Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

Headshot

Itssoeasy wrote: »

What channel is this on ?

It's on BBC 1 but it's nearly over now

Junkyard Tom

Itssoeasy wrote: »

What channel is this on ?

BBC One Northern Ireland regional broadcast.

Capt'n Midnight

lawred2 wrote: »

Yeah you know that means NI

Which shows how flawed the poll was. Like the referendum a lot of people were picking what they wanted to mean not what it actually meant.

It also shows that people aren't thinking through to the next step.

If NI leaves then Scotland is far more likely to follow than if NI stays.

Especially if there's lots of US and EU direct investment into NI.

devnull

Danzy wrote: »

Remain was equally full of shi7.

Remain didn't break the law, leave did. FACT.

So in that regard it was like every election in the last 3k years.

So there's been elections going on for 3,000 years now, before Jesus was even born. That's impressive, I had no idea they went that far back.

Since you are making such bold claims, I'm sure you can back them up, so therefore, can you kindly point me towards all the other elections (let's be generous and say the last 5) in the UK where one party broke the law.

hotmail.com wrote: »

I mentioned the outcome. The outcome of the referendum was not illegal.

Two sides of the debate were campaigning, each with their official groups, one side abided by the law and the other side didn't and the side who operated illegally won - these are very much the facts of the matter, not opinions, there is a difference between the two, I deal in facts, not bluster.

Anyway, this is my last word on the matter, as we're going around in circles.

FrancieBrady

Headshot wrote: »

I'm watching "The View" and fills me with a warmest feeling of seeing DUP put under a bus

While it is good to see them knocked back, Jonathon Powell is right in his warnings. The British government are being totally irresponsible with regard to this island again.

GM228

hotmail.com wrote: »

What was the smiley face supposed to indicate. You need to express your opinions. I assumed you misread it as European Union which I hadn't said.

smiley face

noun

a stylized representation of a smiling face, typically in the form of a yellow circle with simple graphic features

a symbol representing a smiling face that is used in written communication to indicate that the writer is pleased or joking


Without getting into a debate about history (in line with the MODs warning) I fail to see where these 100s of years of anti European feeling are coming from.

You said "the Leave side was merely capitalising on the anti European feeling", but surely you mean the leave side capitalized on Euroscepticism or Europhobia, something which has only really become prominent following WW2 and the concept of European integration, and more so since Harold Macmillan tabled the idea of putting the UK on the road to the EU (then EEC) in 1961.

Danzy

Strazdas wrote: »

Martin Schulz tells Newsnight that even if Corbyn won the GE, he doesn't think the EU would want to negotiate a new WA with him. He suggested the EU are sick of Brexit and sick of talking to the UK.

They have the deal that they are happy with and do not want this debacle to go on.

Who can blame them.

The idea of Corbyn and Labour spending a term in power deciding what they want and starting from Scratch or the Lib dems wanting it all to go back like it was before must fill them with exasperation.

dfx-

Headshot wrote: »

I think this will damage the DUP so much in the eyes of NI Voters, it could be such a huge set back that they'd never be in power for along time again

God I would be over the moon

What choice do Unionists have? UUP who are on the floor or DUP. Arlene could waste hundreds of millions of taxpayers money and Stormont collapse and still get a substantial number of votes.

hotmail.com

devnull wrote: »

Remain didn't break the law, leave did. FACT.



So there's been elections going on for 3,000 years now, before Jesus was even born. That's impressive, I had no idea they went that far back.

Since you are making such bold claims, I'm sure you can back them up, so therefore, can you kindly point me towards all the other elections (let's be generous and say the last 5) in the UK where one party broke the law.



Two sides of the debate were campaigning, each with their official groups, one side abided by the law and the other side didn't and the side who operated illegally won - these are very much the facts of the matter, not opinions, there is a difference between the two, I deal in facts, not bluster.

Anyway, this is my last word on the matter, as we're going around in circles.

You haven't dealt with my point... the long standing anti European attitude in Britian.

Perhaps it's easier to explain things away by a 6 week campaign. It doesn't involve actual reading up and finding out about Britons attitude to Europe.

Enzokk

Strazdas wrote: »

Martin Schulz tells Newsnight that even if Corbyn won the GE, he doesn't think the EU would want to negotiate a new WA with him. He suggested the EU are sick of Brexit and sick of talking to the UK.

It is also that there isn't a better deal out there apart from a permanent UK customs union. But maybe they cannot be put into the WA but will always have a place in the PD. In any case all Labour has ever wanted was the chance to negotiate a deal and lately they have said they will put the deal they can get up for a vote and will decide which one to back once they have seen the deal.

If the EU offers only the May or Johnson deal you suspect Labour would back remain as neither one will have much benefits for the country. Seems a fair policy for me, give the people a chance to decide if they want the deal that is on offer or remain. No-deal has been ruled out again and again and if Labour is in charge then it is off the table as well.

Joe_ Public

Strazdas wrote: »

Martin Schulz tells Newsnight that even if Corbyn won the GE, he doesn't think the EU would want to negotiate a new WA with him. He suggested the EU are sick of Brexit and sick of talking to the UK.

