• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

REFERENDUM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION THREAD

Johnny75 said:
Only none of that is true. The EU may have needed changing but we had veto's, funding streams, infrastructure projects, the pound (which nobody was forcing us to change from), trading power with the rest of the world and unlimited freedom of movement.

And some people have voted all that away. Just let that sink in for a minute.
Click to expand...

Johnny. I don't want fucking veto's. And 53% don't want that either. Me and 52.99% wanted something other than what had been offered for two decades. Veto's opt outs etc don't work. Despite the lack of clarity we still voted for the unknown. Why could that be? Let that sink in for a second too.
 
Vetos and opt outs do work and did work for us. That much is certain. The fact you didn't want them is immaterial.

As DW has said, it's a fair guess that the majority of 'Leave' voters were influenced by the immigration and lies from the leave campaign (for the avoidance of doubt I am not saying you have voted this way).

So Leave voters (the majority) voted to give up all the things listed to make life worse and trust a bunch of wankers to make it better.

It's borderline madness.
 
I thought the referendum was more "should we consider leaving the EU"? and not if you vote leave, we leave...

The 52.8% voted for the government to CONSIDER our position in the EU didn't they? They didn't vote "Let's fuck the country no matter what"
 
darlowolf64 said:
I thought the referendum was more "should we consider leaving the EU"? and not if you vote leave, we leave...

The 52.8% voted for the government to CONSIDER our position in the EU didn't they? They didn't vote "Let's $#@! the country no matter what"
Click to expand...

That's very true. The current incumbents taking us down the path do not have must trust or confidence
 
No, the Government openly said they would abide by the decision (although it wasn't legally binding, that is more down to them being truly awful at drafting legislation, the sloppiest Government we have ever had, but that's another story). It was quite clear that whatever the result was would be enacted.

Which is why those who voted as a "protest" are fucking stupid.

Edit:

eu_referendum_promise1.jpg
 
Why should there be no second referendum?

I refer you to Nigel Farage on results night

"If this finishes 55-45 to remain it will be unfinished business"

So that only applies one way? Seems fair.
 
There's a very good argument to have a second referendum. I just don't think it'll happen.
 
I think a 2nd referendum would be good when we know exactly what the deal is, however I can also see the argument that there shouldn’t be a second referendum before the first one is actioned.
 
Deutsch Wolf said:
No, the Government openly said they would abide by the decision (although it wasn't legally binding, that is more down to them being truly awful at drafting legislation, the sloppiest Government we have ever had, but that's another story). It was quite clear that whatever the result was would be enacted.

Which is why those who voted as a "protest" are $#@!ing stupid.

Edit:

eu_referendum_promise1.jpg
Click to expand...

You say tucking stupid from a remain position. I say fucking pissed off with 20 years of EU bollocks compounded by the Eastern bloc A8 countries joint 2004 to 2007. Its about perspective
 
I mean people who didn't actually want to leave but voted as such because they thought it'd never win, and it'd "send a message".

Because there were plenty of them as well.
 
Deutsch Wolf said:
I mean people who didn't actually want to leave but voted as such because they thought it'd never win, and it'd "send a message".

Because there were plenty of them as well.
Click to expand...

Yes but with respect twas always thus. I am comfortable talking with you and others and disagreeing after debating salient points. Many others change like the wind politically.
 
If I didn't want to talk to you then I wouldn't bother.

I don't mind disagreeing with people, that's healthy.
 
Deutsch Wolf said:
If I didn't want to talk to you then I wouldn't bother.

I don't mind disagreeing with people, that's healthy.
Click to expand...

I know and get that. We may not change the world but I respect your opinion even if it differs from mine. You are not extreme, give your honest position. I have always tried to honestly give mine and state the reasons for it.
 
To be honest Cyber, I think you fight the Brexit corner in a proper way. It is points and debate rather than soundbite and bollocks. You should enquire about becoming foreign secretary, as at least you have ideas!

I will still never agree but it is a debate.
 
Again labour is looking into ubi as well. Ticking more of my social boxes by the day.
 
Templeton Peck said:
I'd prefer monthly payments over 2 lump sums. I've got a mate who would piss that away in an afternoon.
Click to expand...

Yeah, same. Not sure I like the whole "tell us what you're going to spend it on" too.

And presumably, as it's under 55's it's not designed to replace pensions so that's still most of the welfare budget required for that.
 
machin05 said:
Yeah, same. Not sure I like the whole "tell us what you're going to spend it on" too.

And presumably, as it's under 55's it's not designed to replace pensions so that's still most of the welfare budget required for that.
Click to expand...

I think the amount proposed, and the way it is proposed to replace all other benefits, would be way too low and would disadvantage too many people. For example, if a couple or single parent family has two children and are on a combined income of less than £40K and they get tax credits of £300 + family allowance of £134 per month then they are actually worse off by £200. If those children were in paid childcare the amount needed wouldn't even come close to paying for that.

I think if it's going to be done it needs to be £10K per annum as that will make a difference. I have no problem with the rich paying more through an extra tax band or a levy on financial transactions in the city to help pay for this but the true payment will come from increased productivity by a reduction in business costs that will make things more competitive. Taxing company assets is a silly idea as you drive innovation out of a country that way as nobody would bother with patents in this country and so you ruin any sort of invention.

I like the idea but it's ill thought out at the moment.
 
Johnny75 said:
For example, if a couple or single parent family has two children and are on a combined income of less than £40K and they get tax credits of £300 + family allowance of £134 per month then they are actually worse off by £200. If those children were in paid childcare the amount needed wouldn't even come close to paying for that.
Click to expand...

I wish it worked like that...we have 2 kids and a combined income of around £31k and we've never been able to get any tax credits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

darlowolf64
  • Locked
The Clique and how to join it...
Replies
6
Views
2K
The Bear
The Bear
lemonjelly
The Mental Health thread
49 50 51
Replies
1K
Views
101K
Del Woppio
Del Woppio
Back
Top