Brexit cannot define us, says UK PM's deputy as ratings dip

[nauseus]

2 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

On my mantra of 'what's best for Britain', and whenever we eventually leave or remain, I would expect the government - either Con or Lab - to actually DO something to ensure that the main aim materialises - that is to see the UK prosper.

 

However, I cannot see that happening, possibly because the UK is NOT a wholly democratic union. The awarding of parliamentary seats should be based on proportional representation, and not as it is now. That the DUP can earn 10 seats is a ludicrous skewing of a minority.

 

I also cannot see that happening because there is NO plan in place to make it happen. At the moment it's all about getting May's deal over the line - and does that ensure prosperity or catastrophe? Or is it just to 'respect' - a ridiculous concept  - the referendum result with the support of 27% of the eligible voting population, instead of what's best for Britain?

 

As any father like myself would want, is to see their children and grandchildren prosper, have freedom of movement,  great health facilities, and not to be stuck with a government that is worse than big brother, only interested in taxing them to death to pay off the Brexit bill.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Do you teach your kids that respect is a ridiculous concept? What a shame.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, stephenterry said:

They're doing what's best for Britain - and even had Remain won, the same. I find it intensely annoying that 27% of the total population think they can override the most important scenario; that is to ensure Britain prospers, not fall down the toilet. 

As we don't know how the non-voters would have voted, let's stick to 52%. This 52% thinks that the EU is, in fact, the toilet. The other 48% preferred what they perceive to be the status quo - the big problem with that is that the EU is anything but the status quo - this is already known.

[Jip99]

28 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

On my mantra of 'what's best for Britain', and whenever we eventually leave or remain, I would expect the government - either Con or Lab - to actually DO something to ensure that the main aim materialises - that is to see the UK prosper.

 

However, I cannot see that happening, possibly because the UK is NOT a wholly democratic union. The awarding of parliamentary seats should be based on proportional representation, and not as it is now. That the DUP can earn 10 seats is a ludicrous skewing of a minority.

 

I also cannot see that happening because there is NO plan in place to make it happen. At the moment it's all about getting May's deal over the line - and does that ensure prosperity or catastrophe? Or is it just to 'respect' - a ridiculous concept  - the referendum result with the support of 27% of the eligible voting population, instead of what's best for Britain?

 

As any father like myself would want, is to see their children and grandchildren prosper, have freedom of movement,  great health facilities, and not to be stuck with a government that is worse than big brother, only interested in taxing them to death to pay off the Brexit bill.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with much of your post but please stop bleating about "27%".  on a greater than normal turnout, more people voted to leave - that was the democrat decision - please do not pretend otherwise.

[evadgib]

32 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The awarding of parliamentary seats should be based on proportional representation, and not as it is now. That the DUP can earn 10 seats is a ludicrous skewing of a minority.

Agreed; Farages UKIP only getting one seat despite 4M votes while SNP picked up 56 from far fewer voters exposed FPTP as a complete farce.

 

Edit: This quote was from @stephenterry not @nauseus

[stephenterry]

2 hours ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

I agree with much of your post but please stop bleating about "27%".  on a greater than normal turnout, more people voted to leave - that was the democrat decision - please do not pretend otherwise.

Let me clarify. The government is aiming to push through a Brexit that they don't know would be supported by a majority of the population in the UK. To assume that the referendum result was the only measure is not complete, IMO. Albeit, I do not see an alternative.

 

Which leads me reluctantly to support a peoples vote on May's deal, amended, and other options to ensure that is the preferred option, although I think that would be a cop-out by the government who would be abrogating their responsibility for running the Union.

 

 

 

[stephenterry]

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

As we don't know how the non-voters would have voted, let's stick to 52%. This 52% thinks that the EU is, in fact, the toilet. The other 48% preferred what they perceive to be the status quo - the big problem with that is that the EU is anything but the status quo - this is already known.

You really ought to read and understand where I'm coming from. I'm not sticking with 52% because that's not a true statistic in regard to the whole UK population.

[Jip99]

3 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Let me clarify. The government is aiming to push through a Brexit that they don't know would be supported by a majority of the population in the UK. To assume that the referendum result was the only measure is not complete, IMO. Albeit, I do not see an alternative.

 

Which leads me reluctantly to support a peoples vote on May's deal, amended, and other options to ensure that is the preferred option, although I think that would be a cop-out by the government who would be abrogating their responsibility for running the Union.

 

 

 

 

 

I would back a people's vote if it was (1) this deal or (2) no deal.  The referendum came without pictures it was an "in or out" according to the then PM.... the people voted to leave.

[billd766]

3 hours ago, stephenterry said:

They're doing what's best for Britain - and even had Remain won, the same. I find it intensely annoying that 27% of the total population think they can override the most important scenario; that is to ensure Britain prospers, not fall down the toilet. 

Who says that they are doing their best for Britain?

 

I see no progress over the last 3 years and the MPs have taken care of or even remembered that they ONLY an MP because they were voted in. They are elected to represent their constituency and perhaps 5 to 10% are doing that. The rest of them couldn't give a toss about their constituents as they are not needed until the next general election.

