Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Nov 18 - 02:59 AM

The clue is in the name of the poll company. Lord Ashcroft Polls. Common sense dictates that you need to look at who commissioned a poll to detect if there may be any bias. Would you expect a survey of breakfast cereals commissioned by Kellogg to conclude that Nestle was best? So, yes, the points do have a bearing.

The number surveyed is not as relevant as how they were surveyed. Do we know how it was done? Random sampling? Active sampling of a larger base? Internet survey? Telephone? A combination?

I think we should stick to the larger pollsters like Mori and YouGov who are transparent in their methods.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 07:43 PM

Well lets try and get some things cleared up.
1. It is not from Guido, it is from Lord Ashcroft.
2. Lord Ashcroft is a former Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party.
3. Lord Ashcroft is a Billionaire, estimated wealth circa 1.7 Billion.
4. Lord Ashcroft is a tax exile.
5. The poll (after a quick read) does not mention the number of people asked. Was is 10, 100, 1000 etc thus it is not necessarily at all accurate.
Clearly a 'quick read'. Almost at the bottom it offers "Download the full data tables" Doing this shows that it was a poll of 3189 adults.
6. Thus: it is in all probability a load of bollocks.

If it doesn't match your pre-conceived notions, feel free to ignore it. But don't question its basis without at least attempting to find an answer for yourself.
Does any part of your second and third points invalidate the poll in any way?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 07:09 PM

I asked for a reset of this thread and someone has deleted it. Ok. Let me ask again. Raggytash, any chance of your reiterating your bollocking of the eejits who have ground us into the earth?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 05:49 PM

Are we only allowed to post lefty leaning propaganda on here now?
A perfectly reasonable post about Merkel calling for the relinquishment of the nation state has been deleted.

Fighting this movement was a major drive for voting to leave the EU.

In a thread about Brexit it is an integral part of the discussion especially as it reinforces the statement by Macron calling for a european empire to be formed. This was staunchly denied by some here.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 01:47 PM

Thanks Steve. So that's what has been destroying bees?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 01:38 PM

I agree, Karen.

Neonicotinoids are systemic insecticides that kill bees and other pollinators via nectar and pollen. Then they pass up food chains into birds and other insectivores. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Widespread use on crops can result in runoff into waterways where fish and insect larvae may be killed. They are a severe threat to whole ecosystems and to our food supply. The time for vacillation about them is long past. But unless we ban them gardeners and farmers will carry on using them. The mindset is that if we can legally buy them they're safe. Not true. The EU has been slow to act but there are some moves being made. They are found in some garden sprays such as Roseclear Ultra and Bugclear, and in Provado vine weevil killer. It behoves gardeners to read the labels and familiarise themselves with the names of the culprit chemicals, and maybe ask the shop to stop stocking the products containing them.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 12:52 PM

Steve

I'm no expert at all: I was just hoping the thread could get a bit more focussed. I found out the info about two minutes before posting it, but the example does show how easy it is to get out of date. My feeling is that the fishing industry is probably doomed to overfish itself into oblivion. And since it seems fish are getting full of plastics we have dumped into the ocean, I'm getting less attracted to the idea of eating them.

Regarding research into pesticides, the precautionary principle seems like a good idea to me.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 11:37 AM

Fishing and taking back control

Leaked EU memo

Two relevant articles on fishing in today's Guardian.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 10:54 AM

Thanks for that update on discards, Karen. I was a bit out of date. But it confirms what I was saying about the EU being behind the pace when bad things are being done (in agriculture AND fisheries). Farming and fishing people are out to make money, as business people, and taking the long view in matters of welfare, conservation and the environment often comes a very poor second. If we didn't stop farmers from using neonicotinoids, they wouldn't stop themselves and the bees would all disappear. If there weren't heavy penalties, our rivers would be filled with slurry. If we hadn't taken severe measures to put things right, our sausages would be coming from pigs bred in stalls too small for sows to turn over and kept in filthy Belsen-houses, and we'd be eating battery chicken. Not saying there aren't good farmers. But when you meet the typical farmer it's making money coming first, and other considerations are low down the priority list.

And those fish that are no longer thrown back, well they're largely made into fishmeal. Which feeds farmed fish. How nice. Don't get me started on fish farming.

