Brexit consequences

[PH]

No point in a programme asking why the minority voted Remain.
Their reasons are irrelevant.

No, none at all, what's your point?
I watched the Panorama program, something I've always found reasonably balanced, with the expectation of coming to a better understanding, I feel a bit more shocked by it than the result.

[blackbike]

No point in a programme asking why the minority voted Remain.
Their reasons are irrelevant.

No, none at all, what's your point?
I watched the Panorama program, something I've always found reasonably balanced, with the expectation of coming to a better understanding, I feel a bit more shocked by it than the result.

I thought it was Leavers who are impressionable, believing everything they are told by the media.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -bias.html

[PH]

I thought it was Leavers who are impressionable, believing everything they are told by the media.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -bias.html

Barrel scraping, do you have a point?

[pete75]

No point in a programme asking why the minority voted Remain.

Their reasons are irrelevant.

It's <moderated> to suggest the views of over 16 million people are irrelevant.

[mjr]

The referendum proposed a binary choice when the outcome would be anything but. As a 'winner' what did you think you were voting for?

I voted Leave.

Yes, we get that, but what bit(s) of the Leave offer were you voting for? The £350m for the NHS, the immigration system changes, electing our legislators or some of the things they haven't yet admitted leaving won't deliver?

[Psamathe]

The referendum proposed a binary choice when the outcome would be anything but. As a 'winner' what did you think you were voting for?

I voted Leave.

Yes, we get that, but what bit(s) of the Leave offer were you voting for? The £350m for the NHS, the immigration system changes, electing our legislators or some of the things they haven't yet admitted leaving won't deliver?

Or preventing Turkey joining the EU (where Leave were claiming the EU was going to take our veto away without our agreement - and we now end-up having no say what so ever).

Or avoiding us being forced to delegate our defence to an European Army (despite us having a veto on the formation of any EU army).
etc.

Ian

[pliptrot]

Remain lost and lost badly, due to Cameron's laughable, embarrassing, non-enforceable renegotiation with the EU, their ridiculous scaremongering, their support from TTIP supporting greedy big business and EU grant recipients in the arts and TV, their cynical attempts to exploit the murder of Jo Cox and last but not least their crass decision to label their opponents as stupid and racist.

It is hard to imagine a more amateurish campaign.

And these foolish and dim amateurs have the nerve to call others stupid!

I imagine your irony was not deliberate. Was your appalling lack of sensitivity and poor judgement (ref: your comments about the murder of Jo Cox) intended, or are you simply offensive by nature? Your entire polemic on this thread rather makes the case you are arguing against.....

[reohn2]

I imagine your irony was not deliberate. Was your appalling lack of sensitivity and poor judgement (ref: your comments about the murder of Jo Cox) intended, or are you simply offensive by nature? Your entire polemic on this thread rather makes the case you are arguing against.....

Oh! ain't that the truth!

I've had one post removed by saying as much only a leetle bit more straight forward,trip,trap,under the bridge.........

[Psamathe]

I see that today (11 July) this afternoon there is going to be a Parliamentary question about the initiation of Article 50.

Somebody has noticed that a major argument of the Leave campaign was to restore our Parliamentary sovereignty and one of the first things the government seems to intend to do is to bypass Parliament and initiate Article 50 using "Royal Prerogative" (so much for Parliamentary Sovereignty). Hence the question about how the government intends to initiate Article 50. (Apparently there are judicial reviews underway about this as well.

Ian

[blackbike]

I see that today (11 July) this afternoon there is going to be a Parliamentary question about the initiation of Article 50.

Somebody has noticed that a major argument of the Leave campaign was to restore our Parliamentary sovereignty and one of the first things the government seems to intend to do is to bypass Parliament and initiate Article 50 using "Royal Prerogative" (so much for Parliamentary Sovereignty). Hence the question about how the government intends to initiate Article 50. (Apparently there are judicial reviews underway about this as well.

Ian

Clutching at straws.

[Edwards]

The whole thing is a mess the only thing I think Blackbike has got correct so far.