 

The reckoning will be coming then when central party management will foist their  choice of candidates on the local constituency and IMHO many prospective MPs will be rejected locally.

 

 

[billd766]

3 hours ago, vogie said:

Ah yes I remember that all important speech, "the government will implement what you decide" as long as you vote remain.

 

quote "as long as you vote remain."

 

I must have fallen asleep and missed that part.

[dick dasterdly]

15 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Let me clarify. The government is aiming to push through a Brexit that they don't know would be supported by a majority of the population in the UK. To assume that the referendum result was the only measure is not complete, IMO. Albeit, I do not see an alternative.

 

Which leads me reluctantly to support a peoples vote on May's deal, amended, and other options to ensure that is the preferred option, although I think that would be a cop-out by the government who would be abrogating their responsibility for running the Union.

 

 

 

Go away!

 

Even remainers know that the eu/may deal is the worst deal possible!!

 

But I do agree that another referendum is now needed as the uk parliament has ignored the vote of the first referendum and the result of the parties saying that their manifesto was to leave the eu ????.

 

The problem arise with the options on the 'next referendum'....  Remainers would prefer:

1) accept the eu/may deal or

2) withdraw the govt. article 51 act

 

whereas leavers would prefer:

 

1) accept the eu/may deal

2) leave immediately

[nauseus]

27 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Let me clarify. The government is aiming to push through a Brexit that they don't know would be supported by a majority of the population in the UK. To assume that the referendum result was the only measure is not complete, IMO. Albeit, I do not see an alternative.

 

Which leads me reluctantly to support a peoples vote on May's deal, amended, and other options to ensure that is the preferred option, although I think that would be a cop-out by the government who would be abrogating their responsibility for running the Union.

 

 

 

Reluctantly support a people's vote - just more nonsense. The referendum was the allowed method and it attracted more votes than at any other time in UK voting history. Remainers only commenced wriggling like this once they knew they had lost. This government has already failed to carry out its responsibility.   

[nauseus]

38 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

You really ought to read and understand where I'm coming from. I'm not sticking with 52% because that's not a true statistic in regard to the whole UK population.

It might not be exactly true but it is an accurate enough representation for the whole country, given the very high number of samples. It is all there is to work with. That's it. 

[welovesundaysatspace]

1 hour ago, Jip99 said:

I would back a people's vote if it was (1) this deal or (2) no deal.  The referendum came without pictures it was an "in or out" according to the then PM.... the people voted to leave.

With only these two options on the ballot paper you exclude the people who would prefer to remain over May’s or no deal. Doesn’t sound fair. 

[Jip99]

2 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

With only these two options on the ballot paper you exclude the people who would prefer to remain over May’s or no deal. Doesn’t sound fair. 

 

 

They had that opportunity on 23 June 2016.

 

 

 

[mommysboy]

Imo the Government has never been interested in a deal that is popular, or acceptable to most, and that is why they have refused to participate in a final say referendum. This Government is really only interested in holding the Tory party together, and if that means sacrificing the country then so be it.

[stephenterry]

1 hour ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

I would back a people's vote if it was (1) this deal or (2) no deal.  The referendum came without pictures it was an "in or out" according to the then PM.... the people voted to leave.

The 'people' did not vote to leave. Get that straight. A minority of the people voted to leave, as did a minority vote to remain. The vast majority of people who could have voted did not vote at all. 

 

It would be fair to say that as the vast majority didn't vote to leave, your statement is incorrect.

Hence a peoples vote should include several options, one of which is 'Couldn't care less'.

[Jip99]

5 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

The 'people' did not vote to leave. Get that straight. A minority of the people voted to leave, as did a minority vote to remain. The vast majority of people who could have voted did not vote at all. 

 

It would be fair to say that as the vast majority didn't vote to leave, your statement is incorrect.

Hence a peoples vote should include several options, one of which is 'Couldn't care less'.

 

So what about the record turnout?

 

Get THAT straight and stop trying to impose your lack of democracy on this thread.

 

You cannot count people who were not eligible to vote, or those who who were eligible who chose not to vote.

 

The FACT remains that, on a record turnout of eligible;e voters, 17m+ voted the leave against 16m who voted to remain.

 

THAT is a clear democratic result in favour of LEAVE.

[stephenterry]

It's my view that both remainers and leavers have little idea on what happens next if May's amended withdrawal deal gets through parliament. Yes, there is going to be a transitional period, which, IMO, is going to be one of the largest upheavels Britain has ever faced.

 

Apart from that, although I've read many downsides to Brexit, and I haven't heard any upsides from the government, CBI, or BoE. That is of concern, because I'm sure the government does not have a plan in place to handle the aftermath and prepare Britain to go it alone.

 

So all your leavers, put on your thinking hats and instead of regurgitating 'I want to leave' ad infinitum, please share with the uninformed exactly what you think should be put in place to revigorate the economy, strengthen the pound, and what's best for Britain, once we enter the transitional period.

