Thousands demonstrate in London against leaving the EU

[Stupooey]

16 hours ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

72% turnout was higher than any recent General Election. A 4% voter majority is actually a bigger mandate than any General Election in over 60 years. It was a fair reflection of the will of the people.

The " demographic" was another example of how to twist statistics, and a perfect example of "interpretation of information" to make a misleading point, or sophistry as one poster called it.

As for the newspapers, there was a fair split between the tabloids, and the broadsheets too. The negative Remain campaign did not scare voters, although there were misleading claims on both sides.

It is insulting for someone who didn't vote, but now wished he had it would seem, to call anyone that did vote stupid. In a democracy, votes are what count.

 

Don't really understand your comments regarding the demographic. Surely that is the statistics and doesn't need interpretation, it speaks for itself. Unless of course you are arguing with the actual numbers, which seemed to be consistent across several seemingly reliable and impartial (although I suppose that can't be guaranteed) sources.

However, if you want to see statistics twisted, just look at your own - you have made the common mistake of not comparing like with like. Regarding the turnout, many people do not vote in a general election because the result in their constituencies is a foregone conclusion. You should be comparing it with marginals, where the turnout is normally much higher, as much as 80% in some constituencies in 2015. Similarly you cannot compare voter majority in a two horse race with the many different parties who contest a general election. Having said that, it could be argued that the 2010-2015 government had a bigger mandate as the Conservatives and Lib Dems together had 56% of the vote.

Regarding the 'will of the people', I have always been opposed to referenda per se. Particularly when the vote is close, they seem to create more problems than they solve, which is possibly why they are so rarely employed (and then usually to settle intra-party disputes). I sometimes wonder where we would be if the gap had been 0.1% rather than 3.8%. Presumably things would have panned out exactly as they have to date (if not, what would have been different?) but it could hardly have been said to be 'the will of the people', which to me implies a substantial majority. A major constitutional amendment such as this, effectively unravelling the last 43 years, should have required a 2 to 1 majority, as is normal in most walks of life.

As for newspapers, in my understanding the only major daily tabloid to support remain was the Daily Mirror, and the only major daily broadsheet to support leave was the Daily Telegraph. Nevertheless, even though I would have voted remain, I would have preferred to have received my information from the Telegraph than the Mirror. The split by circulation was 72:28 in favour of leave, which I would not have called - in your parlance - "fair". 

Lastly, my decision not to vote was purely because, as a non-resident with no intention of returning to live in the UK, I felt it was morally indefensible for me to help decide the country's future. And at no stage did I say all the people who voted were stupid, my "stupidity" comment was aimed at politicians in general, not individual voters. I clearly underestimated the stupidity of TV members (said with tongue planted firmly in cheek).

[Stupooey]

17 hours ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

Thanks, more poll results, and we all know how reliable polls are.

Anyone with an ounce of sense knew the EU would not entertain staying in the single market and taking control of EU migration was never going to happen. The "renegotiation" by Cameron showed exactly what the EU thought.

The suggestion was that we could forge a trade deal near equivalent to staying in.

The trade figures between the EU and UK show that it will be in the EU's interest to make a decent deal.

Oh, and BTW, Labour MP Gisela Stuart was leader of the official Vote Leave campaign.

You need to pay attention.

Glad you mentioned Gisela Stuart - I was thinking of her whilst watching the (clearly carefully edited) interviews with the anti-Brexit demonstrators,wondering how many Brexiteers would have been able to name their erstwhile leader. And, more pertinently, how many of the TV members mocking the protestors would have identified her?

[beautifulthailand99]

It's a good job that those brave Brexiteers have a plan that will see the UK (?) climb the heights of global commerce. What exactly is that apart from crass platitudes ? Meanwhile business will continue to vote with their feet.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/30/jp-morgan-dublin-office-building-1000-jobs-city-london

 

 

[evadgib]

Link to the White paper:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/david-davis-commons-statement-on-the-great-repeal-bill-white-paper

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

On 3/30/2017 at 6:14 AM, pitrevie said:

You still don't get it, you tried to claim that we were out as soon as we invoked Article 50 that is clearly not the case Article 50 is the start of the process of withdrawal. Even Lord Kerr the man who wrote Article 50 states that it is not irrevocable, but hell what does he know about it he is another one of those know all legal and diplomatic experts.

