Brexit..... 43 days to go.

    • NotD

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Largenton wrote:

      And EU citizens who are permanent residents here did not have that opportunity.

      LEGIO wrote:

      In which other country are EU citizens allowed to vote in a referendum?

      Largenton wrote:

      Name a country which has had a referendum which would deprive those citizens of their right to live there. It is a fundamental right of the EU.

      Largenton wrote:

      1. EU referendum. As I said previously I asked you to name a country that has had a referendum leaving the EU. Ireland didn't
      Out of the 3 countries that have left the EU, ( before Brexit ) Greenland was the only 1 to hold a referendum and with a 53% majority for leave ,they left ..........they didnt even have a second referendum ,how very undemocratic of them,now dont answer a question with a question please
      .
      In which other country are EU citizens allowed to vote in a referendum?

      “The negotiations were a surprisingly unpleasant job,” Lars Vesterbirk, Greenland's former representative to the EU who led the negotiations, told POLITICO. “The EU member states would not take us seriously because they were not willing to accept that you should or could leave.”
      “At the time, you could become a member of the EU but you couldn’t leave,” Vesterbirk said. politico.eu/article/greenland-…europe-vote-news-denmark/

      2

      Largenton wrote:

      . Older voters. You have not provided any proof that there was no correlation between age and voting for or against Brexit. This is a well established position. Here is the BBC breaking it down.

      Largenton wrote:

      . As I mentioned previously, old people in that poll said they voted for Leave. You said that you don't trust people saying that they didn't vote Leave, which means that you are accusing the younger voters of lying. That is prejudiced against young people which is discrimination according to the law where age is a protected characteristics. This of course ignores the fact that the poll reflects the evidence that the more voters under 40 in an area, the more that area is likely to have voted Remain. A gain, your argument relies on saying that young people lie.

      LEGIO wrote:

      Polls before the USA elections said Clinton would win .How many Americans you know that voted for trump ? ,Polls before the referendum were in favour of remain .who would have thought that the leave vote would win ? ,my point is that people lie about how they intent to vote and how they voted so i dont believe any of the poll companies.

      My answer is that a referendum ,like any secret ballot is secret,an exit poll cannot be relied on to determine the ages or sexes or minorities of any voting block and like i said before "my point is that people lie about how they intent to vote or have voted so i dont believe any of the poll companies."

      3

      Largenton wrote:

      3. Sources. When was Junker's speech again? 4 years ago. When is my source from? Last December. Now again, your point is outdated. Plus it is merely a politician giving a speech, it is not a fact check. You are ignoring evidence again.
      Doe it matter if it was 4 days ? ,4 weeks ? or 4 years ago?,the intention is there , but if you need some other lowly politicians saying the same .

      telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/0…d-with-plans-for-eu-army/


      “We face many threats, but I stand here before you with a clear message: the U.S. commitment to the NATO alliance and to Article 5 is unwavering.” these words not being said in trumps speech on the 25th May 2018 will be the thing that the EU blame for the creation of their army. politico.eu/article/the-27-words-trump-wouldnt-say/

      4

      Largenton wrote:

      4. Overspending. Did the government try and conceal it and obstruct the Electoral Commission in pursuing their duty? Did the Electoral Commission state that laws had been broken? Yes I disagree with it, but the corruption value is far worse here. Shame on you for ignoring this.
      The government did not try and conceal the amount spent and the answer from the electoral commission was “We don’t think the government should have done it… [it gives Remain an] unfair advantage… undermines the principle [of spending limits]” quiteu.wordpress.com/2016/04/0…-remain-unfair-advantage/

      5

      Largenton wrote:

      Oh and because I did some checks, the Irish referendum is quite interesting. Ireland put to a referendum the Lisbon Treaty and it was rejected. What then happened was there was some renegotiation and some guarantees were made to Ireland. They then put it to another referendum which accepted the treaty! This seems to be more in favour of a second referendum than Brexit.
      Did you also check who could vote in the referendum ? .I also agree that there was a second referendum on the Lisbon treaty and some guarantees where given by the EU to Ireland but i think that the future will tell whether they were lied to or not . Our great PM D. Cameron went and tried for some reforms before the UK referendum,he got nothing.
      Some Junker quotes .

      On Greece's economic meltdown in 2011

      "When it becomes serious, you have to lie."

