Quote from 'Shooters Hill Addick' With the exception of Rees-Mogg and equally lunatic brexiters. A no deal Brexit is universally condemned
Read this para from yesterdays 'left wing' Daily Mirror Letters Page: 'Millions of men died to give this countrt freedom and democracy to rule ourselves. so why can't MPs and the public get behind the PM and get us out of one of the most corrupt organistions in the world, ie the EU'
Serious food for thought!
Serious food for thought? Bollox.
Millions of men from many nations fought and won against tyranny and facism. The founding fathers of the EU had as one of their overiding ambitions to avoid a repeat of that, and for 73 years Europe, certainly western Europe, has been at peace.
Except in 1982. The Falklands conflict was the only deployment of exclusively EU millitary. The French assisted the Argentines and 100sof British soldiers died as a result. The Irish maintained trading relations with the enemy.
I point the finger at the government of the day who sleepwalked into that conflict while at the same time was was making plans to reduce our navy’s size and ability to defend our dependencies. A convenient truth that gets forgotten when we had such fine win that killed hundreds, maimed hundreds and caused and everlasting bad feelings on many fronts. Every prime minister seems to want to be remembered by a conflict, I wonder what T May’s will be?
Really? Funny, I point the finger at the fascist imperialist argentine government that were also busy sheltering nazis.
Yes really. You don’t have fight a war when you can avoid one. As what happened 4 years previously when David Owen sent 4 ships south as a show of force. If you may remember Lord Carrington resigned because it happened on his watch while he did nothing but allowing mixed messages go out.
I guess you point the finger of the holocaust and ww2 at Neville chamberlain and appeasement then?
Mate, I hate to look like Iam taking issue with you since I thoroughly enjoy your relevant contributions on the subject of this thread, (not to mention on cryptos) but if I may assume a couple of things, I think @charltonkeston and I are probably about as old as your Dad, and as such we probably remember the following key question which has never been answered:
If the Falklands were of such strategic importance that we wheeled out the might of the entire Navy to defend it, how come before that we "defended" those strategic interests with the sum total of one trawler with a machine gun mounted on the front?
Why would we only defend our territory which is deemed of “strategic importance”? Surely we defend all of it with an amount of force commensurate with the threat and if that’s found to be inedequate we respond accordingly.
Sorry if I’m missing the point, the Falklands war was before I was born, but what are you suggesting?
Quote from 'Shooters Hill Addick' With the exception of Rees-Mogg and equally lunatic brexiters. A no deal Brexit is universally condemned
Read this para from yesterdays 'left wing' Daily Mirror Letters Page: 'Millions of men died to give this countrt freedom and democracy to rule ourselves. so why can't MPs and the public get behind the PM and get us out of one of the most corrupt organistions in the world, ie the EU'
Serious food for thought!
Serious food for thought? Bollox.
Millions of men from many nations fought and won against tyranny and facism. The founding fathers of the EU had as one of their overiding ambitions to avoid a repeat of that, and for 73 years Europe, certainly western Europe, has been at peace.
Except in 1982. The Falklands conflict was the only deployment of exclusively EU millitary. The French assisted the Argentines and 100sof British soldiers died as a result. The Irish maintained trading relations with the enemy.
I point the finger at the government of the day who sleepwalked into that conflict while at the same time was was making plans to reduce our navy’s size and ability to defend our dependencies. A convenient truth that gets forgotten when we had such fine win that killed hundreds, maimed hundreds and caused and everlasting bad feelings on many fronts. Every prime minister seems to want to be remembered by a conflict, I wonder what T May’s will be?
Really? Funny, I point the finger at the fascist imperialist argentine government that were also busy sheltering nazis.
Yes really. You don’t have fight a war when you can avoid one. As what happened 4 years previously when David Owen sent 4 ships south as a show of force. If you may remember Lord Carrington resigned because it happened on his watch while he did nothing but allowing mixed messages go out.
I guess you point the finger of the holocaust and ww2 at Neville chamberlain and appeasement then?
Mate, I hate to look like Iam taking issue with you since I thoroughly enjoy your relevant contributions on the subject of this thread, (not to mention on cryptos) but if I may assume a couple of things, I think @charltonkeston and I are probably about as old as your Dad, and as such we probably remember the following key question which has never been answered:
If the Falklands were of such strategic importance that we wheeled out the might of the entire Navy to defend it, how come before that we "defended" those strategic interests with the sum total of one trawler with a machine gun mounted on the front?
Why would we only defend our territory which is deemed of “strategic importance”? Surely we defend all of it with an amount of force commensurate with the threat and if that’s found to be inedequate we respond accordingly.
Sorry if I’m missing the point, the Falklands war was before I was born, but what are you suggesting?
thought it was more to do with the fact the falklanders themselves wanted to be british, not Argentine. But apparently they can go to hell.
Let me make it clear if I could wake up tomorrow and find that Brexit was over and the UK remained in the EU I would be happy.
What I have tried to do is introduce some caution into the idea that the outcome of another referendum would be clear cut and easy to organise,
The 'What UK Thinks' Poll Tracker shows how volatile and close opinion has been since the 2016 vote, and it's an open question how the 46% vs 40% Remain/Leave in this latest poll (54% vs 46% excluding won't vote/don't know) would stand up during another referendum campaign - we might at best end up with another divisive just over vs just under 50% outcome either way.
And even that is only if the practical issues I've also mentioned can be appropriately overcome; that in order for there to be another referendum a majority of MPs not only have pass another 'Referendum Act' but also to agree the question(s) that are to be put to the vote in that referendum (both the number of questions and exactly what they ask).
But if there is another referendum I will both vote and campaign for a Remain outcome.
Another referendum at this point would signal the utter bankruptcy of our political system. -It would mean that the Government had failed to deliver Brexit, despite the Referendum promise that it would -It would mean that Parliament as a whole, largely composed of MPs from parties that backed Brexit in last year's election, had failed to deliver Brexit.
The transferable vote would only work if the questions were clear. The suggestion has been- No deal, May's deal or Remain. But no deal has meaning only if you accept that a better deal than May's cannot be achieved, yet that is exactly what Labour and the ERG are arguing for just now. Labour would have to shift their position to Remain,-something they have resisted for fear of losing their Brexit supporters.
