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

[mommysboy]

7 minutes ago, vogie said:

All you need to know that the electorate voted to leave, and making tacky remarks about "little Englanders" does nothing to improve your point, infact I think most of the leavers thought you were a fair remain poster, mmmnnnn.

I merely pointed out that some people refer to them as such. Perhaps a nerve has been touched. Here's the link to a credible source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Englander

 

I don't think many voted for a right wing field day!

Edited October 12, 2018 by mommysboy

[vogie]

3 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

I merely pointed out that some people refer to them as such. Perhaps a nerve has been touched. Here's the link to a credible source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Englander

No nerve has been touched here, if you feel the need to use such disparaging terminology, feel free. We have been called far worse from the remainers, does quitling ring a bell, do you think name calling helps a debate, and in all honesty I thought you were above all that.

[tebee]

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/policy-institute/publications/what-sort-of-brexit-do-the-british-people-want-2018.pdf

[evadgib]

 

[mommysboy]

4 minutes ago, vogie said:

No nerve has been touched here, if you feel the need to use such disparaging terminology, feel free. We have been called far worse from the remainers, does quitling ring a bell, do you think name calling helps a debate, and in all honesty I thought you were above all that.

Well what else then? English Nationalists would be more accurate but also unacceptable, because of its association with thugs.

 

And lets be clear: this is about English Tory members.

 

The Scots formed the SNP, maybe an ENP is called for?

Edited October 12, 2018 by mommysboy

[Stupooey]

4 hours ago, Jip99 said:

 

I agree with that, I was simply replying to someone who was didn’t understand that a majority = win.

 

It has been said many times that the final terms will suit no one. That is not strictly true.

 

The extreme right will be disappointed that we are not repatriating Johny foreigner, Boris has set out his expectations - and nobody in Ireland will be happy.

 

I think the Chequers plan is ill-conceived but I would prefer to start with that rather than “no deal”...... but then I was someone who thought that the conservative government (especially under Cameron) and the EU would have had a draft deal broadly sorted out ....... my confidence in both sides was misplaced.

 

Interestingly, speaking to several people who voted remain, they too were surprised that we were starting from scratch in sorting out a deal. More than half of those remainders are disgusted with the position taken by the EU that they would actually change their vote. 

 

For me, I voted to leave the EU and if that means leaving with ‘no deal’, so be it. My preference is for a deal that helps all parties.

 

 

 

Of course Cameron didn't have a draft deal worked out as he didn't think for one moment that Leave would win. He was not alone though, as I don't think anyone did - certainly not the EU, or even the pro-Leave campaigners. About 200 pages ago I asked if any Leave supporters actually believed that they would win the vote, and have been deafened by the silence. Of the three parties involved - EU, Remainers and Leavers - you would expect the last group to be the ones with the a plan for leaving in place, and I am amazed that your friends seem to think that it should have been down to the EU.

 

Of course, this failure to predict the result is the real crux of the problem. Because of it, no real thought was given to the way the Referendum was organised, and in hindsight it is easy to see why there was an anomalous result.

 

Firstly, no thought was given as to who should be allowed to vote, the same electoral roll being used as for General Elections, which have a maximum 5-year lifespan. The reason given for this? Cost, which seems laughable now. This created certain anomalies:

 - UK residents who were citizens of Commonwealth countries (who might be expected to vote Leave) were allowed to vote, but citizens of EU countries ( who were far more likely to be affected by the result, and would probaby be Remainers) were not, unless they happened to be citizens of Malta, Cyprus or the Republic of Ireland.

 - 96 year olds were allowed to help decide the long-term future of the Country, but 16 year olds were not. The House of Lords suggested lowering the age, as had been done for the Scottish Independence Referendum, but this was rejected by the Commons on cost grounds. 16 year olds are allowed to marry, so they are clearly considered to be responsible enough to take decisions that may well effect the rest of their lives, so why were they excluded, particularly as they will be at least 18 by March 2019?

 - UK citizens who have been resident overseas for more than 15 years were not allowed to vote, even though most would be directly affected by the result, and some would lose their jobs or be forced to return to the UK if Brexit happened. Cameron promised to address this, but failed to do so before the Referendum.

 

Certain other unique factors also contributed to the result:

 - Refugee numbers (an important factor in some areas) reached a peak in 2015, just before the Referendum, and have fallen off significantly since.

 - Jeremy Corbyn chose not to share a platform with the Remain campaigners, which meant that the Labour argument for Remain never received a proper airing. This was exacerbated by the BBC, who treated the whole thing as an intra-party dispute (over 70% of politicians who appeared on the BBC in the 10 weeks leading up to the Referendum were Conservatives). Under any other Labour leader the Remain vote would probably have been much higher.