Would it be any better if individual nations made up their own rules? Probably not. And if we're going to trade in agricultural and fish products with the EU (hopefully as members) we need common minimum standards in terms of environmental considerations, quality and welfare. My grouse is that, in these two areas, the EU has done a rotten job and either must get its act together or consider whether there's a better way. Not good enough!   And I'm still an avid remainer!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 08:13 AM

"Glad to see your powers of observation and analysis remain a tad above zero."
Interesting to see you contributions have not risen above the level of abuse
Treating the word of a criminal blogger as gospel is both stupid and lazy
Put a bit of imagination into your abuse if you're going to persist
Like this, perhaps
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/postmistress-may-roadie-rees-mogg-and-the-great-twatsby-dominate-tory-conference-1.3651455

Beats your Tory ladies hands down, I suggest

"even Iains is giving him a wide berth "
Don't bet on it, Tory messiahs are thin on the ground nowadays
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 07:57 AM

Wonder which of his two buddies Bannon will be going with, Farage or Yaxley-Lennon?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 07:48 AM

On fishing there has in fact been some progress within the EU, but it seems that it would be naïve to suppose that British policy would be much better. Also, I cannot see how international agreements on quotas designed to prevent depletion of stocks would be easier to negotiate with European countries when some of our leading politicians have insulted Europeans and we have walked away from the EU.

On throwing dead fish back, see

https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/21608848

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 07:24 AM

Another of your heroes Iains has had some bad news today.

The BBC report today that extreme right wing activist Tommy Robinson is not wanted in the UKip ranks by none other than Nigel Farage.

If even Farage does not want him it speaks volumes.

Link

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 07:07 AM

Earlier quote from our self-accaimed ttrue patriot
"Good to see out exiled anglophobe is behaving true to form. I wonder if he did it all by himself, or the true patriots bundled him out?"
TRUE PATRIOTS ALL
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 06:48 AM

Well lets try and get some things cleared up.

1. It is not from Guido, it is from Lord Ashcroft.

2. Lord Ashcroft is a former Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party.

3. Lord Ashcroft is a Billionaire, estimated wealth circa 1.7 Billion.

4. Lord Ashcroft is a tax exile.

5. The poll (after a quick read) does not mention the number of people asked. Was is 10, 100, 1000 etc thus it is not necessarily at all accurate.

6. Thus: it is in all probability a load of bollocks.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 06:30 AM

I wonder if it is any more accurate than ipsos mori?"
I wonder if anybody even bothers opening anything labelled "Guido"
As for the other piece of conservative shit...... stupid name calling - beyond belief
Stop dragging this discussion down to your miniscule level
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 05:57 AM

Recent poll data ( from our favourite pundit guido)

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2018/11/my-new-brexit-poll-good-for-theresa-may-bad-for-her-deal/
I wonder if it is any more accurate than ipsos mori?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 05:08 AM

I'm not quite a remainder as yet, but I am a remainer. The spell check hates the word remainer and loves to put in that d. The compiler thereof is clearly a brexiteer!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 05:04 AM

The EU is far from perfect and the CFP is one of its worst attributes, failing to achieve almost all of its stated aspirations, failing to prevent illegal fishing on a huge scale and demanding the absurdity of throwing perfectly good fish back into the sea, dead. Bloody awful policy! The Common Agricultural Policy is almost as bad. It sucks up a huge amount from the EU budget (41%!) yet agriculture comprises just one and a half percent of EU GDP. In the UK, agriculture represents less than one percent of GDP. The elephantine subsidy structure has been highly protectionist, it encourages fraud, it has encouraged farmers to grow inappropriate crops such as maize on sloping land (highly polluting) and encouraged bad practice such as hedgerow removal, it has promoted indiscriminate use of chemicals which are wiping out birds and pollinating insects, it has resulted in massive overproduction at various times and it has paid farmers to do nothing. The millionaire barley barons have received massive subsidies whereas small farmers have got next to nothing. A single cow gets a hundred times more in subsidy than we give in per capita aid to the poorest African nations. These absurdities keep popping up and the EU is always several years behind the pace in trying to correct them. If ever there was evidence that a policy needs a root and branch rethink, it's that. I'm an ardent remainder as I've said, but there are some matters, such as agriculture and fisheries, which can't be controlled by gigantism and which are best left to individual nations, which should have to adhere to a basic framework of standards for animal welfare and environmental protection but which should have the bureaucratic fetters (and subsidies) removed.

