This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
You lost, we won, just get over it. We're leaving the EU. No, you can't have a re-run of the referendum.
We hear a lot of this sort of stuff at the moment and just about every politician is saying "The People have spoken, we cannot do anything to go against that".
But the thought occurred to me that, had the results of the referendum been reversed, would UKIP and their fellow-travellers aboard the Tory flagship (who have been busily drilling holes in the bottom of the ship for decades now) say "OK, the people have spoken, we'll just go away and tend our gardens". I suspect they wouldn't: they would have gone on fighting or plotting and really I can't see why the Bremainers shouldn't do the same.
We hear a lot of this sort of stuff at the moment and just about every politician is saying "The People have spoken, we cannot do anything to go against that".
But the thought occurred to me that, had the results of the referendum been reversed, would UKIP and their fellow-travellers aboard the Tory flagship (who have been busily drilling holes in the bottom of the ship for decades now) say "OK, the people have spoken, we'll just go away and tend our gardens". I suspect they wouldn't: they would have gone on fighting or plotting and really I can't see why the Bremainers shouldn't do the same.
58
12
In reply to Rog Wilko:
Actually, it's quite surreal. The Exiteers have been campaigning for not just an unrealistic goal, but a totally unobtainable one, one that involved towing GB to some location convenient for Canada, Australia and er... Zimbabwe - the Commonwealth, don't you know. They might equally have offered every voter £1 million in cash, it would have been at least as honest and rather more achievable.
Actually, it's quite surreal. The Exiteers have been campaigning for not just an unrealistic goal, but a totally unobtainable one, one that involved towing GB to some location convenient for Canada, Australia and er... Zimbabwe - the Commonwealth, don't you know. They might equally have offered every voter £1 million in cash, it would have been at least as honest and rather more achievable.
31
4
In reply to Rog Wilko:
'You lost we win get over it' tell that to my friend with two kids who's wife just lost her job as a result of this. Lots of people are very angry due to the negative direct consequences on their lives bassed a seris of lies . You need to understand this and as you say "get over it"
'You lost we win get over it' tell that to my friend with two kids who's wife just lost her job as a result of this. Lots of people are very angry due to the negative direct consequences on their lives bassed a seris of lies . You need to understand this and as you say "get over it"
34
2
13
2
In reply to Rog Wilko:
I'll shut up when the Brexiteers have finished the job. At the moment Brexit is a work in progress and as I am expected to keep footing the ongoing bill, I will keep expressing an opinion.
I'll shut up when the Brexiteers have finished the job. At the moment Brexit is a work in progress and as I am expected to keep footing the ongoing bill, I will keep expressing an opinion.
Post edited at 16:33
26
1
In reply to Rog Wilko:
The process has only just started. The Leave vote was based on false promises, namely that we could be in the single market and not have free movement and that we would have £350 million a week to spend on the NHS. And there was no plan for how to negotiate with the EU on the terms of the exit. You say 'we won' so presumably you voted for Leave. And presumably you accepted the false promises. Do you have anything to say on that? And how will you feel if the terms we end up accepting include free movement and paying in? Let down? Will you still be crowing that you have won? I think, in the end you will have to accept that we will all have lost.
> You lost, we won, just get over it. We're leaving the EU. No, you can't have a re-run of the referendum.
The process has only just started. The Leave vote was based on false promises, namely that we could be in the single market and not have free movement and that we would have £350 million a week to spend on the NHS. And there was no plan for how to negotiate with the EU on the terms of the exit. You say 'we won' so presumably you voted for Leave. And presumably you accepted the false promises. Do you have anything to say on that? And how will you feel if the terms we end up accepting include free movement and paying in? Let down? Will you still be crowing that you have won? I think, in the end you will have to accept that we will all have lost.
19
9
9
In reply to Rog Wilko:
Its a fascinating situation, will we actually ever leave? The current situation looks like it would be possible to explode off into any direction depending on what the (as yet undecided or unknown) key players decide to do. The are in a position where they really could interpret this any way they want. I'd like a leader to emerge as a statesman that wasn't one of the current lot that we all know about, the opportunity is clearly there.
Which is interesting. 52:48 isn't an overwhelming majority really. Yes its a result one way or another but combined with the lack of instruction its not at all clear that the people really have spoken. The key thing in this in my opinion is that as a "mandate for change" its as weak as can be. If 52% go and vote to bimble along as before then its understandable, but 52% voting for change makes me think it isn't worth stiring things up.