      On British calls for a referendum over Lisbon Treaty

      “Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?,”

      On French referendum over EU constitution

      “If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue’,”
      LEGIO PATRIA NOSTRA


    • LEGIO wrote:

      Out of the 3 countries that have left the EU, ( before Brexit ) Greenland was the only 1 to hold a referendum and with a 53% majority for leave ,they left ..........they didnt even have a second referendum ,how very undemocratic of them,now dont answer a question with a question please
      Some major corrections needed here. 3 territories of member states have left the EU or it's predecessor the EEC. Greenland left the EEC, before the EU came into being and before freedom of movement existed. My question is more than pertinent as the answer is that we are the first member state to leave the EU. As such, this is the first time ever a member state has threatened EU citizens with losing their homes. So the question is not only relevant but central to my answer. As my answer is that it is incomparable. Furthermore, why should I listen someone who doesn't respect me enough to read my evidence.

      LEGIO wrote:

      My answer is that a referendum ,like any secret ballot is secret,an exit poll cannot be relied on to determine the ages or sexes or minorities of any voting block and like i said before "my point is that people lie about how they intent to vote or have voted so i dont believe any of the poll companies."
      And your answer is wrong, misinformed and has not addressed my point or provided any evidence for a counter rebuttal. Myself and @Wraith02 have provided evidence to show how accurate these polls are. That they match actual evidence from the results. Your handwaving is lazy and doesn't answer my point. You provide no evidence to show that voters in areas that have a younger/older population did not correlate with that area voting for Remain/Leave. That is deliberately ignoring evidence and furthermore you provided no evidence that people lied about their voting behaviour. In fact, your original anecdotal evidence was dismissed by someone who voted for Trump! And yet you still continue this prejudiced line of how young people lie about the way they vote.

      Doe it matter if it was 4 days ? ,4 weeks ? or 4 years ago?,the intention is there , but if you need some other lowly politicians saying the same .

      I am translating this as "no I did not read this relevant recent article which shows how impossible making a EU army is because that would involve critical thinking which I cannot do." Because you would have to be incredibly stupid to continue arguing for something that has been completely rebutted in the last post.......

      The government did not try and conceal the amount spent and the answer from the electoral commission was “We don’t think the government should have done it… [it gives Remain an] unfair advantage… undermines the principle [of spending limits]”

      So we agree that the government didn't break the law unlike the Leave campaign and therefore the two cases are not comparable as Leave committed the greater offence. So how do you feel about Brexit now it is clear that fraud was committed to achieve it?

      Did you also check who could vote in the referendum ? .I also agree that there was a second referendum on the Lisbon treaty and some guarantees where given by the EU to Ireland but i think that the future will tell whether they were lied to or not . Our great PM D. Cameron went and tried for some reforms before the UK referendum,he got nothing.
      Some Junker quotes .

      So you have no evidence for your points, just opinion. Therefore it is worthless, along with the alleged cherry picked Junker quotes. Your post is spam.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
      Not sure a BA should say this.......
    • Largenton wrote:

      So you have no evidence for your points, just opinion. Therefore it is worthless, along with the alleged cherry picked Junker quotes. Your post is spam.
      The evidence that remain lost the referendum is evident in the fact that there is only 39 days left before we leave with or without a withdrawal agreement in place, so the opinion of 52% is not worthless

      "When it becomes serious, you have to lie."
      telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews…ious-you-have-to-lie.html

      “Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?,”
      telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews…-about-the-EU-treaty.html

      “If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue’,”
      express.co.uk/news/world/10878…ferendum-nigel-farage-spt



      Largenton wrote:

      So we agree that the government didn't break the law unlike the Leave campaign and therefore the two cases are not comparable as Leave committed the greater offence. So how do you feel about Brexit now it is clear that fraud was committed to achieve it?
      Please explain how the 1 is a greater offence than the other, the government put 9 million pounds in to influence the out come on the remain side and are told off by the electoral commission ,leave overspend by a fraction of that and are fined .


      Largenton wrote:

      I am translating this as "no I did not read this relevant recent article which shows how impossible making a EU army is because that would involve critical thinking which I cannot do." Because you would have to be incredibly stupid to continue arguing for something that has been completely rebutted in the last post.......

      So what youre actually saying is that your posted opinion counts but mine doesnt,how is it impossible to make an EU army ?

