Britons would now vote to stay in EU, want second referendum: poll

[baansgr]

12 hours ago, baboon said:

No. And there are plenty of Polish and others in my (UK) neighborhood.

However I don't doubt for a second that the problems you mention above are not endemic in many parts of the country. However you are going after the wrong people. It isn't the Polacks but a government who has imposed harsher and harsher public spending cuts, year after year. Why don't you look at them, rather than the unfortunates they point the finger at in order to divert attention away from who the real culprits are?

Thats the answer I expected hence my comment dont blame the Government for lack of investment. Lets be real here, if these EU immigrants are supposedly doing the low paid jobs that UK citizens wont do then they are invariably a drain on the system due to paying very little tax and recieving more in benefits which is then mostly sent back to the EU. I dont blame anyone for wanting a better life, its natural...hey Im in Thailand seeking a better life but something needs to be done. You are one of the lucky ones if it hasnt impacted seriously on your life...however I take it as this is a Thai forum you are living here also but its a totally different story for my relatives.

[baansgr]

https://www.bbc.com/news/education-46223217

 

As BBC is the prefered source of information, this proves the fact.......8 billion which could very well have been spent in the UK

[Grouse]

23 minutes ago, baansgr said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/education-46223217

 

As BBC is the prefered source of information, this proves the fact.......8 billion which could very well have been spent in the UK

Mainly non EU migrants So off topic

[JonnyF]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

Leavers need to stop the moronic chanting and understand that some things are rather more complex than a bloody football match!

It was an analogy. Nobody was chanting and there is no need to start swearing just because you lost. Calm yourself. Let me simplify it even more for you. Just because Leavers believe they would win again does not mean they should have to prove it with a second vote. In any case, why would anyone believe that Remainers would accept a second vote when they cannot accept the first?   

 

Funny how Remainers love to try and take the intellectual and moral high ground when they lack the maturity and good grace to accept the result of a democratic vote. If Remain had won, I would have accepted the result. Why can't you? 

 

[Rugon]

Why the hell didn't they vote in the first one?

 

It is not democratic to have a vote, then have another one if some are not happy with the result. Total nonsense.

[Rugon]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Why should they? The vote already took place in 2016 and Leave Won.

 

Man City beat Rotherham 7-0 in the FA Cup last week. Romped home. City fans would be very confident that they'd win again if they played them again next week. It doesn't mean their theory should be put to the test as the game has already been played. The result is in. Rotheram are out and unlike Remainers, their supporters accept it.

 

Before you start talking about opinions changing over time, there is truth in that but you have to realize that the first vote needs to be respected and implemented before a second referendum can take place. You don't re-run a general election before the winning party has had their term in office. We must leave the EU as per the legislation and then in a few years if there is significant support for a referendum to re-enter then you can have your second vote. You can't demand to vote again before the results have been implemented just because you lost. That's not how Democracy works.

 

Remainers need to accept they lost and get behind the country, not try and sabotage the process.

Very well  said, bad losers the lot of them.

[Antonymous]

47 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

It was an analogy. Nobody was chanting and there is no need to start swearing just because you lost. Calm yourself. Let me simplify it even more for you. Just because Leavers believe they would win again does not mean they should have to prove it with a second vote. In any case, why would anyone believe that Remainers would accept a second vote when they cannot accept the first?   

 

Funny how Remainers love to try and take the intellectual and moral high ground when they lack the maturity and good grace to accept the result of a democratic vote. If Remain had won, I would have accepted the result. Why can't you? 

 

Exactly that.

 

Unfortunately Remainers cannot accept the principle of a democratic vote and even when analogies are presented to them in an attempt to explain their folly they’ll still close their minds and drivel about ‘comparing apples and oranges’ and such.

 

Much earlier in this thread (post #143) I asked if Remainers would be perfectly OK with the Thai Junta calling for another vote if Future Forward and an anti-Govt coalition win by a 4% margin in the upcoming election, on the grounds that they thought that the majority of voters had made a mistake and Thai people should be given a second chance.

 

The replies to my post were ‘apples and oranges’ again.

 

No they are not. The comparison is valid. The principle is exactly the same.

[Joinaman]

Well, I've spent a nice time reading all these posts and still can't find anyone showing me exactly why it's so bad to leave
Perhaps we have a very clever remainder who can tell us
Anyone care to give the true facts,
How much it will cost, and exactly why
How much we will save from not paying into eu, and why
How long it will take to sort out, and why
And mostly, what laws, increased payments, etc will the eu be imposing in the next 10 years if we stay in
All I hear is people arguing who's got the biggest dick and who's the poorest loser, so come on , as a leaver I don't know, but am willing to risk it on the facts I know now
But I'm fascinated to know the full facts from some of our remainers
Don't bother with with what you think, or hope, or should be, enlighten all us leavers and maybe, just maybe we could change our minds, after knowing all the true facts that you will give us



Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Grouse]

49 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

It was an analogy. Nobody was chanting and there is no need to start swearing just because you lost. Calm yourself. Let me simplify it even more for you. Just because Leavers believe they would win again does not mean they should have to prove it with a second vote. In any case, why would anyone believe that Remainers would accept a second vote when they cannot accept the first?   