If the result had been the other way I don't think anybody would have delivered a speech as disgusting and Nigel Farage did in Brussels.
4 million people signed a petition that was started by a brexiter calling for a second referendum unless there was a clear majority (after a brexit vote) so I think its clear the issue wouldn't just roll over and die. I reckon it'd need to be 70-80% either for or against for us to have really put the issue to bed.
> You lost, we won, just get over it. We're leaving the EU. No, you can't have a re-run of the referendum.
Its a fascinating situation, will we actually ever leave? The current situation looks like it would be possible to explode off into any direction depending on what the (as yet undecided or unknown) key players decide to do. The are in a position where they really could interpret this any way they want. I'd like a leader to emerge as a statesman that wasn't one of the current lot that we all know about, the opportunity is clearly there.
> We hear a lot of this sort of stuff at the moment and just about every politician is saying "The People have spoken, we cannot do anything to go against that".
Which is interesting. 52:48 isn't an overwhelming majority really. Yes its a result one way or another but combined with the lack of instruction its not at all clear that the people really have spoken. The key thing in this in my opinion is that as a "mandate for change" its as weak as can be. If 52% go and vote to bimble along as before then its understandable, but 52% voting for change makes me think it isn't worth stiring things up.
> But the thought occurred to me that, had the results of the referendum been reversed, would UKIP and their fellow-travellers aboard the Tory flagship (who have been busily drilling holes in the bottom of the ship for decades now) say "OK, the people have spoken, we'll just go away and tend our gardens". I suspect they wouldn't: they would have gone on fighting or plotting and really I can't see why the Bremainers shouldn't do the same.
If the result had been the other way I don't think anybody would have delivered a speech as disgusting and Nigel Farage did in Brussels.
4 million people signed a petition that was started by a brexiter calling for a second referendum unless there was a clear majority (after a brexit vote) so I think its clear the issue wouldn't just roll over and die. I reckon it'd need to be 70-80% either for or against for us to have really put the issue to bed.
11
2
In reply to Rog Wilko:
<ahem>
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7...
16th May 2016
"Nigel Farage warns today he would fight for a second referendum on Britain in Europe if the remain campaign won by a narrow margin next month.
The Ukip leader said a small defeat for his leave camp would be “unfinished business” and predicted pressure would grow for a re-run of the 23 June ballot.
Farage told the Mirror: 'In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.' "
> But the thought occurred to me that, had the results of the referendum been reversed, would UKIP and their fellow-travellers aboard the Tory flagship (who have been busily drilling holes in the bottom of the ship for decades now) say "OK, the people have spoken, we'll just go away and tend our gardens". I suspect they wouldn't
<ahem>
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7...
16th May 2016
"Nigel Farage warns today he would fight for a second referendum on Britain in Europe if the remain campaign won by a narrow margin next month.
The Ukip leader said a small defeat for his leave camp would be “unfinished business” and predicted pressure would grow for a re-run of the 23 June ballot.
Farage told the Mirror: 'In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.' "
9
1
In reply to Pekkie:
I read that as an example of what people are saying, rather than the opinions of the author, but sure they can confirm.
> You say 'we won' so presumably you voted for Leave. And presumably you accepted the false promises. Do you have anything to say on that? And how will you feel if the terms we end up accepting include free movement and paying in? Let down? Will you still be crowing that you have won? I think, in the end you will have to accept that we will all have lost.
I read that as an example of what people are saying, rather than the opinions of the author, but sure they can confirm.
In reply to ebdon:
Sorry, the first line of the OP wasn't my view - I was "quoting" many of the victors.
> You need to understand this and as you say "get over it"
Sorry, the first line of the OP wasn't my view - I was "quoting" many of the victors.
8
In reply to Tall Clare:
Yes. See http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=644427&v=1#x8331052
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=644512&v=1#x8332979
and contributions to many other threads.
Clearly, I should have put the first bit of my post in inverted commas, or something.
> Reading your whole post, am I right in thinking you voted remain?
Yes. See http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=644427&v=1#x8331052
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=644512&v=1#x8332979
and contributions to many other threads.
Clearly, I should have put the first bit of my post in inverted commas, or something.
2
In reply to Rog Wilko:
Apologies for not reading your post properly I read the title and the red mist came down!