Disagree. The government have delivered the best Brexit that was negotiable with the EU that didn’t plunge this country into an economic abyss. You fall into the brexiteer trap of believing that the UK would be able to get a deal that was as good as being a member. You listened to the likes of Farage, Johnson, Gove et al who promised the earth when it was never ever deliverable and now you despite all the evidence seem outraged at what was always inevitable.
This has I agree been a failure of democracy because the rules surrounding the referendum were abused. We were all lied to. Two something years down the line we are all much wiser. Still split but all wiser. There is nothing wrong with asking the question again. In medicine someone giving their consent is considered legally irrelevant if that consent did not have all the facts and information to consider. It’s called informed consent. A second referendum now would be informed. I still think it would be close but at least the outcome would be based on information unlike the first. Nothing undemocratic about asking the question.
Interesting, but like others here your view of a second referendum is entirely based on your Remain position from the start.
Everybody who took part in the first referendum had the 'information', which is really opinion, that to leave would be an economic catastrophe-we were blasted with this 'information' throughout the referendum campaign and have been ever since.
It was always clear as well that if the result of the referendum was carried out by people who never believed in it (the Tory cabinet has always had a majority of Remainers in it) then they would do everything they could to avoid actually leaving. If you could be bothered to look back 2 years you would see that my, and others, comments were exactly along those lines. A combination of big business and the elites across politics and all the professions have been united against Brexit from the start. Now they are openly preparing to spit in the face of the people who voted for Leave.
It was also always obvious that the EU would not compromise and that the negotiations would be a waste of time, as has proved the case.
There is no new 'information' to base a second referendum on. The current crisis is a purely political one based on the fact that 17.4 million people have no political party that represents them, yet. The only new 'information;' we have is that we need a new political movement in this country which carries out the wishes of its supporters. The only positive thing about another referendum is that it could create the opportunity for a new party to emerge.
What compromises were the EU supposed to make exactly? Especially ones that don't expect the EU to become something else to facilitate the UK leaving. One of the few reliable touchstones in this whole nightmare is that the EU has been consistent. The EU might have hoped that the UK could have been more consistent itself.
In August 2017 I posted a conversation with a relative who was (he has since left) very close to the top of this government. He thought we were heading for another referendum or a deal with the E.U. which would be inferior to remaining in the E.U. When I suggested that we could leave without a deal, he said "If that happened this country would be fucked"!! He also surprised me by suggesting that "A government of national unity could emerge". I was told this and much more in the strictest of confidence.
Over a year on from the conversation, his prediction that appeared very unlikely at the time looks quite feasible. I'm not so sure about his government of national unity, but, and a very big but, If it did happen watch for someone like Greg Clark secretary of state for business to be among those suggested to lead it.
Let me make it clear if I could wake up tomorrow and find that Brexit was over and the UK remained in the EU I would be happy.
What I have tried to do is introduce some caution into the idea that the outcome of another referendum would be clear cut and easy to organise,
The 'What UK Thinks' Poll Tracker shows how volatile and close opinion has been since the 2016 vote, and it's an open question how the 46% vs 40% Remain/Leave in this latest poll (54% vs 46% excluding won't vote/don't know) would stand up during another referendum campaign - we might at best end up with another divisive just over vs just under 50% outcome either way.
And even that is only if the practical issues I've also mentioned can be appropriately overcome; that in order for there to be another referendum a majority of MPs not only have pass another 'Referendum Act' but also to agree the question(s) that are to be put to the vote in that referendum (both the number of questions and exactly what they ask).
But if there is another referendum I will both vote and campaign for a Remain outcome.
Another referendum at this point would signal the utter bankruptcy of our political system. -It would mean that the Government had failed to deliver Brexit, despite the Referendum promise that it would -It would mean that Parliament as a whole, largely composed of MPs from parties that backed Brexit in last year's election, had failed to deliver Brexit.
The transferable vote would only work if the questions were clear. The suggestion has been- No deal, May's deal or Remain. But no deal has meaning only if you accept that a better deal than May's cannot be achieved, yet that is exactly what Labour and the ERG are arguing for just now. Labour would have to shift their position to Remain,-something they have resisted for fear of losing their Brexit supporters.
Disagree. The government have delivered the best Brexit that was negotiable with the EU that didn’t plunge this country into an economic abyss. You fall into the brexiteer trap of believing that the UK would be able to get a deal that was as good as being a member. You listened to the likes of Farage, Johnson, Gove et al who promised the earth when it was never ever deliverable and now you despite all the evidence seem outraged at what was always inevitable.
This has I agree been a failure of democracy because the rules surrounding the referendum were abused. We were all lied to. Two something years down the line we are all much wiser. Still split but all wiser. There is nothing wrong with asking the question again. In medicine someone giving their consent is considered legally irrelevant if that consent did not have all the facts and information to consider. It’s called informed consent. A second referendum now would be informed. I still think it would be close but at least the outcome would be based on information unlike the first. Nothing undemocratic about asking the question.
Interesting, but like others here your view of a second referendum is entirely based on your Remain position from the start.
Everybody who took part in the first referendum had the 'information', which is really opinion, that to leave would be an economic catastrophe-we were blasted with this 'information' throughout the referendum campaign and have been ever since.
It was always clear as well that if the result of the referendum was carried out by people who never believed in it (the Tory cabinet has always had a majority of Remainers in it) then they would do everything they could to avoid actually leaving. If you could be bothered to look back 2 years you would see that my, and others, comments were exactly along those lines. A combination of big business and the elites across politics and all the professions have been united against Brexit from the start. Now they are openly preparing to spit in the face of the people who voted for Leave.
It was also always obvious that the EU would not compromise and that the negotiations would be a waste of time, as has proved the case.
There is no new 'information' to base a second referendum on. The current crisis is a purely political one based on the fact that 17.4 million people have no political party that represents them, yet. The only new 'information;' we have is that we need a new political movement in this country which carries out the wishes of its supporters. The only positive thing about another referendum is that it could create the opportunity for a new party to emerge.
