Brexit..... 43 days to go.

    • NotD

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

    • Brexit..... 43 days to go.

      Anyone who is interested in British politics knows that the deadline for the best black comedy of recent years, Brexit, should end on the 29th of March, in 43 days time. Today, Theresa May has suffered yet another setback as MPs voted down her back up plan for the Brexit deal. As such, it looks more and more like a government deal will not be reached in time.

      So what are people's opinions on what will happen politically? Will there be a second referendum or will we crash out with the worst case scenario of "no deal"?

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
    • It's not just about british politics, it concerns all of Europe and in extension probably most of the world, depending on the outcome.

      There was a nice cartoon in the newspaper today.. Ms. May announcing to the british parliament that now she has a plan "C".

      Text under the cartoon " C for chaos"

    • Fair point. Unfortunately I can only apologise for the rampant corruption and incompetence that has brought about this insanity. It is chaos and it is very hard tp figure out a solution. My only sensible suggestion would be a referendum to clarify the issue however, the inability of May and the Brexiteers to be flexible and compromise may scupper this and result in no deal.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
    • To me, the entire Brexit has been based on nothing but lies (i.e that bus..), failure to make use of existing powers (Mrs May as Home Sectary not making used of immigration rules allowed to us within the "free movement" laws etc), and misinformation (e.g that the EU is nothing more then a dictatorship.. ignoring the fact that the UK voted for these laws in I think 92% of the cases or that the common people will come out of this "okay".. when we already see the "rich" already investing in EU passports for them and their families, or shifting their investments abroad along with the company HQ's/production lines).

      I hope that there will be a second referendum about it, after all a long time has passed since that vote.

      I really hate the insistence that it is the "will of the people" (to leave the EU), when it was only 38% of the total population (that was able to vote I believe..) that actually voted for Brexit.
      Since then:
      • A lot of people have come to realise they were lied too.. (I still despise Nigel Farage for being on TV hours after the result with that smug grin admitting that the bus was a complete lie.. but that it wasn't part of his campaign, so he wasn't the one lying... despite the UKIP party taking advantage of it to garner votes for Brexit).
      • A lot of the younger Pro-EU generation will have reached voting age (though they really should have been allowed to vote in it..).
      • A lot of the older Pro-Brexit voters will have passed on.
      • A lot of the people, didn't do any proper research into the actual benefits we/their area get from the EU (having grown up in Cornwall, I was dismayed to see that the top search from that area into the benefits from the EU in that area came after the vote).
      • That the deal that is on the table will not benefit any one (except maybe the selfish buggers that pushed for the process) and No Deal would be much worse. I wouldn't be surprised if it would lead to the break up of the UK - with the borders in Ireland a No Deal would bring in, potentially causing the ending of the Good Friday Agreement, and Scotland demanding another independence vote since most of Scotland voted to remain within the EU. - I'd be interesting to see what the people who accuse the EU of "bullying" by sticking to their guns about the deal (i.e looking after their remaining members..) when I'm certain that London will be just as harsh to Scotland if they were to negotiate their leaving process.
      • That I hope some people at least will realise that the current government have no real interest in keeping a lot of the benefits that the normal people enjoy.. workers rights, environmental protections, food/safety standards etc. They see them as nothing but bargaining chips either to secure what they want (i.e having refused to guarantee the workers rights when Labour called for them at the start of the Brexit process, but offered them up to Labour as a bribe to vote through the deal..) or to sell them off to their corporate friends.
      • I also hate the insistence that a second referendum would be undemocratic. If Brexit really is the will of the people - what do they have to fear from a second vote, now that we know what Brexit actually means? I mean how can a democratic process be undemocratic? If anything forcing through Brexit given the amount of lies, broken laws etc would be the undemocratic way. Finally, there's the hipocracy in that saying a second referendum would be undemocratic.. but Mrs May is still insisting on putting the same Brexit deal to another Parliamentary vote when nothing has changed..


      Don't get me wrong, the European Union is far from perfect, but leaving it won't help anyone.

      The sky is not the limit it is only the genesis of dreams.
    • The correct way for both the EU and GB to avoid problems would have been to use the 2 years of article 50 time to look at trade deals that would have been best for both parties, so they put the cart before the horse.
      I may not agree with some people but i dont wish old people to die just so that i may be get a different answer to a referendum. I ll probs get called names for answering on this post but i do believe in democracy and have fought for it in the past.


      Largenton wrote:

      Anyone who is interested in British politics knows that the deadline for the best black comedy of recent years, Brexit, should end on the 29th of March, in 43 days time. Today, Theresa May has suffered yet another setback as MPs voted down her back up plan for the Brexit deal. As such, it looks more and more like a government deal will not be reached in time.

      OK ,The deal is that you rent an house off me,i tell you how to live, who you can buy your food off and what you ll pay ,you cant leave the house until i say you can but i want your car ,your furniture and your wife before i let you go.
      Its not a deal ,its a back stop on a withdrawal agreement in case a deal on trade cant be agreed later.Its not only the Irish backstop thats the problem ,the W A also allows free trade on goods ,not services so why would the EU give us a trade agreement when they can carry on with the £85 billion trade deficit that they have in goods with us and charge us taxes on the services we provide for them ?

