REFERENDUM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION THREAD

[Deutsch Wolf]

I reckon at least £3bn has been spent on the DUP bribe, No Deal planning and those bloody adverts (that said nothing, even if it had been advertising reality, which was never the case).

End product of that money = absolutely nothing. All a complete waste of time and cash.

If Dishface had set fire to £3bn in Trafalgar Square on 24 June 2016, we'd be absolutely no worse off. That's how much of a folly this nonsense is. (None of this takes into account the economic impact Brexit has already had, firms pulling out of Britain, currency nosediving etc)

 

[Sniffer]

The ferry companies will be delighted again. Another payment for doing nowt and then get straight on with planning for another installment of easy money in January.

 

[Papper]

I see a lot of anti- this forum there, but not a lot of substance of what you actually want with the anarchist point of view.

What does 'expert-laden' mean? What does 'social justice' mean? What does 'corporate centralisation' mean?

Let's have a chat about what these things are, and then I understand much better where you are coming from.

I am assuming you understand that anarchy is not necessarily groups of yobs vandalising and rampaging through the streets but my sense of anarchy is encapsulated in a deep resentment and mistrust of politicians and the political system in general. This can and in my opinion will fuel the class of politcian that will feed off divisions. The prime division in point being Stay or Leave the EU.

Social Justice - Equality and opportunity for all. People put first before corporations.

I would see the free movement of labour as a tool in support of 'corporations' to oversupply the labour market and get people to do the low paid, unskilled work that keeps profits high with scant regard to population control. It might have been a better idea to raise salary levels back in the nineties and get those people in the welfare-trap into work rather than encouraging economic migrants. I see the UK being able to negotiate trade deals outside the protectionist nature of the EU as a way of increasing prosperity. The trading bloc within Europe needed a mass rethink but driven by Westminster not Brussells. No party has been able to manage the population, this has had a knock-on effect with public services etc - Now tell me how you think the EU is a movemnet for social justice?

Expert Laden - In context - Westminster divided over membership of the EU.

The answer - let the people decide. The implications were spelled out (once in a generation, leave customs union/single market). The people voted and Westminster then refused to deliver on those terms - they ignored the majority vote. The only answer is another election which Lab/Lib don't like because much like the referendum and the recent Euro Elections a 'hard Brexit' will be delivered. If the recent EU elections were seen as 'single issue' votes ie discluding Lab because they weren't offering a single issue vote, repeated the majority shown in the referendum. The 'experts' in Westminster have undemocratically attempted to reverse a decision that was handed to the people of this country. Now tell me why you think the actions of those 'experts' in Westminster were democratic.

 

[Papper]

His style of leadership is just so odd. Hectoring and bullying really isn't going to be a winning strategy when you have a majority of -43. He's turning Javid into a eunuch of a Chancellor too, he keeps cancelling everything he's about to do and never lets him talk about the economy :icon_lol: He may as well not be there (I don't feel sorry for him, he's a dickhead).

He will have a majority of 80 or so when the anti-democrats in Westminster are removed. This is why Lab/Lib are running scared of an election. Westminster is not aligned to the voting pattern of the EU referendum. Yes, he is a dickhead though.

 

[Papper]

If you are going down that route then you have to include some idealistic, wholly unrealistic and utopian views and attitudes that the country is just not ready for. Until 55% Countries wealth is not in the hands of the 1% then Utopian ideals that are central to modern socialism cannot be brought to the fore in my view. I would love to see more socialist policies and it being more about the country looking after its people but no one seems prepared to pay for it.We are still lost in the ridiculous myth that low taxes are the answer while millions who can afford it pay no taxes. It is why Labour needed to realise that their approach to brexit and government was stand walk run not all behind JC whatever. You need strong foundations and strong infrastructure and that investment has not been there this century because "we are a country of low taxes"

If the 1% of the 1% who own the wealth it's them who should have the wealth redistributed. I think there should be a super tax on the large corporations and lower tax for smaller companies. JC won't go after these people - JFK tried and look what happened. Absoutely agree though that optimum public services need paying for BUT if you ask somebody struggling to pay mortgages etc to pay more tax to fund social housing for a booming population (how many do they need to build?) then you get people like Trump.

 

[Papper]

He wants to shout very loudly that he is being prevented from governing by the nasty MPs.

It's all very Trumpian.

Yes, he want's a general election that the other parties won't give him unless the vote to leave the EU is cancelled which completely undermines numerous democratic votes. Maybe we should subscribe to totlaitariansim where nothing gets done unless it's unanimously agree. In fact why bother letting the Proles vote in the first place? You're damn right it's getting Trumpian. Do you see the elephant in the room yet?

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

The elephant in the room is letting the people vote in the first place.

 

[Papper]

The elephant in the room is letting the people vote in the first place.

Is this all people or just the people you don't agree with?

 

[Johnny75]

Somebody take the crack pipe off Papper.

 

[Papper]

Somebody take the crack pipe off Papper.

You're just proving my point Johnny. You are an anti-democrat and an egocentric. All you can do is post snyde remarks.

 

[Johnny75]

Well you've spouted utter garbage this morning along with some outright lies.