 - UK voters are apt to cast negative votes. In General Elections people tend to vote Conservative to keep Labour out and vice-versa. The Referendum gave people too many individual things to vote against, not least of which was the inevitable anti-Government vote, which went to Leave almost by default.

 - A feature of UK elections is that the highest percentage turnout is among the over-65s. There is a good reason for this: they have the time to go out and vote, they will not be detained by a late meeting at work, or have to sort out a problem with the kids at school, or find themselves unexpectedly working away from home. In a General Election this is not generally significant, as the grey vote tends to be split between the parties, but in the Referendum it was crucial, with 64% voting Leave on a 90% turnout.

 

For these reasons (and there are others) I believe the Referendum was deeply flawed, and this is without taking into consideration whether a simple majority was sufficient for such a decision, where the disruption to people's lives was inevitably going to be so much greater following a Leave vote.

It now appears likely that by next March, through natural wastage and new young voters on the electoral roll, Remainers will outnumber Leavers even if nobody who voted had changed their minds since June 2016 (and there is evidence that there has been a small shift to Remain, principally among Labour voters in the North of England). Surely the worst possible outcome of this whole torrid affair would be for Brexit to go ahead, with whatever 'deal or no deal' that can be negotiated, against the wishes of the majority of the people at the time of exit.

  

[vogie]

1 minute ago, mommysboy said:

Well what else then? English Nationalists would be more accurate but also unacceptable, because of its association with thugs.

I prefer to think of it as not everybody wants their country to lose it's identity. But it would appear it does not bother some Brits. 

[vinny41]

18 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

I told you I posted an Independent poll published a few days ago on this thread. Having posted it, I don't think it is my task to repost it. Look for it! Less than 7 days ago.

 

Update: Look here it is.  It took me a minute on google search. It's not the only poll on the subject:https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/brexit-latest-no-deal-will-of-the-people-second-referendum-free-access-trade-a8571871.html

 

And here's an important passage:Offered a range of options, only 14 per cent support leaving the EU without a deal and trading on minimum World Trade Organisation terms. By contrast 61 per cent supported options that would give Britain frictionless access to the EU single market, including remaining as an EU member. 

Thanks but I found the one you were originally quoting from from and your having a laugh

Here some of the key points you missed

 BMG Research interviewed a representative sample of 1,503 GB adults online between 3 and 5 October.

so out of 1,503 The Inpendent claim that is the equilvent of over 60% of the UK eligible voters

so the Independent using BMG Research conducted an online poll of 1503 adults did they ask them if they were eligible to vote in UK unlikely . The The exclusive survey for The Independent/BMG Research are so secretive they refused to publish what questions were asked and to whom.

All The Independent/BMG Research Polls are good for one thing  to use as backup toilet paper if you run out of the real stuff

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-negotiations-no-deal-full-access-single-market-polling-theresa-may-a8571846.html

[RuamRudy]

2 minutes ago, vogie said:

I prefer to think of it as not everybody wants their country to lose it's identity. But it would appear it does not bother some Brits. 

We are getting off topic now, but I would contest that a dissolution of the Union would do the opposite to that which you fear - it would strengthen our countries' identities, and strengthen the bonds between them. 

 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, vogie said:

No nerve has been touched here, if you feel the need to use such disparaging terminology, feel free. We have been called far worse from the remainers, does quitling ring a bell, do you think name calling helps a debate, and in all honesty I thought you were above all that.

This is hilarious! Well, it's actually not when one knows it's just rather narcissistic debating tactics. Trumpetists are the same. 

 

 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, vogie said:

No nerve has been touched here, if you feel the need to use such disparaging terminology, feel free. We have been called far worse from the remainers, does quitling ring a bell, do you think name calling helps a debate, and in all honesty I thought you were above all that.

This is hilarious! Well, it's actually not when one knows it's just rather narcissistic debating tactics. Trumpetists are the same. 

 

 

[vogie]

1 minute ago, oilinki said:

This is hilarious! Well, it's actually not when one knows it's just rather narcissistic debating tactics. Trumpetists are the same. 

 

 

You seem to be quite happy for the EU to swallow your country, many people in the UK are not, is that too difficult for you to grasp. 

[vinny41]

22 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Well what else then? English Nationalists would be more accurate but also unacceptable, because of its association with thugs.

 

And lets be clear: this is about English Tory members.

 

The Scots formed the SNP, maybe an ENP is called for?