All true even though the information was dismissed as "project fear".
As while you may have thought it was obvious that the EU would not compromise that isn't what those leading the leave campaign said then or, even in some cases now. it's not unreasonable to believe that at least some of those who voted thought it was the case. Even many MPs of all colours think they can still get a better deal.
But as you say we are rehashing the referendum which was a democratic vote and as you have said, democracy is very important to you.
Hence we we have new elections at least every five years and always with different results. People change their minds and views, people like the existing government and vote for them when they didn't before or do the opposite. Parties increase or reduce or completely lose their majorities and if so another party takes over. That is democracy.
If democracy can't change its mind it is no longer democracy.
The 'new information' is the reality of the kind of deal the EU would be likely to give us which has now played out, and is nothing like the 'cake and eat it' deal espoused by the Leave campaign. It's not just politics or negotiation either because although obvious to some of us at the start the process, the deal wanted was contrary to the founding principles of the EU.
Let me make it clear if I could wake up tomorrow and find that Brexit was over and the UK remained in the EU I would be happy.
What I have tried to do is introduce some caution into the idea that the outcome of another referendum would be clear cut and easy to organise,
The 'What UK Thinks' Poll Tracker shows how volatile and close opinion has been since the 2016 vote, and it's an open question how the 46% vs 40% Remain/Leave in this latest poll (54% vs 46% excluding won't vote/don't know) would stand up during another referendum campaign - we might at best end up with another divisive just over vs just under 50% outcome either way.
And even that is only if the practical issues I've also mentioned can be appropriately overcome; that in order for there to be another referendum a majority of MPs not only have pass another 'Referendum Act' but also to agree the question(s) that are to be put to the vote in that referendum (both the number of questions and exactly what they ask).
But if there is another referendum I will both vote and campaign for a Remain outcome.
Another referendum at this point would signal the utter bankruptcy of our political system. -It would mean that the Government had failed to deliver Brexit, despite the Referendum promise that it would -It would mean that Parliament as a whole, largely composed of MPs from parties that backed Brexit in last year's election, had failed to deliver Brexit.
The transferable vote would only work if the questions were clear. The suggestion has been- No deal, May's deal or Remain. But no deal has meaning only if you accept that a better deal than May's cannot be achieved, yet that is exactly what Labour and the ERG are arguing for just now. Labour would have to shift their position to Remain,-something they have resisted for fear of losing their Brexit supporters.
Disagree. The government have delivered the best Brexit that was negotiable with the EU that didn’t plunge this country into an economic abyss. You fall into the brexiteer trap of believing that the UK would be able to get a deal that was as good as being a member. You listened to the likes of Farage, Johnson, Gove et al who promised the earth when it was never ever deliverable and now you despite all the evidence seem outraged at what was always inevitable.
This has I agree been a failure of democracy because the rules surrounding the referendum were abused. We were all lied to. Two something years down the line we are all much wiser. Still split but all wiser. There is nothing wrong with asking the question again. In medicine someone giving their consent is considered legally irrelevant if that consent did not have all the facts and information to consider. It’s called informed consent. A second referendum now would be informed. I still think it would be close but at least the outcome would be based on information unlike the first. Nothing undemocratic about asking the question.
Interesting, but like others here your view of a second referendum is entirely based on your Remain position from the start.
Everybody who took part in the first referendum had the 'information', which is really opinion, that to leave would be an economic catastrophe-we were blasted with this 'information' throughout the referendum campaign and have been ever since.
It was always clear as well that if the result of the referendum was carried out by people who never believed in it (the Tory cabinet has always had a majority of Remainers in it) then they would do everything they could to avoid actually leaving. If you could be bothered to look back 2 years you would see that my, and others, comments were exactly along those lines. A combination of big business and the elites across politics and all the professions have been united against Brexit from the start. Now they are openly preparing to spit in the face of the people who voted for Leave.
It was also always obvious that the EU would not compromise and that the negotiations would be a waste of time, as has proved the case.
There is no new 'information' to base a second referendum on. The current crisis is a purely political one based on the fact that 17.4 million people have no political party that represents them, yet. The only new 'information;' we have is that we need a new political movement in this country which carries out the wishes of its supporters. The only positive thing about another referendum is that it could create the opportunity for a new party to emerge.
All true even though the information was dismissed as "project fear".
As while you may have thought it was obvious that the EU would not compromise that isn't what those leading the leave campaign said then or, even in some cases now. it's not unreasonable to believe that at least some of those who voted thought it was the case. Even many MPs of all colours think they can still get a better deal.
But as you say we are rehashing the referendum which was a democratic vote and as you have said, democracy is very important to you.
Hence we we have new elections at least every five years and always with different results. People change their minds and views, people like the existing government and vote for them when they didn't before or do the opposite. Parties increase or reduce or completely lose their majorities and if so another party takes over. That is democracy.
If democracy can't change its mind it is no longer democracy.
There was 2 years and one month between the last two general elections a shorter period than between the E.U. referendum and today. I don't remember any complaints about that election being undemocratic.
In August 2017 I posted a conversation with a relative who was (he has since left) very close to the top of this government. He thought we were heading for another referendum or a deal with the E.U. which would be inferior to remaining in the E.U. When I suggested that we could leave without a deal, he said "If that happened this country would be fucked"!! He also surprised me by suggesting that "A government of national unity could emerge". I was told this and much more in the strictest of confidence.
Over a year on from the conversation, his prediction that appeared very unlikely at the time looks quite feasible. I'm not so sure about his government of national unity, but, and a very big but, If it did happen watch for someone like Greg Clark secretary of state for business to be among those suggested to lead it.
Interestingly Laura Kuenssberg was reporting that there had been some discussions between centerists from the two main parties on a national unity government. No idea who or how many and I can’t see it happening in a million years (and if it did, what would they “unify” around? Seems as though everyone has a different idea about what to do next).
In less than two months from now the number of living Leave and Remain voters will be equal. By 2021 the number of living Remain voters will significantly outnumber Leave voters.
From January I hope all Brexiters qualify their 'will of the people' statements so it is clear they mean it WAS the 'will of the people' in June 2016.