 

Funny how Remainers love to try and take the intellectual and moral high ground when they lack the maturity and good grace to accept the result of a democratic vote. If Remain had won, I would have accepted the result. Why can't you? 

 

Because I am better informed than you.

 

3 minutes ago, Antonymous said:

Exactly that.

 

Unfortunately Remainers cannot accept the principle of a democratic vote and even when analogies are presented to them in an attempt to explain their folly they’ll still close their minds and drivel about ‘comparing apples and oranges’ and such.

 

Much earlier in this thread (post #143) I asked if Remainers would be perfectly OK with the Thai Junta calling for another vote if Future Forward and an anti-Govt coalition win by a 4% margin in the upcoming election, on the grounds that they thought that the majority of voters had made a mistake and Thai people should be given a second chance.

 

The replies to my post were ‘apples and oranges’ again.

 

No they are not. The comparison is valid. The principle is exactly the same.

The referendum was advisory and didn't not bind parliament. There were wrongdoings to confuse the semi literate Demographic C and D classes. 

 

The issue is much too serious to be decided by low level munchkins. But thanks for your opinion 

[welovesundaysatspace]

8 minutes ago, Antonymous said:

Exactly that.

 

Unfortunately Remainers cannot accept the principle of a democratic vote and even when analogies are presented to them in an attempt to explain their folly they’ll still close their minds and drivel about ‘comparing apples and oranges’ and such.

 

Much earlier in this thread (post #143) I asked if Remainers would be perfectly OK with the Thai Junta calling for another vote if Future Forward and an anti-Govt coalition win by a 4% margin in the upcoming election, on the grounds that they thought that the majority of voters had made a mistake and Thai people should be given a second chance.

 

The replies to my post were ‘apples and oranges’ again.

 

No they are not. The comparison is valid. The principle is exactly the same.

Just because you say an orange is an apple, or you are unable to spot the difference, that doesn’t make an orange an apple. So keep comparing a manipulated, ambiguous, non-binding referendum with a football match; just down expect anyone to buy into your oranges-with-apples comparisons. 

Edited January 9, 2019 by welovesundaysatspace

[Antonymous]

11 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Because I am better informed than you.

 

The referendum was advisory and didn't not bind parliament. There were wrongdoings to confuse the semi literate Demographic C and D classes. 

 

The issue is much too serious to be decided by low level munchkins. But thanks for your opinion 

 

You appear to be an elitist cheerleader who has no idea what democracy means.

[evadgib]

29 minutes ago, Antonymous said:

You appear to be an elitist cheerleader who has no idea what democracy means.

Speaking of which....????

 

Edited January 9, 2019 by evadgib

[yogi100]

22 hours ago, AlexRich said:

 

So they throw their hat in the ring with ultra right wing free marketers who couldn’t give a toss about their employee rights or their access to public services? And most Europeans are working in ordinary jobs paying taxes, jobs that are available to all and protected by minimum wage legislation. Should I be unhappy that there are less English plumbers ripping me off over a 10 minute job? I’d rather pay a fair price to a Pole. As for the rest of them, a combination of old people, insulated from the economic impact (or at least they think they are) and benefits scroungers afraid a European might get access to their free lifestyle. 

"protected by minimum wage legislation."

 

Be real, In your fantasy land they may be but not in the real world.

 

In Romania for example workers get one GBP an hour if they're lucky, that's 8 quid a day. They get can triple or quadruple that easily in the UK.

 

They come to the UK, get housed in an old caravan if they work on the farms or live a warm bedding four or more to a room existence  that costs them about a fiver a day. They jump at the chance to get a daily wage of 30 - 40 quid a day which is a sight less than the minimum wage but to them it's like winning the lottery.

 

Landlords, employers and contractors love it because along with the gang masters they're all quids in. The workers are happy because they pay no stoppages, can claim various benefits including child benefit that no one can check up on, pay negligible rent, spend very little, pay no council tax and send cash home where they can build and buy houses for a few hundred quid.

 

And no officials ever checks up on these activities because they receive zero cooperation from everyone involved. The procedure has always gone on be it with our own people, the Irish and now the Eastern Europeans. It used to be known as 'working the lump' and working 'cash in hand' or 'cash in spanner'. 

 

That's how it works in the real world and no one cares because those who should act on it like politicians and council officials are often involved, are too stupid, look the other way or have their hands tied.