I am not interested in the debate and keep my thoughts about leaving or not to myself. The only opinion I am prepared to give is that a vote for something that is being supported by outright lies (the people making the claims have stated they were lying) should be held up to scrutiny.

With the result, then why those that support leave should be against something that shows they were not deceived. After all they want the truth to come out as well do they not?

[Psamathe]

I see that today (11 July) this afternoon there is going to be a Parliamentary question about the initiation of Article 50.

Somebody has noticed that a major argument of the Leave campaign was to restore our Parliamentary sovereignty and one of the first things the government seems to intend to do is to bypass Parliament and initiate Article 50 using "Royal Prerogative" (so much for Parliamentary Sovereignty). Hence the question about how the government intends to initiate Article 50. (Apparently there are judicial reviews underway about this as well.

Ian

Clutching at straws.

Not at all. Parliamentary Sovereignty was a major argument of the Leave campaign. So it would be beyond hypocritical for them to discard yet another major argument so soon after the referendum.

Ian

[blackbike]

The whole thing is a mess the only thing I think Blackbike has got correct so far.

I am not interested in the debate and keep my thoughts about leaving or not to myself. The only opinion I am prepared to give is that a vote for something that is being supported by outright lies (the people making the claims have stated they were lying) should be held up to scrutiny.

With the result, then why those that support leave should be against something that shows they were not deceived. After all they want the truth to come out as well do they not?

The main 'lie' the Remainers seem to go on about is this bus slogan, which they say means that Leave said that the NHS would get £350 million per week more after Brexit.

It says nothing of the kind.

It accurately and factually states that we give £350m per week to the EU.

And It says we should fund the EU instead of doing that.

There is nothing written on the bus to say the whole £350m would go to the NHS, and when we stop funding the EU we will, if we choose, be able to spend more money on the NHS instead.

As an educated Leave voter I have no trouble understanding these simple statements.

I thought Remainers were supposed to be especially clever, educated people, yet many of them seem to have some difficulty understanding what is written on this bus, claiming that it says something it clearly doesn't.

They see a lie where none exists. And in their typical arrogant, contemptuous fashion they claim it was other, less clever people who were misled by it, not them.

Where is their evidence for this?

Perhaps these Remainers need extra lessons in reasoning, logic and English comprehension before they are allowed to vote again.

And manners too, for being so rude to suggest that their opponents were fooled by a slogan that they were so clever to see through immediately.

[Psamathe]

...The main 'lie' the Remainers seem to go on about is this bus slogan, which they say means that Leave said that the NHS would get £350 million per week more after Brexit.
...

Just the fact that the EU costs us £350m a week is a lie.

And the fact that Turkey is going to join the EU despite the UK (and every other member countries) veto.

That the UK is going to be forced to join an EU army (despite the fact that the UK has a veto over even the formation of any EU army

That we are going to be forced to pay for € bailouts (even though we are outside the € and thus not involved in any bailouts)

That we are going to be forced into ever closer union despite that fact that we have agreements meaning we can opt-out ...

etc.

Not just a lie but loads and loads of lies.

Ian

[blackbike]

...The main 'lie' the Remainers seem to go on about is this bus slogan, which they say means that Leave said that the NHS would get £350 million per week more after Brexit.
...

Just the fact that the EU costs us £350m a week is a lie.

And the fact that Turkey is going to join the EU despite the UK (and every other member countries) veto.

That the UK is going to be forced to join an EU army (despite the fact that the UK has a veto over even the formation of any EU army

That we are going to be forced to pay for € bailouts (even though we are outside the € and thus not involved in any bailouts)

That we are going to be forced into ever closer union despite that fact that we have agreements meaning we can opt-out ...

etc.

Not just a lie but loads and loads of lies.

Ian

You seem to have a problem understanding what is written on the bus.

It says we send the EU £350 million per week, and that is true. Actually, according to the BBC it is £361 million.

It does not say the EU costs us £350 million per week.

I can understand that and I'm a stupid Leave voter.

Surely it can't be too difficult to grasp for a clever Remain one.

bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35943216