      Wraith02 wrote:

      I really hate the insistence that it is the "will of the people" (to leave the EU), when it was only 38% of the total population (that was able to vote I believe..) that actually voted for Brexit.
      Since then:
      52% of the people voted to Leave ,48 % of the people voted to remain with over 70% voter turnout ,if the other 30% couldnt be bothered to vote then they abstained .In the game do we wait for all the vmers and inactives to vote before changing server settings? nah, did nt think so . If an MP is voted in to the HoP with a 4% majority ,do the electorate vote again and again ?

      Wraith02 wrote:

      A lot of the younger Pro-EU generation will have reached voting age (though they really should have been allowed to vote in it.
      You cant smoke at 16 ,you cant drink alcohol at 16 but you can decide on the fate of a nation ?.

      Wraith02 wrote:

      A lot of the older Pro-Brexit voters will have passed on.
      Just lol to this one ,just remember some of the middle aged ones just got older ..........also dont see many young in the House of Lords ..

      Wraith02 wrote:

      A lot of the people, didn't do any proper research into the actual benefits we/their area get from the EU (having grown up in Cornwall, I was dismayed to see that the top search from that area into the benefits from the EU in that area came after the vote).
      The money is given to the Eu by Britain to be given back and told on what and where to spend it ..

      Wraith02 wrote:

      That the deal that is on the table will not benefit any one (except maybe the selfish buggers that pushed for the process) and No Deal would be much worse. I wouldn't be surprised if it would lead to the break up of the UK - with the borders in Ireland a No Deal would bring in, potentially causing the ending of the Good Friday Agreement, and Scotland demanding another independence vote since most of Scotland voted to remain within the EU. - I'd be interesting to see what the people who accuse the EU of "bullying" by sticking to their guns about the deal (i.e looking after their remaining members..) when I'm certain that London will be just as harsh to Scotland if they were to negotiate their leaving process.
      Its Parliament that wants deals ,all that was on the referendum slip was Remain in the EU and Leave the EU , also ,please quote the part of the GFA that says anything about borders ,be a very interesting read.Also ,Scotland voted to remain part of the UK .........Catalonia was beaten in to submission when they held 1 ,any middle eastern country that would have done that would have sanctions placed on them by the EU .

      Wraith02 wrote:

      I also hate the insistence that a second referendum would be undemocratic. If Brexit really is the will of the people - what do they have to fear from a second vote, now that we know what Brexit actually means? I mean how can a democratic process be undemocratic? If anything forcing through Brexit given the amount of lies, broken laws etc would be the undemocratic way. Finally, there's the hipocracy in that saying a second referendum would be undemocratic.. but Mrs May is still insisting on putting the same Brexit deal to another Parliamentary vote when nothing has changed..
      Best of 3 ? , Best of 5 ?,Where was the referendum on the Lisbon treaty ? oh yeah ,they changed it from a constitution to the lisbon treaty after the Dutch and French both rejected that ,this way they didnt have to ask them again just in case .
      We had a referendum to join a trading block or common market, read FCO 30/1048 ,
      As for lies by the leave side ,maybe there was the bus (depends how you read it ).WE SEND THE EU £350 MILLION A WEEK then below it LETS FUND OUR NHS INSTEAD .It does not say lets give our nhs £350 million instead but still a lie ,the figure given was £350 million ,it should have read £390 million .........on the remain side ,No EU army ,No Euro ,No to EU centralised taxation and many many more. read the lisbon treaty on the reinstatement of the death penalty in Europe.(Insurrection ) . Catalonian leaders best watch out .


      Wraith02 wrote:

      Don't get me wrong, the European Union is far from perfect, but leaving it won't help anyone.
      I agree with you and i believe that if there was a chance to reform it from within then lets stay but they have already shown that they wont reform ,t blair gave up half the UKs rebate for them to look at the CAP ,still nothing done about 40% of the EU budget going to farmers to not grow crops and keep prices high for the people,really good idea that.
      LEGIO PATRIA NOSTRA


    • LEGIO wrote:

      The correct way for both the EU and GB to avoid problems would have been to use the 2 years of article 50 time to look at trade deals that would have been best for both parties, so they put the cart before the horse.
      I may not agree with some people but i dont wish old people to die just so that i may be get a different answer to a referendum. I ll probs get called names for answering on this post but i do believe in democracy and have fought for it in the past.
      I can't disagree that the process has been a shambles, and should have been approached differently.
      Though I don't see where anyone has said they wished old people would die.. just stated that they HAVE died as part of a natural course of life. It looks like your putting words into our mouths there...
      There was many things wrong with the referendum
      1. It was stated at every point before the vote, that it was NOT a legally binding vote, and that the Government was under no legal obligation to push on with Brexit. Only for them to turn around the day after and act like it was.
      2. That going a vote on something that would have such a big impact on the country as a whole requiring a simple majority was stupid. It should have required a majority of 60%.. or higher.
      3. That 16-17 year olds were not allowed to vote during it. They are (well, were, as they are over 18 now) the next generation coming through.. and will have to live with the consequences of the last few years for longer.