Please, Great Oracle, tell us more of your wisdom and knowledge...

The EU has never had a unanimous decision as far as I am aware. Even if you can quote one I bet it was made by the unelected tossers that run the EU.

You say you "accept the referendum decision", but you continue to bleat on and on and on and on and on.

Get a grip on reality. It will happen.

I have had enough of your sliding from one principle to another, either put up a sensible argument or shut up.

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

On 3/30/2017 at 9:59 PM, beautifulthailand99 said:

It's a good job that those brave Brexiteers have a plan that will see the UK (?) climb the heights of global commerce. What exactly is that apart from crass platitudes ? Meanwhile business will continue to vote with their feet.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/30/jp-morgan-dublin-office-building-1000-jobs-city-london

 

 

See above!

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

On 3/30/2017 at 9:50 PM, Stupooey said:

Glad you mentioned Gisela Stuart - I was thinking of her whilst watching the (clearly carefully edited) interviews with the anti-Brexit demonstrators,wondering how many Brexiteers would have been able to name their erstwhile leader. And, more pertinently, how many of the TV members mocking the protestors would have identified her?

That is just BS, you got it wrong and like all the idiots that voted remain and won't admit it...

All the media "edit", do you know anything about news presentation?

I doubt it.

[citybiker]

It's a good job that those brave Brexiteers have a plan that will see the UK (?) climb the heights of global commerce. What exactly is that apart from crass platitudes ? Meanwhile business will continue to vote with their feet.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/30/jp-morgan-dublin-office-building-1000-jobs-city-london
 
 

Subsidiaries (as per article) are hardly businesses voting with their feet, their simply European contingency planning focusing on European client base.

Very much like the oldest insurance trader 'Lloyds of London' choosing Brussels as a subsidiary location, the CEO herself stated, there's nothing to worry about as Brexit only applies to 5% of their business, interview easily located via BBC.

Sources like: Guardian, Bloomberg etc must be treated with caution, much like anything else anti-Brexit.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

On 3/30/2017 at 8:32 PM, Stupooey said:

Don't really understand your comments regarding the demographic. Surely that is the statistics and doesn't need interpretation, it speaks for itself. Unless of course you are arguing with the actual numbers, which seemed to be consistent across several seemingly reliable and impartial (although I suppose that can't be guaranteed) sources.

However, if you want to see statistics twisted, just look at your own - you have made the common mistake of not comparing like with like. Regarding the turnout, many people do not vote in a general election because the result in their constituencies is a foregone conclusion. You should be comparing it with marginals, where the turnout is normally much higher, as much as 80% in some constituencies in 2015. Similarly you cannot compare voter majority in a two horse race with the many different parties who contest a general election. Having said that, it could be argued that the 2010-2015 government had a bigger mandate as the Conservatives and Lib Dems together had 56% of the vote.

Regarding the 'will of the people', I have always been opposed to referenda per se. Particularly when the vote is close, they seem to create more problems than they solve, which is possibly why they are so rarely employed (and then usually to settle intra-party disputes). I sometimes wonder where we would be if the gap had been 0.1% rather than 3.8%. Presumably things would have panned out exactly as they have to date (if not, what would have been different?) but it could hardly have been said to be 'the will of the people', which to me implies a substantial majority. A major constitutional amendment such as this, effectively unravelling the last 43 years, should have required a 2 to 1 majority, as is normal in most walks of life.

As for newspapers, in my understanding the only major daily tabloid to support remain was the Daily Mirror, and the only major daily broadsheet to support leave was the Daily Telegraph. Nevertheless, even though I would have voted remain, I would have preferred to have received my information from the Telegraph than the Mirror. The split by circulation was 72:28 in favour of leave, which I would not have called - in your parlance - "fair". 

Lastly, my decision not to vote was purely because, as a non-resident with no intention of returning to live in the UK, I felt it was morally indefensible for me to help decide the country's future. And at no stage did I say all the people who voted were stupid, my "stupidity" comment was aimed at politicians in general, not individual voters. I clearly underestimated the stupidity of TV members (said with tongue planted firmly in cheek).

