They can always add on the 9m cost of the pro EU leaflet that we all paid for a couple of weeks before the referendum and the cost of bringing Obama over here to talk bollocks about being at the "Back of the queue".
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
The people who stand to 'benefit' from Brexit, were it to go ahead, are those 17.4 million people who used their right as citizens in a country they live and pay taxes in, to decide the future political direction of the country.
That is a 'benefit' that many millions of people in China and elsewhere can only dream about. Those with the most to lose are the 17.4 million people who, were Brexit not to go ahead, would discover that their vote was worthless, and they may as well have stayed at home on referendum day like those who decided they could not be bothered to vote either way.
We then would all lose because our democracy would be shown to be not worth the ballot paper it was written on. It would increase the alienation from politics that many people already feel and would have long term consequences far worse than whatever short term economic difficulties occur.
Dear @Southbank . In 1992, I voted for Neil Kinnock's Labour. I was convinced that this time enough of my fellow countrymen had had enough of the Tories too. Indeed, in a severe case of premature ejaculation I uncorked a bottle of shampoo while watching the early results from Sunderland North etc. (no exit polls then to speak of). Imagine how i felt next day when i woke up with a hangover to find that John Major was still my effing Prime Minister. Worse was to come. Under that total idiot Norman Lamont, I saw my mortgage rate shoot up 5 % in one day, until the pound crashed out of the ERM. Then they went on to privatise the railways. But I did not bleat about my vote being "wasted". I just accepted that not everyone saw it as I did. Yet. In 1997 they were all finally turfed out, because enough of my fellow citizens had finally had enough. Things change. People's opinions evolve, as they discover more. We are not China, and will not be seeking to change the constitution so that Theresa May can go on and on. There will be another general election. As people's understanding of Brexit also evolves, and if the opinion polls continue to chart a shift in opinion, it would be undemocratic not to ask the electorate if they still want to proceed with Brexit now that the full implications of doing so are clear.
Referenda: the delegating of the most important decisions to the least informed people
Hope you include yourself in that wonderful statement that enlightens us all on this poxy cold day because even though you arrogantly and smugly assume that you know exactly what is going to happen you know the same as everyone else. Fuck All!
They can always add on the 9m cost of the pro EU leaflet that we all paid for a couple of weeks before the referendum and the cost of bringing Obama over here to talk bollocks about being at the "Back of the queue".
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
The people who stand to 'benefit' from Brexit, were it to go ahead, are those 17.4 million people who used their right as citizens in a country they live and pay taxes in, to decide the future political direction of the country.
That is a 'benefit' that many millions of people in China and elsewhere can only dream about. Those with the most to lose are the 17.4 million people who, were Brexit not to go ahead, would discover that their vote was worthless, and they may as well have stayed at home on referendum day like those who decided they could not be bothered to vote either way.
We then would all lose because our democracy would be shown to be not worth the ballot paper it was written on. It would increase the alienation from politics that many people already feel and would have long term consequences far worse than whatever short term economic difficulties occur.
Dear @Southbank . In 1992, I voted for Neil Kinnock's Labour. I was convinced that this time enough of my fellow countrymen had had enough of the Tories too. Indeed, in a severe case of premature ejaculation I uncorked a bottle of shampoo while watching the early results from Sunderland North etc. (no exit polls then to speak of). Imagine how i felt next day when i woke up with a hangover to find that John Major was still my effing Prime Minister. Worse was to come. Under that total idiot Norman Lamont, I saw my mortgage rate shoot up 5 % in one day, until the pound crashed out of the ERM. Then they went on to privatise the railways. But I did not bleat about my vote being "wasted". I just accepted that not everyone saw it as I did. Yet. In 1997 they were all finally turfed out, because enough of my fellow citizens had finally had enough. Things change. People's opinions evolve, as they discover more. We are not China, and will not be seeking to change the constitution so that Theresa May can go on and on. There will be another general election. As people's understanding of Brexit also evolves, and if the opinion polls continue to chart a shift in opinion, it would be undemocratic not to ask the electorate if they still want to proceed with Brexit now that the full implications of doing so are clear.
Referenda: the delegating of the most important decisions to the least informed people
Hope you include yourself in that wonderful statement that enlightens us all on this poxy cold day because even though you arrogantly and smugly assume that you know exactly what is going to happen you know the same as everyone else. Fuck All!
That in Cricket would be called a wicket taking delivery...
They can always add on the 9m cost of the pro EU leaflet that we all paid for a couple of weeks before the referendum and the cost of bringing Obama over here to talk bollocks about being at the "Back of the queue".
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
The people who stand to 'benefit' from Brexit, were it to go ahead, are those 17.4 million people who used their right as citizens in a country they live and pay taxes in, to decide the future political direction of the country.
That is a 'benefit' that many millions of people in China and elsewhere can only dream about. Those with the most to lose are the 17.4 million people who, were Brexit not to go ahead, would discover that their vote was worthless, and they may as well have stayed at home on referendum day like those who decided they could not be bothered to vote either way.
We then would all lose because our democracy would be shown to be not worth the ballot paper it was written on. It would increase the alienation from politics that many people already feel and would have long term consequences far worse than whatever short term economic difficulties occur.
Dear @Southbank . In 1992, I voted for Neil Kinnock's Labour. I was convinced that this time enough of my fellow countrymen had had enough of the Tories too. Indeed, in a severe case of premature ejaculation I uncorked a bottle of shampoo while watching the early results from Sunderland North etc. (no exit polls then to speak of). Imagine how i felt next day when i woke up with a hangover to find that John Major was still my effing Prime Minister. Worse was to come. Under that total idiot Norman Lamont, I saw my mortgage rate shoot up 5 % in one day, until the pound crashed out of the ERM. Then they went on to privatise the railways. But I did not bleat about my vote being "wasted". I just accepted that not everyone saw it as I did. Yet. In 1997 they were all finally turfed out, because enough of my fellow citizens had finally had enough. Things change. People's opinions evolve, as they discover more. We are not China, and will not be seeking to change the constitution so that Theresa May can go on and on. There will be another general election. As people's understanding of Brexit also evolves, and if the opinion polls continue to chart a shift in opinion, it would be undemocratic not to ask the electorate if they still want to proceed with Brexit now that the full implications of doing so are clear.
Referenda: the delegating of the most important decisions to the least informed people
Hope you include yourself in that wonderful statement that enlightens us all on this poxy cold day because even though you arrogantly and smugly assume that you know exactly what is going to happen you know the same as everyone else. Fuck All!
I never said I knew exactly what was going to happen. I predicted it was going to be a total mess that no one knew how to deliver and was going to leave everyone poorer and looks like it is heading that way. I think you've got me totally wrong. Which is par for the course since you seem to get everything wrong.
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
The people who stand to 'benefit' from Brexit, were it to go ahead, are those 17.4 million people who used their right as citizens in a country they live and pay taxes in, to decide the future political direction of the country.
That is a 'benefit' that many millions of people in China and elsewhere can only dream about. Those with the most to lose are the 17.4 million people who, were Brexit not to go ahead, would discover that their vote was worthless, and they may as well have stayed at home on referendum day like those who decided they could not be bothered to vote either way.
We then would all lose because our democracy would be shown to be not worth the ballot paper it was written on. It would increase the alienation from politics that many people already feel and would have long term consequences far worse than whatever short term economic difficulties occur.
Dear @Southbank . In 1992, I voted for Neil Kinnock's Labour. I was convinced that this time enough of my fellow countrymen had had enough of the Tories too. Indeed, in a severe case of premature ejaculation I uncorked a bottle of shampoo while watching the early results from Sunderland North etc. (no exit polls then to speak of). Imagine how i felt next day when i woke up with a hangover to find that John Major was still my effing Prime Minister. Worse was to come. Under that total idiot Norman Lamont, I saw my mortgage rate shoot up 5 % in one day, until the pound crashed out of the ERM. Then they went on to privatise the railways. But I did not bleat about my vote being "wasted". I just accepted that not everyone saw it as I did. Yet. In 1997 they were all finally turfed out, because enough of my fellow citizens had finally had enough. Things change. People's opinions evolve, as they discover more. We are not China, and will not be seeking to change the constitution so that Theresa May can go on and on. There will be another general election. As people's understanding of Brexit also evolves, and if the opinion polls continue to chart a shift in opinion, it would be undemocratic not to ask the electorate if they still want to proceed with Brexit now that the full implications of doing so are clear.