Apologies for not reading your post properly I read the title and the red mist came down!
5
In reply to Rog Wilko:
With apologies to our Australian friends -
How can you tell and aeroplane is full of Bremainers- the whining continues once the engines are switched off.
With apologies to our Australian friends -
How can you tell and aeroplane is full of Bremainers- the whining continues once the engines are switched off.
11
6
In reply to Rog Wilko:
I lived in Ireland when we voted on a referendum whether to accept the Treaty of Maastricht.
Like most of us, we weren't really up to speed with the hype, exaggeration, nonsense that passed for informed information. Consequently it was voted out.
However, this was not what the government wanted and arranged another referendum several months later. This time we received clear, concise information through all the media. Properly informed this time, we all voted to accept the treaty. Only in Ireland..................
I lived in Ireland when we voted on a referendum whether to accept the Treaty of Maastricht.
Like most of us, we weren't really up to speed with the hype, exaggeration, nonsense that passed for informed information. Consequently it was voted out.
However, this was not what the government wanted and arranged another referendum several months later. This time we received clear, concise information through all the media. Properly informed this time, we all voted to accept the treaty. Only in Ireland..................
11
1
In reply to cander:
>How can you tell and aeroplane is full of Bremainers- the whining continues once the engines are switched off.
And, conversely, you can tell an aeroplane is full of Brexiters if happy cheering starts once the engines are turned off.
>How can you tell and aeroplane is full of Bremainers- the whining continues once the engines are switched off.
And, conversely, you can tell an aeroplane is full of Brexiters if happy cheering starts once the engines are turned off.
Post edited at 17:35
30
3
In reply to Rog Wilko:
A bit of a general point, but there's more to living in a democratic society than everyone ticking the odd box every few years. It's entirely legitimate for people to discuss, argue, complain, lobby and protest even when we aren't in the run up to a referendum or an election.
A bit of a general point, but there's more to living in a democratic society than everyone ticking the odd box every few years. It's entirely legitimate for people to discuss, argue, complain, lobby and protest even when we aren't in the run up to a referendum or an election.
7
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
or if they're happy when the pilot asks for a show of hands for how many think he should crash the plane into a mountainside. And they vote for it.
> >How can you tell and aeroplane is full of Bremainers- the whining continues once the engines are switched off.
> And, conversely, you can tell an aeroplane is full of Brexiters if happy cheering starts once the engines are turned off.
or if they're happy when the pilot asks for a show of hands for how many think he should crash the plane into a mountainside. And they vote for it.
10
4
In reply to Removed User:
I thought it would be empty with the parachutes neatly lined up under the seats.
I thought it would be empty with the parachutes neatly lined up under the seats.
1
In reply to Dave Perry:
I'm interested in this - was the Maastricht Treaty generally regarded as THE issue on the ballot, or was it conflated with other issues in the media?
Were the campaigns for the first vote level-headed and respectful, unlike the ones we've seen?
And were there any recriminations resulting from the reversal of the original decision?
> I lived in Ireland when we voted on a referendum whether to accept the Treaty of Maastricht.
> Like most of us, we weren't really up to speed with the hype, exaggeration, nonsense that passed for informed information. Consequently it was voted out.
> However, this was not what the government wanted and arranged another referendum several months later. This time we received clear, concise information through all the media. Properly informed this time, we all voted to accept the treaty. Only in Ireland..................
I'm interested in this - was the Maastricht Treaty generally regarded as THE issue on the ballot, or was it conflated with other issues in the media?
Were the campaigns for the first vote level-headed and respectful, unlike the ones we've seen?
And were there any recriminations resulting from the reversal of the original decision?
In reply to Rog Wilko:
It was a long time ago Rog, so my memory on details is hazy.
Unlike our referendum in the UK there wasn't any insults, exaggerations and so on. We just got complex arguments and discussions from all over the place about whether the irish constitution should or could be changed (which it had to be to accept the treaty), and whether we should, could or shouldn't agree to it. To be honest I think most of the discussion was probably factual but it was presented in such a complicated way that the public just didn't vote to accept it because they weren't going to vote for something they didn't understand.
The second time around it was all presented in a much more informed and factual way. So we accepted the treaty!
To this debate on our referendum etc., I was in Ireland. The information presented in Eire and by both the media and government officials there was much more level headed and lacked totally the 'slagging off' and insults and so on that I was hearing on UK media and indeed from any political party. Had the Irish presented the argument we may have had a different outcome.