And The Times, Grauniad , Independent and FT were neutral? And The Evening Standard as a major non national had no opinion?

Don't start me on the "1st past the post" system, but what is the alternative? Constant coalitions as in Europe, that are to weak to make decisions.

 

The demographic is just totally misleading, simply because it is an  "interpretation" of information that can be easily manipulated, since a secret ballot cannot provide anything specific.

 

I ask one thing since you didn't vote, or were not eligible, why complain now? If you don't live there and have no vote it is up to the people that do live in the UK to decide their future, and it has been decided.

What gets me constantly annoyed is that there are people like yourself that had no say (couldn't or didn't vote) but continue to moan about the result.

Edited March 31, 2017 by George FmplesdaCosteedback

[citybiker]

The London Evening Standard is probably the worst 'remain' paper around, it's still blaming everyday problems and issues on Brexit and with newly appointed George Osbourne editor don't expect improvement.

 

Neutral refreshing journalism is non-existent when regarding Brexit at the moment, what part of unknown territory do journalists and editor's fail to grasp its pathetic.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

6 minutes ago, citybiker said:

The London Evening Standard is probably the worst 'remain' paper around, it's still blaming everyday problems and issues on Brexit and with newly appointed George Osbourne editor don't expect improvement.

 

Neutral refreshing journalism is non-existent when regarding Brexit at the moment, what part of unknown territory do journalists and editor's fail to grasp its pathetic.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Yes indeed, that's why I thought it was worth mentioning.

Ha ha, I probably have better qualifications to be the editor of ES than Osborne has.

Cheers!

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

On 3/30/2017 at 10:48 AM, Notadoctor said:

the Brexit article 50 news is not a sudden unexpected event - it is unlikely to have any effect of exchange. To get the picture expats should look at the value of their income over the last couple of years and you'll see yourself losing quite alot if your money is in sterling....about 20%. This is unlikely to recover to any great extant - if the Thai baht - a very small currency comes more under pressure than you might get a bit of relief....but on a wold scale the pound looks like becoming a pretty unpopular currency. many don't want it at present because the future is so uncertain - increase in interest rates or whatever will only have short term effect as people take a quick profit and move on.......... what Brexit has done to the pound is removed it as an international currency and as the financial institutions leave UK and focus on EU that will only become more apparent.

 

it's not just expats in Europe that will feel the ramifications of Brexit, those living outside UK and EU will find new pitfalls with investments, visas a etc as the UK has over the next decade to re-negotiate all the business and treaties established when UK was a member of EU - many countries will now find UK less attractive and want to re-negotiate treaties and privileges that UK had.

[Ace of Pop]

I speak four European languages fluently. My parents live in Portugal. My brother lives in Spain and other members live in France and Switzerland.. I consider myself European first because I have Dutch, Irish, Italian and British blood. I wasn't even born in the UK. I was Born in Ceylon, When my father was working there. And because it was a British colony. I became British. I trust this answers your question.
 

Hans Christian Anderson would be challenged to better that.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[pitrevie]

1 hour ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

Please, Great Oracle, tell us more of your wisdom and knowledge...

The EU has never had a unanimous decision as far as I am aware. Even if you can quote one I bet it was made by the unelected tossers that run the EU.

You say you "accept the referendum decision", but you continue to bleat on and on and on and on and on.

Get a grip on reality. It will happen.

I have had enough of your sliding from one principle to another, either put up a sensible argument or shut up.

Most decisions arrived at in the council of ministers are unanimous. As to being unelected can you tell me which posts in the UK government are elected. We elect MPs but the PM is appointed and the entire government is then appointed by the PM. Just like the executive of the EU none of the executive are directly elected, each is appointed by its member government . Its the way governments operate.

You seem not to be able to accept that we live in a democracy. I cannot recall any time after the massive decision in 1975 to remain in the EEC people been told that they should shut up. In fact people on this forum even suggest if the decision is not to your liking that you should go and live in another country. Is that what the UK has been reduced to now, some democracy.

As I have pointed out time and time again prominent Brexiters MPs and MEPs have stated quite clearly that had the decision gone the other way they would not have accepted the result as final. 

