nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

Quin_Dub

This is the eleventh incarnation of our Brexit discussion thread,

Same warnings etc still apply:

As we are approaching the critical end of March October 2019 period, please bear the following in mind before posting:
Insults directed at popular figures are not acceptable in this forum
Please do not post memes, videos or comedy links here
Please do not be uncivil to other posters
Please use the report function to alert the mods when necessary

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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.

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.

Itssoeasy

Christ almighty the audience seem to think the second referendum.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Junkyard Tom

Itssoeasy wrote: »

What channel is this on ?

BBC One Northern Ireland regional broadcast.

Headshot

Itssoeasy wrote: »

What channel is this on ?

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

hotmail.com

devnull wrote: »

In case it hasn't escaped your notice, the leave side cheated in the referendum and broke electoral law, or do you have as much amnesia as David Cameron did at the Leveson Enquiry where it appeared someone had wiped his memory clean?

However much you don't like it being talked about, it still remains that the leave campaign cheated their way to victory. That's a fact. Saying that someone shouldn't speak about it and we should just brush it under the carpet and send out the message that law abiding people lose and cheats prosper is despicable.

If people break the laws we shouldn't think to ourselves, hey, they won, if we don't allow it to stand they would be angry and we don't want that. Because they are not the victims, the victims of any cheating, are the people who have been cheated.

If I played you at cards, some sport, another game or a bet and you lost a hell of a lot on it and you later found out I cheated, would you say that it should still stand because otherwise I might be angry, or would you say that the result should be declared null and void?

Honestly if you have no moral compass that's your choice, but I will always have one and if someone cheats then we shouldn't just say that that's okay and the result has to stand because it would make people angry, that's the kind of society I would never be a part of and thankfully I think that goes for most people in Ireland.

I don't think there is much more to say other than that, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

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!

Junkyard Tom

Headshot wrote: »

I think this will damage the DUP so much in the eyes of NI Voters

Will they lose numbers from their own electorate is the question. And sure there's no harm to their former voters if they lend them to the UUP for a while.

What this has all done is cleaved the population only this time a united unionism doesn't have the numbers, or the strength, in the face of IRL/EU and being a minority.

Everything has changed. Unionism is now on the defence and will need to sell the benefits of UK jurisdiction from now on regardless of what happens.

Itssoeasy

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

This is great television.

What channel is this on ?

boggerman1

Same old,same old on question time.the cold hard facts are once again laid out for the common man,but to hell with that.they are truly f**ked.

[Deleted User]

Headshot wrote: »

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

This is great television.

Itssoeasy

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.

Hardly surprising. The issue with getting brexit done has not and won't be because of the EU side. The European side ratified the first WA, it was the House of Commons who couldn't and still can't make up its mind. He's not the only one. I'm sure we are all in the same boat where brexit and discussion topic is a non stater now because everyone is sick of it.

devnull

hotmail.com wrote: »

The outcome was illegal? You've lost me.

In case it hasn't escaped your notice, the leave side cheated in the referendum and broke electoral law, or do you have as much amnesia as David Cameron did at the Leveson Enquiry where it appeared someone had wiped his memory clean?

Talking about illegal campaigning just seems ridiculous at this stage.

However much you don't like it being talked about, it still remains that the leave campaign cheated their way to victory. That's a fact. Saying that someone shouldn't speak about it and we should just brush it under the carpet and send out the message that law abiding people lose and cheats prosper is despicable.

If people break the laws we shouldn't think to ourselves, hey, they won, if we don't allow it to stand they would be angry and we don't want that. Because they are not the victims, the victims of any cheating, are the people who have been cheated.

If I played you at cards, some sport, another game or a bet and you lost a hell of a lot on it and you later found out I cheated, would you say that it should still stand because otherwise I might be angry, or would you say that the result should be declared null and void?

Honestly if you have no moral compass that's your choice, but I will always have one and if someone cheats then we shouldn't just say that that's okay and the result has to stand because it would make people angry, that's the kind of society I would never be a part of and thankfully I think that goes for most people in Ireland.

I don't think there is much more to say other than that, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Headshot

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

DUP being mauled by all commentators.

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

hotmail.com

gmisk wrote: »

You said there wasn't anything illegal...that just wasn't true.

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

Strazdas

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.

Junkyard Tom

Headshot wrote: »

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

DUP being mauled by all commentators.

hotmail.com

Strazdas wrote: »

I think too this Euroscepticism / Brexit mindset thing is much more recent, perhaps coinciding with the rapid decline of the Empire.

Modern Euro scepticism came about in the 1960s and 70s (pushed by the Left by and large at first) , but anti European attitudes started long before a notion of a European Union.

gmisk

hotmail.com wrote: »

Oh dear god. Move on.

You said there wasn't anything illegal...that just wasn't true.

hotmail.com

gmisk wrote: »

I thought it was pretty much accepted at this stage there were examples of law breaking around illegal funding etc on leave side?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/opinion/why-is-britain-turning-blind-eye-to-leave-side-s-lawbreaking-1.3568256%3fmode=amp

Oh dear god. Move on.