You forgotten to include the 28% that voted Labour and the 23% that voted Libdem

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/8gzxmxtckl/FOE_England_June2018_Results_w.pdf

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, vogie said:

You seem to be quite happy for the EU to swallow your country, many people in the UK are not, is that too difficult for you to grasp. 

I'm quite happy to be part of EU. I'm quite happy to be part of my country. I'm quite happy to be part of my city. I'm quite happy to be part of the community in my current location.. do you see a trend there?

 

 

[vogie]

4 minutes ago, oilinki said:

I'm quite happy to be part of EU. I'm quite happy to be part of my country. I'm quite happy to be part of my city. I'm quite happy to be part of the community in my current location.. do you see a trend there?

 

 

As long as you are happy, thats all that counts I suppose, it doesn't matter to you what the UK thinks about the EU.

[billd766]

2 hours ago, oilinki said:

Indeed. It's an divorce negotiation between 28 equal parties. Now why do you say that EU is evil if 27 of these equal parties want something and one does want something else?

 

 

 

 

What 28 equal parties would they be? The few who pay in to support the EU or the majority who live off them?

 

If the EU didn't want any country to leave then why did they write in their rules that it could be done?

[billd766]

double post once again.

 

Edited October 12, 2018 by billd766

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

What 28 equal parties would they be? The few who pay in to support the EU or the majority who live off them?

 

If the EU didn't want any country to leave then why did they write in their rules that it could be done?

Each EU country 28. Minus Britain is 27. Each of us get far more from our common union, than we spend money and effort to it. That's why we have the union. 

 

Well, I guess at this point, we should really talk about EU-27 against UK-4. I suppose the balance will become EU-29 to UK-2 at some point.

 

I suppose it was a Brit who wrote the article-50. Oh, it was..

 

Quote

The man who wrote Article 50 did not imagine his own country would be the one to use it. Veteran British diplomat John Kerr — now Lord Kerr of Kinlochard — drafted the text that sets out the procedure for leaving the European Union as part of an effort to draw up an EU constitutional treaty in the early 2000s.

https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-article-50-lord-kerr-john-kerr/

 

 

[billd766]

48 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

 

Of course Cameron didn't have a draft deal worked out as he didn't think for one moment that Leave would win. He was not alone though, as I don't think anyone did - certainly not the EU, or even the pro-Leave campaigners. About 200 pages ago I asked if any Leave supporters actually believed that they would win the vote, and have been deafened by the silence. Of the three parties involved - EU, Remainers and Leavers - you would expect the last group to be the ones with the a plan for leaving in place, and I am amazed that your friends seem to think that it should have been down to the EU.

 

Of course, this failure to predict the result is the real crux of the problem. Because of it, no real thought was given to the way the Referendum was organised, and in hindsight it is easy to see why there was an anomalous result.

 

Firstly, no thought was given as to who should be allowed to vote, the same electoral roll being used as for General Elections, which have a maximum 5-year lifespan. The reason given for this? Cost, which seems laughable now. This created certain anomalies:

 - UK residents who were citizens of Commonwealth countries (who might be expected to vote Leave) were allowed to vote, but citizens of EU countries ( who were far more likely to be affected by the result, and would probaby be Remainers) were not, unless they happened to be citizens of Malta, Cyprus or the Republic of Ireland.

 - 96 year olds were allowed to help decide the long-term future of the Country, but 16 year olds were not. The House of Lords suggested lowering the age, as had been done for the Scottish Independence Referendum, but this was rejected by the Commons on cost grounds. 16 year olds are allowed to marry, so they are clearly considered to be responsible enough to take decisions that may well effect the rest of their lives, so why were they excluded, particularly as they will be at least 18 by March 2019?

 - UK citizens who have been resident overseas for more than 15 years were not allowed to vote, even though most would be directly affected by the result, and some would lose their jobs or be forced to return to the UK if Brexit happened. Cameron promised to address this, but failed to do so before the Referendum.

 

Certain other unique factors also contributed to the result:

 - Refugee numbers (an important factor in some areas) reached a peak in 2015, just before the Referendum, and have fallen off significantly since.

 - Jeremy Corbyn chose not to share a platform with the Remain campaigners, which meant that the Labour argument for Remain never received a proper airing. This was exacerbated by the BBC, who treated the whole thing as an intra-party dispute (over 70% of politicians who appeared on the BBC in the 10 weeks leading up to the Referendum were Conservatives). Under any other Labour leader the Remain vote would probably have been much higher.

