Brexit Discussion Thread VI

SNIP. No meme dumps please.

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/LeaveMnsLeave/status/1074243900255203328

Imagine believing this kind of garbage. Viewing things in a simplistic fashion like this is the reason the vote got through, Tim fails to mention that the EU is the largest single market in the world (I am sure they already know this) or that he won't be affected by a hard Brexit, due to his 450 million fortune.

He is also advocating leaving without paying the divorce bill, do that in one of his pubs and see how that goes down.

One of the main reasons this is garbage is that most of the richest economies in the world are located in the EU Single Market. He's speaking as if there is no difference between the UK trading with Belgium, Netherlands and Sweden as with Gambia, Peru and Vietnam.

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/antmiddleton/status/1073661776724680704

Is this the peak of it? Suffer together to being the country together?

Christ on a bike...

Good response to this lunatic underneath :

https://twitter.com/ChrisJDawson/status/1074196252097695744

Modern historians have pointed out that the "Blitz spirit" was largely a myth and that ordinary people were fed up, depressed and often angry with their lot. The idea that WW2 was a jolly big adventure and "we're all in this together" is delusion.

It looks like May is leaking the possibility of a second referendum to get the Brexiteers onside for passing the deal. I wonder if a referendum could really happen anyway as I doubt the house of commons could even agree the wording as to whether it is a referendum of remain vs leave or May's deal vs no deal. If the brexiteers call May's bluff then her deal is truly out the window and we are back to a last minute cancellation or pausing of A50 or a default no WA brexit.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

If that tweet wasn't sent from a bluetick account I would have dismissed it as an attempt to troll. Brexit needs Poe's law now it seems

There was that welsh man in the BBC Question Time audience a couple of weeks ago who said that Britain survived WWII with its blockades and its bombings, so Britain could get through Brexit.

Firstly, WWII mostly unified the British public behind the war effort. It even united all the major parties into an emergency coalition.

Brexit, on the other hand, has made the political landscape of the UK look like WWI, circa 1915. Two sides dug into their trenches. Occasionally one side chucks a 'shell' at the other in the form of a soundbite, e.g. "17.4 million people voted!!...." *whistling noise and a miss*. You could split the two main UK parties into four at this stage.

The moment that any hardship hits the UK, which can be directly traced to Brexit, you'll have a finger-pointing conga line going on. The Remainers will blame the Brexiteers, the Brexiteers will blame the EU, and the EU will blame the British politicians. It won't be accepted as this thing that should be carried on through, because neither the Brexiteers or the Remainers will accept that any extra hardship needed have been gone through in the first place, although they'll have different reasons for believing that.

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

Not a chance. if the 1st one can be ignored, why would a 2nd one carry any authority?

If Varadkar is not careful, he will end up with a very Hard Border shoved up his precious Backstop!

WARNING! This thread is meant to be an open discussion, but as we all know it is not. It is a dumping ground for Remainers, to comfort and reassure one another. TBH this sad ecuse for a discussion thread is little more than an empty echo.
Expressing a contrary view will earn you a BANNING, as the moderator clearly cannot tolerate any views which do not pander to his/her Remainer view-point.

I fully expect to be BANNED for expressing this point of view. I willingly accept it as a badge of honour.
10, 9, 8, 7, ............ BYEEEEE LOL

You mean if a 2nd can be ignored then why would a 3rd carry any authority?


Given that they had their first one in the '70s. And that was ignored for the last one. Apparently the acceptable time between referenda is arbitrary and subjective





For the record, I don't think another referendum does anything other than cause riots. Unless there is a swing to something like 80%.

RobMc59 wrote: »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46552486

I saw this interesting post which explains the Republic`s method of voting for the benefit of those of us not familiar with it(most of the British public I think!).

I saw this interesting clip, which explains the UK's system of government for the benefit of those of us not familiar with it.

https://youtu.be/wFG-h_SFagQ

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

WARNING! This thread is meant to be an open discussion, but as we all know it is not. It is a dumping ground for Remainers, to comfort and reassure one another. TBH this sad ecuse for a discussion thread is little more than an empty echo.

Far from it: over and over again we have invited those of a contrary view to engage in "robust" :rolleyes: discussion, with the only stipulation that any opinion is backed up with reliable data or relevant real-world examples that illustrate their point. Unfortunately, we're still waiting for such a contribution; the typical contrarian (of which there have been many) tend to fall into a pattern of repeating a meaningless phrase over and over again without ever putting meat on the bones of their argument ... perhaps inspired by Theresa May's tendency to do exactly the same in her Brexit speeches.

So what, exactly, was your point about a second referendum and how is Leo Varadkar implicated in whether or not to have one?

RobMc59 wrote: »

I thought it shows how the people of Ireland get to decide what happens unlike the UK system which seems to be what the polticians think is best.

Umm, well ... yeah, kind of. But it hardly needed a whole article to say "the written constitution of Ireland requires the Irish electorate to ratify changes to EU treaties through a referendum"

What would have been more useful would be to show how the STV-PR creates a political landscape that largely prevents any one party steamrolling its policies through parliament, and encourages compromise between the different parties, a behaviour that comes in very hand when sharing our sovereignty with our EU partners.

CelticRambler wrote: »

Umm, well ... yeah, kind of. But it hardly needed a whole article to say "the written constitution of Ireland requires the Irish electorate to ratify changes to EU treaties through a referendum"

What would have been more useful would be to show how the STV-PR creates a political landscape that largely prevents any one party steamrolling its policies through parliament, and encourages compromise between the different parties, a behaviour that comes in very hand when sharing our sovereignty with our EU partners.

They even left out the fact that we have an independent referendum commission which is resposnible for publishing the facts surrounding whatever referendum is currently being debated.

correct horse battery staple wrote:

137k want no deal, apparently queues at ports will focus EUs attention and agree to all their demands. The insanity of it all, Putin and his trolls must be rofling

It's 161k now! The map showing the votes per constituency is very interesting, it's the exactly same areas which had high % of leave votes in the referendum, you know the ones Westminster didn't bother to invest but which got EU structural funds money invested in them