For example I listened to the Joe Duffy show where after our vote out. He had several listeners phoning in from the Uk on the programme. Listening to what they said (stay and go) was a total embarrassment to me - I was sat with my old next door neighbours (Irish).
UK listener:' "Joe, we needed to come out...the young people in England have been let down by the EU and are committing suicide because thee's no future in the EU"
Joe: Oh... do you have any evidence of that happening?
Caller: "No but I've heard rumours and things....."
or:-
UK Listener: "I voted out cos the EU wastes millions"
Joe: "But come on all large organisations waste money - was that the only reason?"
And listening to those who claimed immigration was a major problem cited the fact that; "The UK is only a tiny island" to which he kindly pointed that Eire is even smaller than the UK and has accepted thousands of people from the EU and beyond without any real problems."
His answering of the questions and comments where he was able was much more level headed and informed than anything I managed to extract from our radio/tv and other media - government. I was ashamed to be English.
It was a long time ago Rog, so my memory on details is hazy.
Unlike our referendum in the UK there wasn't any insults, exaggerations and so on. We just got complex arguments and discussions from all over the place about whether the irish constitution should or could be changed (which it had to be to accept the treaty), and whether we should, could or shouldn't agree to it. To be honest I think most of the discussion was probably factual but it was presented in such a complicated way that the public just didn't vote to accept it because they weren't going to vote for something they didn't understand.
The second time around it was all presented in a much more informed and factual way. So we accepted the treaty!
To this debate on our referendum etc., I was in Ireland. The information presented in Eire and by both the media and government officials there was much more level headed and lacked totally the 'slagging off' and insults and so on that I was hearing on UK media and indeed from any political party. Had the Irish presented the argument we may have had a different outcome.
For example I listened to the Joe Duffy show where after our vote out. He had several listeners phoning in from the Uk on the programme. Listening to what they said (stay and go) was a total embarrassment to me - I was sat with my old next door neighbours (Irish).
UK listener:' "Joe, we needed to come out...the young people in England have been let down by the EU and are committing suicide because thee's no future in the EU"
Joe: Oh... do you have any evidence of that happening?
Caller: "No but I've heard rumours and things....."
or:-
UK Listener: "I voted out cos the EU wastes millions"
Joe: "But come on all large organisations waste money - was that the only reason?"
And listening to those who claimed immigration was a major problem cited the fact that; "The UK is only a tiny island" to which he kindly pointed that Eire is even smaller than the UK and has accepted thousands of people from the EU and beyond without any real problems."
His answering of the questions and comments where he was able was much more level headed and informed than anything I managed to extract from our radio/tv and other media - government. I was ashamed to be English.
Post edited at 18:10
8
In reply to Rog Wilko:
Its not like there is a precedent for people voting on false assumptions within the notional democracy of the U.K. Like every clucking election ever.
Its time for a reboot.
D
Its not like there is a precedent for people voting on false assumptions within the notional democracy of the U.K. Like every clucking election ever.
Its time for a reboot.
D
1
1
In reply to Rog Wilko:
No. If you think an enormous mistake has been made then you probably do need to say something.
No. If you think an enormous mistake has been made then you probably do need to say something.
6
1
In reply to Removed User:
.And yes they did vote for it.
> or if they're happy when the pilot asks for a show of hands for how many think he should crash the plane into a mountainside
( to avoid a crash into the middle of the ocean ).And yes they did vote for it.
Post edited at 18:21
1
In reply to Jim C:
more like a turbulent flight with several delays and detours.
Didn't they f*cking just.
> ( to avoid a crash into the middle of the ocean )
more like a turbulent flight with several delays and detours.
> .And yes they did vote for it.
Didn't they f*cking just.
2
In reply to Rog Wilko:
Hearing somebody I know talking about immigration the year before last (iirc) who from his other views I'd put down as a leave voter (I'm not saying he's racist), popped into my head today on hearing Boris johnson's dad saying how he thought that the issue of the movement of people would have been best tackled with the UK being inside the EU.
I'm guessing this is because it would have been able to have had a say as one of the 28 members, where as now it seems like it'd be more in a position of having to ask for a change in the movement as people as part of a trade deal, and can be rebuffed and told to either accept the terms given or not be allowed to trade with the EU?