      Largenton wrote:

      Anyone who is interested in British politics knows that the deadline for the best black comedy of recent years, Brexit, should end on the 29th of March, in 43 days time. Today, Theresa May has suffered yet another setback as MPs voted down her back up plan for the Brexit deal. As such, it looks more and more like a government deal will not be reached in time.
      OK ,The deal is that you rent an house off me,i tell you how to live, who you can buy your food off and what you ll pay ,you cant leave the house until i say you can but i want your car ,your furniture and your wife before i let you go.
      Its not a deal ,its a back stop on a withdrawal agreement in case a deal on trade cant be agreed later.Its not only the Irish backstop thats the problem ,the W A also allows free trade on goods ,not services so why would the EU give us a trade agreement when they can carry on with the £85 billion trade deficit that they have in goods with us and charge us taxes on the services we provide for them ?
      If anything the renting a house analogy doesn't really work.. it's not like we physically sold the UK to them only to rent it back..
      If anything it would be like a marriage, a (polyamorous) marriage lasting 46 years. During that time a lot of things became interwoven (by agreement - the UK only voted against EU law 2% or abstained 3% of the time since 1999!), finances, trade deals etc etc.. of course its not going to be easy to unravel things, and the EU has the other 43 members to think about while doing so.. If it was the other way around, and another country were leaving, we'd expect the EU to get the best possible outcome for us as a whole.

      Wraith02 wrote:

      I really hate the insistence that it is the "will of the people" (to leave the EU), when it was only 38% of the total population (that was able to vote I believe..) that actually voted for Brexit.
      Since then:
      52% of the people voted to Leave ,48 % of the people voted to remain with over 70% voter turnout ,if the other 30% couldnt be bothered to vote then they abstained .In the game do we wait for all the vmers and inactives to vote before changing server settings? nah, did nt think so . If an MP is voted in to the HoP with a 4% majority ,do the electorate vote again and again ?
      If anything that 30% figure is inflated, as it included those that weren't allowed to vote, not just those that chose not to. But as I stated earlier, for such an important (and non-binding!) vote, they should have set a proper majority, instead of a simple one.

      Wraith02 wrote:

      A lot of the younger Pro-EU generation will have reached voting age (though they really should have been allowed to vote in it.
      You cant smoke at 16 ,you cant drink alcohol at 16 but you can decide on the fate of a nation ?.
      Those are bad examples actually.. as you can smoke in public from the age of 16 just like you can drink certain alcoholic drinks in public if purchased by an adult (a child can legally drink from the ages of 5 and 15 at home or on private property). Though you are right in saying that in both cases, they can't buy their own until they are 18.
      But as I said earlier, given that that generation and younger will have to deal with the consequences of the vote for longer then anyone else.. Why shouldn't they have their say?
      It's hard enough for youngsters to get into the work place these days, without adding this disastrous Brexit as another thing they have to struggle against.

      Wraith02 wrote:

      A lot of the older Pro-Brexit voters will have passed on.
      Just lol to this one ,just remember some of the middle aged ones just got older ..........also dont see many young in the House of Lords ..
      I think your missing your point.. unless this is where your accusation of wanting older people to die, in which case I very much refute that claim.
      I don't wish anyone to die for how they voted.. rather just stating that it a lot more of the 65+ age group voted to leave and that since then, unfortunately a number will have passed (with others moving up into the group ofc..).
      The point was, if there was a second referendum, these people would no longer be there to vote to leave.. having been replaced further down the line with the youngsters, which from the same article, 75% were pro-remain.

      Wraith02 wrote:

      A lot of the people, didn't do any proper research into the actual benefits we/their area get from the EU (having grown up in Cornwall, I was dismayed to see that the top search from that area into the benefits from the EU in that area came after the vote).
      The money is given to the Eu by Britain to be given back and told on what and where to spend it ..
      I actually did do my research before I voted.. so yes, I know what was happening.
      Though to say it was just given back and told "no that's just for X" isn't entirely true, areas had the right to apply for funding, it's not like there's someone within the EU who's throwing darts at a picture of the UK saying "right.. this year we'll fund Skegness..".
      Part of the problem is most areas are unaware that the vast majority of the funding for their area has come from the EU.. and that our Government has (last I heard) refused to guarantee that the same, or similar level of funding will be available to those areas post Brexit.

      Wraith02 wrote:

      That the deal that is on the table will not benefit any one (except maybe the selfish buggers that pushed for the process) and No Deal would be much worse. I wouldn't be surprised if it would lead to the break up of the UK - with the borders in Ireland a No Deal would bring in, potentially causing the ending of the Good Friday Agreement, and Scotland demanding another independence vote since most of Scotland voted to remain within the EU. - I'd be interesting to see what the people who accuse the EU of "bullying" by sticking to their guns about the deal (i.e looking after their remaining members..) when I'm certain that London will be just as harsh to Scotland if they were to negotiate their leaving process.
      Its Parliament that wants deals ,all that was on the referendum slip was Remain in the EU and Leave the EU , also ,please quote the part of the GFA that says anything about borders ,be a very interesting read.Also ,Scotland voted to remain part of the UK .........Catalonia was beaten in to submission when they held 1 ,any middle eastern country that would have done that would have sanctions placed on them by the EU .