In less than two months from now the number of living Leave and Remain voters will be equal. By 2021 the number of living Remain voters will significantly outnumber Leave voters.
From January I hope all Brexiters qualify their 'will of the people' statements so it is clear they mean it WAS the 'will of the people' in June 2016.
Interesting, but like others here your view of a second referendum is entirely based on your Remain position from the start.
Everybody who took part in the first referendum had the 'information', which is really opinion, that to leave would be an economic catastrophe-we were blasted with this 'information' throughout the referendum campaign and have been ever since.
It was always clear as well that if the result of the referendum was carried out by people who never believed in it (the Tory cabinet has always had a majority of Remainers in it) then they would do everything they could to avoid actually leaving. If you could be bothered to look back 2 years you would see that my, and others, comments were exactly along those lines. A combination of big business and the elites across politics and all the professions have been united against Brexit from the start. Now they are openly preparing to spit in the face of the people who voted for Leave.
It was also always obvious that the EU would not compromise and that the negotiations would be a waste of time, as has proved the case.
There is no new 'information' to base a second referendum on. The current crisis is a purely political one based on the fact that 17.4 million people have no political party that represents them, yet. The only new 'information;' we have is that we need a new political movement in this country which carries out the wishes of its supporters. The only positive thing about another referendum is that it could create the opportunity for a new party to emerge.
Actually there are several new pieces of information that have come to light that make it very clear we need a second referendum before we leave the EU:
1) The first referendum was run explicitly as an advisory and discretionary referendum yet has been treated ever since the votes were counted as a binding and irreversible decision. This is very important in terms of how people would have voted or if they had turned up at all. The question in an advisory referendum is completely different in a binding one.
2) Vote Leave ran on a campaign of keeping us in the Customs Union/Single Market, keeping Freedom of Movement, and a Norway/Switzerland style arrangement i.e. staying in the EEA. As soon as the campaign was over, everyone involved in Vote Leave almost immediately began campaigning for hard Brexit. This demonstrates a basic lack of integrity and bad faith on the part of every prominent Brexit campaigner.
3) Pretty much everything Vote Leave and the other Leave campaigns did during the campaigning was either dishonest, unethical or illegal. As normal electoral campaigning rules were not in effect it was more or less impossible for the relevant authorities to contain the extent of activity Vote Leave et al engaged in as would be possible under normal electoral law.
4) The Electoral Commission and independent electoral observers have refused to sign off on the referendum result and have strongly urged the result to be annulled due to the high levels of illegal activity, anti-democratic actions and overseas interference in the campaign.
There is a reason by the polls are in favour of remaining in the EU by a greater factor than anytime in the last 5 year (some polls even report Remain trumps Leave by more than 2 to 1). It is because as the extent of the betrayal of the Brexiters becomes more obvious to the average voter and how the Leave lies of a unicorns Brexit have been totally exposed, the angriest voters are actually those who voted Leave and now regret it and would vote Remain now. The only people who still believe in a positive Brexit are those who still believe the lies told on a daily basis by those who are seeking to betray the British people for personal gain; these are the real elites you need to attack. Instead you choose to attack doctors, teachers, scientists, those working to cure cancer, because your mind has been poisoned by the lies of the hedge fund managers, media barons, overseas oligarchs, tax exiles and disaster capitalists who are still laughing at the fact people like you still believe them.
Democracy in this country has been betrayed. Not by Remainers but by the Brexiters who have irrevocably tainted a referendum with illegal activity and in doing so have defrauded every single British voter, including yourself. What should have been the biggest democratic exercise in British history is in fact one of the biggest pieces of electoral fraud in human history.
In less than two months from now the number of living Leave and Remain voters will be equal. By 2021 the number of living Remain voters will significantly outnumber Leave voters.
From January I hope all Brexiters qualify their 'will of the people' statements so it is clear they mean it WAS the 'will of the people' in June 2016.
Using this logic, and assuming immortality doesn’t soon become readily available, we should never have an election or referendum ever again.
In less than two months from now the number of living Leave and Remain voters will be equal. By 2021 the number of living Remain voters will significantly outnumber Leave voters.
From January I hope all Brexiters qualify their 'will of the people' statements so it is clear they mean it WAS the 'will of the people' in June 2016.
Using this logic, and assuming immortality doesn’t soon become readily available, we should never have an election or referendum ever again.
You might have a point if we only had elections every 10 years
Quote from 'Shooters Hill Addick' With the exception of Rees-Mogg and equally lunatic brexiters. A no deal Brexit is universally condemned
Read this para from yesterdays 'left wing' Daily Mirror Letters Page: 'Millions of men died to give this countrt freedom and democracy to rule ourselves. so why can't MPs and the public get behind the PM and get us out of one of the most corrupt organistions in the world, ie the EU'
Serious food for thought!
Serious food for thought? Bollox.
Millions of men from many nations fought and won against tyranny and facism. The founding fathers of the EU had as one of their overiding ambitions to avoid a repeat of that, and for 73 years Europe, certainly western Europe, has been at peace.
Except in 1982. The Falklands conflict was the only deployment of exclusively EU millitary. The French assisted the Argentines and 100sof British soldiers died as a result. The Irish maintained trading relations with the enemy.
I point the finger at the government of the day who sleepwalked into that conflict while at the same time was was making plans to reduce our navy’s size and ability to defend our dependencies. A convenient truth that gets forgotten when we had such fine win that killed hundreds, maimed hundreds and caused and everlasting bad feelings on many fronts. Every prime minister seems to want to be remembered by a conflict, I wonder what T May’s will be?
Really? Funny, I point the finger at the fascist imperialist argentine government that were also busy sheltering nazis.
Yes really. You don’t have fight a war when you can avoid one. As what happened 4 years previously when David Owen sent 4 ships south as a show of force. If you may remember Lord Carrington resigned because it happened on his watch while he did nothing but allowing mixed messages go out.
I guess you point the finger of the holocaust and ww2 at Neville chamberlain and appeasement then?
No. And I don’t know how you can make that connection. The government of the early ‘80s didn’t see a conflict coming, it was their incompetence that allowed it to happen. I really think they didn’t give a toss about the people down there but really had more thought towards fishing and future mineral rights,not t to mention a claim to a large chunk of Antarctica A show of force by a previous government was not appeasement more likely a cheaper and less tragic option.