Hearing somebody I know talking about immigration the year before last (iirc) who from his other views I'd put down as a leave voter (I'm not saying he's racist), popped into my head today on hearing Boris johnson's dad saying how he thought that the issue of the movement of people would have been best tackled with the UK being inside the EU.
I'm guessing this is because it would have been able to have had a say as one of the 28 members, where as now it seems like it'd be more in a position of having to ask for a change in the movement as people as part of a trade deal, and can be rebuffed and told to either accept the terms given or not be allowed to trade with the EU?
Post edited at 19:29
1
In reply to Rog Wilko:
In simple and direct answer to the Original question of this thread: NO, absolutely not! Bremainers (and those with Bregret) should absolutely not be silent. Not at all.
If the Brexiteers had won a fair fight, perhaps the losers should shake hands and walk away. That is not what has happened, however. What HAS happened is a travesty. A story of lies and misdirected anger. People voting to scupper the ship because they don't like the pilot. People voting to run away because they feel a need to feel in charge and make "decisions".
In simple and direct answer to the Original question of this thread: NO, absolutely not! Bremainers (and those with Bregret) should absolutely not be silent. Not at all.
If the Brexiteers had won a fair fight, perhaps the losers should shake hands and walk away. That is not what has happened, however. What HAS happened is a travesty. A story of lies and misdirected anger. People voting to scupper the ship because they don't like the pilot. People voting to run away because they feel a need to feel in charge and make "decisions".
6
2
In reply to Rog Wilko:
I guess my view is this.
A majority of the passengers have voted to steer the ship into an iceberg.
* Some of them because they were a bit short sighted and couldn't see the iceberg.
* Some were told the iceberg was not there by the first mate, who didn't want to steer the ship into an iceberg either but wanted to depose the captain and this was a handy excuse.
* Some chose not to look out the portholes in that particular direction.
* Some felt the important thing was to have the passengers in charge of the ship's course, rather than to chart a good (iceberg-free) course.
Unfortunately, I am also on the bl**dy ship, and will drown in exactly the same way as all those who voted in an iceberg direction, knowingly or not. I am not going to shut up about the bl**dy iceberg.
I guess my view is this.
A majority of the passengers have voted to steer the ship into an iceberg.
* Some of them because they were a bit short sighted and couldn't see the iceberg.
* Some were told the iceberg was not there by the first mate, who didn't want to steer the ship into an iceberg either but wanted to depose the captain and this was a handy excuse.
* Some chose not to look out the portholes in that particular direction.
* Some felt the important thing was to have the passengers in charge of the ship's course, rather than to chart a good (iceberg-free) course.
Unfortunately, I am also on the bl**dy ship, and will drown in exactly the same way as all those who voted in an iceberg direction, knowingly or not. I am not going to shut up about the bl**dy iceberg.
Post edited at 21:17
29
3
In reply to John_Hat:
Brilliant, but you missed the ones who'd been convinced the ship would go much faster with a bloody great hole in its hull. And the ones who were excited about having a bloody great hole in the hull as that meant it wouldn't make it to a port so nobody else would be able to get on.
Brilliant, but you missed the ones who'd been convinced the ship would go much faster with a bloody great hole in its hull. And the ones who were excited about having a bloody great hole in the hull as that meant it wouldn't make it to a port so nobody else would be able to get on.
18
1
In reply to Rog Wilko:
No don't shut up, but the fact is, if the vote had been calculated as per a general election, ie by constituency, then it was leave by a landslide.
No don't shut up, but the fact is, if the vote had been calculated as per a general election, ie by constituency, then it was leave by a landslide.
1
In reply to Rog Wilko:
With all sincerity I would like to hear from leave voters about what they feel about the current situation.
With all sincerity I would like to hear from leave voters about what they feel about the current situation.
3
1
In reply to ebdon:
Yup,and we also have loads of people now who think it is acceptable to tell immigrants to tell "We won, bugger off you Polish vermin." I am ashamed.
> 'You lost we win get over it' tell that to my friend with two kids who's wife just lost her job as a result of this. Lots of people are very angry due to the negative direct consequences on their lives bassed a seris of lies . You need to understand this and as you say "get over it"
Yup,and we also have loads of people now who think it is acceptable to tell immigrants to tell "We won, bugger off you Polish vermin." I am ashamed.
9
In reply to Heike:
Me too and I'm born here. I find myself wanting to leave to somewhere more stable and orderly.