      Of course Parliament wants a deal.. it would make things much easier. Those that claim a No-Deal Brexit would be a good thing.. really doesn't understand the situation. There is more to it then just dropping back to the WTO things.
      Though to say that the only thing that was on the slip was a leave, or stay and that there shouldn't be a second vote now we know what leaving actually means well.. that sucks for everyones future.
      For example.. let's say your with a group of 100 people (to simplify it..) It's put to the group just as a passing comment that they should go for a picnic. Though there is no word or where, when or what. 70 people voice an opinion, with 52% of that 70 (36.6% of the 100) agreeing that it sounded like a good idea. So the organisers go ahead and start arranging it. As they get closer to date of this picnic, the details start to come out.. And it's not looking as "great" as it was sold as.. The where is out in a farmers field, in the middle of harvest. The proposed date looks to be during a massive thunder storm. The what turns out to be based purely on some old of date food taken from supermarket rubbish bins. As these details come out, more and more people start to voice their concern about it, but the organisers insist that it will go ahead, regardless of the concerns.. and the fact that behind everyone elses backs they are arranging for their own meals, shelter and seating to be brought along (just like many of the top Brexiteers are securing EU passports for their families, or moving their investments over to within the EU.). Given all that, would it be wrong for the group to call for another vote on the decision?

      I said potentially when it comes to the GFA in a what could happen.. Though I didn't say specifically that the borders would cause the trouble.. rather that hard borders go against the idea of soft borders that the agreement was built on.. It will bring back the Identity crisis that caused the hostilities in Ireland to begin with. One that could see Northern Ireland and Ireland reunite as one nation, away from the UK.

      Scotland voted to remain a part of the UK, that was a member of the EU. If we leave the EU (something that the majority of Scottish people voted against..), then we are no longer the UK that they voted to remain in.

      Wraith02 wrote:

      I also hate the insistence that a second referendum would be undemocratic. If Brexit really is the will of the people - what do they have to fear from a second vote, now that we know what Brexit actually means? I mean how can a democratic process be undemocratic? If anything forcing through Brexit given the amount of lies, broken laws etc would be the undemocratic way. Finally, there's the hipocracy in that saying a second referendum would be undemocratic.. but Mrs May is still insisting on putting the same Brexit deal to another Parliamentary vote when nothing has changed..
      Best of 3 ? , Best of 5 ?,Where was the referendum on the Lisbon treaty ? oh yeah ,they changed it from a constitution to the lisbon treaty after the Dutch and French both rejected that ,this way they didnt have to ask them again just in case .We had a referendum to join a trading block or common market, read FCO 30/1048 ,
      As for lies by the leave side ,maybe there was the bus (depends how you read it ).WE SEND THE EU £350 MILLION A WEEK then below it LETS FUND OUR NHS INSTEAD .It does not say lets give our nhs £350 million instead but still a lie ,the figure given was £350 million ,it should have read £390 million .........on the remain side ,No EU army ,No Euro ,No to EU centralised taxation and many many more. read the lisbon treaty on the reinstatement of the death penalty in Europe.(Insurrection ) . Catalonian leaders best watch out .

      But you haven't showed any reason why a second vote would be undemocratic.. We voted on something that was not defined in what it would actually mean beyond the leaving or not. We now know what it will mean in terms of leaving with or without a deal, and have seen how many companies that the country's economy rely on have already said will leave after Brexit.
      IF there is a second vote, and the UK still votes to leave, now we know what it really means, then while I would still not be happy it would be easier to accept our fate.

      As for the lies / pure ignorance.. or broken laws. It's a travesty itself that nothing is been done about the broken laws (beyond a few paltry fines) or obvious lies which influenced the vote (and I'm not talking about anything related to the changing the result - though to clarify, I don't believe the second referendum is necessary because I didn't like the result (though I don't), rather that the entire process was a mess..).

      Wraith02 wrote:

      Don't get me wrong, the European Union is far from perfect, but leaving it won't help anyone.
      I agree with you and i believe that if there was a chance to reform it from within then lets stay but they have already shown that they wont reform ,t blair gave up half the UKs rebate for them to look at the CAP ,still nothing done about 40% of the EU budget going to farmers to not grow crops and keep prices high for the people,really good idea that.
      That's not specifically true about the rebate.. it was 20%, lasted for 6 years and under the condition the funds weren't used for the CAP.
      Reforms are possible - if we're inside to try and make them.. The EU already changed the law on free movement that encouraged companies to use foreign workers rather then local ones that was one of the supposed key reasons for the Brexit vote.

      The sky is not the limit it is only the genesis of dreams.
    • Right, considering how much it is a pain to answer using quotes on a mobile version I plan to bulletproof this.

      1. The correct way. What the correct way was to separate ourselves from the EU would be dependent on how we did so. Hence the divorce analogy. Figuring out this is important and what has occurred. The whole point of the negotiations was to determine our relationship with the EU.

      2. Wishing old people to die. Ad hominen attack. No one wishes old people to die. No one has said that. What has been acknowledged is that there is a correlation between age and voting for or against Brexit. Older people mainly voted for whilst younger voted against. It does seem then that the baby boomers are voting for something that will have less affect on them due to age.

      3. Fighting for democracy. This is a bit meaningless I am afraid and adds nothing to your argument. If it did then you will be horrified by the result of the referendum and want a second.