Edited January 9, 2019 by yogi100

[billd766]

13 hours ago, baboon said:

What IS the difference between us, Bill? You are veering all over the place.

Are we going to start comparing Papa Doc with Pol Pot or what? Are you saying that in your opinion JRM is quite possibly a very nice man? Do you honestly believe he has the back of your UK based relatives? 

I didn't bring up Papa Doc. I thought it was you.

 

Do I think JRM is a nice man? Yes I do.

 

Has he got the back of my UK relatives?

 

My answer is simple.  Has ANY politician or political party in the UK got the back of my UK relatives?

 

No they haven't.

[billd766]

13 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

trees are OK

keep on talking to them

I often do in the vicinity of my Norway home - good for the soul.

 

Trump? dunno

Democrats have a way now, grant his 5 zillions for the wall

provided he promises to remain on the Mexican side of the wall and never ever cross.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote "

trees are OK

keep on talking to them

I often do in the vicinity of my Norway home - good for the soul."

 

I need to change the tree I talk too. I give it a capful of whisky every so often and it still hasn't given me the winning lottery numbers.

 

Like the bit about Trump but that would be unfair on Mexico.

[Grouse]

55 minutes ago, Antonymous said:

 

You appear to be an elitist cheerleader who has no idea what democracy means.

Try me!

 

We have a representative democracy. Do you really understand what that means?

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, Rugon said:

Why the hell didn't they vote in the first one?

 

It is not democratic to have a vote, then have another one if some are not happy with the result. Total nonsense.

It was an opinion poll. Thanks for your opinion. Parliament thanks you!

[billd766]

56 minutes ago, Antonymous said:

 

You appear to be an elitist cheerleader who has no idea what democracy means.

Not only that but he truly believes that all Leavers are thick, ignorant, uneducated oiks who are only fit for labouring jobs whilst the Remainers are highly educated, elitist, superior people who should lord it over everybody else and run the country.

 

When he has no real answer he will simply insult the poster.

 

I put him on my ignore list months ago.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, Joinaman said:

Well, I've spent a nice time reading all these posts and still can't find anyone showing me exactly why it's so bad to leave
Perhaps we have a very clever remainder who can tell us
Anyone care to give the true facts,
How much it will cost, and exactly why
How much we will save from not paying into eu, and why
How long it will take to sort out, and why
And mostly, what laws, increased payments, etc will the eu be imposing in the next 10 years if we stay in
All I hear is people arguing who's got the biggest dick and who's the poorest loser, so come on , as a leaver I don't know, but am willing to risk it on the facts I know now
But I'm fascinated to know the full facts from some of our remainers
Don't bother with with what you think, or hope, or should be, enlighten all us leavers and maybe, just maybe we could change our minds, after knowing all the true facts that you will give us



Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

Nice of you to admit that you don't know all the salient facts! Why do you vote if you don't know the facts? Irresponsible in my book. 

[Joinaman]

4 hours ago, Grouse said:

The truth is far more complex I'm afraid.

then please feel free to enlighten us on the facts, not the scaremonger or bullshit, tell us what is going to happen during the next 10 years, A, if we leave and B if we stay, and please include all costs, laws, immigration, jobs etc that you obviously have full knowledge of to be able to vote remain

i, and many others will wait patiently while you compile these facts for us so can know the truth 

[melvinmelvin]

11 hours ago, Grouse said:

Thanks for that

 

What a decent man!

 

Certainly got me thinking. Maybe he's right and we can never hope to be taken as a solid member of the EU again. Maybe N or N+ is sensible ???? And the best we can hope for.

Of course UK's image is severely downgraded, not only vis a vis EU but also world wide.

The whole world has been watching the Brexit process very closely, and many are the countries

in which heads are shaken.

I think the worst is that UK has demonstrated that it is not trustworthy.

 

Say no more, but large scale trade agreements is built on trust.

 

Who is at fault? In my view, the UK parliament must take the blame for this.

 

[billd766]

23 minutes ago, Joinaman said:

then please feel free to enlighten us on the facts, not the scaremonger or bullshit, tell us what is going to happen during the next 10 years, A, if we leave and B if we stay, and please include all costs, laws, immigration, jobs etc that you obviously have full knowledge of to be able to vote remain

i, and many others will wait patiently while you compile these facts for us so can know the truth 

Don't hold your breath while you are waiting.

[welovesundaysatspace]

18 minutes ago, Joinaman said:

then please feel free to enlighten us on the facts, not the scaremonger or bullshit, tell us what is going to happen during the next 10 years, A, if we leave and B if we stay, and please include all costs, laws, immigration, jobs etc that you obviously have full knowledge of to be able to vote remain

i, and many others will wait patiently while you compile these facts for us so can know the truth 

You don’t have to know “what is going to happen during the next 10 years (...) all costs, laws, immigration, jobs etc” to understand that in 45 years a bit more things have changed and developed than just a membership status.  