Just to ask you directly, if the result of the first referendum is not carried out, why should anybody believe the result of a second referendum would or should be honoured?
The 'full implications' are not clear by the way. The full implications of having the Leave process carried out by people who do not believe in it is what is being revealed.
We might as well say that another referendum should be between the result of May's dreadful negotiation process and leaving properly. But I know that is not what you are proposing.
They can always add on the 9m cost of the pro EU leaflet that we all paid for a couple of weeks before the referendum and the cost of bringing Obama over here to talk bollocks about being at the "Back of the queue".
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
The people who stand to 'benefit' from Brexit, were it to go ahead, are those 17.4 million people who used their right as citizens in a country they live and pay taxes in, to decide the future political direction of the country.
That is a 'benefit' that many millions of people in China and elsewhere can only dream about. Those with the most to lose are the 17.4 million people who, were Brexit not to go ahead, would discover that their vote was worthless, and they may as well have stayed at home on referendum day like those who decided they could not be bothered to vote either way.
We then would all lose because our democracy would be shown to be not worth the ballot paper it was written on. It would increase the alienation from politics that many people already feel and would have long term consequences far worse than whatever short term economic difficulties occur.
Dear @Southbank . In 1992, I voted for Neil Kinnock's Labour. I was convinced that this time enough of my fellow countrymen had had enough of the Tories too. Indeed, in a severe case of premature ejaculation I uncorked a bottle of shampoo while watching the early results from Sunderland North etc. (no exit polls then to speak of). Imagine how i felt next day when i woke up with a hangover to find that John Major was still my effing Prime Minister. Worse was to come. Under that total idiot Norman Lamont, I saw my mortgage rate shoot up 5 % in one day, until the pound crashed out of the ERM. Then they went on to privatise the railways. But I did not bleat about my vote being "wasted". I just accepted that not everyone saw it as I did. Yet. In 1997 they were all finally turfed out, because enough of my fellow citizens had finally had enough. Things change. People's opinions evolve, as they discover more. We are not China, and will not be seeking to change the constitution so that Theresa May can go on and on. There will be another general election. As people's understanding of Brexit also evolves, and if the opinion polls continue to chart a shift in opinion, it would be undemocratic not to ask the electorate if they still want to proceed with Brexit now that the full implications of doing so are clear.
Referenda: the delegating of the most important decisions to the least informed people
Hope you include yourself in that wonderful statement that enlightens us all on this poxy cold day because even though you arrogantly and smugly assume that you know exactly what is going to happen you know the same as everyone else. Fuck All!
No quite right. Everybody voting leave knew exactly what was going to happen, they declare how dare anybody suggest they didn't know what they were voting for.
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
Is this the group Southbank refers to as 'the elite'?
A few months ago I completely and comprehensively destroyed Southbank's nonsense that the elite voted for Remain using the analysis from Ashcroft. You can look at every demographic that voted to Remain and none of them would fit any reasonable definition of 'elite'. It didn't stop him repeating his lie here on a daily basis though.
No you did not. You wilfully misrepresented what I said. It is called a straw man argument.
What I have said and is factually indisputable ( but do please try ) is that the majority of big business, politicians, the rich, both in the UK and across the world ( no need to call them an elite, they just are that whatever you want to call them) campaigned for Remain, while only a minority of those people campaigned to Leave.
You tried to pretend that I said that all those who voted Remain were part of an elite.
If you cannot see the difference between those two things then I am sure other people can.
You're forgetting the unions, academia, medical professionals, regulators, law enforcement and so on from your definition of elite Remain campaigners. Again.
I understand that you may find it difficult to reconcile your conspiracy theory with the reality that a huge cross section of informed, yet disparate, groups advised against your own view but you could at least acknowledge this happened.
Yes I admitted to mention that a majority of academics, union leaders, civil servants etc etc also backed Remain. Thanks for reminding me.
The point is that a majority of people voted leave DESPITE the fact that rich, powerful and influential people advised them against it. That is what was wonderful about the result. It showed that the people are capable of making up their own minds despite people in and with power telling them not to.
17million voted to Leave despite being advised against it by rich powerful and influential people.
But 17million people voted to Leave because they were advised to by an even richer, even more powerful and even more influential group of people.
Because let's be honest there was not a single working class person publicly promoting or campaigning for our exit to leave the EU. Everyone involved in the Leave project came from an extremely privileged background.
They can always add on the 9m cost of the pro EU leaflet that we all paid for a couple of weeks before the referendum and the cost of bringing Obama over here to talk bollocks about being at the "Back of the queue".
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
The people who stand to 'benefit' from Brexit, were it to go ahead, are those 17.4 million people who used their right as citizens in a country they live and pay taxes in, to decide the future political direction of the country.
That is a 'benefit' that many millions of people in China and elsewhere can only dream about. Those with the most to lose are the 17.4 million people who, were Brexit not to go ahead, would discover that their vote was worthless, and they may as well have stayed at home on referendum day like those who decided they could not be bothered to vote either way.
We then would all lose because our democracy would be shown to be not worth the ballot paper it was written on. It would increase the alienation from politics that many people already feel and would have long term consequences far worse than whatever short term economic difficulties occur.
Dear @Southbank . In 1992, I voted for Neil Kinnock's Labour. I was convinced that this time enough of my fellow countrymen had had enough of the Tories too. Indeed, in a severe case of premature ejaculation I uncorked a bottle of shampoo while watching the early results from Sunderland North etc. (no exit polls then to speak of). Imagine how i felt next day when i woke up with a hangover to find that John Major was still my effing Prime Minister. Worse was to come. Under that total idiot Norman Lamont, I saw my mortgage rate shoot up 5 % in one day, until the pound crashed out of the ERM. Then they went on to privatise the railways. But I did not bleat about my vote being "wasted". I just accepted that not everyone saw it as I did. Yet. In 1997 they were all finally turfed out, because enough of my fellow citizens had finally had enough. Things change. People's opinions evolve, as they discover more. We are not China, and will not be seeking to change the constitution so that Theresa May can go on and on. There will be another general election. As people's understanding of Brexit also evolves, and if the opinion polls continue to chart a shift in opinion, it would be undemocratic not to ask the electorate if they still want to proceed with Brexit now that the full implications of doing so are clear.
Referenda: the delegating of the most important decisions to the least informed people
Hope you include yourself in that wonderful statement that enlightens us all on this poxy cold day because even though you arrogantly and smugly assume that you know exactly what is going to happen you know the same as everyone else. Fuck All!
That in Cricket would be called a wicket taking delivery...
Interesting thread this and to my mind confirms my long held opinion that referendums are the worst kind of democracy and have always believed that we elect a government to "govern" and we should do that after reading the party manifestos and deciding which party suits my agenda best. Then let them get on with it!
From a distance you could see the oncoming problems, and that being a close run vote (which it was) meaning millions of whatever persuasion would be pissed off, and here we are on this thread displaying that dissatisfaction.
As a remainer I see no point in having another referendum why? because if we voted to go back it is likely that we would have to re-enter the EU under terms that are worse than when we left, for example one of the criteria to join the EU is the adoption of the Euro something we would never countenance I believe.
I don't believe that the 16.1 million who voted to remain are all the so called elite, just mainly ordinary people who were fearful of the outcome of leaving the EU and the effect it will have on our economy and society in general. It is like saying those who voted to leave are all neo-fascist racists that is just not so.
As for the current Labour parties new stance I cannot see it makes any sense at all, lacking both clarity and reference to other deals which are neither what we have now or in the case of Switzerland mind bogglingly complicated. When questioned Jeremy Corbyn could not outline what Plan B is if (and it is highly likely) the EU does not allow continued membership of the customs union or something similar but kept saying "we will continue to negotiate" really! I am no lover of this Tory government or Theresa May but this tactic is to only force a general election and nothing to do with Brexit. There is a great deal of hypocrisy on both sides and this is just another example.