      4. Renting analogy. This is a terrible analogy because it assumes that the EU is in complete control and that we had no say in this partnership. As you have acknowledged this is false as we have carried out rebates in the past. It also ignores that we sent democratically elected officials to the EU who has a say in the way the EU was run. Scarily enough your argument also seems to oppose regulations which we had a say in and offered various protections for the British people. A better analogy is a divorce as it involves the split of assets. If you have a complaint about that then complain about the incompetence displayed as well as the missold expectations. Sir Ivan Rogers highlighted this in a brilliant speech given last year.

      5. 52% majority. Two questions. Should we accept this when a significant number of people who legally live here had no say on their future? Should we accept this when the winning side comprehensively carried out electoral fraud and may have had elements financed by a foreign power which the police are investigating? After all, ensuring that voting is not tampered with is crucial to democracy.

      6. Voting for MPs. Again a bad analogy. We vote on MPs every 4/5 years. We can't do that with a referendum apparently. A MP can also be removed from office of they break the law. Your argument therefore suggests that if a majority of people are against Brexit, voting again is a good idea, especially if electoral fraud has occurred.

      7. 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.

      8. Money given back. You mean the money we give to the EU, that we got back and spent it in ways agreed upon by our democratically elected officials? Also check out this link on what happens with the money.

      9. Parliament deals. You do understand why that is right? So we can work with and trade with our closest neighbours? Also Scotland voted to remain before the referendum. They would likely request independence with a bad deal and vote to join the EU.

      10. Changing minds. So your argument is that a populace can't change its mind with new information? That is anti democratic and not what you argued earlier.

      11. £350 million was a lie as shown in the previous link. It is less. It is sophistry to suggest that it would be spent on the NHS and wrong to suggest there is no benefit.

      12. Various claims about the EU. Please, throwing words just makes you look like a conspiracy nut. Evidence please.

      13. Reform. Actually it has been shown in the past we have influence. It is clear that people want us there. You have failed to provide evidence for your argument.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
    • Largenton wrote:

      1. The correct way. What the correct way was to separate ourselves from the EU would be dependent on how we did so. Hence the divorce analogy. Figuring out this is important and what has occurred. The whole point of the negotiations was to determine our relationship with the EU.
      Good start,

      Largenton wrote:

      2. Wishing old people to die. Ad hominen attack. No one wishes old people to die. No one has said that. What has been acknowledged is that there is a correlation between age and voting for or against Brexit. Older people mainly voted for whilst younger voted against. It does seem then that the baby boomers are voting for something that will have less affect on them due to age.
      By actually bringing up that old people have now died so the result may be different may not be wishing for deaths of the old but is being used as an argument for another referendum in my opinion.

      Largenton wrote:

      3. Fighting for democracy. This is a bit meaningless I am afraid and adds nothing to your argument. If it did then you will be horrified by the result of the referendum and want a second.
      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 .

      Largenton wrote:

      4. Renting analogy. This is a terrible analogy because it assumes that the EU is in complete control and that we had no say in this partnership. As you have acknowledged this is false as we have carried out rebates in the past. It also ignores that we sent democratically elected officials to the EU who has a say in the way the EU was run. Scarily enough your argument also seems to oppose regulations which we had a say in and offered various protections for the British people. A better analogy is a divorce as it involves the split of assets. If you have a complaint about that then complain about the incompetence displayed as well as the missold expectations. Sir Ivan Rogers highlighted this in a brilliant speech given last year.
      The renting analogy was how it would feel to be in the Back stop agreement with out a withdrawal clause,your divorce analogy wouldnt work as the EU say that the assets are theirs but we can have the liabilities side of the divorce .. For myself there are no miss sold expectations as the referendum said Remain or Leave .

      Largenton wrote:

      5. 52% majority. Two questions. Should we accept this when a significant number of people who legally live here had no say on their future? Should we accept this when the winning side comprehensively carried out electoral fraud and may have had elements financed by a foreign power which the police are investigating? After all, ensuring that voting is not tampered with is crucial to democracy.
      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 .

      Largenton wrote:

      6. Voting for MPs. Again a bad analogy. We vote on MPs every 4/5 years. We can't do that with a referendum apparently. A MP can also be removed from office of they break the law. Your argument therefore suggests that if a majority of people are against Brexit, voting again is a good idea, especially if electoral fraud has occurred.
      The analogy with MPs wasnt meant to show a time frame for the next referendum ( that should be about 40 years away ),it was to show that even with a majority of 1 vote an MP is elected to the HoP.Please send proof of electoral fraud , any time the establishment suffers an un expected defeat ,they start saying that "the russians did it ". If you speak with Leave voters ,they will say that the fraud came from the Remain side with government funding of the £ 9 million leaflet delivered to every home that told us what would happen if we voted to leave .

      Largenton wrote:

      7. 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.
      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.

      Largenton wrote:

      8. Money given back. You mean the money we give to the EU, that we got back and spent it in ways agreed upon by our democratically elected officials? Also check out this link on what happens with the money.
      Still our money given back to spend where the EU say.