      GERMANY’S defence minister says an EU army is “already taking shape” as the bloc looks to deepen military cooperation between member states. Ursula Von der Leyen said Europe “needs to improve its ability to act on behalf of its own security” at a time of global uncertainty, adding major progress has been made towards realising a joint defence force.Like the development of the EU’s single market and free movement principle, developing a European army will take time, she said.



      express.co.uk/news/world/10703…e-pesco-uk-germany-france


      Largenton wrote:

      And your answer is wrong, misinformed and has not addressed my point or provided any evidence for a counter rebuttal. Myself and @Wraith02 have provided evidence to show how accurate these polls are. That they match actual evidence from the results. Your handwaving is lazy and doesn't answer my point. You provide no evidence to show that voters in areas that have a younger/older population did not correlate with that area voting for Remain/Leave. That is deliberately ignoring evidence and furthermore you provided no evidence that people lied about their voting behaviour. In fact, your original anecdotal evidence was dismissed by someone who voted for Trump! And yet you still continue this prejudiced line of how young people lie about the way they vote.
      Unless we now have every ballot paper identifying the voter then there is no factual evidence of what they really voted, i dont believe polls from young or old or anyone ..


      Largenton wrote:

      Some major corrections needed here. 3 territories of member states have left the EU or it's predecessor the EEC. Greenland left the EEC, before the EU came into being and before freedom of movement existed. My question is more than pertinent as the answer is that we are the first member state to leave the EU. As such, this is the first time ever a member state has threatened EU citizens with losing their homes. So the question is not only relevant but central to my answer. As my answer is that it is incomparable. Furthermore, why should I listen someone who doesn't respect me enough to read my evidence.

      The question was "Which EU country lets EU citizens vote in referendums ?" , i dont want your opinion of whether it was right or wrong ,your opinion is worthless just like mine .

      As you can see below the UKs rules are more lenient than Ireland ,We let the Irish and other commonwealth countries citizens vote in ours,also ex pats with less than 15 years out of the UK.

      At present, if you are an Irish citizen living abroad you cannot be entered on the Register of Electors. This means that you cannot vote in an election or referendum here in Ireland. The only exception to this is in the case of Irish officials on duty abroad (and their spouses or civil partners abroad with them) who may register on the Postal Voters List

      .The categories of voters and their voting rights are:
      citizensinformation.ie/en/movi…right_to_vote.html#l5ab58
      LEGIO PATRIA NOSTRA


    • LEGIO wrote:

      The evidence that remain lost the referendum is evident in the fact that there is only 39 days left before we leave with or without a withdrawal agreement in place, so the opinion of 52% is not worthless
      The first part is correct in 2016. However, it doesn't mention that electoral fraud was committed to achieve this. The second part remains to be seen as legally we can still stop the process of Brexit. To quote an old saying, a week is a long time in politics".


      LEGIO wrote:

      "When it becomes serious, you have to lie."
      Unverified quote. As you have provided no context in which Juncker said this or where, this is just blatant bias.


      LEGIO wrote:

      “Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?,”
      Again, unverified quote. Not acceptable as evidence of him saying it.


      LEGIO wrote:

      “If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue’,”
      Again unverified and out of context. All you have as "evidence" is a bunch of journalists quoting one politician with no context. That's rumour. Also if I remember rightly against the rules of this board.


      LEGIO wrote:

      Please explain how the 1 is a greater offence than the other, the government put 9 million pounds in to influence the out come on the remain side and are told off by the electoral commission ,leave overspend by a fraction of that and are fined .
      Breaking the law is very bad ok? If you break the law you go to jail sometimes..... The Leave Campaigns broke the law not by just overspending, but concealing that they were working together (again against the rules) and obstructing the investigation into it. If you can't understand that I am praying you never get near our legal system. This is in contrast to the Electoral Commission saying "we're not happy with what you have done". And you seriously think they are comparable?


      LEGIO wrote:

      So what youre actually saying is that your posted opinion counts but mine doesnt,how is it impossible to make an EU army ?
      Do I need to repeat myself? If you read the article you would find out....... Look, here, I suggest that reading the article may help. I am not your mother, I'm not regurgitating something that you can find out by reading the article.


      LEGIO wrote:

      Unless we now have every ballot paper identifying the voter then there is no factual evidence of what they really voted, i dont believe polls from young or old or anyone ..
      I don't care if you believe the Earth is flat, you've provided no evidence for your viewpoint. The evidence is that younger people voted to remain and older people voted leave. This is from evidence not just provided by polls but other evidence which was provided earlier. Until you provide actual evidence for your viewpoint it is invalid.