So I guess I need to put the tin hat on but as a remainer I see no option but to see this process through, although how this is going to get done is beyond my intellect, however the idea that we will cherry pick all the bits we like and lose the rest is frankly naïve, best that can be done is an exclusive trade deal that protects our mutual interests because for sure the EU does want to do business with us but what that looks like I have no idea.
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
The people who stand to 'benefit' from Brexit, were it to go ahead, are those 17.4 million people who used their right as citizens in a country they live and pay taxes in, to decide the future political direction of the country.
That is a 'benefit' that many millions of people in China and elsewhere can only dream about. Those with the most to lose are the 17.4 million people who, were Brexit not to go ahead, would discover that their vote was worthless, and they may as well have stayed at home on referendum day like those who decided they could not be bothered to vote either way.
We then would all lose because our democracy would be shown to be not worth the ballot paper it was written on. It would increase the alienation from politics that many people already feel and would have long term consequences far worse than whatever short term economic difficulties occur.
This post has a lot going for it regarding the value of a person's vote in a referendum. The massive problem is what that vote means in practical and philosophical terms. If there was a referendum result where the population 'democratically, voted for eternal life and it turns out it can't be delivered, do the population then feel betrayed and turn their back on 'democracy'?
Southbank's definition of democracy is only including voters who agree with him (hence why he only ever refers to the 17m Leave voters) and that everyone else is either anti-democratic or an elite. And he evidently doesn't realise that 17m is a minority of both the electorate and the UK population.
So don't be surprised if he does think that something can be democratic if it is an alt-right/far-right agenda supported by a minority of the electorate that must exist in perpetuity and can never be overturned.
I wonder if Southbank would accept as democratic another referendum at some point in the future that asked the question 'Should we rejoin the European Union?'.
Pollsters have consistently returned the opinion that Remain would comfortably win a second referendum for the best part of a year, so chances are low that Southbank would back a second referendum because it would disrupt the far-right agenda he supports, even if it is democratically the right thing to do.
Yes I know that - but I'm talking hypothetically for a situation in years to come long after we've left with, let's say, Southbank's desire for a hard brexit. Would he see it as democratic to ask the question of the electorate, or would he claim something like - 'the decision was made x years ago and there is no going back as it would be a betrayal of the will of the people'.
Well I for one would accept that another referendum, at least 25 years down the road would be fine.
All this nonsense about the youth being shat on is the equivalent to what I wanted in 1975 but failed to get my wish.
I was too young to vote but just shrugged and got on with life rather than bitch and slag off my parents who voted to remain.
And while I'm on the subject, this constant assertion that the leave vote isn't valid as the 17.5m isn't a majority of voters, well what about the minority of voters that confirmed our membership? Should this be invalid too?
17.3m voted to remain out of over 40m registered voters and perhaps 60m population. The constant whinging of certain people about the percentages is boring in the extreme.
The point that is made is that it is rediculous to claim the June 2016 result represents the will of the people when it was so close and the Leave vote only achieved 37% of the electorate. This is binary. It is not an opinion. It is an observable Mathematical fact.
I had forgotten that the 1975 Referendum was so one sided at 67% Remain and 32% Leave. Agree, you could not claim it was the will of the people (but then was that a constant refrain at the time, as it seems to be today?) since Remain did not achieve more tha 50% of the electorate but winning the vote by more than 2 to 1 and achieving 44% of the electorate probably goes some way to explaining why the result did not leave us so bitter, resentful and divided as a nation as we are today as a result of the 2016 referendum.
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
The people who stand to 'benefit' from Brexit, were it to go ahead, are those 17.4 million people who used their right as citizens in a country they live and pay taxes in, to decide the future political direction of the country.
That is a 'benefit' that many millions of people in China and elsewhere can only dream about. Those with the most to lose are the 17.4 million people who, were Brexit not to go ahead, would discover that their vote was worthless, and they may as well have stayed at home on referendum day like those who decided they could not be bothered to vote either way.
We then would all lose because our democracy would be shown to be not worth the ballot paper it was written on. It would increase the alienation from politics that many people already feel and would have long term consequences far worse than whatever short term economic difficulties occur.
Dear @Southbank . In 1992, I voted for Neil Kinnock's Labour. I was convinced that this time enough of my fellow countrymen had had enough of the Tories too. Indeed, in a severe case of premature ejaculation I uncorked a bottle of shampoo while watching the early results from Sunderland North etc. (no exit polls then to speak of). Imagine how i felt next day when i woke up with a hangover to find that John Major was still my effing Prime Minister. Worse was to come. Under that total idiot Norman Lamont, I saw my mortgage rate shoot up 5 % in one day, until the pound crashed out of the ERM. Then they went on to privatise the railways. But I did not bleat about my vote being "wasted". I just accepted that not everyone saw it as I did. Yet. In 1997 they were all finally turfed out, because enough of my fellow citizens had finally had enough. Things change. People's opinions evolve, as they discover more. We are not China, and will not be seeking to change the constitution so that Theresa May can go on and on. There will be another general election. As people's understanding of Brexit also evolves, and if the opinion polls continue to chart a shift in opinion, it would be undemocratic not to ask the electorate if they still want to proceed with Brexit now that the full implications of doing so are clear.
Just to ask you directly, if the result of the first referendum is not carried out, why should anybody believe the result of a second referendum would or should be honoured?
The 'full implications' are not clear by the way. The full implications of having the Leave process carried out by people who do not believe in it is what is being revealed.
We might as well say that another referendum should be between the result of May's dreadful negotiation process and leaving properly. But I know that is not what you are proposing.
Of the known voting choice of MPs (547) in the referendum over 73% voted to Remain. What else did you expect?
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
The people who stand to 'benefit' from Brexit, were it to go ahead, are those 17.4 million people who used their right as citizens in a country they live and pay taxes in, to decide the future political direction of the country.
That is a 'benefit' that many millions of people in China and elsewhere can only dream about. Those with the most to lose are the 17.4 million people who, were Brexit not to go ahead, would discover that their vote was worthless, and they may as well have stayed at home on referendum day like those who decided they could not be bothered to vote either way.
We then would all lose because our democracy would be shown to be not worth the ballot paper it was written on. It would increase the alienation from politics that many people already feel and would have long term consequences far worse than whatever short term economic difficulties occur.
Dear @Southbank . In 1992, I voted for Neil Kinnock's Labour. I was convinced that this time enough of my fellow countrymen had had enough of the Tories too. Indeed, in a severe case of premature ejaculation I uncorked a bottle of shampoo while watching the early results from Sunderland North etc. (no exit polls then to speak of). Imagine how i felt next day when i woke up with a hangover to find that John Major was still my effing Prime Minister. Worse was to come. Under that total idiot Norman Lamont, I saw my mortgage rate shoot up 5 % in one day, until the pound crashed out of the ERM. Then they went on to privatise the railways. But I did not bleat about my vote being "wasted". I just accepted that not everyone saw it as I did. Yet. In 1997 they were all finally turfed out, because enough of my fellow citizens had finally had enough. Things change. People's opinions evolve, as they discover more. We are not China, and will not be seeking to change the constitution so that Theresa May can go on and on. There will be another general election. As people's understanding of Brexit also evolves, and if the opinion polls continue to chart a shift in opinion, it would be undemocratic not to ask the electorate if they still want to proceed with Brexit now that the full implications of doing so are clear.
Just to ask you directly, if the result of the first referendum is not carried out, why should anybody believe the result of a second referendum would or should be honoured?
The 'full implications' are not clear by the way. The full implications of having the Leave process carried out by people who do not believe in it is what is being revealed.
We might as well say that another referendum should be between the result of May's dreadful negotiation process and leaving properly. But I know that is not what you are proposing.
Of the known voting choice of MPs (547) in the referendum over 73% voted to Remain. What else did you expect?
It should also be pointed out that out of all the politicians, pundits and barons who promoted Brexit, not a single one has either stepped forward to claim responsibility for delivering Brexit, or had any idea of how to do it in the first place.