So there! No sycophancy from ME!   :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 03:52 AM

Not me, cousin McG. I am waiting for you to summarise it for us :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 02:32 AM

I don't know who else attempted to read to 580-odd page agreement. I have made my way through about a third of it, but it is hardly light reading. Anyone else had more success?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Nov 18 - 02:10 AM

I am not so opposed to the CFP as that but what it does emphasise is that remainers do not think the EU is wonderful and perfect. It is a messy and flawed compromise between lots of competing interests and few if any people who look at it on depth will be completely happy with those compromises. And yes, introducing changes is difficult precisely because it is a negotiated compromise. But that is true of many things in life and not in itself a reason to abandon it.

But all this is backward-looking, I would suggest. The 2016 result is what it is. What matters is where we go from here. It was interesting on Newsnight that three pundits were asked what is likely to happen and two bottled out part of the way through the process: they were happy to make best guesses up to a point, but not of the final end state. The third ended up with May's deal but only after all the alternatives had been tried but rejected.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 05:41 PM

Number one, I don't want to get out of Europe. Number two, the CFP is an unmitigated disaster, both for fishing stocks/marine ecosystems and for the fishing industry, and always has been. Number three, up to half of all EU fishing is done illegally. Number four, bycatch and excess catch has to be thrown back into the sea, even though it's all dead fish. Ridiculous. Number five, a shocking fishing policy, which it is, is not a reason for getting out of the EU. Fisheries yield a tiny proportion of EU production. Reform has never been remotely effective. The CFP is a failure and is one case over which we really do have to "take back control." We couldn't do any worse. But none of this stops me from being an ardent remainer. I've never denied that the EU embraces many absurdities, and this is, intractably, an egregious example of that.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 05:07 PM

"There is no reason why the UK couldn't regulate its own fish stocks sustainably just as well as"
Do yuo think getting out of Europe is going to quench the thirst of teh multinationals or a persuade a government that depends on them to regulate
Give us a break Steve
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 03:28 PM

Well we've had disastrous overfishing even with the common fisheries policy. There is no reason why the UK couldn't regulate its own fish stocks sustainably just as well as, if not better than the EU. In a way, this is beside the point. Yes I know that fish swim around and that spawning grounds don't respect territories. But geology and climate, on the whole, don't respect territories much either. We don't share our land-based natural resources cost-free with other countries. I see the fish in our territorial waters in the same way. And so does the overwhelming majority of our fishing industry. Those fish are ours.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 02:57 PM

Not sure of the nuts and bolts of this, but to be honest, I can't see much wrong with this
What is the Common Fisheries Policy?

The CFP is a set of rules for managing European fishing fleets and for conserving fish stocks. Designed to manage a common resource, it gives all European fishing fleets equal access to EU waters and fishing grounds and allows fishermen to compete fairly.

Stocks may be renewable, but they are finite. Some of these fishing stocks, however, are being overfished. As a result, EU countries have taken action to ensure the European fishing industry is sustainable and does not threaten the fish population size and productivity over the long term.

Stocks may be renewable, but they are finite. Some of these fishing stocks, however, are being overfished. As a result, EU countries have taken action to ensure the European fishing industry is sustainable and does not threaten the fish population size and productivity over the long term."

We spent enough time wit East Anglian fishermen to realise the damage done by overfishing the North Sea long before the E.U. was a twinkle in anyone's eye
Overfishing is down to multinational's greed, and British multinationals are as avaricious as any - go look at the damage they'vedone to farming land
Jim Carroll

"The CFP is a set of rules for managing European fishing fleets and for conserving fish stocks. Designed to manage a common resource, it gives all European fishing fleets equal access to EU waters and fishing grounds and allows fishermen to compete fairly.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 02:27 PM

Well I haven't got round to the necessary tweaks of the details, Dave. But I really don't want a bloody EU fishing policy, even if we stay in. I don't go into France or Spain to steal their Burgundy or chorizo rings, so they shouldn't come here nicking our fish. Every nation has its own unique assortment of national resources, and that helps to make the world go round. So let them either catch fish in their own waters or buy ours.

