UK voters should make final Brexit decision if talks with EU collapse: poll

[Grouse]

15 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Try Googling left-wing

 

Why would I do that? You seem to believe that left wing POTOS has resulted in the USA being late on parade

 

Frankly, I'm happy to be in the EU and forget about the USA.

[mogandave]

Why would I do that? You seem to believe that left wing POTOS has resulted in the USA being late on parade
 
Frankly, I'm happy to be in the EU and forget about the USA.

POTUS?

[CharlieH]

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

 

POTUS?

 

President Of The United States ?

[Basil B]

Just wonder how many letters Sir Graham Brady Chair of the 1922 committee did receive calling for a vote of confidence in TM?

 

And how many were from Tory MP's? have visions of him wadding through loads of childish ones from Labour MP's.

[AlexRich]

50 minutes ago, Benroon said:

For naivety you're not going to get much better than that !

Of course many, if not most, of those "have a go heroes" who want the UK to crash out on WTO terms are no doubt financially isolated from the consequences of such a decision. If their income were slashed or business put in jeopardy I wonder how keen they would be on a no deal outcome?

[smedly]

1 hour ago, Benroon said:

For naivety you're not going to get much better than that !

you know who is naïve - people like you that can't filter the BS nonsense you are being fed daily from our very biased tabloids and media outlets, you just take it all in hook line and sinker, quite sad really that we have so many that can't think for themselves and are so easily led 

[Hupaponics]

Brexit already...

[sirineou]

6 minutes ago, Hupaponics said:

Brexit already...

The long goodby 

[Hupaponics]

21 minutes ago, sirineou said:

The long goodby 

555 I do remember how happy the Britts wore when the swedes voted down the freaking Euro. After Brexit hopefully Swexit will follow. 

[Hupaponics]

@damascase Really, you don't remember how the NO to Euro in Sweden affected the British Pound? Or why the sad face?

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, CharlieH said:

President Of The United States ?

Left wing?

[smedly]

17 minutes ago, Benroon said:

wow - and brexiteers weren't easily led right ? Remind me what it said along Boris's bus that even he admitted was BS ? Even if it was true that £350m would be wiped out by the cost of drugs developed in Europe ! (majority)

 

Brexit was pure and simply a complete abdication of duty by the prime minister by handing over the UK reins to Sun reading, bring back hanging type racists who even to this day are too thick to realise that Brexit applies to Europe only. That the immigrants they are so afraid of will barely be affected.

 

For the record I haven't read a tabloid for years, however until recently I did work for a European bank who have made it quite clear that there are gloomy times ahead for the staff starting this year with zero percent payrises and the scrapping of the bonus pool to build a no deal war chest and the bedlam that will bring. That's real life, not tabloid speak.

 

All the deluded harping on about new trade deals to replace what we have - if you're a potential trade partner and you know the UK is on its arse, which it is about to be in dramatic fashion in the next few weeks when Mays deal is rejected, would you be offering favourable terms ?

wow, you managed to post without insulting anyone - bravo

[damascase]

1 hour ago, Hupaponics said:

@damascase Really, you don't remember how the NO to Euro in Sweden affected the British Pound? Or why the sad face?

Because of the hope you express that the Swedes will follow the UK. What does that add to Brexit? Do you hope that that would put Brexit in a more favourable light?

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, smedly said:

wow, you managed to post without insulting anyone - bravo

It didn't last long. See the following one.

[nauseus]

7 minutes ago, damascase said:

 Because of the hope you express that the Swedes will follow the UK. What does that add to Brexit? Do you hope that that would put Brexit in a more favourable light?

[kwilco]

Euromyths.

 

 

Here a list of lies about the EU published in the British media since the nineties.

 

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/the-eu-have-archived-all-of-the-euromyths-printed-in-uk-media-and-it-makes-for-some-disturbing-reading/14/11/?fbclid=IwAR3IRDqZ46y58_dDVcVGCtN3TAgGgB5V8GGfeStZ4Z6sEPmky8ozAN0rh38

 

[tebee]

“In its general outline, Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit deal looked misguided. As the costs become clearer, it’s starting to look indefensible.”