      LEGIO wrote:

      The question was "Which EU country lets EU citizens vote in referendums ?" , i dont want your opinion of whether it was right or wrong ,your opinion is worthless just like mine .
      And I pointed out that not one other referendum has ever involved a EU member state leaving the EU. So it is incomparable. Especially as EU citizens are allowed to vote for MEPs, one would think there would be a case for voting in this referendum as it is a European issue.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
      Not sure a BA should say this.......
    • LEGIO wrote:

      But we ve had a second referendum ,please keep up,80 % of the electorate voted for parties that had leave the EU in the manifesto ,the remain parties like the SNP and Lib dems that offered a more truthful manifesto lost seats .
      I know this is a tiny error among a huge number of flawed and erroneous statements, but roughly 67% of the electorate voted in the last General Election. Of those, about 82% voted for Conservative or Labour (Who had a version of 'leave' with a ton of qualifiers in their manifesto) or approximately 55% of the electorate. General Elections, as you apparently don't know, aren't referenda, and are about a host of political topics. Wikipedia lists Brexit as 1/6 of major issues during the election, but it's not hard to figure out that Brexit, while a dominant subject, was not the deciding factor in a Conservative or Labour vote. As I said, it's one error in a sea of them, but it's an easy one and indicative of both your relationship to facts and style of arguments.
      52% of the people voted to leave ,this number included British ,Irish, Maltese and Cypriots and people who had been resident in other countries for less than 15 years.Those were the rules .
      Like above, this is a simple error. 52% (Rounded) of voters did vote leave - but in an election with roughly 72% turnout. "The people" also include the disenfranchised, whether due to citizenship status, age or other factors. A truthful statement would have been something like "37% of the electorate voted leave".
      How people say they voted and how they voted is completely un trustworthy.D. Trump is President of the United States but its very hard to find any who admit to voting for him.
      Errr... Have you looked at the Trump rallies? Again, this is such a simple statement to verify, even a 5-year-old kid with access to CNN could fact-check it for you. The myths about 'shy voters' are prevalent in almost every country, but so far not shown to be true.

      Oh and Clinton got approximately 3 million votes more than Trump (48% for Clinton vs. 46% for Trump), just while we're talking about how people vote and what is a plurality, majority or neither.
      (a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR:
      “Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

      (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
      (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully
      detained;

      (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.”

      This was then added in the rattification of the Lisbon treaty .

      (b) Article 2 of Protocol No 6 to the ECHR:‘A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and inaccordance with its provisions…’.

      source
      oliverjanich.de/eu-death-penalty
      Yellow vests in France beware.
      I think you should re-read the provision. ECHR has explicitly banned the death penalty from all countries under its jurisdiction. You cannot be sentenced to death within any EU country. The governments of Europe are simply not allowed to kill any citizens. That's why the exceptions you cite here are referred to as instances where 'deprivation of life' is not 'regarded as' 'in contravention of this article'. Again, an incredibly simple check would reveal this.

      LEGIO wrote:

      In my opinion if people voted for a party that says they respect the referendum result ,they are voting for the implementation of the referendum ,if they wanted to rerun the referendum they would have voted for the Libs or SNP who promised that.Both of those parties lost seats .This argument makes sense to me .Conserative manifesto
      Exit the European single market and customs union but seek a "deep and special partnership" including comprehensive free trade and customs agreement
      bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39960311
      Labour manifesto
      Accept the EU referendum result and "build a close new relationship with the EU" prioritising jobs and and workers' rights
      bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39933116
      So you don't understand what parties, parliamentary elections, referenda, manifestos, or qualifiers are?
      Polls before the USA elections said Clinton would win .How many Americans you know that voted for trump ? ,Polls before the referendum were in favour of remain .who would have thought that the leave vote would win ? ,my point is that people lie about how they intent to vote and how they voted so i dont believe any of the poll companies.
      People don't lie about how they intent to vote. Polling in both the US presidential elections and the Brexit referendum was remarkably accurate; in both instances the polls show a close race. US polling absolutely nailed the popular vote, and predicted both the secure R/D states as well as those hanging in the balance. Getting polling that accurate in a system as byzantine as the US is actually a remarkable feat. The Brexit vote was clearly close. All polls has what's called a 'margin of error', which is the errors we would expect from perfectly random polling over a long time. As you only select e.g. 800-5.000 people for each poll, random selection of those respondents from the total electorate has to work out whether they are representative and, if not, how to weigh people. That means the 'ideal' MOE is usually on the lower end of the actual MOE. The MOE gives a range of likely actual responses from the entire population, rather than just the people selected for the poll. In a sense, it can be explained as the results that wouldn't surprise you, given the poll and what you know about the precision of it.