Me too and I'm born here. I find myself wanting to leave to somewhere more stable and orderly.
Post edited at 23:25
6
2
In reply to Timmd:
I've been working in Tottenham for the last two days. It was great - people from so many different backgrounds, so many languages, so many different ethnicities, all getting along fine. V happy to be a Brit.
I've been working in Tottenham for the last two days. It was great - people from so many different backgrounds, so many languages, so many different ethnicities, all getting along fine. V happy to be a Brit.
3
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
It's the financial uncertainty I'm thinking of.
Though I didn't write that I realise...
It's the financial uncertainty I'm thinking of.
Though I didn't write that I realise...
Post edited at 23:34
1
1
In reply to Timmd:
I did wonder if the rest of the UK was involved in a civil war I wasn't aware of!
> It's the financial uncertainty I'm thinking of.
> Though I didn't write that I realise...
I did wonder if the rest of the UK was involved in a civil war I wasn't aware of!
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Worked with my brilliant colleagues yesterday. The mix was from Botswana, Pakistan, Indian, Scotland, Ireland and Yorkshire. All getting along famously and going the extra mile for the patients.
Worked with my brilliant colleagues yesterday. The mix was from Botswana, Pakistan, Indian, Scotland, Ireland and Yorkshire. All getting along famously and going the extra mile for the patients.
1
1
1
In reply to Rog Wilko:
Yes we should just quietly shut up and let everything happen. Just as Farage would have kept quiet if it had been marginal the other way.
Has no one publicly taken up what he said in May and challenged him why he thinks the current result is valid?
People are so angry I've had a number of friends spontaneously express horror at what has happened based on a flimsy result and I'm deeply disturbed at the thought of us just allowing it to happen. To me the democratic result is that basically the UK is uncertain about what to do as the result is so close. You don't change the course of a country's history because of such an uncertain result. We are just letting it happen.
Yes we should just quietly shut up and let everything happen. Just as Farage would have kept quiet if it had been marginal the other way.
Has no one publicly taken up what he said in May and challenged him why he thinks the current result is valid?
People are so angry I've had a number of friends spontaneously express horror at what has happened based on a flimsy result and I'm deeply disturbed at the thought of us just allowing it to happen. To me the democratic result is that basically the UK is uncertain about what to do as the result is so close. You don't change the course of a country's history because of such an uncertain result. We are just letting it happen.
1
In reply to Dave Perry:
Thanks for that.
I think herein lies the problem. There's nothing inherently undemocratic about a second referendum that I can see, so long as it's carried out carefully and calmly. The problem is the atmosphere that's been stirred up by the press and the campaigning.
As a nation we've walked in between a rock and a hard place.
> It was a long time ago Rog, so my memory on details is hazy.
> Unlike our referendum in the UK there wasn't any insults, exaggerations and so on. We just got complex arguments and discussions from all over the place about whether the irish constitution should or could be changed (which it had to be to accept the treaty), and whether we should, could or shouldn't agree to it. To be honest I think most of the discussion was probably factual but it was presented in such a complicated way that the public just didn't vote to accept it because they weren't going to vote for something they didn't understand.
> The second time around it was all presented in a much more informed and factual way. So we accepted the treaty!
> To this debate on our referendum etc., I was in Ireland. The information presented in Eire and by both the media and government officials there was much more level headed and lacked totally the 'slagging off' and insults and so on that I was hearing on UK media and indeed from any political party. Had the Irish presented the argument we may have had a different outcome.
Thanks for that.
I think herein lies the problem. There's nothing inherently undemocratic about a second referendum that I can see, so long as it's carried out carefully and calmly. The problem is the atmosphere that's been stirred up by the press and the campaigning.
As a nation we've walked in between a rock and a hard place.
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Would you want to live in Tottenham ? The reason I ask is because I have, went to school nearby, worked in pubs there. I don't remember it being particularly "great with everyone getting along fine" I do remember a lot of violent crime though, poverty and drugs with the odd riot thrown in for good measure. I do appreciate that turning up there for a couple of days work might not give you that impression.
> I've been working in Tottenham for the last two days. It was great - people from so many different backgrounds, so many languages, so many different ethnicities, all getting along fine. V happy to be a Brit.