The most important of which is the ballot paper which you got wrong (included below). Everything else is redundant after that as the keystone of your argument is made from Play-doh.

 

[Papper]

Well you've spouted utter garbage this morning along with some outright lies.

The most important of which is the ballot paper which you got wrong (included below). Everything else is redundant after that as the keystone of your argument is made from Play-doh.

I have provided evidence earlier in this thread that shows the vote was described as once in a generation, to leave the customs union, single market and jurisidiction of the ECJ.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

The point is that it was internal matter for the Conservative party with Cameron wanting to bring their Eurosceptic wing under control, sprinkled with a little bit of sabre rattling from UKIP who a grand total of one MP and he was a defected Conservative. There was no need to go to the country to settle that issue. Cameron put the referendum in the manifesto because he assumed it was like shooting fish in a barrel to win it. That’s mistake one.

To compound this, the Remain campaign was then run in a totally half-arsed fashion again because they assumed it was a slam dunk win. Nobody cottoned on to the idea that if the Leave campaign consistently used a load of tosh without challenge that a chunk of the public would actually believe them. That’s mistake two.

So yes, it should never have gone to the people in the first place.

 

[Johnny75]

I have provided evidence earlier in this thread that shows the vote was described as once in a generation, to leave the customs union, single market and jurisidiction of the ECJ.

Really? Because I can't see that on the ballot paper anywhere. Everything else is propaganda and dependent on your belief levels.

You chose to believe something that was untrue. You need to take some responsibility here and admit you were wrong to believe the politicians.

 

[Johnny75]

The point is that it was internal matter for the Conservative party with Cameron wanting to bring their Eurosceptic wing under control, sprinkled with a little bit of sabre rattling from UKIP who a grand total of one MP and he was a defected Conservative. There was no need to go to the country to settle that issue. Cameron put the referendum in the manifesto because he assumed it was like shooting fish in a barrel to win it. That’s mistake one.

To compound this, the Remain campaign was then run in a totally half-arsed fashion again because they assumed it was a slam dunk win. Nobody cottoned on to the idea that if the Leave campaign consistently used a load of tosh without challenge that a chunk of the public would actually believe them. That’s mistake two.

So yes, it should never have gone to the people in the first place.

This is the bit I would like to see changed in law. There were outright lies told in that and nobody was pulled up for advertising this and they should have been. There should be the same advertising rules as everybody else and the longer an ad is left up then the more the advertiser (in this case social media) should be liable.

 

[Papper]

The point is that it was internal matter for the Conservative party with Cameron wanting to bring their Eurosceptic wing under control, sprinkled with a little bit of sabre rattling from UKIP who a grand total of one MP and he was a defected Conservative. There was no need to go to the country to settle that issue. Cameron put the referendum in the manifesto because he assumed it was like shooting fish in a barrel to win it. That’s mistake one.

To compound this, the Remain campaign was then run in a totally half-arsed fashion again because they assumed it was a slam dunk win. Nobody cottoned on to the idea that if the Leave campaign consistently used a load of tosh without challenge that a chunk of the public would actually believe them. That’s mistake two.

So yes, it should never have gone to the people in the first place.

You do realise other people can be as subjective/objective as you? The desire to leave the EU is people driven and it was given back to the people. Merely saying I am right you are wrong, so let's scrap the proposal and the result of a national vote is undemocratic.

 

[Papper]

Really? Because I can't see that on the ballot paper anywhere. Everything else is propaganda and depending on your belief levels.

You chose to believe something that was untrue. You need to take some responsibility here and admit you were wrong to believe the politicians.

I firmly understood what leaving the EU meant - both Dave and Gideon told us. We were told what an OUT vote encapsulated. It was a two way decision. IN or OUT. You are clutching at straws here Johnny ...

 

[Johnny75]

I firmly understood what leaving the EU meant - both Dave and Gideon told us. We were told what an OUT vote encapsulated. It was a two way decision. IN or OUT. You are clutching at straws here Johnny ...

Nope, I'm really not. Read the ballot paper again. It is what you believe leaving the EU meant and is the fundamental flaw in the question and why it should never have been put to the people without there being a policy/ law in place that if you vote leave this is what it means.

If it's in black and white then nobody can argue. It wasn't and so we have your version of leaving meaning something entirely different to another person who voted to leave, that person may have wanted to stay in the customs union but leave other parts and so on and so on.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

You do realise other people can be as subjective/objective as you? The desire to leave the EU is people driven and it was given back to the people. Merely saying I am right you are wrong, so let's scrap the proposal and the result of a national vote is undemocratic.

It was Farage-driven. It was IDS-driven. It was Rees-Mogg driven. It wasn’t people driven at all.

 

[Papper]

Nope, I'm really not. Read the ballot paper again. It is what you believe leaving the EU meant and is the fundamental flaw in the question and why it should never have been put to the people without there being a policy/ law in place that if you vote leave this is what it means.

If it's in black and white then nobody can argue. It wasn't and so we have your version of leaving meaning something entirely different to another person who voted to leave, that person may have wanted to stay in the customs union but leave other parts and so on and so on.

What bit about ' If you vote LEAVE it means leaving the customs union, single market and jurisdiction of the ECJ' are you having difficulty understanding Johnny?