If any Brexiters truly believe the Brexit process would be any better or different if any of the frauds, liars, or morons who promoted the Leave campaign were in charge then they ought to be informed that Brexit was always going to be a total disaster, regardless of who is in charge.
As I said before, those who wanted Brexit in the first place are the Rolands of the political world.
They can always add on the 9m cost of the pro EU leaflet that we all paid for a couple of weeks before the referendum and the cost of bringing Obama over here to talk bollocks about being at the "Back of the queue".
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
The people who stand to 'benefit' from Brexit, were it to go ahead, are those 17.4 million people who used their right as citizens in a country they live and pay taxes in, to decide the future political direction of the country.
That is a 'benefit' that many millions of people in China and elsewhere can only dream about. Those with the most to lose are the 17.4 million people who, were Brexit not to go ahead, would discover that their vote was worthless, and they may as well have stayed at home on referendum day like those who decided they could not be bothered to vote either way.
We then would all lose because our democracy would be shown to be not worth the ballot paper it was written on. It would increase the alienation from politics that many people already feel and would have long term consequences far worse than whatever short term economic difficulties occur.
Dear @Southbank . In 1992, I voted for Neil Kinnock's Labour. I was convinced that this time enough of my fellow countrymen had had enough of the Tories too. Indeed, in a severe case of premature ejaculation I uncorked a bottle of shampoo while watching the early results from Sunderland North etc. (no exit polls then to speak of). Imagine how i felt next day when i woke up with a hangover to find that John Major was still my effing Prime Minister. Worse was to come. Under that total idiot Norman Lamont, I saw my mortgage rate shoot up 5 % in one day, until the pound crashed out of the ERM. Then they went on to privatise the railways. But I did not bleat about my vote being "wasted". I just accepted that not everyone saw it as I did. Yet. In 1997 they were all finally turfed out, because enough of my fellow citizens had finally had enough. Things change. People's opinions evolve, as they discover more. We are not China, and will not be seeking to change the constitution so that Theresa May can go on and on. There will be another general election. As people's understanding of Brexit also evolves, and if the opinion polls continue to chart a shift in opinion, it would be undemocratic not to ask the electorate if they still want to proceed with Brexit now that the full implications of doing so are clear.
Referenda: the delegating of the most important decisions to the least informed people
Hope you include yourself in that wonderful statement that enlightens us all on this poxy cold day because even though you arrogantly and smugly assume that you know exactly what is going to happen you know the same as everyone else. Fuck All!
That in Cricket would be called a wicket taking delivery...
They can always add on the 9m cost of the pro EU leaflet that we all paid for a couple of weeks before the referendum and the cost of bringing Obama over here to talk bollocks about being at the "Back of the queue".
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
The people who stand to 'benefit' from Brexit, were it to go ahead, are those 17.4 million people who used their right as citizens in a country they live and pay taxes in, to decide the future political direction of the country.
That is a 'benefit' that many millions of people in China and elsewhere can only dream about. Those with the most to lose are the 17.4 million people who, were Brexit not to go ahead, would discover that their vote was worthless, and they may as well have stayed at home on referendum day like those who decided they could not be bothered to vote either way.
We then would all lose because our democracy would be shown to be not worth the ballot paper it was written on. It would increase the alienation from politics that many people already feel and would have long term consequences far worse than whatever short term economic difficulties occur.
Dear @Southbank . In 1992, I voted for Neil Kinnock's Labour. I was convinced that this time enough of my fellow countrymen had had enough of the Tories too. Indeed, in a severe case of premature ejaculation I uncorked a bottle of shampoo while watching the early results from Sunderland North etc. (no exit polls then to speak of). Imagine how i felt next day when i woke up with a hangover to find that John Major was still my effing Prime Minister. Worse was to come. Under that total idiot Norman Lamont, I saw my mortgage rate shoot up 5 % in one day, until the pound crashed out of the ERM. Then they went on to privatise the railways. But I did not bleat about my vote being "wasted". I just accepted that not everyone saw it as I did. Yet. In 1997 they were all finally turfed out, because enough of my fellow citizens had finally had enough. Things change. People's opinions evolve, as they discover more. We are not China, and will not be seeking to change the constitution so that Theresa May can go on and on. There will be another general election. As people's understanding of Brexit also evolves, and if the opinion polls continue to chart a shift in opinion, it would be undemocratic not to ask the electorate if they still want to proceed with Brexit now that the full implications of doing so are clear.
Referenda: the delegating of the most important decisions to the least informed people
Hope you include yourself in that wonderful statement that enlightens us all on this poxy cold day because even though you arrogantly and smugly assume that you know exactly what is going to happen you know the same as everyone else. Fuck All!
That in Cricket would be called a wicket taking delivery...
That in cricket would be called a wide.
One of those really embarassing, big ones...
And it hits an unsuspecting spectator in the face causing him to drop his beer all over his Britain First t shirt because he was too busy looking at his phone trying to press a little smiley face.
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
Is this the group Southbank refers to as 'the elite'?
A few months ago I completely and comprehensively destroyed Southbank's nonsense that the elite voted for Remain using the analysis from Ashcroft. You can look at every demographic that voted to Remain and none of them would fit any reasonable definition of 'elite'. It didn't stop him repeating his lie here on a daily basis though.
No you did not. You wilfully misrepresented what I said. It is called a straw man argument.
What I have said and is factually indisputable ( but do please try ) is that the majority of big business, politicians, the rich, both in the UK and across the world ( no need to call them an elite, they just are that whatever you want to call them) campaigned for Remain, while only a minority of those people campaigned to Leave.
You tried to pretend that I said that all those who voted Remain were part of an elite.
If you cannot see the difference between those two things then I am sure other people can.
You're forgetting the unions, academia, medical professionals, regulators, law enforcement and so on from your definition of elite Remain campaigners. Again.
I understand that you may find it difficult to reconcile your conspiracy theory with the reality that a huge cross section of informed, yet disparate, groups advised against your own view but you could at least acknowledge this happened.
Yes I admitted to mention that a majority of academics, union leaders, civil servants etc etc also backed Remain. Thanks for reminding me.
The point is that a majority of people voted leave DESPITE the fact that rich, powerful and influential people advised them against it. That is what was wonderful about the result. It showed that the people are capable of making up their own minds despite people in and with power telling them not to.
17million voted to Leave despite being advised against it by rich powerful and influential people.
But 17million people voted to Leave because they were advised to by an even richer, even more powerful and even more influential group of people.
Because let's be honest there was not a single working class person publicly promoting or campaigning for our exit to leave the EU. Everyone involved in the Leave project came from an extremely privileged background.
I have challenged you before to add up the wealth of those who backed Leave and see if you can make it come to the wealth of just one person who backed Remain -George Soros at 25b, let alone the other billionaires who backed Remain. Let alone the politicians from Obama downwards who backed Remain etc etc. Of all the conspiracy theories on this thread, your idea that Leave was the will of the global establishment is the most bizarre.
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
Is this the group Southbank refers to as 'the elite'?
A few months ago I completely and comprehensively destroyed Southbank's nonsense that the elite voted for Remain using the analysis from Ashcroft. You can look at every demographic that voted to Remain and none of them would fit any reasonable definition of 'elite'. It didn't stop him repeating his lie here on a daily basis though.
No you did not. You wilfully misrepresented what I said. It is called a straw man argument.
What I have said and is factually indisputable ( but do please try ) is that the majority of big business, politicians, the rich, both in the UK and across the world ( no need to call them an elite, they just are that whatever you want to call them) campaigned for Remain, while only a minority of those people campaigned to Leave.
You tried to pretend that I said that all those who voted Remain were part of an elite.
If you cannot see the difference between those two things then I am sure other people can.
You're forgetting the unions, academia, medical professionals, regulators, law enforcement and so on from your definition of elite Remain campaigners. Again.
I understand that you may find it difficult to reconcile your conspiracy theory with the reality that a huge cross section of informed, yet disparate, groups advised against your own view but you could at least acknowledge this happened.
Yes I admitted to mention that a majority of academics, union leaders, civil servants etc etc also backed Remain. Thanks for reminding me.
The point is that a majority of people voted leave DESPITE the fact that rich, powerful and influential people advised them against it. That is what was wonderful about the result. It showed that the people are capable of making up their own minds despite people in and with power telling them not to.