[Antonymous]

“I know loads of people who voted Leave, including a lot of my family, and I haven’t heard a bigoted comment from a single one of them. Not one. From the Remain side, however, there has been explicit ageist bile, contempt for the uneducated, talk of sewers bursting and lizards voting, fantasies about creating a new independent state that would exclude the rough, backward, “racist” north, and arguments for limiting old people’s right to vote on the basis that they lack the IQ or social nous necessary for making big decisions.

 

If the leaders of remain want to see bigotry, they should take a look in the mirror. Their “anti-bigotry” is the bigotry blighting the country now.” (Brendan O’Neill).

[nauseus]

8 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

You don’t have to know “what is going to happen during the next 10 years (...) all costs, laws, immigration, jobs etc” to understand that in 45 years a bit more things have changed and developed than just a membership status.  

No sh1t Sherlock!

[melvinmelvin]

11 hours ago, Grouse said:

BTW, I think N+ is fine as a general solution but I can't see us being accepted by EFTA for reasons explained by our Scandinavian contributors. So in fact it means leaving but staying in the SM and CU. This of course also solves the Irish question. We should use existing rules and maybe extend these to throttle immigration to acceptable levels.

My personal view is that UK officials would absolutely hate a N solution as soon as they fully

understand what they have done, will probably take quite some time.

Re contributions, handled very differently from how EU members are billed and is to a larger degree negotiable.

 

The EEA treaty is probably the most complex treaty ever penned, I'd suggest that less than 10 people 

in the world have full and deep insight in that acquis, and none of those are in the UK.

 

Yes, Barnier has voiced some commercials re EFTA/EEA several times.

However, I think that the Commission employees dealing with EFTA and EEA would immensely dislike UK being part of it.

 

Now, as to gaining access;

Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland

think many politicians in Norway would prefer to oppose but I guess could be pressed to yes,

Norway and UK has very long and close relationships

Liechtenstein normally leaves foreign affairs matters like this to be handled by Switzerland.

I see no good reason for Switzerland(Liechtenstein) to accept UK in EFTA, I see several reasons why they should not.

Iceland? If they are really serious about becoming a EU member Juncker and Tusk could probably press them to say yes,

otherwise I think they would prefer no.

 

(UK doesn't fit culturally into the EFTA/EEA scheme)

 

 

[melvinmelvin]

4 hours ago, Grouse said:

Leavers need to stop the moronic chanting and understand that some things are rather more complex than a bloody football match!

football for plebs and simpletons, we Drs watch rugby and cricket

 

[JonnyF]

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

Because I am better informed than you.

 

The referendum was advisory and didn't not bind parliament. There were wrongdoings to confuse the semi literate Demographic C and D classes. 

 

The issue is much too serious to be decided by low level munchkins. But thanks for your opinion 

I see. Because you believe yourself to be superior you see no need to respect a democratic vote. Instead, you insult those with whom you disagree and who you clearly believe are below your level of intelligence.

 

You should give the Thai PM a call and see if he has any vacancies in his government, you seem to share a remarkably similar ideology ????.

 

[evadgib]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

Not only that but he truly believes that all Leavers are thick, ignorant, uneducated oiks who are only fit for labouring jobs whilst the Remainers are highly educated, elitist, superior people who should lord it over everybody else and run the country.

 

When he has no real answer he will simply insult the poster.

 

I put him on my ignore list months ago.

The 'Cuckoo' agenda explained (Ridding the boards of any opposition????

 

1. Attack posters while ignoring their content.

2. Report any to the headmaster that dare to retaliate.

3. (If the above fails) Persist until the opposition tires and leaves the board/website.

4. Their 'tsunami' is then free to continue uninterrupted.

 

Guilty parties know who they are and in most cases know they've been well and truly rumbled. Humour and banter are perfectly acceptable but in the main are noticeably absent in favour of abuse.

 

HTH

 

 

Edited January 9, 2019 by evadgib

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

Now, as to gaining access;

Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland

think many politicians in Norway would prefer to oppose but I guess could be pressed to yes,

Norway and UK has very long and close relationships

Liechtenstein normally leaves foreign affairs matters like this to be handled by Switzerland.

I see no good reason for Switzerland(Liechtenstein) to accept UK in EFTA, I see several reasons why they should not.

Iceland? If they are really serious about becoming a EU member Juncker and Tusk could probably press them to say yes,

otherwise I think they would prefer no.

 

(UK doesn't fit culturally into the EFTA/EEA scheme)

Sounds like UK's problem joining EFTA is similar to Russian or Turkish problems joining EU. They all are far too large to join in without disturbing power balance of these clubs.

 

UK would be a temporary monster within EFTA which would come and then go after few years of ruling the club. It's understandable that the existing EFTA countries don't want a temporary storm on their playground.