As for sensible arguments do you bother to read your own posts, you appear to have a problem with the way democracy operates. I am entitled to my opinion just as much as you and I am also entitled to express that opinion on this forum just as much as you. As one other poster suggested if you cannot accept that principle perhaps it is you that should consider moving to North Korea as has been suggested on this forum.

[Stupooey]

4 hours ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

That is just BS, you got it wrong and like all the idiots that voted remain and won't admit it...

All the media "edit", do you know anything about news presentation?

I doubt it.

If you are going to quote me, at least make your reply relevant to the points I made. What is "just BS"? What did I get wrong? If you mean the name of the EU President, I do happen to know it. And of course I know that most news presentation is edited - don't patronise me - but it is rarely so blatant or so poorly executed as here: I seem to remember on a couple of occasions Tommy Robinson asked a question and the reply was edited out, presumably because it did not match his agenda. My point was that many TV posters did not seem to realise this, as they were mocking the protesters in general because a handful of them were being made to appear ignorant.

Finally saying I am like an idiot is tantamount to calling me an idiot, which I resent. Personal insults have no place in adult debate, let alone the TV forum.

[dick dasterdly]

I think the point is that the vast majority of people who voted either way (including the protesters) are 'ignorant' when it comes down to facts on this subject.

 

'Vast majority' increases to 100% when it comes to 'knowing' the eventual outcome.

[gandalf12]

A referendum was held and the "stay" voters lost. They should accept their defeat and let the exit run its course. Yes, it may be the wrong decision but only time will tell. The vote was a demonstration of democracy and like it or hate it, the end result reflected the will of the people. The demonstrators need to accept that. You cant have democracy and then want to change it if it doesnt give you the result you want

[evadgib]

Pat should have been guest speaker:

 

 

[beautifulthailand99]

.....and I would vote for Stewart Lee to have the right of reply ...

 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2017 by beautifulthailand99

[Stupooey]

12 hours ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

And The Times, Grauniad , Independent and FT were neutral? And The Evening Standard as a major non national had no opinion?

Don't start me on the "1st past the post" system, but what is the alternative? Constant coalitions as in Europe, that are to weak to make decisions.

 

The demographic is just totally misleading, simply because it is an  "interpretation" of information that can be easily manipulated, since a secret ballot cannot provide anything specific.

 

I ask one thing since you didn't vote, or were not eligible, why complain now? If you don't live there and have no vote it is up to the people that do live in the UK to decide their future, and it has been decided.

What gets me constantly annoyed is that there are people like yourself that had no say (couldn't or didn't vote) but continue to moan about the result.

I amfinding it more and more difficult to reply to your posts as you insist on misquoting me (or is it a simple lack of understanding?). I never said that the national dailies I did not mention by name were neutral, by implication broadsheets other than the Telegraph supported remain and tabloids except the Mirror supported leave. I did not mention the Evening Standard as it is not a national daily, although I would have expected them to be in the remain camp as London (particularly the City) was always expected to be a loser with a leave vote.

Regarding the demographic, I take it that you are saying that the various organisations who produced the statistics made up the information rather than extrapolate from random samples. Whilst nobody can guarantee complete accuracy, the fact that all the different sets of statistics were more or less consistent with each other would imply that they were resonably accurate. They may have been interpreted differently by different people, but I wasn't going into that. Freak statistics, such as the one that hit the headlines claiming that only 36% of under-25's had voted, were quickly shown to have been based on incorrect information (2015 election), whilst the true figure was more like 64%.

I was eligible to vote and have already made clear my reason for not doing so. However I still have vested interests in the UK - friends, family and pension - so feel I am still entitled to pass comment. I was opposed to the referendum from the outset and felt that such an important decision should have been left to a free vote in Parliament, which of course is where UK Sovereignty lies. Now the decision has been made of course I realise there is no point moaning about the result, and I genuinely hope the outcome is positive, although I lack your confidence. 

[i claudius]

On 3/26/2017 at 11:59 AM, Grouse said:

How very erudite!

 

Let's see what the numpties think after they've been right royally shafted by the Con Party! I hope they have plenty of Vaseline handy!

 

As always, the biggest fools can not stand to hear an opposing argument.

We heard all the arguments ,now its just the losers crying and wailing , cant be bothered to listen to their noise .