I have serious problem believing that. If corbyn did defy all indications and became pm, obviously with snp and others' help, they would be guaranteed a referendum. Surely they'd agree to negotiations, without red lines, on that basis. I didnt find Schulz all that convincing tbh, his opinion not necessarily reflected eu-wide.

Itssoeasy

Headshot wrote: »

It's on BBC 1 but it's nearly over now

I found it and caught the last few minutes.

Oh good newsnight and Norman Lamont looks like death warmed up.

Enzokk

Danzy wrote: »

They have the deal that they are happy with and do not want this debacle to go on.

Who can blame them.

The idea of Corbyn and Labour spending a term in power deciding what they want and starting from Scratch or the Lib dems wanting it all to go back like it was before must fill them with exasperation.

I don't think so, Tusk has said repeatedly he wants the UK to remain and so has Juncker, but they will not force the UK to remain. If Labour were to come back with a sensible policy for the UK and an openness to conduct the negotiations in a friendly and trusting manner, the EU will be accommodating. Marking red lines and being confrontational will result in fractious relationships with your negotiating partner. These are basic concepts that the Tories seem reticent to learn seeing as the concepts is foreign to them.

Itssoeasy

Christ almighty the audience seem to think the second referendum.

Akrasia

hotmail.com wrote: »

It seems that you want to pinpoint the loss of the referendum squarely on the illegal practices of the Leave side during the campaign.

My point as I've said already, that this is nonsense. There was a long standing anti European attitude in Britain.

Again given the tone of your post, you seem to think I'm defending the Leave side. I'm not. I'm trying to commentate and explain what happened.

Accusing me of having no moral compass is perhaps the most over dramatic post I've read on here. Can you please read my posts.

Not everyone on here is a partisan. I'm Irish and I didn't vote in the thing!

You don’t understand how election rigging works. You don’t have to win 100% of the vote, you just need to cheat just enough to influence the swing voters, the undecided, the people vulnerable to being influenced by lies or fearmongering.
In the case of the brexit vote, they needed to influence about 2% of the population and they did this with stolen social media, personal data used to bombard these people with targeted messages specifically designed to play up to their existing fears and biases.

Strazdas

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I have serious problem believing that. If corbyn did defy all indications and became pm, obviously with snp and others' help, they would be guaranteed a referendum. Surely they'd agree to negotiations, without red lines, on that basis. I didnt find Schulz all that convincing tbh, his opinion not necessarily reflected eu-wide.

It's not even certain Corbyn could get a WA through parliament. The Labour Leave MPs could rebel and vote the deal down.

Varta

devnull wrote: »

So just to confirm, you are saying that if someone cheated and broke the law and we punish them, then they are a bigger victim than the people who were cheated if we do nothing? That's quite frankly outrageous and just tells people to cheat and break the law, because nobody will stop you and you'll prosper.

It's one thing to try and influence someone, it's a completely different thing to break the law. If you cannot see the difference then honestly I don't know what else I can say to you, other than saying that I'm a law abiding person and I have respect for the law and that it something that a lot of people in the UK in the leave campaign could learn, as they've spent the last few years and even recent weeks and months basically thinking they can do what they like and the law and the rules don't apply to them .

It's times like this when I'm glad that we're in Ireland.

You are very naive if you think politics is clean and fair in Ireland... or anywhere. BTW your first paragraph makes no sense, either on its own or in response to my post. And my point stands: Do due diligence before you cast your vote.

Itssoeasy

Jesus christ I've not watched newsnight in a while but what I've heard from the audience I fear given there seems like a lot of young people seem to be agreeing with this mad brexit viewpoint.

Danzy

Enzokk wrote: »

It is also that there isn't a better deal out there apart from a permanent UK customs union. But maybe they cannot be put into the WA but will always have a place in the PD. In any case all Labour has ever wanted was the chance to negotiate a deal and lately they have said they will put the deal they can get up for a vote and will decide which one to back once they have seen the deal.

If the EU offers only the May or Johnson deal you suspect Labour would back remain as neither one will have much benefits for the country. Seems a fair policy for me, give the people a chance to decide if they want the deal that is on offer or remain. No-deal has been ruled out again and again and if Labour is in charge then it is off the table as well.

Your post is all the whys the EU do not want Corbyn to win.

AllForIt

Akrasia wrote: »

In the case of the brexit vote, they needed to influence about 2% of the population and they did this with stolen social media, personal data used to bombard these people with targeted messages specifically designed to play up to their existing fears and biases.

2%, is that all !

Varta

GM228 wrote: »

Those seeking the truth were given untruths by those who had the ability to easily pass what they liked as the truth, when you have great wealth and high profile faces backing you it's not hard to pass off what you say as the truth even to those who wish to dig deeper.

But you were wise enough to see through it. Yet you condescend to those who you believe were not 'wise' enough.

Varta

GM228 wrote: »

Remind me how old the EU is?

Why? It's irrelevant to what the poster said.