17million voted to Leave despite being advised against it by rich powerful and influential people.
But 17million people voted to Leave because they were advised to by an even richer, even more powerful and even more influential group of people.
Because let's be honest there was not a single working class person publicly promoting or campaigning for our exit to leave the EU. Everyone involved in the Leave project came from an extremely privileged background.
I have challenged you before to add up the wealth of those who backed Leave and see if you can make it come to the wealth of just one person who backed Remain -George Soros at 25b, let alone the other billionaires who backed Remain. Let alone the politicians from Obama downwards who backed Remain etc etc. Of all the conspiracy theories on this thread, your idea that Leave was the will of the global establishment is the most bizarre.
That's not what I posted though. Try reading it again.
I don't understand your obsession with "elites". Your definition of "elite" encompasses people on both the Leave and Remain side in more or less equal measure.
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
Is this the group Southbank refers to as 'the elite'?
A few months ago I completely and comprehensively destroyed Southbank's nonsense that the elite voted for Remain using the analysis from Ashcroft. You can look at every demographic that voted to Remain and none of them would fit any reasonable definition of 'elite'. It didn't stop him repeating his lie here on a daily basis though.
No you did not. You wilfully misrepresented what I said. It is called a straw man argument.
What I have said and is factually indisputable ( but do please try ) is that the majority of big business, politicians, the rich, both in the UK and across the world ( no need to call them an elite, they just are that whatever you want to call them) campaigned for Remain, while only a minority of those people campaigned to Leave.
You tried to pretend that I said that all those who voted Remain were part of an elite.
If you cannot see the difference between those two things then I am sure other people can.
You're forgetting the unions, academia, medical professionals, regulators, law enforcement and so on from your definition of elite Remain campaigners. Again.
I understand that you may find it difficult to reconcile your conspiracy theory with the reality that a huge cross section of informed, yet disparate, groups advised against your own view but you could at least acknowledge this happened.
Yes I admitted to mention that a majority of academics, union leaders, civil servants etc etc also backed Remain. Thanks for reminding me.
The point is that a majority of people voted leave DESPITE the fact that rich, powerful and influential people advised them against it. That is what was wonderful about the result. It showed that the people are capable of making up their own minds despite people in and with power telling them not to.
17million voted to Leave despite being advised against it by rich powerful and influential people.
But 17million people voted to Leave because they were advised to by an even richer, even more powerful and even more influential group of people.
Because let's be honest there was not a single working class person publicly promoting or campaigning for our exit to leave the EU. Everyone involved in the Leave project came from an extremely privileged background.
I have challenged you before to add up the wealth of those who backed Leave and see if you can make it come to the wealth of just one person who backed Remain -George Soros at 25b, let alone the other billionaires who backed Remain. Let alone the politicians from Obama downwards who backed Remain etc etc. Of all the conspiracy theories on this thread, your idea that Leave was the will of the global establishment is the most bizarre.
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
The people who stand to 'benefit' from Brexit, were it to go ahead, are those 17.4 million people who used their right as citizens in a country they live and pay taxes in, to decide the future political direction of the country.
That is a 'benefit' that many millions of people in China and elsewhere can only dream about. Those with the most to lose are the 17.4 million people who, were Brexit not to go ahead, would discover that their vote was worthless, and they may as well have stayed at home on referendum day like those who decided they could not be bothered to vote either way.
We then would all lose because our democracy would be shown to be not worth the ballot paper it was written on. It would increase the alienation from politics that many people already feel and would have long term consequences far worse than whatever short term economic difficulties occur.
Dear @Southbank . In 1992, I voted for Neil Kinnock's Labour. I was convinced that this time enough of my fellow countrymen had had enough of the Tories too. Indeed, in a severe case of premature ejaculation I uncorked a bottle of shampoo while watching the early results from Sunderland North etc. (no exit polls then to speak of). Imagine how i felt next day when i woke up with a hangover to find that John Major was still my effing Prime Minister. Worse was to come. Under that total idiot Norman Lamont, I saw my mortgage rate shoot up 5 % in one day, until the pound crashed out of the ERM. Then they went on to privatise the railways. But I did not bleat about my vote being "wasted". I just accepted that not everyone saw it as I did. Yet. In 1997 they were all finally turfed out, because enough of my fellow citizens had finally had enough. Things change. People's opinions evolve, as they discover more. We are not China, and will not be seeking to change the constitution so that Theresa May can go on and on. There will be another general election. As people's understanding of Brexit also evolves, and if the opinion polls continue to chart a shift in opinion, it would be undemocratic not to ask the electorate if they still want to proceed with Brexit now that the full implications of doing so are clear.
Just to ask you directly, if the result of the first referendum is not carried out, why should anybody believe the result of a second referendum would or should be honoured?
The 'full implications' are not clear by the way. The full implications of having the Leave process carried out by people who do not believe in it is what is being revealed.
We might as well say that another referendum should be between the result of May's dreadful negotiation process and leaving properly. But I know that is not what you are proposing.
Of the known voting choice of MPs (547) in the referendum over 73% voted to Remain. What else did you expect?
It should also be pointed out that out of all the politicians, pundits and barons who promoted Brexit, not a single one has either stepped forward to claim responsibility for delivering Brexit, or had any idea of how to do it in the first place.
If any Brexiters truly believe the Brexit process would be any better or different if any of the frauds, liars, or morons who promoted the Leave campaign were in charge then they ought to be informed that Brexit was always going to be a total disaster, regardless of who is in charge.
As I said before, those who wanted Brexit in the first place are the Rolands of the political world.
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
Is this the group Southbank refers to as 'the elite'?
A few months ago I completely and comprehensively destroyed Southbank's nonsense that the elite voted for Remain using the analysis from Ashcroft. You can look at every demographic that voted to Remain and none of them would fit any reasonable definition of 'elite'. It didn't stop him repeating his lie here on a daily basis though.
No you did not. You wilfully misrepresented what I said. It is called a straw man argument.
What I have said and is factually indisputable ( but do please try ) is that the majority of big business, politicians, the rich, both in the UK and across the world ( no need to call them an elite, they just are that whatever you want to call them) campaigned for Remain, while only a minority of those people campaigned to Leave.
You tried to pretend that I said that all those who voted Remain were part of an elite.
If you cannot see the difference between those two things then I am sure other people can.
You're forgetting the unions, academia, medical professionals, regulators, law enforcement and so on from your definition of elite Remain campaigners. Again.
I understand that you may find it difficult to reconcile your conspiracy theory with the reality that a huge cross section of informed, yet disparate, groups advised against your own view but you could at least acknowledge this happened.
Yes I admitted to mention that a majority of academics, union leaders, civil servants etc etc also backed Remain. Thanks for reminding me.
The point is that a majority of people voted leave DESPITE the fact that rich, powerful and influential people advised them against it. That is what was wonderful about the result. It showed that the people are capable of making up their own minds despite people in and with power telling them not to.
17million voted to Leave despite being advised against it by rich powerful and influential people.
But 17million people voted to Leave because they were advised to by an even richer, even more powerful and even more influential group of people.
Because let's be honest there was not a single working class person publicly promoting or campaigning for our exit to leave the EU. Everyone involved in the Leave project came from an extremely privileged background.
I have challenged you before to add up the wealth of those who backed Leave and see if you can make it come to the wealth of just one person who backed Remain -George Soros at 25b, let alone the other billionaires who backed Remain. Let alone the politicians from Obama downwards who backed Remain etc etc. Of all the conspiracy theories on this thread, your idea that Leave was the will of the global establishment is the most bizarre.
I think Putin trumps Soros
Now THAT, @Chippycafc , is a wicket-taking delivery. Middle stump.
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
The people who stand to 'benefit' from Brexit, were it to go ahead, are those 17.4 million people who used their right as citizens in a country they live and pay taxes in, to decide the future political direction of the country.
That is a 'benefit' that many millions of people in China and elsewhere can only dream about. Those with the most to lose are the 17.4 million people who, were Brexit not to go ahead, would discover that their vote was worthless, and they may as well have stayed at home on referendum day like those who decided they could not be bothered to vote either way.
We then would all lose because our democracy would be shown to be not worth the ballot paper it was written on. It would increase the alienation from politics that many people already feel and would have long term consequences far worse than whatever short term economic difficulties occur.
Dear @Southbank . In 1992, I voted for Neil Kinnock's Labour. I was convinced that this time enough of my fellow countrymen had had enough of the Tories too. Indeed, in a severe case of premature ejaculation I uncorked a bottle of shampoo while watching the early results from Sunderland North etc. (no exit polls then to speak of). Imagine how i felt next day when i woke up with a hangover to find that John Major was still my effing Prime Minister. Worse was to come. Under that total idiot Norman Lamont, I saw my mortgage rate shoot up 5 % in one day, until the pound crashed out of the ERM. Then they went on to privatise the railways. But I did not bleat about my vote being "wasted". I just accepted that not everyone saw it as I did. Yet. In 1997 they were all finally turfed out, because enough of my fellow citizens had finally had enough. Things change. People's opinions evolve, as they discover more. We are not China, and will not be seeking to change the constitution so that Theresa May can go on and on. There will be another general election. As people's understanding of Brexit also evolves, and if the opinion polls continue to chart a shift in opinion, it would be undemocratic not to ask the electorate if they still want to proceed with Brexit now that the full implications of doing so are clear.
Just to ask you directly, if the result of the first referendum is not carried out, why should anybody believe the result of a second referendum would or should be honoured?
The 'full implications' are not clear by the way. The full implications of having the Leave process carried out by people who do not believe in it is what is being revealed.
We might as well say that another referendum should be between the result of May's dreadful negotiation process and leaving properly. But I know that is not what you are proposing.
Of the known voting choice of MPs (547) in the referendum over 73% voted to Remain. What else did you expect?
It should also be pointed out that out of all the politicians, pundits and barons who promoted Brexit, not a single one has either stepped forward to claim responsibility for delivering Brexit, or had any idea of how to do it in the first place.
If any Brexiters truly believe the Brexit process would be any better or different if any of the frauds, liars, or morons who promoted the Leave campaign were in charge then they ought to be informed that Brexit was always going to be a total disaster, regardless of who is in charge.
As I said before, those who wanted Brexit in the first place are the Rolands of the political world.
Business leaders back Remain because it makes Britain a better and more prosperous marketplace.
Maybe actually quote something people might give a shit about but don't prattle on endlessly about elites because you don't seem to have any real reason why you are so vexed that so many intelligent, progressive and successful people voted Remain because they were voting with Britain's best interests in mind.
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
The people who stand to 'benefit' from Brexit, were it to go ahead, are those 17.4 million people who used their right as citizens in a country they live and pay taxes in, to decide the future political direction of the country.
That is a 'benefit' that many millions of people in China and elsewhere can only dream about. Those with the most to lose are the 17.4 million people who, were Brexit not to go ahead, would discover that their vote was worthless, and they may as well have stayed at home on referendum day like those who decided they could not be bothered to vote either way.
We then would all lose because our democracy would be shown to be not worth the ballot paper it was written on. It would increase the alienation from politics that many people already feel and would have long term consequences far worse than whatever short term economic difficulties occur.
Dear @Southbank . In 1992, I voted for Neil Kinnock's Labour. I was convinced that this time enough of my fellow countrymen had had enough of the Tories too. Indeed, in a severe case of premature ejaculation I uncorked a bottle of shampoo while watching the early results from Sunderland North etc. (no exit polls then to speak of). Imagine how i felt next day when i woke up with a hangover to find that John Major was still my effing Prime Minister. Worse was to come. Under that total idiot Norman Lamont, I saw my mortgage rate shoot up 5 % in one day, until the pound crashed out of the ERM. Then they went on to privatise the railways. But I did not bleat about my vote being "wasted". I just accepted that not everyone saw it as I did. Yet. In 1997 they were all finally turfed out, because enough of my fellow citizens had finally had enough. Things change. People's opinions evolve, as they discover more. We are not China, and will not be seeking to change the constitution so that Theresa May can go on and on. There will be another general election. As people's understanding of Brexit also evolves, and if the opinion polls continue to chart a shift in opinion, it would be undemocratic not to ask the electorate if they still want to proceed with Brexit now that the full implications of doing so are clear.
Just to ask you directly, if the result of the first referendum is not carried out, why should anybody believe the result of a second referendum would or should be honoured?
The 'full implications' are not clear by the way. The full implications of having the Leave process carried out by people who do not believe in it is what is being revealed.
We might as well say that another referendum should be between the result of May's dreadful negotiation process and leaving properly. But I know that is not what you are proposing.
Of the known voting choice of MPs (547) in the referendum over 73% voted to Remain. What else did you expect?
It should also be pointed out that out of all the politicians, pundits and barons who promoted Brexit, not a single one has either stepped forward to claim responsibility for delivering Brexit, or had any idea of how to do it in the first place.
If any Brexiters truly believe the Brexit process would be any better or different if any of the frauds, liars, or morons who promoted the Leave campaign were in charge then they ought to be informed that Brexit was always going to be a total disaster, regardless of who is in charge.
As I said before, those who wanted Brexit in the first place are the Rolands of the political world.
Those business leaders are wealth creators and consequently job creators - why should it be a given that wealth equals bad and poor equals good? What difference does it make? - it's about what is best for the country - and if that is also better for business leaders then I for one won't mind that.
If you are anti-capitalist then say it. But if you believe that leaving the EU is going to be better for the average downtrodden Joe who had his voice heard for once then you are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Boris Johnson Jacob Rees-Mogg The billionaires who the two above are in league with The billionaires who control the tabloid press Donald Trump Nigel Farage Leaders of the various far-right/neo-Nazi/white supremacists groups across Europe Putin and other Russian oligarchs
The problem is Southbank is if we start comparing which elites supported Remain and Leave it isn't going to help your case, whatever your case is meant to be.
Southbank provided one a while back but it seemed to encompass quite a lot of people (and the problem with this is that "elites" tend to be quite small in number compared to the population but his definition could apply to quite a large section of the population, making them not really very elite at all), all of whom would have voted for Remain or Leave in more or less equal measure. Although he gets quite upset when this is pointed out to him.
Still unsure why he thinks it matters so much why "elites" voted Remain (even though it has been established "elites" also voted Leave and he has zero evidence that either Remain or Leave is more or less elite than the other).
Liam Fox says a free trade agreement with the EU would solve the Irish border problem (he also used the phrase 'as frictionless as possible'), so no solution there then. I have sat and watched his speech and he says there will be jam tomorrow where staying in the EU means bread and butter today.
Sadly, and that nice Dr. Fox (when he's not being a rather dated DJ) knows it, a Free Trade Agreement and even membership of "a Customs Union" would not solve the border questions, both in Ireland and in terms of the Channel/North Sea.
I was involved in a discussion earlier today about the Irish border, and I'm going to regurgitate most of what I said then.
The UK Government is "determined" to retain the current border situation in Ireland, which is why the wording to be produced tomorrow by the Commission and circulated to the capitals of the EU27 will be crucial, as it will place the onus on the UK to either provide a demonstrably workable solution or be prepared to accept the backstop included in the December agreement.
I am, broadly speaking, unconvinced that either a Free Trade Agreement, be it ever so bespoke (though, by their nature all FTAs are bespoke), or "a Customs Union" will provide the outcome that British politicans arguing for them would suggest.
My understanding of "a Customs Union" arrangement would be that there would still need to be some form of controls on the border, as there are between Turkey and the EU. Frankly, I think that the suggestion of "a Customs Union" providing the answer to the Border problem is wishful thinking. However, from my perspective, it is a major improvement in the Labour Party's position.
Unless the UK is clearly within "the Customs Union", and applying all the rules of the EU, there will be a requirement for some form of controls on the border (because both sides will need to reassure themselves about the origin and standards of any goods transiting across their borders) - and on the most basic level, for HMRC, some border control, in a world of duty free shopping, is an essential requirement to avoid massive tax avoidance.
So, I would argue that, in order to retain the position as it is now on the Irish Border (and, almost by definition, the other UK-EU borders) the UK Government would need to, inasmuch as it can, retain the existing situation (both Single Market and Customs Union). This is the option that would be as frictionless as possible, not Dr. Fox's Free Trade Agreement, and he knows this.
To be honest, however, I believe that, unless there is a dramatic change to the ongoing Brexit process, this will all prove fairly academic.
My biggest concern is that there is so little time, and such a pathetic degree of organisation apparent from HMG, that the UK will fall out of the EU in a disorderly fashion. My expectation is that the EU27 will reject out of hand what the UK Government is currently suggesting (because they have been telling the UK Government this for most of the past 12 months), and there will be further months of fruitless negotiation within the UK, with the politicians trying to work out what they want, allowing no time to agree the exit deal or any transition before March 2019.
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
Is this the group Southbank refers to as 'the elite'?
A few months ago I completely and comprehensively destroyed Southbank's nonsense that the elite voted for Remain using the analysis from Ashcroft. You can look at every demographic that voted to Remain and none of them would fit any reasonable definition of 'elite'. It didn't stop him repeating his lie here on a daily basis though.
No you did not. You wilfully misrepresented what I said. It is called a straw man argument.
What I have said and is factually indisputable ( but do please try ) is that the majority of big business, politicians, the rich, both in the UK and across the world ( no need to call them an elite, they just are that whatever you want to call them) campaigned for Remain, while only a minority of those people campaigned to Leave.
You tried to pretend that I said that all those who voted Remain were part of an elite.
If you cannot see the difference between those two things then I am sure other people can.
You're forgetting the unions, academia, medical professionals, regulators, law enforcement and so on from your definition of elite Remain campaigners. Again.
I understand that you may find it difficult to reconcile your conspiracy theory with the reality that a huge cross section of informed, yet disparate, groups advised against your own view but you could at least acknowledge this happened.
Yes I admitted to mention that a majority of academics, union leaders, civil servants etc etc also backed Remain. Thanks for reminding me.
The point is that a majority of people voted leave DESPITE the fact that rich, powerful and influential people advised them against it. That is what was wonderful about the result. It showed that the people are capable of making up their own minds despite people in and with power telling them not to.
17million voted to Leave despite being advised against it by rich powerful and influential people.
But 17million people voted to Leave because they were advised to by an even richer, even more powerful and even more influential group of people.
Because let's be honest there was not a single working class person publicly promoting or campaigning for our exit to leave the EU. Everyone involved in the Leave project came from an extremely privileged background.
I have challenged you before to add up the wealth of those who backed Leave and see if you can make it come to the wealth of just one person who backed Remain -George Soros at 25b, let alone the other billionaires who backed Remain. Let alone the politicians from Obama downwards who backed Remain etc etc. Of all the conspiracy theories on this thread, your idea that Leave was the will of the global establishment is the most bizarre.
I think Putin trumps Soros
Now THAT, @Chippycafc , is a wicket-taking delivery. Middle stump.
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
The people who stand to 'benefit' from Brexit, were it to go ahead, are those 17.4 million people who used their right as citizens in a country they live and pay taxes in, to decide the future political direction of the country.
That is a 'benefit' that many millions of people in China and elsewhere can only dream about. Those with the most to lose are the 17.4 million people who, were Brexit not to go ahead, would discover that their vote was worthless, and they may as well have stayed at home on referendum day like those who decided they could not be bothered to vote either way.
We then would all lose because our democracy would be shown to be not worth the ballot paper it was written on. It would increase the alienation from politics that many people already feel and would have long term consequences far worse than whatever short term economic difficulties occur.
Dear @Southbank . In 1992, I voted for Neil Kinnock's Labour. I was convinced that this time enough of my fellow countrymen had had enough of the Tories too. Indeed, in a severe case of premature ejaculation I uncorked a bottle of shampoo while watching the early results from Sunderland North etc. (no exit polls then to speak of). Imagine how i felt next day when i woke up with a hangover to find that John Major was still my effing Prime Minister. Worse was to come. Under that total idiot Norman Lamont, I saw my mortgage rate shoot up 5 % in one day, until the pound crashed out of the ERM. Then they went on to privatise the railways. But I did not bleat about my vote being "wasted". I just accepted that not everyone saw it as I did. Yet. In 1997 they were all finally turfed out, because enough of my fellow citizens had finally had enough. Things change. People's opinions evolve, as they discover more. We are not China, and will not be seeking to change the constitution so that Theresa May can go on and on. There will be another general election. As people's understanding of Brexit also evolves, and if the opinion polls continue to chart a shift in opinion, it would be undemocratic not to ask the electorate if they still want to proceed with Brexit now that the full implications of doing so are clear.
Just to ask you directly, if the result of the first referendum is not carried out, why should anybody believe the result of a second referendum would or should be honoured?
The 'full implications' are not clear by the way. The full implications of having the Leave process carried out by people who do not believe in it is what is being revealed.
We might as well say that another referendum should be between the result of May's dreadful negotiation process and leaving properly. But I know that is not what you are proposing.
Of the known voting choice of MPs (547) in the referendum over 73% voted to Remain. What else did you expect?
It should also be pointed out that out of all the politicians, pundits and barons who promoted Brexit, not a single one has either stepped forward to claim responsibility for delivering Brexit, or had any idea of how to do it in the first place.
If any Brexiters truly believe the Brexit process would be any better or different if any of the frauds, liars, or morons who promoted the Leave campaign were in charge then they ought to be informed that Brexit was always going to be a total disaster, regardless of who is in charge.
As I said before, those who wanted Brexit in the first place are the Rolands of the political world.
Business leaders back Remain because it makes Britain a better and more prosperous marketplace.
Maybe actually quote something people might give a shit about but don't prattle on endlessly about elites because you don't seem to have any real reason why you are so vexed that so many intelligent, progressive and successful people voted Remain because they were voting with Britain's best interests in mind.
Yes they are entitled to do that. But you cannot then claim that Leave was backed by the establishment.
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
Is this the group Southbank refers to as 'the elite'?
A few months ago I completely and comprehensively destroyed Southbank's nonsense that the elite voted for Remain using the analysis from Ashcroft. You can look at every demographic that voted to Remain and none of them would fit any reasonable definition of 'elite'. It didn't stop him repeating his lie here on a daily basis though.
No you did not. You wilfully misrepresented what I said. It is called a straw man argument.
What I have said and is factually indisputable ( but do please try ) is that the majority of big business, politicians, the rich, both in the UK and across the world ( no need to call them an elite, they just are that whatever you want to call them) campaigned for Remain, while only a minority of those people campaigned to Leave.
You tried to pretend that I said that all those who voted Remain were part of an elite.
If you cannot see the difference between those two things then I am sure other people can.
You're forgetting the unions, academia, medical professionals, regulators, law enforcement and so on from your definition of elite Remain campaigners. Again.
I understand that you may find it difficult to reconcile your conspiracy theory with the reality that a huge cross section of informed, yet disparate, groups advised against your own view but you could at least acknowledge this happened.
Yes I admitted to mention that a majority of academics, union leaders, civil servants etc etc also backed Remain. Thanks for reminding me.
The point is that a majority of people voted leave DESPITE the fact that rich, powerful and influential people advised them against it. That is what was wonderful about the result. It showed that the people are capable of making up their own minds despite people in and with power telling them not to.
17million voted to Leave despite being advised against it by rich powerful and influential people.
But 17million people voted to Leave because they were advised to by an even richer, even more powerful and even more influential group of people.
Because let's be honest there was not a single working class person publicly promoting or campaigning for our exit to leave the EU. Everyone involved in the Leave project came from an extremely privileged background.
I have challenged you before to add up the wealth of those who backed Leave and see if you can make it come to the wealth of just one person who backed Remain -George Soros at 25b, let alone the other billionaires who backed Remain. Let alone the politicians from Obama downwards who backed Remain etc etc. Of all the conspiracy theories on this thread, your idea that Leave was the will of the global establishment is the most bizarre.
I think Putin trumps Soros
Now THAT, @Chippycafc , is a wicket-taking delivery. Middle stump.
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
Is this the group Southbank refers to as 'the elite'?