      Most polls had both leave and remain within their MOE. I went to bed expecting a slim Remain, but statistically speaking the polls indicated something more like a cointoss.

      clittle wrote:

      “Polls before the USA elections said Clinton would win .How many Americans you know that voted for trump ? ,Polls before the referendum were in favour of remain .who would have thought that the leave vote would win ? ,my point is that people lie about how they intent to vote and how they voted so i dont believe any of the poll companies.“

      To this... myself, my wife, my in-laws, several friends, a co-worker. I’m fact I know of more people that voted for Trump than I did Clinton. I would have voted for a juggling monkey that juggles his own poo before I would have voted for that lieing baby killer some people refer to as Hillary. Trump 2020!
      Well, you did vote for a juggling monkey smeared in its own poo, no need for a hypothetical there.
      To counter LEGIO's point, though, your candid admission here shows us that Trump supporters aren't the shy, silent fellows that LEGIO imagines. Which is also borne out at rallies, in polling and everywhere else. It's one of the loudest minorities I've ever encountered.

      LEGIO wrote:

      My answer is that a referendum ,like any secret ballot is secret,an exit poll cannot be relied on to determine the ages or sexes or minorities of any voting block and like i said before "my point is that people lie about how they intent to vote or have voted so i dont believe any of the poll companies."
      If that were true, exit polls would be unrelated to the result, and would be unusable when trying to predict future results. Nothing could be further from the truth. Exit polling gets results mostly right (Though some dramatic exceptions do of course exist), which is partly why news media can call elections before counting is over. Most people don't have any reason to lie in exit polls at all, which is kind of a core assumption you must provide an argument for.

      Exit polls can also be used by scholars working on predicting future elections, which means we have built both sophisicated mechanisms for checking the accuracy of polling and have tested models built on exit polls a number of times. It's good enough that assuming groups (Based on education, income bracket, sex, ethnicity etc.) will vote the same as they did in last election and update for changes in demographics and expected turnout is decent in lieu of actual polling. I did a simple verison of this when I ran for city council back in 2013, and was 1 seat (Out of 27) off from the actual election result.

      You have let your opinions shape your evaluation of evidence, rather than letting evidence shape your opinions. That has lead you to distort reality to an alarming degree. Going down this garden path has also resulted in a large number of easy errors on your part, sometimes so easy that children with object permanence and access to CNN would know better than you.
      Destiny will Prevail.
      aka Chu, Chuwie, Chuthlhu, Legend Reborn, LR. Mod, GMod, NoAlly Alumni, Doctor of Evil, Ph.D., Baron of Roleplay, Viscount of Discussion, OBE.
      Nostalgia - it's not what it used to be.
    • It's interesting @LEGIO you were dismissive of our argument that the Leave side broke the law / lied.. now part of your argument is that the UK government "over spent" and that it wasn't fair..
      One thing you miss out was that the UK Government wasn't actually one of the groups campaigning for either side. What they did do with the leaflets, was provide information to the public based on all the experts views on what could happen, something that a lot of people were crying out for.
      Both campaigns still had their full budget to spend as per electoral laws, it's just a number of Pro-Brexit groups chose to break those laws, and failed to cooperate with any of the investigation into their practices.. which if they were innocent if they had claimed, just showed they had something to hide.

      So which is it, either it doesn't matter - in which case you can't cry foul about the leaflets.. or it does.. in which case you have to admit that the lies, and fraud did have an impact on the outcome.. thus impacting the democratic process.

      --

      On a different note.. not quite on topic, but could have an impact on Brexit.
      With the announcement that 3 Tory members have left the group today, it actually takes them below the "simple" majority required to maintain a government (this includes the 10 from the DUP) - 326. But not below the "realistic" majority yet (since the speakers seat doesn't count and Senn Fein don't take their seats) of 323.
      Will we see any more leave the Tory Government? and will it tip them under the required number to run the government?


      If this happens, and if a General Election is called, will it delay Brexit until the GE is done and a new government formed? Or will we see the Tories bribe another party to keep their majority?

      Edit:
      Further checking shows that losing the majority won't automatically start a General Election.. only if they lose a No Confidence vote..

      The sky is not the limit it is only the genesis of dreams.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Wraith02 ().

    • That is an interesting problem with the defections. Whilst Labour have had more defections, this isn't as much as a consequence in contrast to the Tories. To see how this will play out will be interesting indeed.

      Going back to a very interesting point, the fact of the matter is that it is extremely scary that people are not as concerned as they should be that the Leave campaign broke the law. Indeed, usually we get Leave supporters highlighting minor overspending or these leaflets. Yet the law was broken to obtain this win and it was done in a way which suggests corruption of the democratic process. Why exactly is this being ignored?

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
      Not sure a BA should say this.......