 

Bear in mind, you'll receive no help from the EU. You've left, get on with it. 

 

 

 

[dick dasterdly]

21 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

With only these two options on the ballot paper you exclude the people who would prefer to remain over May’s or no deal. Doesn’t sound fair. 

Much like those that would prefer leave think:

1) Accept the eu/may deal

2) Remain

 

Complete joke,  but of course remaners will never accept this.....

[nauseus]

9 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

It's my view that both remainers and leavers have little idea on what happens next if May's amended withdrawal deal gets through parliament. Yes, there is going to be a transitional period, which, IMO, is going to be one of the largest upheavels Britain has ever faced.

 

Apart from that, although I've read many downsides to Brexit, and I haven't heard any upsides from the government, CBI, or BoE. That is of concern, because I'm sure the government does not have a plan in place to handle the aftermath and prepare Britain to go it alone.

 

So all your leavers, put on your thinking hats and instead of regurgitating 'I want to leave' ad infinitum, please share with the uninformed exactly what you think should be put in place to revigorate the economy, strengthen the pound, and what's best for Britain, once we enter the transitional period.

 

Bear in mind, you'll receive no help from the EU. You've left, get on with it. 

 

 

 

We don't get any help from the EU now, if you look at things closely. Stainless steel sculptures don't cut it.

[stephenterry]

13 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

So what about the record turnout?

 

Get THAT straight and stop trying to impose your lack of democracy on this thread.

 

You cannot count people who were not eligible to vote, or those who who were eligible who chose not to vote.

 

The FACT remains that, on a record turnout of eligible;e voters, 17m+ voted the leave against 16m who voted to remain.

 

THAT is a clear democratic result in favour of LEAVE.

Pity you don't understand basic mathematics. Leavers amassed 17.4 million from a total of 45.77 million legally allowed to vote. Of course you can include non leavers - after all, they're also the 'people'.

 

Isn't it clear to you that those who voted leave are in a minority? And that's being democratic.

 

 

 

[stephenterry]

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

We don't get any help from the EU now, if you look at things closely. Stainless steel sculptures don't cut it.

So what should be put in place?

 

[dick dasterdly]

55 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

With only these two options on the ballot paper you exclude the people who would prefer to remain over May’s or no deal. Doesn’t sound fair. 

And yet you think those who are looking for:

 

1) accept deal

 

2) remain

 

is ok???

 

Get over yourself....

[Loiner]

The 'people' did not vote to leave. Get that straight. A minority of the people voted to leave, as did a minority vote to remain. The vast majority of people who could have voted did not vote at all. 
 
It would be fair to say that as the vast majority didn't vote to leave, your statement is incorrect.
Hence a peoples vote should include several options, one of which is 'Couldn't care less'.

Yes the people DID vote to Leave.
How you try to spin it doesn’t matter. Whether you and the other Remainers like it or not also doesn’t matter. The people who didn’t or couldn’t vote also don’t matter.
There will be no other vote, so an option of ‘Couldn’t care less’ also doesn’t matter. If they weren’t arsed to turn out for the real vote, why on earth do you think they would bother to vote ‘Couldn’t care less’?

[dick dasterdly]

19 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

So what should be put in place?

 

Goos 

[stephenterry]

2 minutes ago, Loiner said:

Yes the people DID vote to Leave.
How you try to spin it doesn’t matter. Whether you and the other Remainers like it or not also doesn’t matter. The people who didn’t or couldn’t vote also don’t matter.
There will be no other vote, so an option of ‘Couldn’t care less’ also doesn’t matter. If they weren’t arsed to turn out for the real vote, why on earth do you think they would bother to vote ‘Couldn’t care less’?

And you're not spinning it? Nothing matters except counting the leavers vote - is that it?

[Loiner]

And you're not spinning it? Nothing matters except counting the leavers vote - is that it?

Now you’re getting it. That’s how the voting works.

[stephenterry]

Well, I'm finished for today. Seems like there is little flavour for anything other than leave or remain, when both sides should be united in supporting what's best for Britain.

 

Let me clarify. I think Brexit is a monumentous disaster, and I think pandering to the EU is not the Britain I want to see. I hope the UK government stop playing politics and get on with what is best for Britain. 

[wilcopops]

Brexitism is a manifestation of the far right. They feed of the gullible knowing the only way to get power is to fragment society.

If you don't think Brexit is ultra-right they look who you are keeping company with...open your eyes and smell the coffee.

 

 

http://time.com/5568322/nationalism-in-europe/?fbclid=IwAR3t05WH5MQYPdZzy-cZ859aXFTMr2Q11cZbcdnU8RPbyG0W-LeMp3mfLgc#

 

[wilcopops]

28 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Let me clarify. I think Brexit is a monumentous disaster, and I think pandering to the EU is not the Britain I want to see. I hope the UK government stop playing politics and get on with what is best for Britain. 

That's not clarification...that's sitting on the fence