Would you want to live in Tottenham ? The reason I ask is because I have, went to school nearby, worked in pubs there. I don't remember it being particularly "great with everyone getting along fine" I do remember a lot of violent crime though, poverty and drugs with the odd riot thrown in for good measure. I do appreciate that turning up there for a couple of days work might not give you that impression.
5
1
6
1
In reply to John_Hat:
Or the captain who gambled on scraping the side of the ship, without holing it, to prove his prowess.
Or the captain who gambled on scraping the side of the ship, without holing it, to prove his prowess.
In reply to John Stainforth:
+1
That is the problem with a referendum over a party politics; a referendum is cross party so there is no manifesto to implement in the event of a vote for change. It is a weakness of ruling by plebiscite or 'direct democracy'.
There should be no BREXIT without a parliamentary vote because there is no coherent manifesto to leave.
> I think Parliament should vote Brexit down.
+1
That is the problem with a referendum over a party politics; a referendum is cross party so there is no manifesto to implement in the event of a vote for change. It is a weakness of ruling by plebiscite or 'direct democracy'.
There should be no BREXIT without a parliamentary vote because there is no coherent manifesto to leave.
3
1
In reply to ian caton:
But a General election is only producing a political change of direction for a few years, and serious events may even bring on a chance to reverse the election sooner than that. This is entirely different, a change of direction we've had for 50 years or more, all through the 60s when we were being turned down for membership by president "NON!"
But a General election is only producing a political change of direction for a few years, and serious events may even bring on a chance to reverse the election sooner than that. This is entirely different, a change of direction we've had for 50 years or more, all through the 60s when we were being turned down for membership by president "NON!"
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
It's a reasonable question.
I worked there for 6 months back in the late 70s in an employment agency, placing temporary workers, where I was routinely told 'don't send me no blacks' - things seem to have have moved on a bit since then.
It's a reasonable question.
I worked there for 6 months back in the late 70s in an employment agency, placing temporary workers, where I was routinely told 'don't send me no blacks' - things seem to have have moved on a bit since then.
2
In reply to Ridge:
I did think it read like that a bit after I posted.
The thought of financial uncertainty for the country is a barrel of laughs when you're out of work...
> I did wonder if the rest of the UK was involved in a civil war I wasn't aware of!
I did think it read like that a bit after I posted.
The thought of financial uncertainty for the country is a barrel of laughs when you're out of work...
1
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
... at 30,000ft over the ocean and the captain bails out.
jk
> And, conversely, you can tell an aeroplane is full of Brexiters if happy cheering starts once the engines are turned off...
... at 30,000ft over the ocean and the captain bails out.
jk
3
1
In reply to Timmd:
I know that feeling, and you can add to that the feeling of having less time and likelihood for things to "just come right" before it's too late for me. I'm an eventual part of the price worth paying for getting out of the 2008 mess and I don't feel like being part of the price of a stupid move out of the EU
I know that feeling, and you can add to that the feeling of having less time and likelihood for things to "just come right" before it's too late for me. I'm an eventual part of the price worth paying for getting out of the 2008 mess and I don't feel like being part of the price of a stupid move out of the EU
Post edited at 10:19
1
1
In reply to wercat:
What did he say?
> Yes we should just quietly shut up and let everything happen. Just as Farage would have kept quiet if it had been marginal the other way.
> Has no one publicly taken up what he said in May and challenged him why he thinks the current result is valid?
What did he say?
Post edited at 10:40
In reply to Timmd:
He expressly said that a 52 / 48 vote to remain wouldn't settle the issue, and that he would regard that as "unfinished business". Oddly prescient...
He expressly said that a 52 / 48 vote to remain wouldn't settle the issue, and that he would regard that as "unfinished business". Oddly prescient...
2
In reply to andyfallsoff:
This HAS to come back to haunt him in the push for a second referendum, then.
Probably time to start contacting people like David Lammy and Jeremy Hunt and Caroline Lucas and generally making a fuss....
This HAS to come back to haunt him in the push for a second referendum, then.
Probably time to start contacting people like David Lammy and Jeremy Hunt and Caroline Lucas and generally making a fuss....
Post edited at 13:01
In reply to Timmd:
Sorry, wasn't ignoring you - just didn't see your question:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681
Makes all this "undemocratic" claim by the exit campaign rather hippocreaturecal?
Sorry, wasn't ignoring you - just didn't see your question:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681
Makes all this "undemocratic" claim by the exit campaign rather hippocreaturecal?
Post edited at 08:52
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...