      Largenton wrote:

      9. Parliament deals. You do understand why that is right? So we can work with and trade with our closest neighbours? Also Scotland voted to remain before the referendum. They would likely request independence with a bad deal and vote to join the EU.
      Government deals .....Parliament discusses and advises i think also ratifies but in the Brexit instance they have a meaningful vote because of G Miller .A second indy referendum in Scotland should be held in the future when Brexit is finished and there is enough people that want 1 and although Scotland voted with a majority to remain the SNP lost seats because of their stance on Brexit..

      Largenton wrote:

      10. Changing minds. So your argument is that a populace can't change its mind with new information? That is anti democratic and not what you argued earlier.
      We now know that some MPs gained their seats on false promises of honouring the referendum result,should we have another general election because of that ?.We re not going to get 1 though.

      Largenton wrote:

      11. £350 million was a lie as shown in the previous link. It is less. It is sophistry to suggest that it would be spent on the NHS and wrong to suggest there is no benefit.
      As the rebate and other monies are returned the year after the contribution .The 2014/2015 period we paid £ 18,700,000,000 which means we did send £359,000,000 to the EU per week,we did get monies back the year after so i dont think it was a lie but it was creative accounting that may have misled some .

      Largenton wrote:

      12. Various claims about the EU. Please, throwing words just makes you look like a conspiracy nut. Evidence please.
      (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 dont think i have to source other things said ,EU army .( Nick Clegg said wasnt going to happen ) , every closer union with own finance minister ,( pure fantasy ) all now common knowledge from junkers "state of the union speech "

      Largenton wrote:

      13. Reform. Actually it has been shown in the past we have influence. It is clear that people want us there. You have failed to provide evidence for your argument.
      I have to disagree with you that people want us there ,they want our money ,they want our coastal fishing ,they want our armed forces but they dont want us.


      Wraith02 wrote:

      But you haven't showed any reason why a second vote would be undemocratic.. We voted on something that was not defined in what it would actually mean beyond the leaving or not. We now know what it will mean in terms of leaving with or without a deal, and have seen how many companies that the country's economy rely on have already said will leave after Brexit.
      IF there is a second vote, and the UK still votes to leave, now we know what it really means, then while I would still not be happy it would be easier to accept our fate.
      How is a rerun of the referendum democratic,they just become neverendums.I f a referendum was to be given ,the question of remain should not be in it ,mays deal or no deal .should be the question .
      LEGIO PATRIA NOSTRA


    • LEGIO wrote:

      By actually bringing up that old people have now died so the result may be different may not be wishing for deaths of the old but is being used as an argument for another referendum in my opinion.

      But are we wishing that the old people will die? This is irrelevant. Your argument was that we were wishing for old people to die. We weren't, just simply that the make up of voters has changed.

      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 .

      What? No we haven't had a second referendum. This argument makes no sense. Voting for a party such as the Conservatives and Labour doesn't mean there has been another referendum. It means that there was an election. The election was not done on whether we should have Brexit or not, although if you want to look at it that way, note how the Conservatives lost seats (and they were the party more behind Brexit) whilst the party who didn't say anything about Brexit gained (Labour). An election is held more on just one issue.


      LEGIO wrote:

      The renting analogy was how it would feel to be in the Back stop agreement with out a withdrawal clause,your divorce analogy wouldnt work as the EU say that the assets are theirs but we can have the liabilities side of the divorce .. For myself there are no miss sold expectations as the referendum said Remain or Leave .

      No, you didn't state that and it was not the point that was original being noted. You have shifted the goalposts.


      LEGIO wrote:

      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

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


      LEGIO wrote:

      The analogy with MPs wasnt meant to show a time frame for the next referendum ( that should be about 40 years away ),it was to show that even with a majority of 1 vote an MP is elected to the HoP.Please send proof of electoral fraud , any time the establishment suffers an un expected defeat ,they start saying that "the russians did it ". If you speak with Leave voters ,they will say that the fraud came from the Remain side with government funding of the £ 9 million leaflet delivered to every home that told us what would happen if we voted to leave .

      1. Whilst your analogy might not want to show a time frame, it was to highlight that in democracy people change their mind.
      2. Evidence for electoral fraud then eh?
      The Guardian was the newspaper that broke the story.
      This is confirmed by the electoral commission
      The BBC agrees
      And another story by the Independent
      Oh and just for good measure, Arron Banks is being investigated by the police for the possibility of taking money from the Russians for Brexit.

      Did you really think I wouldn't make these claims without evidence? Unlike the Leave voters grievance, there was no attempt to hide this extremely serious offence.


      LEGIO wrote:

      (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…’.

      So out of all those claims you note the death penalty one which states that under extreme circumstances that it might be considered? And that it can only occur when it has been laid down in law already? This is fear mongering. And yes you do have to state your evidence because it was a request. You produced what is called a Gish gallop, a series of claims that are too insubstantial to begin defeating them. The EU army one for example is extremely unworkable and has already been shown to be the case.


      LEGIO wrote:

      I have to disagree with you that people want us there ,they want our money ,they want our coastal fishing ,they want our armed forces but they dont want us.

      Prove it. Because that is not what I have heard from friends. You even have one of our former BAs who is German saying that they do want us to stay in this thread.


      LEGIO wrote:

      How is a rerun of the referendum democratic,they just become neverendums.I f a referendum was to be given ,the question of remain should not be in it ,mays deal or no deal .should be the question .