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-11-30/theresa-may-s-brexit-will-cost-the-u-k-a-fortune

[Srikcir]

2 hours ago, tebee said:

“In its general outline, Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit deal looked misguided. As the costs become clearer, it’s starting to look indefensible.”

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-11-30/theresa-may-s-brexit-will-cost-the-u-k-a-fortune

May was tasked to get a Brexit deal and she has on behalf of a sovereign UK.

Everyone now knows exactly the cost for a Brexit deal with the EU. Nothing misguided about that.

 

What was misguided was the underlying foundation for Brexit set by the referendum that May could not alter.

"What’s entirely relevant, on the other hand, is what has been learned about the toll Brexit will exact in the future. And that’s why the government must make the choice explicit in a new referendum. Now that the costs of the only Brexit on offer can be plausibly estimated, and its trifling benefits — if any — can be weighed, the country should be given another chance to decide." (my bold emphasis)

In effect the article concludes that a Brexit in its entirety should be reconsidered, eg., as a Remain.

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, Srikcir said:

May was tasked to get a Brexit deal and she has on behalf of a sovereign UK.

Everyone now knows exactly the cost for a Brexit deal with the EU. Nothing misguided about that.

 

What was misguided was the underlying foundation for Brexit set by the referendum that May could not alter.

"What’s entirely relevant, on the other hand, is what has been learned about the toll Brexit will exact in the future. And that’s why the government must make the choice explicit in a new referendum. Now that the costs of the only Brexit on offer can be plausibly estimated, and its trifling benefits — if any — can be weighed, the country should be given another chance to decide." (my bold emphasis)

In effect the article concludes that a Brexit in its entirety should be reconsidered, eg., as a Remain.

ANother chance to decide according to Bloomberg data based on bookmakers’ odds. Great!

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

 

duplicate. TVF glitches again.

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

On 12/1/2018 at 4:15 PM, welovesundaysatspace said:

There was no “democratically mandated decision”. There was a vote built on lies and false promises. If you want to call something “antidemocratic” then that. 

 

On 12/1/2018 at 5:03 PM, AlexRich said:

 

You might not have much choice, as it looks like parliament is going to blow up the Brexit dream ... with a second referendum. If parliament abandoned Brexit it would be undemocratic, but of the people of this country vote again it is most certainly democratic. Now they know what the deal looks like, they are better informed. I sense much fear amongst leavers.

 

 

I'm still of the opinion that it is you who will be sorely disappointed, with the possibility of a 'people's vote' being simply that... The audacity of such a name too, unbelievable condescension.

It would seem there isn't time for the government to draft a new bill to put through the Houses / vote on and pass the bill (as they can't agree on the price of tea right now), and then allow the public to vote again - many of whom, I'd wager would abstain or stick to their original opinion. It would then have to be enshrined into UK law. 3 months doesn't seem long enough, but who knows, the amount of skulduggery going on within UK politics, corners could be cut it, so it can't be ruled out. The public's collapse in confidence would be dramatic and long-lasting though, IMO.

 

Bottom line is, the people have spoken and made themselves clear, if that decision is not listened to then democracy is simply whatever the political class want it to be and is no longer dictated by the people - the game would be up. Democracy = (lit.) rule by the people. This infers that our voices are heard and our will listened to, by majority rule. Especially in the instance of national referenda, NOT - 'oh, uh, we didn't like your first answer, have another go, please'. If we are to call ourselves a democracy and keep a straight face, then the people must be listened to. It can be dressed up in any number of ways by those who got the shock of their life in 2016, but the result still stands. Gina Millar and her band of patronising cohorts like to say for example that the issue was too 'complex' for the nation to vote on. Although I dislike her smug arrogance, she does, to some degree, have a point. However a referendum was what was offered to the people, as the gutless politicians didn't want to make the wrong or 'unpopular' decision themselves, so they gave this 'power' to the people. If this is your chosen course of action as a government, spineless in many respects though it is, then you'd better bloody well listen to what the people tell you to do. Otherwise the veil of democracy is liable to fall altogether and people will see modern politics for what it is. The second point worth making about the suggestion of a 2nd ref. is this - if everyone (who didn't get the result they wanted) is so exercised about a referendum being the way the decision was made, and that the issue was and remains a far too complex one for the man/woman in the street to answer - then why on earth would you favour a rerun?!? Totally illogical - unless, perhaps - you're desperately hoping for the first result to be overturned - and imagine that with the aid of project Fear 24/7 and the inevitable political incompetence transforming things into an almighty clusterf*** - you may get just that result. Then the points being made about the first referendum are conveniently forgotten and suddenly referendums and their results are valid once again. Pretty damn subversive, if you ask me. Why any ordinary member of the public would support this kind of subterfuge is unfathomable.