And, in the spirit of Backwoodsman, let me preempt Nitnigelpicker by pointing out that I know about the lost apostrophe in my post before this one.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 02:22 PM

"true patriots"
Now there's a blast from our Imperial past
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 02:14 PM

"Good to see out exiled anglophobe is behaving true to form."
Rich, coming from a raving racist
Perhaps if you can find someone to read you what I wrote I said it is unfair denigrating any National group - which would include Irish "bog" dwellers, and "thieving gypsies - not to mention the Muslim victims of the criminal you tried to have released with your efforts on his petition
Brexit was based on racism and aimed at people like you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 01:42 PM

Good to see out exiled anglophobe is behaving true to form. I wonder if he did it all by himself, or the true patriots bundled him out?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 01:31 PM

Getting a touch racist, I think
The Australians used to ask "How do you know it's a British plane that's landed - cos it continues whining after the engines have been turned of"
About as fair as denigrating any national group, I think
I think that over the last few years, Britain has done far more whining than any and the Europeans have been extremely tolerant
Glass houses, throwing stones and all that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 01:06 PM

The truth about Agincourt

I like the bit that says "Agincourt typified the struggle of little England against the world and heroism, particularly of the common man."

The little Englanders are still trying to repeat it 600 years later...

:D tG

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 01:00 PM

The French have been unhappy since Agincourt! The only difference now is that we need to raise 2 fingers to the rest of Europe as well.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 12:39 PM

Poses a bit of a problem in the Atlantic with the south of Ireland being in the EU and the north not! Pretty sure the French would complain about the Channel Islands too. Mind you, they complain about everything :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 10:11 AM

If you have coal, it's your coal and foreigners can't come here and mine it and take it away. That's our good luck. We have coal, but we can't grow bananas or avocados. So we have to buy those, not steal them from someone else's territory. If you haven't got coal, you have to sell what you do have and buy coal if you need it. If you have gold or diamonds in them thar hills, the same. Australia is extremely rich in iron ore, so much so that flogging it to the Chinese enabled Oz to bypass the recession. Good luck to them, its their stuff. We should draw a line on the map around all our shoreline exactly half way from other countries, and say that any foreign fishing boat that trespasses inside that line will be sunk by our navy. The boundary limit in open ocean should be at least a hundred miles offshore. Those fish are ours. We should have to agree a responsible fishing policy, but, other than that, they're ours alone. And no Wild West in the open oceans either: we need sensible international treaties for maintaining ecosystems and fish stocks. I'd be the first to admit that the EU fisheries policy is a total balls-up.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 09:26 AM

Apparently we voted to get back control of our fish. The fact that May has negotiated an agreement based on quotas and access to waters means that this is not Brexit. Does this mean we are not allowed to have any agreements with the EU about anything if this is to be a real 'Brexit'? Sounds fishy to me :)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 09:05 AM

So we have two monks who have taken a vow of silence on the bals0-up that is Brexit and an unimaginative spokesman for blogger, Paul Staines posting meaningless blogs
Where have all the debaters gone ?

It's just been announced that the EU has accepted May's proposals in principle - hard-liners are describing the acceptance of the Customs Union as a betrayal, but have yet to come up with an alternative to any of the major problems
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 09:02 AM

Do we have our neverendums yearly, monthly, weekly or daily, or just until you get the result you want?

No, Stanron. We have general elections at a minimum 5 year interval. In those we vote for people who should make the right choice for the good of the country. If they do not do so, we elect someone that does. This referendum was an ill advised and deceptive campaign by the very people we pay to make the right choice. They abdicated responsibility. The results can never be overturned. If you cannot see the difference then we cannot get any further with the discussion.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 08:29 AM

I have no lack of English vocabulary skills, my degree confirms it. However, there are times when a little Anglo-Saxon not only adds emphasis and reinforcement in a form easily understood by those less gifted than oneself, but also provides release from the pressure which builds up when one reads the bovine ordure passed off by Brexiteers as 'discussion' on threads of this kind.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 08:19 AM

Don't waste your energy on serious discussion of brexit in a brexit thread whatever you do. Heaven forfend. Just keep on posting silly blogs and YouTubes, why don't you.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 08:11 AM

How weird is that? don't know how I accomplished that link above
Try this one


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JT2Vx9jSyjg

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 08:04 AM

There is nothing wrong with asking people to vote again. This is why we have general elections every so often.

Trade deals with the USA seem highly likely to involve a lowering of 'standards', which are often seen as being nothing but protectionism in disguise. De-regulation is indeed one of the things that some Brexiteers wanted; they wanted less red-tape around business ie fewer regulations.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 08:03 AM

A little toon for remainiacs who either have a restricted vocabulary, or suffer from Coprolalia


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vka2ZgzZTvo

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 07:54 AM

The barmy buggers don't care Steve. All they care about is 'Taking Are Cuntry Back' and 'Make Are Own Laws', and 'Get Rid Of Unelected Bureaucrats' - the meaningless twaddle the feeble-minded fuckwits allowed themselves to be sucked in by during the election campaign.