[RuamRudy]

6 minutes ago, i claudius said:

We heard all the arguments ,now its just the losers crying and wailing , cant be bothered to listen to their noise .

The thread you were bothered enough to open, read and comment upon is called 'Thousands demonstrate in London against leaving the EU '. What did you expect to encounter?

[ilostmypassword]

8 minutes ago, i claudius said:

We heard all the arguments ,now its just the losers crying and wailing , cant be bothered to listen to their noise .

But you can be bothered to post?  Doublethink much?

[i claudius]

Sorry boys ,its all over , the Brexiteers won , why bother to carry on crying if you lost , wave the banners ,spit out the dummys , wail and beat your chests , maybe we were wrong only time will tell , but its done and dusted . just get on with making the best of it ,not constantly crying .

[dick dasterdly]

There is likely to be at least a couple of (long...) years ahead whilst politicians and big business work out the best way to deal with the brexit vote to suit their interests....

Edited April 2, 2017 by dick dasterdly

[Stupooey]

3 hours ago, i claudius said:

Sorry boys ,its all over , the Brexiteers won , why bother to carry on crying if you lost , wave the banners ,spit out the dummys , wail and beat your chests , maybe we were wrong only time will tell , but its done and dusted . just get on with making the best of it ,not constantly crying .

After the 1975 referendum, when the people voted 67-33 (getting close to "will of the people" figures there) did the Euros(c)eptics accept defeat? No, they carried on crying and wailing for 42 years. All the time the UK should have been taking the lead, or at the very least sharing it, we allowed others to set the agenda, only to then whinge when the direction taken was not to the s(c)eptics liking. Maybe in 42 years' time, by which we may have finished unravelling the previous 42, we shall have another referendum and the process will start all over again. Or maybe not.

[dick dasterdly]

6 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

After the 1975 referendum, when the people voted 67-33 (getting close to "will of the people" figures there) did the Euros(c)eptics accept defeat? No, they carried on crying and wailing for 42 years. All the time the UK should have been taking the lead, or at the very least sharing it, we allowed others to set the agenda, only to then whinge when the direction taken was not to the s(c)eptics liking. Maybe in 42 years' time, by which we may have finished unravelling the previous 42, we shall have another referendum and the process will start all over again. Or maybe not.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but leaving the EU only became a huge issue within the last few years?  Certainly not since 1975!

[Khun Han]

53 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

1 hour ago, Stupooey said:

After the 1975 referendum, when the people voted 67-33 (getting close to "will of the people" figures there) did the Euros(c)eptics accept defeat? No, they carried on crying and wailing for 42 years. All the time the UK should have been taking the lead, or at the very least sharing it, we allowed others to set the agenda, only to then whinge when the direction taken was not to the s(c)eptics liking. Maybe in 42 years' time, by which we may have finished unravelling the previous 42, we shall have another referendum and the process will start all over again. Or maybe not.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but leaving the EU only became a huge issue within the last few years?  Certainly not since 1975!

 

No, you're not mistaken. People only started "crying and wailing" when they started noticing that their lives were being impacted by major decisions which weren't even mooted back in 1975.

[Guest]

Few days after Brexit and war between UK and EU is already mentioned.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/02/theresa-may-would-go-war-defend-sovereignty-gibraltar-says-michael/

I guess it's time for Germany and other EU members to start producing nukes.

Why to be sissy about the problems. Let's go all in... 

Edited April 2, 2017 by Guest

[citybiker]

Few days after Brexit and war between UK and EU is already mentioned.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/02/theresa-may-would-go-war-defend-sovereignty-gibraltar-says-michael/

I guess it's time for Germany and other EU members to start producing nukes.
Why to be sissy about the problems. Let's go all in... 

Some of the EU (its member states) are simply attempting to manipulate & exploit the Brexit negotiations for their own agenda, hardly surprising.

The EU had 9 months to prepare a draft response to the UK invoking A50 & their losing the UK and it's well documented the EU isn't harmonious as they wish everyone to believe.

The Nordic Community
The Eastern Bloc
The Southern sympathisers

Not forgetting Greece and Italy already fiscally struggling, the EU are in the envious position to ask the remaining members to increase their contributions to make up for its outgoing 2nd highest net contributor the UK leaving.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk