Brexit

[barney]

Nobody knows Carole . Just keep going I expect. That is the EU way.

[Manoverboard]

Sorry Melvyn, what you’re saying doesn’t stack up.

If something bad is forecast, you do something to stop the bad thing happening and change the outcome.

You don’t do nothing in order to make the prophecy come true.

Nobody would be that daft

The something bad was forecast to scare the pants off us. I doubt anybody actually believed their predictions would come to pass therefore there was no point in doing anything in anticipation of a non problem / way over the top worst case scenario at best.

[anniec]

It's rather strange that all the supposed benefits of the EU, now being endlessly extolled as the Utopian dream, were not publicised at the time of the second (first in 1975) referendum. We got none of the positives of remaining; all we got were the negatives of leaving: dire warnings of famine, locust plagues and Obama elbowing us to the back of the queue/line.

Carol - I imagine we'll be voting every other year until we give the right answer. As far as I'm concerned, they've got a long wait.

[Jack Staff]

What no-one has explained is that if there's a second referendum - God forbid, we live in a democracy I thought - what happens if the result is exactly the same, or even if the Leavers have a bigger majority? Do we have to have a third, fourth etc?

Carole

Hi Carole, let me try. We do live in a democracy and if the people want another vote it would be democratic to have one.
The last vote was flawed for many reasons. One being that is was just an 'advisory' vote to inform Parliament, only. That meant proper precautions were not taken, for example, it having to be at least 60% and other 'safety' measures. However Cameron decided he would act on the result, then didn't.
Another flaw was the amount of foreign money that was put into it. This has been proved, with some action taken but as the vote was only 'advisory', the Electoral Commission can do little to put things right. If it was a 'real' vote it would have annulled.
The choice of the electorate was flawed in that UK citizens in Europe were not allowed to vote, arguably the citizens most affected.
Even if we were to re-run the vote as before, it is unlikely to return the same result as the electorate has changed, literally. Many older, predominately leave voting people have left us, to be replaced by predominantly remainer teenagers.
A new vote would encourage the third of the electorate who did not vote last time to make the effort, of course we do not know how they would vote.
The events of the last two years and the amount of information now available will also have a dramatic effect on the next vote.

So should the next vote be done properly, the result would be the result. That's it.

Then referendums should be banned in this country.

[oldbluefox]

If the EU was THAT good and the prophesies were to be believed everybody would have voted to remain.

[Gill W]

Sorry Melvyn, what you’re saying doesn’t stack up.

If something bad is forecast, you do something to stop the bad thing happening and change the outcome.

You don’t do nothing in order to make the prophecy come true.

Nobody would be that daft

The something bad was forecast to scare the pants off us. I doubt anybody actually believed their predictions would come to pass therefore there was no point in doing anything in anticipation of a non problem / way over the top worst case scenario at best.

The EU are doing something to try to mitigate the worst effects of a No Deal Brexit if it happens.

Therefore, there must be some truth in the predictions, otherwise they wouldn't be taking action.

[barney]

Weird logic. The EU will simply take action to protect themselves. Jack has told us since day one that they don't need us. Now,apparently they do.

[oldbluefox]

Weird logic. The EU will simply take action to protect themselves. Jack has told us since day one that they don't need us. Now,apparently they do.

Looks like the Irish Taoiseach is starting to sing a different tune as well.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Sorry Melvyn, what you’re saying doesn’t stack up.

If something bad is forecast, you do something to stop the bad thing happening and change the outcome.

You don’t do nothing in order to make the prophecy come true.

Nobody would be that daft

Then why forecast doom if they intended it would never happen? My point is they said this will happen. They didn't day it might but we will stop it.

You would be right if it was different people mitigating the predictions of others.

But it wasn't. It was the same people making the dire predictions who had the power to stop them coming true and did so.

That is who no-one believes them this time. They assume that once again they will act to mitigate if push comes to shove. They lost their credibility last time.

If there is another referendum and Boris wheels out a bus saying £350m for the NHS will you believe him? Of course you won't.

And it is exactly the same reason I don't believe the doom mongers who predicted doom before and then stepped in to stop it. Boy cried wolf! Carnage and co have zero credibility.

I accept there will be some disruption. As I'm sure Remainers accept we'll stop paying billions to the EU. It's the detail which no-one on either side believes.

[david63]

Weird logic. The EU will simply take action to protect themselves. Jack has told us since day one that they don't need us. Now,apparently they do.

Only for our money as we are a net contributor.

I wonder what sort of deal, and how quickly it would have been negotiated, if we were a net recipient?

[Mervyn and Trish]

Proper precautions were not taken, for example, it having to be at least 60% and other 'safety' measures.

So should the next vote be done properly, the result would be the result. That's it.

Then referendums should be banned in this country.

So the status quo is at present that we have triggered Article 50 and are leaving the EU.

So to overturn that and do a referendum "properly" you presumably mean we'd now need a 60% majority to alter the status quo, cancel Article 50 and stay?

And if you don't get that 60% you'd accept we are out?

[Ray Scully]

I am so impressed with the leavers who now acknowledge that there will be degrees of pain and inconvenience to be suffered by leaving, but hey they are prepared to accept this. Very magnanimous, but what about the poorest amongst our society who will be hit the hardest and like the banking crises will pick up a disproportionate part of the tab.

[Manoverboard]

There are ' noises ' being made about a ' No Deal ' …. The UK are making plans for a ' No Deal ' in order to convince the EU negotiators that we will leave without a deal if they don't amend the ' Backstop ' situation. The EU are making ' No Deal ' plans in an attempt to convince the UK that they are ok with a ' No Deal ' situation.

There is little doubt in my mind that we will be getting a deal and that the EU will be grateful for it cos without it we will not be paying large sums of money into their bottomless spending pit.

Seemples … and there is no way we will be having a second referendum … HoHoHo

[oldbluefox]

I am so impressed with the leavers who now acknowledge that there will be degrees of pain and inconvenience to be suffered by leaving, but hey they are prepared to accept this. Very magnanimous, but what about the poorest amongst our society who will be hit the hardest and like the banking crises will pick up a disproportionate part of the tab.

Sorry Ray but I find your concern for the poorest hard to believe. When barney and I described the hard times we had experienced when trying to set up home you found it amusing when our posts were mocked. There was little sympathy shown then towards those who had struggled, more akin to 'I'M alright Jack!'

Back on track, nobody can deny there will be some disruption but that will be worth it to be free of the shackles of the EU and free to determine our own destiny.
When the EU creates its own Euro Army what next? Conscription? And who will be paying for this Army? Is this what you want as part of a federal Europe?

[towny44]

What no-one has explained is that if there's a second referendum - God forbid, we live in a democracy I thought - what happens if the result is exactly the same, or even if the Leavers have a bigger majority? Do we have to have a third, fourth etc?

Carole

Hi Carole, let me try. We do live in a democracy and if the people want another vote it would be democratic to have one.
But how do we know if there is a majority for a 2nd vote?
The last vote was flawed for many reasons. One being that is was just an 'advisory' vote to inform Parliament, only. That meant proper precautions were not taken, for example, it having to be at least 60% and other 'safety' measures. However Cameron decided he would act on the result, then didn't.
The vote in parliament did not stipulate it was only to be advisory, quite the contrary in fact
Another flaw was the amount of foreign money that was put into it. This has been proved, with some action taken but as the vote was only 'advisory', the Electoral Commission can do little to put things right. If it was a 'real' vote it would have annulled.
If there was foreign money it was far less than the £9m spent on the project fear document sent to every household.
The choice of the electorate was flawed in that UK citizens in Europe were not allowed to vote, arguably the citizens most affected.
Prisoners wern't allowed to vote either.
Even if we were to re-run the vote as before, it is unlikely to return the same result as the electorate has changed, literally. Many older, predominately leave voting people have left us, to be replaced by predominantly remainer teenagers.
You wish.
A new vote would encourage the third of the electorate who did not vote last time to make the effort, of course we do not know how they would vote.
An even less likely wish.
The events of the last two years and the amount of information now available will also have a dramatic effect on the next vote.
Now you are correct on this one, we now know more reasons to get out of the sinking EU before its too late.
So should the next vote be done properly, the result would be the result. That's it.
Can we have your dying promise on that one Jack?
Then referendums should be banned in this country.
No they are just too much fun to abandon.

On a more serious note, you keep recycling the same old stories Jack, if you really want us to listen to you then please come up with new, and preferably sensible reasons to remain.

[towny44]

I am so impressed with the leavers who now acknowledge that there will be degrees of pain and inconvenience to be suffered by leaving, but hey they are prepared to accept this. Very magnanimous, but what about the poorest amongst our society who will be hit the hardest and like the banking crises will pick up a disproportionate part of the tab.