 - UK voters are apt to cast negative votes. In General Elections people tend to vote Conservative to keep Labour out and vice-versa. The Referendum gave people too many individual things to vote against, not least of which was the inevitable anti-Government vote, which went to Leave almost by default.

 - A feature of UK elections is that the highest percentage turnout is among the over-65s. There is a good reason for this: they have the time to go out and vote, they will not be detained by a late meeting at work, or have to sort out a problem with the kids at school, or find themselves unexpectedly working away from home. In a General Election this is not generally significant, as the grey vote tends to be split between the parties, but in the Referendum it was crucial, with 64% voting Leave on a 90% turnout.

 

For these reasons (and there are others) I believe the Referendum was deeply flawed, and this is without taking into consideration whether a simple majority was sufficient for such a decision, where the disruption to people's lives was inevitably going to be so much greater following a Leave vote.

It now appears likely that by next March, through natural wastage and new young voters on the electoral roll, Remainers will outnumber Leavers even if nobody who voted had changed their minds since June 2016 (and there is evidence that there has been a small shift to Remain, principally among Labour voters in the North of England). Surely the worst possible outcome of this whole torrid affair would be for Brexit to go ahead, with whatever 'deal or no deal' that can be negotiated, against the wishes of the majority of the people at the time of exit.

  

 

Then why didn't you bring it up before the referendum?

[vinny41]

EU: Payers and Receivers

 

https://www.ednh.news/eu-payers-and-receivers/

[vogie]

14 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Each EU country 28. Minus Britain is 27. Each of us get far more from our common union, than we spend money and effort to it. That's why we have the union. 

 

Well, I guess at this point, we should really talk about EU-27 against UK-4. I suppose the balance will become EU-29 to UK-2 at some point.

 

I suppose it was a Brit who wrote the article-50. Oh, it was..

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-article-50-lord-kerr-john-kerr/

 

 

I'm really missing your point here, because a Brit wrote article 50, we shoudn't have a say if we stay or leave the EU. Help me out here olly.

[billd766]

12 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Each EU country 28. Minus Britain is 27. Each of us get far more from our common union, than we spend money and effort to it. That's why we have the union. 

 

Well, I guess at this point, we should really talk about EU-27 against UK-4. I suppose the balance will become EU-29 to UK-2 at some point.

 

I suppose it was a Brit who wrote the article-50. Oh, it was..

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-article-50-lord-kerr-john-kerr/

 

 

 

So if every country gets more out than it pays in, where does the extra money come from?

 

Is it borrowed money? If so who will pay it back?

 

Let me guess. It will be the taxpayers in every country who don't get the chance to vote on what the EU spends and have no idea as the EU hasn't been able to balance the accounts in years, nor incidentally, have they publish any accounts for years either.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

So if every country gets more out than it pays in, where does the extra money come from?

 

Is it borrowed money? If so who will pay it back?

 

Let me guess. It will be the taxpayers in every country who don't get the chance to vote on what the EU spends and have no idea as the EU hasn't been able to balance the accounts in years, nor incidentally, have they publish any accounts for years either.

Now listen very carefully as I will say this only once.

 

The whole point of co-operation and union is that it's not a zero sum game. When we work collectively, we gain more than we put in. The sum of co-operation effort is more than the sum of individuals. 

 

That is the reason why we don't have personal security guards, but we rely on city / country police to deal with the gangsters. That's the reason why we don't each own our own personal fire departments, or militaries. 

 

We form communities, let it be families, cities, countries or group of countries to push some of the common tasks to be shared by others, instead of us having to do those tasks by our selves. That's optimisation in life. 

 

On EU level this means that EU is able to do far better trade deals with other countries, than any of us could do individually. EU can do standards (which annoy some), which are approved by all of our countries. Pharmacy standards is a good example of this. Accepted once, allowed to sell in all countries.

 

Science co-operation is one example. It's worth to do the expensive research together, than have 28 smaller budget scientific groups trying to research the same subject at the same time, individually. 

 

EU protects us, individuals quite a lot. This means that the food what is sold in EU is good quality. The workers rights are not been abused. etc. etc.

 

Now that UK is leaving EU, there is a fear that for example those workers rights will be slashed in UK to make UK products cheaper compared to EU products. EU will, rightfully, not allow these products to enter our markets because to compete with the prices, we would have to reduce the workers rights the same way as UK does. 

 

EU is far more than just money for us. 

[Jip99]

1 hour ago, oilinki said:

I'm quite happy to be part of EU. I'm quite happy to be part of my country. I'm quite happy to be part of my city. I'm quite happy to be part of the community in my current location.. do you see a trend there?

