based on a pure arithmetic majority with no minimum turnout was always going to be divisive. The fact that 1 vote, or "Bob in Essex" if you will, would decide the future of a country for a generation is laughable. It shows why we do not do referenda often in the UK, we are rubbish at them. The irony here is Parliament demands a supermajority (66%) to hold a General Election and I think that the Tories imposed a similar requirement (50%?) for union strike action.

It is perverse that a supermajority is seen as appropriate for Parliament and for Unions but when the structural & macro-economic future of the country is at stake, no chance, let's just roll the dice.

What is depressing and even disturbing is the level of vitriol and anger against the people in this country who disagree with the result and how it was achieved. I mean "traitors, etc.", really?

Politicians make bad decisions and Parliament makes bad laws. The good news is that, living in a Democracy, we have the processes to undo bad decisions and repeal bad laws.

[jfman]

Sadly I think deep down the most committed leave voters know that another referendum would be lost. It took a huge effort just to scrape a majority, one that I doubt they would get again now we know what Brexit would look like and demographics shifting against them.

So we get the language of hate due to their anger. Their one chance is to cling on to the wafer thin majority of the 23rd June 2016 for dear life, with the UK leaving at any cost on 29th March 2019.

[denphone]

We have had one referendum and even though l voted remain we have to respect the result IMO as not respecting it would be unforgivable in the eyes of a considerable amount of the populace.

This though is deeply unacceptable as do we want another murder on our hands.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...porters-hitler