      Because it isn't a rerun. We have new information about an issue. We have options about what we want. To quote Jacob Rees-Mogg:
      “We could have two referendums. As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed.”

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
    • LEGIO wrote:

      Wraith02 wrote:

      But you haven't showed any reason why a second vote would be undemocratic.. We voted on something that was not defined in what it would actually mean beyond the leaving or not. We now know what it will mean in terms of leaving with or without a deal, and have seen how many companies that the country's economy rely on have already said will leave after Brexit.
      IF there is a second vote, and the UK still votes to leave, now we know what it really means, then while I would still not be happy it would be easier to accept our fate.
      How is a rerun of the referendum democratic,they just become neverendums.I f a referendum was to be given ,the question of remain should not be in it ,mays deal or no deal .should be the question .


      Again, I will state

      Wraith02 wrote:

      As for the lies / pure ignorance.. or broken laws. It's a travesty itself that nothing is been done about the broken laws (beyond a few paltry fines) or obvious lies which influenced the vote (and I'm not talking about anything related to the changing the result - though to clarify, I don't believe the second referendum is necessary because I didn't like the result (though I don't), rather that the entire process was a mess*..).
      *I.e the pure amount of lies, skullduggery and law breaking. Just to make it clearer..

      Since you chose to skip that part of the same point..


      independent.co.uk/news/uk/poli…vice-u-turn-a7102831.html
      his own words that show he did in fact use it.
      Then there's the links that Largenton provided as well.

      Largenton wrote:

      2. Evidence for electoral fraud then eh?
      The Guardian was the newspaper that broke the story.
      This is confirmed by the electoral commission
      The BBC agrees
      And another story by the Independent
      Oh and just for good measure, Arron Banks is being investigated by the police for the possibility of taking money from the Russians for Brexit.

      Did you really think I wouldn't make these claims without evidence? Unlike the Leave voters grievance, there was no attempt to hide this extremely serious offence.

      LEGIO wrote:

      but i do believe in democracy and have fought for it in the past.
      Given all the links above.. Can you really claim that a Democracy where Lies and Breaking The Law are tolerated in a supposed "non-binding" vote that will now have such wide spread consequences is worth fighting / having fought for or even believing in?
      If I were in that boat (of having fought for democracy) - I would truly be ashamed of what todays democratic process has become.

      And that for those reasons alone, there should be a second vote with stricter rules and proper punishments for those that have willfully tried to con the general public.

      The sky is not the limit it is only the genesis of dreams.
    • I forgot some points.....

      1. Voters lie. What you are saying shows you failed to read the article and is ageist. If no one is admitting that they voted Leave then by extension, those that have admitted it are telling the truth. As there is an age difference, by implication you are saying young people lie more as they voted Remain according to the poll. Age is a protected category by the way and it is forbidden to discriminate against as you have just done. The article also states that this poll matches up with the demographics of areas that voted to remain or leave. That areas with more younger voters voted more to remain and vice versa. You argument is therefore ignorant and has already been addressed.

      2. Giving back money. Do you want to try not paying taxes and tell me how that goes? If your argument is "but it is our money!" , that is pretty puerile. You already pay taxes to our government. The same applies here.

      3. Parliament deals. If you were paying attention to politics recently you would note that the reason the government failed to pass the brexit bill was due to Parliament disapproving. What happened next is that Parliament made suggestions on changes.

      4. Changing minds. Actually it can happen if the government cannot govern. Also an election is different to a referendum because elections happen more frequently.

      5. Rebate.

      Please learn how to read.

      The UK doesn’t pay or "send to Brussels" this higher figure of £18.6 billion, or anything equivalent per week or per day. The rebate is applied straight away (its size is calculated based on the previous year's contributions), so the UK never contributes this much.

      The UK actually paid closer to £250 million a week.

      Since then, the new chair of the Authority described use of the figure by the Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, as “a clear misuse of official statistics”.

      We can be pretty sure about how much cash we put in, but it’s far harder to be sure about how much, if anything, comes back in economic benefits.

      In other words, it is a lie the £350million.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
    • This is a little off topic, but for some evidence that it is a bad idea I strongly recommend reading the links provided by myself and Wraith02 which give an overview of why Brexit is a catastrophe. The Sir Ivan Roger speech is especially noteworthy. The only things practically not included are the economic issues and some of the issues regarding the hostile environment created towards foreign born people.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
    • Largenton wrote:

      What? No we haven't had a second referendum. This argument makes no sense. Voting for a party such as the Conservatives and Labour doesn't mean there has been another referendum. It means that there was an election. The election was not done on whether we should have Brexit or not, although if you want to look at it that way, note how the Conservatives lost seats (and they were the party more behind Brexit) whilst the party who didn't say anything about Brexit gained (Labour). An election is held more on just one issue.
      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


      Largenton wrote:

      1. Whilst your analogy might not want to show a time frame, it was to highlight that in democracy people change their mind.
      2. Evidence for electoral fraud then eh?
      The Guardian was the newspaper that broke the story.
      This is confirmed by the electoral commission
      The BBC agrees
      And another story by the Independent
      Oh and just for good measure, Arron Banks is being investigated by the police for the possibility of taking money from the Russians for Brexit.