In less than two months from now the number of living Leave and Remain voters will be equal. By 2021 the number of living Remain voters will significantly outnumber Leave voters.
From January I hope all Brexiters qualify their 'will of the people' statements so it is clear they mean it WAS the 'will of the people' in June 2016.
Using this logic, and assuming immortality doesn’t soon become readily available, we should never have an election or referendum ever again.
I see that as exactly the opposite. It shows the need for regular votes as people change and the people change
Interesting, but like others here your view of a second referendum is entirely based on your Remain position from the start.
Everybody who took part in the first referendum had the 'information', which is really opinion, that to leave would be an economic catastrophe-we were blasted with this 'information' throughout the referendum campaign and have been ever since.
It was always clear as well that if the result of the referendum was carried out by people who never believed in it (the Tory cabinet has always had a majority of Remainers in it) then they would do everything they could to avoid actually leaving. If you could be bothered to look back 2 years you would see that my, and others, comments were exactly along those lines. A combination of big business and the elites across politics and all the professions have been united against Brexit from the start. Now they are openly preparing to spit in the face of the people who voted for Leave.
It was also always obvious that the EU would not compromise and that the negotiations would be a waste of time, as has proved the case.
There is no new 'information' to base a second referendum on. The current crisis is a purely political one based on the fact that 17.4 million people have no political party that represents them, yet. The only new 'information;' we have is that we need a new political movement in this country which carries out the wishes of its supporters. The only positive thing about another referendum is that it could create the opportunity for a new party to emerge.
Actually there are several new pieces of information that have come to light that make it very clear we need a second referendum before we leave the EU:
1) The first referendum was run explicitly as an advisory and discretionary referendum yet has been treated ever since the votes were counted as a binding and irreversible decision. This is very important in terms of how people would have voted or if they had turned up at all. The question in an advisory referendum is completely different in a binding one.
2) Vote Leave ran on a campaign of keeping us in the Customs Union/Single Market, keeping Freedom of Movement, and a Norway/Switzerland style arrangement i.e. staying in the EEA. As soon as the campaign was over, everyone involved in Vote Leave almost immediately began campaigning for hard Brexit. This demonstrates a basic lack of integrity and bad faith on the part of every prominent Brexit campaigner.
3) Pretty much everything Vote Leave and the other Leave campaigns did during the campaigning was either dishonest, unethical or illegal. As normal electoral campaigning rules were not in effect it was more or less impossible for the relevant authorities to contain the extent of activity Vote Leave et al engaged in as would be possible under normal electoral law.
4) The Electoral Commission and independent electoral observers have refused to sign off on the referendum result and have strongly urged the result to be annulled due to the high levels of illegal activity, anti-democratic actions and overseas interference in the campaign.
There is a reason by the polls are in favour of remaining in the EU by a greater factor than anytime in the last 5 year (some polls even report Remain trumps Leave by more than 2 to 1). It is because as the extent of the betrayal of the Brexiters becomes more obvious to the average voter and how the Leave lies of a unicorns Brexit have been totally exposed, the angriest voters are actually those who voted Leave and now regret it and would vote Remain now. The only people who still believe in a positive Brexit are those who still believe the lies told on a daily basis by those who are seeking to betray the British people for personal gain; these are the real elites you need to attack. Instead you choose to attack doctors, teachers, scientists, those working to cure cancer, because your mind has been poisoned by the lies of the hedge fund managers, media barons, overseas oligarchs, tax exiles and disaster capitalists who are still laughing at the fact people like you still believe them.
Democracy in this country has been betrayed. Not by Remainers but by the Brexiters who have irrevocably tainted a referendum with illegal activity and in doing so have defrauded every single British voter, including yourself. What should have been the biggest democratic exercise in British history is in fact one of the biggest pieces of electoral fraud in human history.
I agree with that but if like Stop Shouting you voted leave because you felt that the most important issue was democratic control then the economic agreements are moot.
He has said consistently that that was and is his reason to back leave.
What we can't do is assume that all 17m leave voters voted for that exact same reason.
In less than two months from now the number of living Leave and Remain voters will be equal. By 2021 the number of living Remain voters will significantly outnumber Leave voters.
From January I hope all Brexiters qualify their 'will of the people' statements so it is clear they mean it WAS the 'will of the people' in June 2016.
Using this logic, and assuming immortality doesn’t soon become readily available, we should never have an election or referendum ever again.
I see that as exactly the opposite. It shows the need for regular votes as people change and the people change
You realise that on this basis we should have another Brexit vote 2 years after the next one (should that happen)
Quote from 'Shooters Hill Addick' With the exception of Rees-Mogg and equally lunatic brexiters. A no deal Brexit is universally condemned
Read this para from yesterdays 'left wing' Daily Mirror Letters Page: 'Millions of men died to give this countrt freedom and democracy to rule ourselves. so why can't MPs and the public get behind the PM and get us out of one of the most corrupt organistions in the world, ie the EU'
Serious food for thought!
Serious food for thought? Bollox.
Millions of men from many nations fought and won against tyranny and facism. The founding fathers of the EU had as one of their overiding ambitions to avoid a repeat of that, and for 73 years Europe, certainly western Europe, has been at peace.
Except in 1982. The Falklands conflict was the only deployment of exclusively EU millitary. The French assisted the Argentines and 100sof British soldiers died as a result. The Irish maintained trading relations with the enemy.
I point the finger at the government of the day who sleepwalked into that conflict while at the same time was was making plans to reduce our navy’s size and ability to defend our dependencies. A convenient truth that gets forgotten when we had such fine win that killed hundreds, maimed hundreds and caused and everlasting bad feelings on many fronts. Every prime minister seems to want to be remembered by a conflict, I wonder what T May’s will be?
Really? Funny, I point the finger at the fascist imperialist argentine government that were also busy sheltering nazis.
Yes really. You don’t have fight a war when you can avoid one. As what happened 4 years previously when David Owen sent 4 ships south as a show of force. If you may remember Lord Carrington resigned because it happened on his watch while he did nothing but allowing mixed messages go out.
I guess you point the finger of the holocaust and ww2 at Neville chamberlain and appeasement then?
Mate, I hate to look like Iam taking issue with you since I thoroughly enjoy your relevant contributions on the subject of this thread, (not to mention on cryptos) but if I may assume a couple of things, I think @charltonkeston and I are probably about as old as your Dad, and as such we probably remember the following key question which has never been answered:
If the Falklands were of such strategic importance that we wheeled out the might of the entire Navy to defend it, how come before that we "defended" those strategic interests with the sum total of one trawler with a machine gun mounted on the front?
Today i learned a military dictatorship is utterly blameless in attacking another nation.
No you didn't, because no one has said that. 'Pointing the finger' at one party does not exonerate others.
In less than two months from now the number of living Leave and Remain voters will be equal. By 2021 the number of living Remain voters will significantly outnumber Leave voters.
From January I hope all Brexiters qualify their 'will of the people' statements so it is clear they mean it WAS the 'will of the people' in June 2016.
Using this logic, and assuming immortality doesn’t soon become readily available, we should never have an election or referendum ever again.
I see that as exactly the opposite. It shows the need for regular votes as people change and the people change
You realise that on this basis we should have another Brexit vote 2 years after the next one (should that happen)
we could certainly. I mean, if there was a peoples vote and the majority wanted to remain and then after a general election the winning party had promised another referendum in their manifesto then, sure, why not.
Interesting, but like others here your view of a second referendum is entirely based on your Remain position from the start.
Everybody who took part in the first referendum had the 'information', which is really opinion, that to leave would be an economic catastrophe-we were blasted with this 'information' throughout the referendum campaign and have been ever since.
It was always clear as well that if the result of the referendum was carried out by people who never believed in it (the Tory cabinet has always had a majority of Remainers in it) then they would do everything they could to avoid actually leaving. If you could be bothered to look back 2 years you would see that my, and others, comments were exactly along those lines. A combination of big business and the elites across politics and all the professions have been united against Brexit from the start. Now they are openly preparing to spit in the face of the people who voted for Leave.
It was also always obvious that the EU would not compromise and that the negotiations would be a waste of time, as has proved the case.
There is no new 'information' to base a second referendum on. The current crisis is a purely political one based on the fact that 17.4 million people have no political party that represents them, yet. The only new 'information;' we have is that we need a new political movement in this country which carries out the wishes of its supporters. The only positive thing about another referendum is that it could create the opportunity for a new party to emerge.
Actually there are several new pieces of information that have come to light that make it very clear we need a second referendum before we leave the EU:
1) The first referendum was run explicitly as an advisory and discretionary referendum yet has been treated ever since the votes were counted as a binding and irreversible decision. This is very important in terms of how people would have voted or if they had turned up at all. The question in an advisory referendum is completely different in a binding one.
2) Vote Leave ran on a campaign of keeping us in the Customs Union/Single Market, keeping Freedom of Movement, and a Norway/Switzerland style arrangement i.e. staying in the EEA. As soon as the campaign was over, everyone involved in Vote Leave almost immediately began campaigning for hard Brexit. This demonstrates a basic lack of integrity and bad faith on the part of every prominent Brexit campaigner.
3) Pretty much everything Vote Leave and the other Leave campaigns did during the campaigning was either dishonest, unethical or illegal. As normal electoral campaigning rules were not in effect it was more or less impossible for the relevant authorities to contain the extent of activity Vote Leave et al engaged in as would be possible under normal electoral law.
4) The Electoral Commission and independent electoral observers have refused to sign off on the referendum result and have strongly urged the result to be annulled due to the high levels of illegal activity, anti-democratic actions and overseas interference in the campaign.
There is a reason by the polls are in favour of remaining in the EU by a greater factor than anytime in the last 5 year (some polls even report Remain trumps Leave by more than 2 to 1). It is because as the extent of the betrayal of the Brexiters becomes more obvious to the average voter and how the Leave lies of a unicorns Brexit have been totally exposed, the angriest voters are actually those who voted Leave and now regret it and would vote Remain now. The only people who still believe in a positive Brexit are those who still believe the lies told on a daily basis by those who are seeking to betray the British people for personal gain; these are the real elites you need to attack. Instead you choose to attack doctors, teachers, scientists, those working to cure cancer, because your mind has been poisoned by the lies of the hedge fund managers, media barons, overseas oligarchs, tax exiles and disaster capitalists who are still laughing at the fact people like you still believe them.
Democracy in this country has been betrayed. Not by Remainers but by the Brexiters who have irrevocably tainted a referendum with illegal activity and in doing so have defrauded every single British voter, including yourself. What should have been the biggest democratic exercise in British history is in fact one of the biggest pieces of electoral fraud in human history.
Whilst much of what you say, I agree with, it is also true to accuse Remain of dishonesty too in the campaign. And the leading players of both leave and remain in the campaign were members of the Conservative party. To be fair, the Prime Minister could not be accused of this but it is still her party. Cameron should be locked up for putting the issues within his own party above the country. I'd make a special cell for both him and Blair to share!
Interesting, but like others here your view of a second referendum is entirely based on your Remain position from the start.
Everybody who took part in the first referendum had the 'information', which is really opinion, that to leave would be an economic catastrophe-we were blasted with this 'information' throughout the referendum campaign and have been ever since.
It was always clear as well that if the result of the referendum was carried out by people who never believed in it (the Tory cabinet has always had a majority of Remainers in it) then they would do everything they could to avoid actually leaving. If you could be bothered to look back 2 years you would see that my, and others, comments were exactly along those lines. A combination of big business and the elites across politics and all the professions have been united against Brexit from the start. Now they are openly preparing to spit in the face of the people who voted for Leave.
It was also always obvious that the EU would not compromise and that the negotiations would be a waste of time, as has proved the case.
There is no new 'information' to base a second referendum on. The current crisis is a purely political one based on the fact that 17.4 million people have no political party that represents them, yet. The only new 'information;' we have is that we need a new political movement in this country which carries out the wishes of its supporters. The only positive thing about another referendum is that it could create the opportunity for a new party to emerge.
Actually there are several new pieces of information that have come to light that make it very clear we need a second referendum before we leave the EU:
1) The first referendum was run explicitly as an advisory and discretionary referendum yet has been treated ever since the votes were counted as a binding and irreversible decision. This is very important in terms of how people would have voted or if they had turned up at all. The question in an advisory referendum is completely different in a binding one.
2) Vote Leave ran on a campaign of keeping us in the Customs Union/Single Market, keeping Freedom of Movement, and a Norway/Switzerland style arrangement i.e. staying in the EEA. As soon as the campaign was over, everyone involved in Vote Leave almost immediately began campaigning for hard Brexit. This demonstrates a basic lack of integrity and bad faith on the part of every prominent Brexit campaigner.
3) Pretty much everything Vote Leave and the other Leave campaigns did during the campaigning was either dishonest, unethical or illegal. As normal electoral campaigning rules were not in effect it was more or less impossible for the relevant authorities to contain the extent of activity Vote Leave et al engaged in as would be possible under normal electoral law.
4) The Electoral Commission and independent electoral observers have refused to sign off on the referendum result and have strongly urged the result to be annulled due to the high levels of illegal activity, anti-democratic actions and overseas interference in the campaign.
There is a reason by the polls are in favour of remaining in the EU by a greater factor than anytime in the last 5 year (some polls even report Remain trumps Leave by more than 2 to 1). It is because as the extent of the betrayal of the Brexiters becomes more obvious to the average voter and how the Leave lies of a unicorns Brexit have been totally exposed, the angriest voters are actually those who voted Leave and now regret it and would vote Remain now. The only people who still believe in a positive Brexit are those who still believe the lies told on a daily basis by those who are seeking to betray the British people for personal gain; these are the real elites you need to attack. Instead you choose to attack doctors, teachers, scientists, those working to cure cancer, because your mind has been poisoned by the lies of the hedge fund managers, media barons, overseas oligarchs, tax exiles and disaster capitalists who are still laughing at the fact people like you still believe them.
Democracy in this country has been betrayed. Not by Remainers but by the Brexiters who have irrevocably tainted a referendum with illegal activity and in doing so have defrauded every single British voter, including yourself. What should have been the biggest democratic exercise in British history is in fact one of the biggest pieces of electoral fraud in human history.
I agree with that but if like Stop Shouting you voted leave because you felt that the most important issue was democratic control then the economic agreements are moot.
He has said consistently that that was and is his reason to back leave.
What we can't do is assume that all 17m leave voters voted for that exact same reason.
I think those who voted for democratic control ought to consider:
1) Should a referendum result where the result was delivered under the most undemocratic circumstances in modern times be delivered on?
2) Should prominent MPs and other high ranking officials who are pushing for policies that will damage the integrity of the country whilst privately profiting from such arrangements be allowed to do so with zero accountability in a functioning democracy?
3) Should the UK government be giving itself powers to ignore Parliamentary sovereignty and break pledges to the House/run roughshod over centuries old conventions of Parliament?
4) Should media barons and government officials enjoy such a close and cosy relationship in a functioning democracy?
5) Do they understand that the UK never actually lost any sovereignty under the EU and in fact as one of the major players within the single market used its influence to leverage itself a more influential and sovereign position than it could ever do outside the EU?
6) Do they accept all of their gripes rregarding the EU have generally actually been the result of incompetent UK governments whose sloppy implementation of EU directives have led to their angst?
The way I see it, hard or soft Brexit, we are voting for less control, rights and sovereignty, not more.
In less than two months from now the number of living Leave and Remain voters will be equal. By 2021 the number of living Remain voters will significantly outnumber Leave voters.
From January I hope all Brexiters qualify their 'will of the people' statements so it is clear they mean it WAS the 'will of the people' in June 2016.
Using this logic, and assuming immortality doesn’t soon become readily available, we should never have an election or referendum ever again.
I see that as exactly the opposite. It shows the need for regular votes as people change and the people change
You realise that on this basis we should have another Brexit vote 2 years after the next one (should that happen)
Yes. But that is democracy.
We could argue that we should have had a referendum when we signed the treaty of Lisbon too.
But UKIP and many tories campaigned for a referendum, put pressure on Cameron and he agreed. That is democracy.
We could argue whether it should be every two years or every five or ten but the option of another referendum has to be there.
Personally, i think that if we are going to use referendums as part of our democracy (which I'm not convinced are fully compatible with parliamentary democracy but I digress) there should be a vote whenever there is a significant change in the relationship with EU proposed ie joining, Lisbon and, of course, now.
The new information is overwhelming. That silly red bus the leave party wheeled out. The lies about how much the country would 'save' by not being a member. The list goes on and on. A lot of elite's (the Daily Mail owner, with his home in France springs to mind) wanted out. Big businesses wanted to remain because they don't want to lose money. If they do they will cut jobs and wages. They don't have some sort of nationalistic angle in wanting to stay, they have simply done the math and can see how damaging leaving will be. Multinationals may well go too, and leave more unemployment. The blue passports the Mail want will be scant compensation.
Comments
Sorry if I’m missing the point, the Falklands war was before I was born, but what are you suggesting?
Everybody who took part in the first referendum had the 'information', which is really opinion, that to leave would be an economic catastrophe-we were blasted with this 'information' throughout the referendum campaign and have been ever since.
It was always clear as well that if the result of the referendum was carried out by people who never believed in it (the Tory cabinet has always had a majority of Remainers in it) then they would do everything they could to avoid actually leaving. If you could be bothered to look back 2 years you would see that my, and others, comments were exactly along those lines. A combination of big business and the elites across politics and all the professions have been united against Brexit from the start. Now they are openly preparing to spit in the face of the people who voted for Leave.
It was also always obvious that the EU would not compromise and that the negotiations would be a waste of time, as has proved the case.
There is no new 'information' to base a second referendum on. The current crisis is a purely political one based on the fact that 17.4 million people have no political party that represents them, yet. The only new 'information;' we have is that we need a new political movement in this country which carries out the wishes of its supporters. The only positive thing about another referendum is that it could create the opportunity for a new party to emerge.
Especially ones that don't expect the EU to become something else to facilitate the UK leaving.
One of the few reliable touchstones in this whole nightmare is that the EU has been consistent.
The EU might have hoped that the UK could have been more consistent itself.
He thought we were heading for another referendum or a deal with the E.U. which would be inferior to remaining in the E.U.
When I suggested that we could leave without a deal, he said "If that happened this country would be fucked"!!
He also surprised me by suggesting that "A government of national unity could emerge".
I was told this and much more in the strictest of confidence.
Over a year on from the conversation, his prediction that appeared very unlikely at the time looks quite feasible.
I'm not so sure about his government of national unity, but, and a very big but, If it did happen watch for someone like Greg Clark secretary of state for business to be among those suggested to lead it.
As while you may have thought it was obvious that the EU would not compromise that isn't what those leading the leave campaign said then or, even in some cases now. it's not unreasonable to believe that at least some of those who voted thought it was the case. Even many MPs of all colours think they can still get a better deal.
But as you say we are rehashing the referendum which was a democratic vote and as you have said, democracy is very important to you.
Hence we we have new elections at least every five years and always with different results. People change their minds and views, people like the existing government and vote for them when they didn't before or do the opposite. Parties increase or reduce or completely lose their majorities and if so another party takes over. That is democracy.
If democracy can't change its mind it is no longer democracy.
I don't remember any complaints about that election being undemocratic.
411 Remain voters died yesterday.
In less than two months from now the number of living Leave and Remain voters will be equal. By 2021 the number of living Remain voters will significantly outnumber Leave voters.
From January I hope all Brexiters qualify their 'will of the people' statements so it is clear they mean it WAS the 'will of the people' in June 2016.
1) The first referendum was run explicitly as an advisory and discretionary referendum yet has been treated ever since the votes were counted as a binding and irreversible decision. This is very important in terms of how people would have voted or if they had turned up at all. The question in an advisory referendum is completely different in a binding one.
2) Vote Leave ran on a campaign of keeping us in the Customs Union/Single Market, keeping Freedom of Movement, and a Norway/Switzerland style arrangement i.e. staying in the EEA. As soon as the campaign was over, everyone involved in Vote Leave almost immediately began campaigning for hard Brexit. This demonstrates a basic lack of integrity and bad faith on the part of every prominent Brexit campaigner.
3) Pretty much everything Vote Leave and the other Leave campaigns did during the campaigning was either dishonest, unethical or illegal. As normal electoral campaigning rules were not in effect it was more or less impossible for the relevant authorities to contain the extent of activity Vote Leave et al engaged in as would be possible under normal electoral law.
4) The Electoral Commission and independent electoral observers have refused to sign off on the referendum result and have strongly urged the result to be annulled due to the high levels of illegal activity, anti-democratic actions and overseas interference in the campaign.
There is a reason by the polls are in favour of remaining in the EU by a greater factor than anytime in the last 5 year (some polls even report Remain trumps Leave by more than 2 to 1). It is because as the extent of the betrayal of the Brexiters becomes more obvious to the average voter and how the Leave lies of a unicorns Brexit have been totally exposed, the angriest voters are actually those who voted Leave and now regret it and would vote Remain now. The only people who still believe in a positive Brexit are those who still believe the lies told on a daily basis by those who are seeking to betray the British people for personal gain; these are the real elites you need to attack. Instead you choose to attack doctors, teachers, scientists, those working to cure cancer, because your mind has been poisoned by the lies of the hedge fund managers, media barons, overseas oligarchs, tax exiles and disaster capitalists who are still laughing at the fact people like you still believe them.
Democracy in this country has been betrayed. Not by Remainers but by the Brexiters who have irrevocably tainted a referendum with illegal activity and in doing so have defrauded every single British voter, including yourself. What should have been the biggest democratic exercise in British history is in fact one of the biggest pieces of electoral fraud in human history.
And I don’t know how you can make that connection.
The government of the early ‘80s didn’t see a conflict coming, it was their incompetence that allowed it to happen. I really think they didn’t give a toss about the people down there but really had more thought towards fishing and future mineral rights,not t to mention a claim to a large chunk of Antarctica
A show of force by a previous government was not appeasement more likely a cheaper and less tragic option.
He has said consistently that that was and is his reason to back leave.
What we can't do is assume that all 17m leave voters voted for that exact same reason.
1) Should a referendum result where the result was delivered under the most undemocratic circumstances in modern times be delivered on?
2) Should prominent MPs and other high ranking officials who are pushing for policies that will damage the integrity of the country whilst privately profiting from such arrangements be allowed to do so with zero accountability in a functioning democracy?
3) Should the UK government be giving itself powers to ignore Parliamentary sovereignty and break pledges to the House/run roughshod over centuries old conventions of Parliament?
4) Should media barons and government officials enjoy such a close and cosy relationship in a functioning democracy?
5) Do they understand that the UK never actually lost any sovereignty under the EU and in fact as one of the major players within the single market used its influence to leverage itself a more influential and sovereign position than it could ever do outside the EU?
6) Do they accept all of their gripes rregarding the EU have generally actually been the result of incompetent UK governments whose sloppy implementation of EU directives have led to their angst?
The way I see it, hard or soft Brexit, we are voting for less control, rights and sovereignty, not more.
We could argue that we should have had a referendum when we signed the treaty of Lisbon too.
But UKIP and many tories campaigned for a referendum, put pressure on Cameron and he agreed. That is democracy.
We could argue whether it should be every two years or every five or ten but the option of another referendum has to be there.
Personally, i think that if we are going to use referendums as part of our democracy (which I'm not convinced are fully compatible with parliamentary democracy but I digress) there should be a vote whenever there is a significant change in the relationship with EU proposed ie joining, Lisbon and, of course, now.
A lot of elite's (the Daily Mail owner, with his home in France springs to mind) wanted out. Big businesses wanted to remain because they don't want to lose money. If they do they will cut jobs and wages. They don't have some sort of nationalistic angle in wanting to stay, they have simply done the math and can see how damaging leaving will be. Multinationals may well go too, and leave more unemployment. The blue passports the Mail want will be scant compensation.