A few months ago I completely and comprehensively destroyed Southbank's nonsense that the elite voted for Remain using the analysis from Ashcroft. You can look at every demographic that voted to Remain and none of them would fit any reasonable definition of 'elite'. It didn't stop him repeating his lie here on a daily basis though.
No you did not. You wilfully misrepresented what I said. It is called a straw man argument.
What I have said and is factually indisputable ( but do please try ) is that the majority of big business, politicians, the rich, both in the UK and across the world ( no need to call them an elite, they just are that whatever you want to call them) campaigned for Remain, while only a minority of those people campaigned to Leave.
You tried to pretend that I said that all those who voted Remain were part of an elite.
If you cannot see the difference between those two things then I am sure other people can.
You're forgetting the unions, academia, medical professionals, regulators, law enforcement and so on from your definition of elite Remain campaigners. Again.
I understand that you may find it difficult to reconcile your conspiracy theory with the reality that a huge cross section of informed, yet disparate, groups advised against your own view but you could at least acknowledge this happened.
Yes I admitted to mention that a majority of academics, union leaders, civil servants etc etc also backed Remain. Thanks for reminding me.
The point is that a majority of people voted leave DESPITE the fact that rich, powerful and influential people advised them against it. That is what was wonderful about the result. It showed that the people are capable of making up their own minds despite people in and with power telling them not to.
17million voted to Leave despite being advised against it by rich powerful and influential people.
But 17million people voted to Leave because they were advised to by an even richer, even more powerful and even more influential group of people.
Because let's be honest there was not a single working class person publicly promoting or campaigning for our exit to leave the EU. Everyone involved in the Leave project came from an extremely privileged background.
I have challenged you before to add up the wealth of those who backed Leave and see if you can make it come to the wealth of just one person who backed Remain -George Soros at 25b, let alone the other billionaires who backed Remain. Let alone the politicians from Obama downwards who backed Remain etc etc. Of all the conspiracy theories on this thread, your idea that Leave was the will of the global establishment is the most bizarre.
I think Putin trumps Soros
Now THAT, @Chippycafc , is a wicket-taking delivery. Middle stump.
Obama trumps Putin
Game set and match
Clearly you are not aware of Putin's real personal wealth (still less, how he got it).
Comments
The 'full implications' are not clear by the way. The full implications of having the Leave process carried out by people who do not believe in it is what is being revealed.
We might as well say that another referendum should be between the result of May's dreadful negotiation process and leaving properly. But I know that is not what you are proposing.
But 17million people voted to Leave because they were advised to by an even richer, even more powerful and even more influential group of people.
Because let's be honest there was not a single working class person publicly promoting or campaigning for our exit to leave the EU. Everyone involved in the Leave project came from an extremely privileged background.
From a distance you could see the oncoming problems, and that being a close run vote (which it was) meaning millions of whatever persuasion would be pissed off, and here we are on this thread displaying that dissatisfaction.
As a remainer I see no point in having another referendum why? because if we voted to go back it is likely that we would have to re-enter the EU under terms that are worse than when we left, for example one of the criteria to join the EU is the adoption of the Euro something we would never countenance I believe.
I don't believe that the 16.1 million who voted to remain are all the so called elite, just mainly ordinary people who were fearful of the outcome of leaving the EU and the effect it will have on our economy and society in general. It is like saying those who voted to leave are all neo-fascist racists that is just not so.
As for the current Labour parties new stance I cannot see it makes any sense at all, lacking both clarity and reference to other deals which are neither what we have now or in the case of Switzerland mind bogglingly complicated. When questioned Jeremy Corbyn could not outline what Plan B is if (and it is highly likely) the EU does not allow continued membership of the customs union or something similar but kept saying "we will continue to negotiate" really! I am no lover of this Tory government or Theresa May but this tactic is to only force a general election and nothing to do with Brexit. There is a great deal of hypocrisy on both sides and this is just another example.
So I guess I need to put the tin hat on but as a remainer I see no option but to see this process through, although how this is going to get done is beyond my intellect, however the idea that we will cherry pick all the bits we like and lose the rest is frankly naïve, best that can be done is an exclusive trade deal that protects our mutual interests because for sure the EU does want to do business with us but what that looks like I have no idea.
I had forgotten that the 1975 Referendum was so one sided at 67% Remain and 32% Leave. Agree, you could not claim it was the will of the people (but then was that a constant refrain at the time, as it seems to be today?) since Remain did not achieve more tha 50% of the electorate but winning the vote by more than 2 to 1 and achieving 44% of the electorate probably goes some way to explaining why the result did not leave us so bitter, resentful and divided as a nation as we are today as a result of the 2016 referendum.
If any Brexiters truly believe the Brexit process would be any better or different if any of the frauds, liars, or morons who promoted the Leave campaign were in charge then they ought to be informed that Brexit was always going to be a total disaster, regardless of who is in charge.
As I said before, those who wanted Brexit in the first place are the Rolands of the political world.
One of those really embarassing, big ones...
I don't understand your obsession with "elites". Your definition of "elite" encompasses people on both the Leave and Remain side in more or less equal measure.
But my question Is, why does it matter?
Maybe actually quote something people might give a shit about but don't prattle on endlessly about elites because you don't seem to have any real reason why you are so vexed that so many intelligent, progressive and successful people voted Remain because they were voting with Britain's best interests in mind.
If you are anti-capitalist then say it. But if you believe that leaving the EU is going to be better for the average downtrodden Joe who had his voice heard for once then you are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Boris Johnson
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The billionaires who the two above are in league with
The billionaires who control the tabloid press
Donald Trump
Nigel Farage
Leaders of the various far-right/neo-Nazi/white supremacists groups across Europe
Putin and other Russian oligarchs
The problem is Southbank is if we start comparing which elites supported Remain and Leave it isn't going to help your case, whatever your case is meant to be.
Still unsure why he thinks it matters so much why "elites" voted Remain (even though it has been established "elites" also voted Leave and he has zero evidence that either Remain or Leave is more or less elite than the other).
I was involved in a discussion earlier today about the Irish border, and I'm going to regurgitate most of what I said then.
The UK Government is "determined" to retain the current border situation in Ireland, which is why the wording to be produced tomorrow by the Commission and circulated to the capitals of the EU27 will be crucial, as it will place the onus on the UK to either provide a demonstrably workable solution or be prepared to accept the backstop included in the December agreement.
I am, broadly speaking, unconvinced that either a Free Trade Agreement, be it ever so bespoke (though, by their nature all FTAs are bespoke), or "a Customs Union" will provide the outcome that British politicans arguing for them would suggest.
My understanding of "a Customs Union" arrangement would be that there would still need to be some form of controls on the border, as there are between Turkey and the EU. Frankly, I think that the suggestion of "a Customs Union" providing the answer to the Border problem is wishful thinking. However, from my perspective, it is a major improvement in the Labour Party's position.
Unless the UK is clearly within "the Customs Union", and applying all the rules of the EU, there will be a requirement for some form of controls on the border (because both sides will need to reassure themselves about the origin and standards of any goods transiting across their borders) - and on the most basic level, for HMRC, some border control, in a world of duty free shopping, is an essential requirement to avoid massive tax avoidance.
So, I would argue that, in order to retain the position as it is now on the Irish Border (and, almost by definition, the other UK-EU borders) the UK Government would need to, inasmuch as it can, retain the existing situation (both Single Market and Customs Union). This is the option that would be as frictionless as possible, not Dr. Fox's Free Trade Agreement, and he knows this.
To be honest, however, I believe that, unless there is a dramatic change to the ongoing Brexit process, this will all prove fairly academic.
My biggest concern is that there is so little time, and such a pathetic degree of organisation apparent from HMG, that the UK will fall out of the EU in a disorderly fashion. My expectation is that the EU27 will reject out of hand what the UK Government is currently suggesting (because they have been telling the UK Government this for most of the past 12 months), and there will be further months of fruitless negotiation within the UK, with the politicians trying to work out what they want, allowing no time to agree the exit deal or any transition before March 2019.
Game set and match
What's been going on? Skim reading tells me that we're taking cricket back from the world?
New balls, please.