Ray, I cannot speak for all other leavers, but for me and others I know personally, we always accepted that being outside the EU would have some negative economic consequences (we would have needed to be brain dead not to have taken on board some of the project fear predictions), but regaining our decision making and not being sucked further into the federal shambles and the need to prop up the weakest states whose poorest members of society are suffering far, far more than any of ours, was we felt a worthwhile pain. And that is before we factor in the savings we will make by no longer paying increasing contributions.

[screwy]

It seems to me that some people are more concerned with the thought that they wont be able to just 'nip across to europe' without having to form a line at immigration.

[Jack Staff]

On a more serious note, you keep recycling the same old stories Jack, if you really want us to listen to you then please come up with new, and preferably sensible reasons to remain.

You would prefer some comforting lies?

Everything will be fine.
It's all just project fear.
The army on the streets are there purely as a precautionary measure.
We don't really need fresh fruit.

Feel better?

[Jack Staff]

Proper precautions were not taken, for example, it having to be at least 60% and other 'safety' measures.

So should the next vote be done properly, the result would be the result. That's it.

Then referendums should be banned in this country.

So the status quo is at present that we have triggered Article 50 and are leaving the EU.

So to overturn that and do a referendum "properly" you presumably mean we'd now need a 60% majority to alter the status quo, cancel Article 50 and stay?

And if you don't get that 60% you'd accept we are out?

The status quo at present, until 29 March or extended date, is that we are in the EU. So yes, I would accept a 60% majority to alter it.

[oldbluefox]

On a more serious note, you keep recycling the same old stories Jack, if you really want us to listen to you then please come up with new, and preferably sensible reasons to remain.

You would prefer some comforting lies?

Everything will be fine.
It's all just project fear.
The army on the streets are there purely as a precautionary measure.
We don't really need fresh fruit.

Feel better?

One of your more realistic posts, Jack.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Proper precautions were not taken, for example, it having to be at least 60% and other 'safety' measures.

So should the next vote be done properly, the result would be the result. That's it.

Then referendums should be banned in this country.

So the status quo is at present that we have triggered Article 50 and are leaving the EU.

So to overturn that and do a referendum "properly" you presumably mean we'd now need a 60% majority to alter the status quo, cancel Article 50 and stay?

And if you don't get that 60% you'd accept we are out?

The status quo at present, until 29 March or extended date, is that we are in the EU. So yes, I would accept a 60% majority to alter it.

Wrong Jack. The status quo is what happens if no one changes anything. And the status quo is we're leaving.

[anniec]

So the status quo is at present that we have triggered Article 50 and are leaving the EU.

So to overturn that and do a referendum "properly" you presumably mean we'd now need a 60% majority to alter the status quo, cancel Article 50 and stay?

And if you don't get that 60% you'd accept we are out?

The status quo at present, until 29 March or extended date, is that we are in the EU. So yes, I would accept a 60% majority to alter it.

Wrong Jack. The status quo is what happens if no one changes anything. And the status quo is we're leaving.

I was about to say the same thing. Well said, Mervyn.

[Jack Staff]

The status quo at present, until 29 March or extended date, is that we are in the EU. So yes, I would accept a 60% majority to alter it.

Wrong Jack. The status quo is what happens if no one changes anything. And the status quo is we're leaving.

I will concede that would be open to the interpretation of whatever commission is set up to deal with such matters.
However, already the polls I'm seeing are in the low 60's. I would also concede you, no doubt, are seeing different.

[oldbluefox]

I don't know where you are getting your poll results from but none of these suggest anything near to a low 60s result. Deltapoll shows it's virtually neck and neck and even YouGov doesn't hit a 50% success rate for remaining. Polls are notoriously inaccurate so I wouldn't take too much notice anyway.

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/i ... -you-vote/

The outcome (YouGov poll) for a referendum based on Remain, accept PM's deal or no deal shows a 47:27:27 split ie 54% voting Leave. The same poll by Deltapoll shows a 27:18:15 split with 40% don't knows. Again nothing to reflect your 60% in favour of remain.
It mentions nothing about a best of three scenario!!!

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/i ... pport-2-2/

[Jack Staff]

I don't know where you are getting your poll results from but none of these suggest anything near to a low 60s result.

Exactly my point when I said...

However, already the polls I'm seeing are in the low 60's. I would also concede you, no doubt, are seeing different.

We all have our sources and these tend to be what we want to hear.
Additionally, I do not expect the vote to be a three way choice.