 

The danger now is that Brexit may only be a nominal one, if the 'deal' gets through parliament that is, which still seems unlikely. If it doesn't, well then I just pray that we leave as we were promised we would. Simply meaning no 21 month transition period, no 'divorce' settlement, no 'bespoke' deal - the UK didn't vote for this anyhow. The country simply exits quietly and unceremoniously on March 29th 2019. WTO rules ensue and we take our future in our own hands and make the best of it, restoring long overdue independence and some much needed confidence in our nation and democratic legitimacy. A cull within the political class is sorely needed too, of course.

Should this happen then I and many millions more democratic Britons will have a little faith restored in our country and a little more hope for our future. Fingers firmly x'd.

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

3 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Now that the costs of the only Brexit on offer can be plausibly estimated, and its trifling benefits — if any — can be weighed, the country should be given another chance to decide

 

These people seem to be suffering from brain damage. They are in a majority within the MSM, tragically. 

 

If they think that this is the 'only Brexit on offer' then they are either being willfully disingenuous (very likely) or are just plain stupid. Leaving the EU without a 'sh*t deal' is the other option - the one that was voted for by 17.4m people, I might add.

 

Appalling lack of integrity on the part of nearly every so called 'journalist' these days, it seems. Sad and laughable. 

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nigel-farage/ukip-tommy-robinson-new-bnp/

 

The ramifications for Brexit PR and the cause as a whole could be big, and not in a positive way. I'd agree with Farage that this has not been thought through.

 

????

[Srikcir]

3 hours ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

nearly every so called 'journalist' these days

Statistically that's called the "norm."

Statistically, reliance on data sources outside the norm to which you imply is called "outliers."

 

[Grouse]

8 hours ago, tebee said:

“In its general outline, Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit deal looked misguided. As the costs become clearer, it’s starting to look indefensible.”

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-11-30/theresa-may-s-brexit-will-cost-the-u-k-a-fortune

Yeah but 

 

Brexit wasn't about economics; it was about sovereignty (except we already have sovereignty), er, OK it was about controlling our borders (but non EU migration is rising rapidly and there are still no proper controls). Well then it's going to cost a bit but not much (150M is reduced GDP and 60B in reduced contributions to the treasury)

 

Does ANYONE still think Brexit is a good move, Inshallah?

[nauseus]

2 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Yeah but 

 

Brexit wasn't about economics; it was about sovereignty (except we already have sovereignty), er, OK it was about controlling our borders (but non EU migration is rising rapidly and there are still no proper controls). Well then it's going to cost a bit but not much (150M is reduced GDP and 60B in reduced contributions to the treasury)

 

Does ANYONE still think Brexit is a good move? 

Yes, I think he does. Even more so than 3 years ago.

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

ANother chance to decide according to Bloomberg data based on bookmakers’ odds. Great!

Oh come on. Don't tell me you still think Brexit is a sensible idea. You're joking right?

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

 

 

I'm still of the opinion that it is you who will be sorely disappointed, with the possibility of a 'people's vote' being simply that... The audacity of such a name too, unbelievable condescension.

It would seem there isn't time for the government to draft a new bill to put through the Houses / vote on and pass the bill (as they can't agree on the price of tea right now), and then allow the public to vote again - many of whom, I'd wager would abstain or stick to their original opinion. It would then have to be enshrined into UK law. 3 months doesn't seem long enough, but who knows, the amount of skulduggery going on within UK politics, corners could be cut it, so it can't be ruled out. The public's collapse in confidence would be dramatic and long-lasting though, IMO.