 

 

 

 

Yes.

 

 

You have no clear identity...????????????

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

Yes.

 

You have no clear identity...????????????

Quite right. Some people need to be individuals. 

[vinny41]

15 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Now listen very carefully as I will say this only once.

 

The whole point of co-operation and union is that it's not a zero sum game. When we work collectively, we gain more than we put in. The sum of co-operation effort is more than the sum of individuals. 

 

That is the reason why we don't have personal security guards, but we rely on city / country police to deal with the gangsters. That's the reason why we don't each own our own personal fire departments, or militaries. 

 

We form communities, let it be families, cities, countries or group of countries to push some of the common tasks to be shared by others, instead of us having to do those tasks by our selves. That's optimisation in life. 

 

On EU level this means that EU is able to do far better trade deals with other countries, than any of us could do individually. EU can do standards (which annoy some), which are approved by all of our countries. Pharmacy standards is a good example of this. Accepted once, allowed to sell in all countries.

 

Science co-operation is one example. It's worth to do the expensive research together, than have 28 smaller budget scientific groups trying to research the same subject at the same time, individually. 

 

EU protects us, individuals quite a lot. This means that the food what is sold in EU is good quality. The workers rights are not been abused. etc. etc.

 

Now that UK is leaving EU, there is a fear that for example those workers rights will be slashed in UK to make UK products cheaper compared to EU products. EU will, rightfully, not allow these products to enter our markets because to compete with the prices, we would have to reduce the workers rights the same way as UK does. 

 

EU is far more than just money for us. 

you might want to read this before you buy any food sold in the EU

 

Thilo Bode of foodwatch: "The EU has failed to protect 500 million consumers in Europe from health risks and deception in the food market. Worse still, the European Union is doing nothing to improve the situation, but instead continues to serve the interests of big food corporations."

 

Food scandals will continue to emerge unless EU food law is fundamentally revised, warns foodwatch – EU Commission’s reform plans are insufficient

 

https://www.foodwatch.org/en/press/food-scandals-will-continue-to-emerge-unless-eu-food-law-is-fundamentally-revised-warns-foodwatch/

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, vinny41 said:

Thanks but I found the one you were originally quoting from from and your having a laugh

Here some of the key points you missed

 BMG Research interviewed a representative sample of 1,503 GB adults online between 3 and 5 October.

so out of 1,503 The Inpendent claim that is the equilvent of over 60% of the UK eligible voters

so the Independent using BMG Research conducted an online poll of 1503 adults did they ask them if they were eligible to vote in UK unlikely . The The exclusive survey for The Independent/BMG Research are so secretive they refused to publish what questions were asked and to whom.

All The Independent/BMG Research Polls are good for one thing  to use as backup toilet paper if you run out of the real stuff

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-negotiations-no-deal-full-access-single-market-polling-theresa-may-a8571846.html

Poor form posting so large!

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/british-public-for-a-norway-style-soft-brexit-is-increasing-2018-10

 

Here's a recent one.  This one's more soft or hard Brexit.  

 

Don't bother posting a withering rebuttal, we know already!

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

you might want to read this before you buy any food sold in the EU

 

Thilo Bode of foodwatch: "The EU has failed to protect 500 million consumers in Europe from health risks and deception in the food market. Worse still, the European Union is doing nothing to improve the situation, but instead continues to serve the interests of big food corporations."

 

Food scandals will continue to emerge unless EU food law is fundamentally revised, warns foodwatch – EU Commission’s reform plans are insufficient

 

https://www.foodwatch.org/en/press/food-scandals-will-continue-to-emerge-unless-eu-food-law-is-fundamentally-revised-warns-foodwatch/

""The EU project has failed", says pro-Kremlin media. Don't be deceived. "

[mommysboy]

 

 

Rather a heavyweight, and a Tory too. 

[vinny41]

6 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Poor form posting so large!

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/british-public-for-a-norway-style-soft-brexit-is-increasing-2018-10

 

Here's a recent one.  This one's more soft or hard Brexit.  

 

Don't bother posting a withering rebuttal, we know already!

Wow the survey was so detailed they couldn't defined the number of people that took part

We asked 917 members of the British public, in a survey fielded in February and March 2017,

and we approached the same people that we surveyed in February 2017, managing to repeat the survey with 752 of them. We added a further 164 new respondents to our sample, giving a total of 916 participants for the 2018 round of the study. This second round occurred in April and May 2018,

It seems the groups that publish this survey don't have the balls to release the survey questions ask or the direct results of the survey before the figures are doctored to suit their own outcome