And, now the writing's on the wall and the catastrophe is unfolding before our eyes, the thick, cowardly twunts haven't even got the balls to admit they were led up the garden path by a few immensely-rich tax-avoiders with a not-very-well-hidden agenda.

Brexiteers? I've shat better.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 06:23 AM

In today's Guardian:

US trade deal would flood Britain with 'cheap, inhumanely produced' bacon


Trade deal would open door to meat containing banned growth promoters, from pigs kept in conditions banned in UK, industry leaders warn

Tom Levitt

The US meat lobby is “salivating” at the prospect of flooding the UK with bacon and pork produced using practices that are currently illegal in the UK, a top food expert has warned.

Gestation crates and the chemical growth hormone ractopamine – both banned in the UK – are regularly used in the US pig industry, which achieves the lowest costs of production in the world. Any future trade deal which includes accepting US pork could potentially have a disastrous impact on the UK’s pig industry as well as diluting our welfare standards, say both industry and campaigners.

Speaking to the Guardian, Prof Tim Lang, from City University, said the British public needed to “wake up” to the dangers of animal welfare being rolled back as the UK prepares to leave the EU.

“[The US] secretary of state for commerce has already made it clear EU standards must go if the UK wants trade deals. Did voters really want leaving the EU to mean taking us out of a powerful and – by global standards – progressive trade block, and into the clutches of US big food?”

In the US, the chemical ractopamine is fed to the majority of pigs as a growth promoter. There is evidence that it causes lameness, stiffness, trembling and shortness of breath in farm animals and its use has been banned in the EU since 1996.

A sow stall or gestation crate is a metal enclosure that holds the pig in a confined space during pregnancy. It is too small to allow the animal to turn around. It is legal in all but nine US states, none of which are major pig producers, and is used ostensibly to prevent larger pigs from taking food from smaller ones and to enable farmers to keep productivity higher.

However, the practice has been criticised for restricting the ability of animals to move or carry out natural behaviours such as rooting, and the UK was one of the first countries in the EU to ban its use in 1999.

..............................................................................................

Hands up all those brexiteers who thought that this is what they were voting for. Well, I suppose that the inhumane US bacon will go nicely with my chlorine chicken traybake.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 05:43 AM

Simple question for anybody
WHAT IS WRONG WITH ASKING THE PEOPLE TO VOTE AGAIN?
Don't really expect an answer, given the track records of those defending Brexit, which more or less sums up the lip-service they pay to democracy
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 05:08 AM

An even more democratic thing would be to give the Commons a free vote on whether brexit should go ahead. The debate leading to the vote should be predicated entirely on what is now seen, after two and a half years of angst, to be in the country's best interests. This is too serious and long-term in its implications to be subject to tribalistic party politics. The 2016 vote was not binding on Parliament just because a bloke who likes to pretend to be sucked off by dead pigs said so and Article 50 can be overturned. We elect our MPs to make big decisions and we can chuck them out if we think they get it wrong. Calling referendums comes a very poor second. But at the moment there seems to be no other way out of this morass.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 05:01 AM

Once again Nigel you are fudging the issue. you have been asked many, many times over the past 30 months what benefits leaving the EU will bring to the people of the UK.

Not once have you even attempted to answer that question, nor have any of your fellow Brexiteers.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 04:51 AM

The last referendum was the second one, actually, Stanron. I don't recall hearing you complaining then.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 18 - 04:46 AM

"You think that the future is twaddle?"
DEPENDS ON THE FUTURE - SURELY?

"that is taken as the will of that majority. "
Utterly false
Unless the voter is given access to all the necessary information, any decision they take is flawed - in this case, dangerous
Rather than planning for the future, this vote was won on withheld information, outright lies and by drawing in the genuine fears engendered by politicians who blame others for their failings - in this case, immigrants
It was led by a man who is now discredited and whose party has collapsed due to its vicious policies and poor organisation - a party based on hate
Not one of you people have had the common decency to acknowledge the social damage done by the policy that drove this decision (Nigel attempted to down-play the seriousness of the rise in racism - some people seem to do that)
The only "democratic" thing to now is to ask the British people to reconfirm the decision KNOWING WHAT THEY NOW KNOW
Jim Carroll