Itssoeasy

The U.K deserve everything they get. These people have believed the guff about Brexit

hotmail.com

Akrasia wrote: »

You don’t understand how election rigging works. You don’t have to win 100% of the vote, you just need to cheat just enough to influence the swing voters, the undecided, the people vulnerable to being influenced by lies or fearmongering.
In the case of the brexit vote, they needed to influence about 2% of the population and they did this with stolen social media, personal data used to bombard these people with targeted messages specifically designed to play up to their existing fears and biases.

Election rigging is something completely different.

I'm sorry but you just have to move on from this. It's a tired argument at this stage and kinda makes out the Leave voters to be idiots which they find offensive.

The Brits want out.. that's what they voted for.

Junkyard Tom

I think watching Question Time is like engaging in a mild form of self-harm at this stage.

Itssoeasy

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I think watching Question Time is like engaging in a mild form of self-harm at this stage.

It wouldn't help if you were feeling ****e.

devnull

hotmail.com wrote: »

You haven't dealt with my point... the long standing anti European attitude in Britian.

Perhaps it's easier to explain things away by a 6 week campaign. It doesn't involve actual reading up and finding out about Britons attitude to Europe.

I know more about British attitudes to Brexit you can dream of because I have half of my family in the UK who are Brexiteers and I spent a good percentage of my time working in the UK as well with a mixture of leavers and remainers, so actually I do know exactly what i am talking about. My experience as to what Britons think is through day to day dealings with people face to face, I forget the last time I read a newspaper, because the British press is toxic.

I'm not saying that every single person in the UK was influenced by the campaign but a large number have been and if only 2% were influenced then it's swung the result and the fact remains that the win of the leave campaign who won and managed to drum up support was based on illegal activity, these are facts, however much of your opinion you try to give, these are still the only facts of the matter and your words are just opinion.

Nobody will know just how much that had an influence on, it could have been enough to sway the vote it might not have been. I don't know and neither do you, we are simply speculating and giving our opinion, however any cheating brings into question the integrity of the result and it's in my belief that if there is any serious doubt into the integrity of the result and how it was achieved then it should not be allowed to stand.

Do you think if a soccer team fielded a couple of players who were not eligible and won in the final of the League of Ireland Cup, that the result should stand because they won 2-0 and someone thinks they'd have won anyway as they were in better form and they believe the players were not key to the result, or do you think that the integrity of the contest had been broken so the result shouldn't stand?

Varta wrote: »

You are very naive if you think politics is clean and fair in Ireland... or anywhere. BTW your first paragraph makes no sense, either on its own or in response to my post. And my point stands: Do due diligence before you cast your vote.

I'll never condone law breaking or illegal behaviour, I'll never say that the end justifies the means.

Saying that law breaking is alright because the people that have been fooled by it should have known better is an extremely weak argument and is like saying anyone who is the victim of a law being broke or tricked by others doing so is to blame because of the fact that they didn't protect themselves properly, never been a fan of victim blaming myself.

Enzokk

Danzy wrote: »

Your post is all the whys the EU do not want Corbyn to win.

Please expand what you mean? I would have thought the EU would welcome a chance to remain or to get Brexit done, to borrow a phrase, by having the people decide on the deal or remain.

GM228

Varta wrote: »

But you were wise enough to see through it. Yet you condescend to those who you believe were not 'wise' enough.

Many saw through it, many didn't, but where have I given the notion I look down on those who were not wise enough to see through it?

Varta wrote: »

Why? It's irrelevant to what the poster said.

It was more of a light hearted joke as I already stated, but where are these 100s of years of anti European feelings coming from, the leave side capitalized on Euroscepticism or Europhobia feelings which are a more modern and more specific phenomenon intrinsically linked to the EU.

William of Orange, Napolean, perhaps WW1 - surely those events are not considered to have created long lasting anti European feelings?

hotmail.com

devnull wrote: »

I know more about British attitudes to Brexit you can dream of because I have half of my family in the UK who are Brexiteers and I spent a good percentage of my time working in the UK as well with a mixture of leavers and remainers, so actually I do know exactly what i am talking about. My experience as to what Britons think is through day to day dealings with people face to face, I forget the last time I read a newspaper, because the British press is toxic.

I'm not saying that every single person in the UK was influenced by the campaign but a large number have been and the fact remains that the win of the leave campaign who won and managed to drum up support was based on illegal activity.

Nobody will know just how much that had an influence on, it could have been enough to sway the vote it might not have been. I don't know and neither do you, we are simply speculating and giving our opinion, however any cheating brings into question the integrity of the result and it's in my belief that if there is any serious doubt into the integrity of the result and how it was achieved then it should not be allowed to stand.

Do you think if a soccer team fielded a couple of players who were not eligible and won in the final of the League of Ireland Cup, that the result should stand because they won 2-0 and someone thinks they'd have won anyway as they were in better form or do you think that the integrity of the contest had been broken so the result shouldn't stand?

Well I'm glad you admit you don't know what influence the campaigning had.

Now if we can actually discuss real matters concerning Brexit without mentioning personal circumstances and weird analogies.