      Did you really think I wouldn't make these claims without evidence? Unlike the Leave voters grievance, there was no attempt to hide this extremely serious offence.
      Ok ,so a little overspend and an "investigation into A Banks ," seen those investigations before ,they normally fizzle out ..........what about the £9 million spent on the leaflet or doesnt that count as overspend ?


      Largenton wrote:

      And EU citizens who are permanent residents here did not have that opportunity.
      In which other country are EU citizens allowed to vote in a referendum?


      Largenton wrote:

      1. Voters lie. What you are saying shows you failed to read the article and is ageist. If no one is admitting that they voted Leave then by extension, those that have admitted it are telling the truth. As there is an age difference, by implication you are saying young people lie more as they voted Remain according to the poll. Age is a protected category by the way and it is forbidden to discriminate against as you have just done. The article also states that this poll matches up with the demographics of areas that voted to remain or leave. That areas with more younger voters voted more to remain and vice versa. You argument is therefore ignorant and has already been addressed.
      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.

      Largenton wrote:

      So out of all those claims you note the death penalty one which states that under extreme circumstances that it might be considered? And that it can only occur when it has been laid down in law already? This is fear mongering. And yes you do have to state your evidence because it was a request. You produced what is called a Gish gallop, a series of claims that are too insubstantial to begin defeating them. The EU army one for example is extremely unworkable and has already been shown to be the case.

      "This is a dangerous fantasy. The idea that there's going to be a European air force, a European army, it is simply not true."
      Nick Clegg, 2 April 2014



      "European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has called for the creation of a European army" BBC News, 9 March 2015
      bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31796337

      eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-conten…=CELEX:32004E0570&from=EN EU military
      LEGIO PATRIA NOSTRA


    • 1. Your opinion. This doesn't matter. I do not give a feathered fornicating fox what your opinion is. This is a discussion board where we discuss things with evidence. You have merely provided that Labour and the Conservatives had a bit about Brexit in their campaigns. This does not provide evidence that Brexit was the focus of the campaign OR that people are voting necessarily for a party. My local MP opposed Brexit and gained a majority last election and she is Labour. She continues to oppose Brexit.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
    • As my phone cut me off.....

      2.
      Ok ,so a little overspend and an "investigation into A Banks ," seen those investigations before ,they normally fizzle out ..........what about the £9 million spent on the leaflet or doesnt that count as overspend ?

      A little overspend?

      “The Electoral Commission has followed the evidence and conducted a thorough investigation into spending and campaigning carried out by Vote Leave and BeLeave. We found substantial evidence that the two groups worked to a common plan, did not declare their joint working and did not adhere to the legal spending limits. These are serious breaches of the laws put in place by Parliament to ensure fairness and transparency at elections and referendums. Our findings relate primarily to the organisation which put itself forward as fit to be the designated campaigner for the ‘leave’ outcome.”
      Commenting on the investigation itself, Bob Posner continued:
      “Vote Leave has resisted our investigation from the start, including contesting our right as the statutory regulator to open the investigation. It has refused to cooperate, refused our requests to put forward a representative for interview, and forced us to use our legal powers to compel it to provide evidence. Nevertheless, the evidence we have found is clear and substantial, and can now be seen in our report.”

      I am sorry, if you consider that a little overspend then you are incapable of understanding why this is corrupting democracy. Substantial evidence shows that the main Leave campaign cheated and committed fraud.

      3.
      In which other country are EU citizens allowed to vote in a referendum?
      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.

      4.
      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.

      You are still being ageist and I have already addressed how we have evidence which contradicts your account. This makes you look like a liar.

      5. EU Army.

      You use sources several years old and one is Nigel Farage. Here is one from last December showing how this is fear mongering and without merit.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
    • “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!
      “War does not determine who is right — only who is left.”

      GMOD but main sections are Polaris - Yildun, General and the SpamBoard
      My S/MOD is Rav3n so go annoy him if I have angered you!
    • Largenton wrote:

      3. 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.
      Ireland dont let EU citizens vote in referendums
      eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-conten…=CELEX:32004E0570&from=EN

      "Only Irish citizens who are aged at least 18 can vote in a referendum. You need to be registered in order to vote"


      Largenton wrote:

      4.
      You are still being ageist and I have already addressed how we have evidence which contradicts your account. This makes you look like a liar.
      where is age mentioned in here ? ,that makes it look as though if you cant answer ,you accuse people of lying ,ageism ,racism and all the other ism just to shut someone down.

      Largenton wrote:

      5. EU Army.

      You use sources several years old and one is Nigel Farage.
      and my source that you wont look at is Junker

      Largenton wrote:

      I am sorry, if you consider that a little overspend then you are incapable of understanding why this is corrupting democracy. Substantial evidence shows that the main Leave campaign cheated and committed fraud.
      £9 million from a pro eu government wasnt an overspend ?
      LEGIO PATRIA NOSTRA


    • Legio I am wondering exactly how you are managing to ignore the points that I raise to repeat your own discredited ideas. Again you have raised points I have already answered and you have ignored. This strikes me as either your reading comprehension is incredibly poor or that you are deliberately ignoring my points. The latter is extremely disrespectful and makes you look like an idiot if that is the case. Let me reiterate again my points. Maybe this time you will get them.

      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.

      2. 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.

      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.

      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.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
    • 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.

      link here

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you