 

Bottom line is, the people have spoken and made themselves clear, if that decision is not listened to then democracy is simply whatever the political class want it to be and is no longer dictated by the people - the game would be up. Democracy = (lit.) rule by the people. This infers that our voices are heard and our will listened to, by majority rule. Especially in the instance of national referenda, NOT - 'oh, uh, we didn't like your first answer, have another go, please'. If we are to call ourselves a democracy and keep a straight face, then the people must be listened to. It can be dressed up in any number of ways by those who got the shock of their life in 2016, but the result still stands. Gina Millar and her band of patronising cohorts like to say for example that the issue was too 'complex' for the nation to vote on. Although I dislike her smug arrogance, she does, to some degree, have a point. However a referendum was what was offered to the people, as the gutless politicians didn't want to make the wrong or 'unpopular' decision themselves, so they gave this 'power' to the people. If this is your chosen course of action as a government, spineless in many respects though it is, then you'd better bloody well listen to what the people tell you to do. Otherwise the veil of democracy is liable to fall altogether and people will see modern politics for what it is. The second point worth making about the suggestion of a 2nd ref. is this - if everyone (who didn't get the result they wanted) is so exercised about a referendum being the way the decision was made, and that the issue was and remains a far too complex one for the man/woman in the street to answer - then why on earth would you favour a rerun?!? Totally illogical - unless, perhaps - you're desperately hoping for the first result to be overturned - and imagine that with the aid of project Fear 24/7 and the inevitable political incompetence transforming things into an almighty clusterf*** - you may get just that result. Then the points being made about the first referendum are conveniently forgotten and suddenly referendums and their results are valid once again. Pretty damn subversive, if you ask me. Why any ordinary member of the public would support this kind of subterfuge is unfathomable.

 

The danger now is that Brexit may only be a nominal one, if the 'deal' gets through parliament that is, which still seems unlikely. If it doesn't, well then I just pray that we leave as we were promised we would. Simply meaning no 21 month transition period, no 'divorce' settlement, no 'bespoke' deal - the UK didn't vote for this anyhow. The country simply exits quietly and unceremoniously on March 29th 2019. WTO rules ensue and we take our future in our own hands and make the best of it, restoring long overdue independence and some much needed confidence in our nation and democratic legitimacy. A cull within the political class is sorely needed too, of course.

Should this happen then I and many millions more democratic Britons will have a little faith restored in our country and a little more hope for our future. Fingers firmly x'd.

You still can't make a point succinctly 

 

We have a representative democracy. Fact. If you don't understand that, tough

 

The referendum was advisory. Read the act. You don't like it, tough

 

Brexit would be massively damaging in many ways. You are still blind to that? Tough

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

21 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Statistically that's called the "norm."

Statistically, reliance on data sources outside the norm to which you imply is called "outliers."

 

'Outliers' huh?! Not an argument, to my mind.

 

To be more accurate, what you have described is called 'the status quo', statistics can be manipulated, just as opinion can and is. Journalism is subjective, what is happening is not.

The SQ can and often does shift too don't forget - rapidly at times, as we know.

 

What was once an issue that was completely avoided and seen as thoroughly objectionable to question or even raise in polite conversation, or political debate, has since been admitted as being an abject failure by all the leaders of the western world who expedited it. Multiculturalism - once seen held up as the 'norm' is now understood as and conceded by the powerful to be the disaster that it undoubtedly is. Brexit is just one symptom of this disaster I'm afraid. There are more to follow. When huge areas of the establishment or MS media are as wholly biased and deluded as they quite clearly are these days, they serve to mislead the public and obscure the truth. That is unacceptable and anathema to the whole point of journalism in the first place.

 

Conclusion: Much establishment funded / controlled MSM is to be read with no small degree of discern and suspicion, because when the game is rigged, it pays to know the rules and identify that the goal posts are continuously moved.

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

14 minutes ago, Grouse said:

You still can't make a point succinctly 

 

We have a representative democracy. Fact. If you don't understand that, tough

 

The referendum was advisory. Read the act. You don't like it, tough

 

Brexit would be massively damaging in many ways. You are still blind to that? Tough

 

and...more correctly, you still fail to make a valid point of any kind in your very 'succinct' verbal diarrhea, or attempt to challenge any of mine.

Don't like the points I make and many agree with? Tough.

 

We can only hope Grouse season is starting soon.

????