Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 08:01 AM

That business about adopting West Indian accents to fit in wasn't addressed to "immigrants". It was a government recommendation to British people, with British accents, but with West Indian roots, who were exiled from this country to the West Indies illegally under May's "hostile environment". Rather than calling them immigrants it would be fairer to refer to them as transportees.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 08:02 AM

You could always post second time with a correct version. Some double post repeatedly, though God knows why!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 08:11 AM

As backswiodsman rughtly pointed out, the referendum just asked one question. "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?".

No mention of leaving the single market, no mention of leaving the customs union, no mention of stuff like ending freedom of movement. Everything that get's thrown about making assertions about that stuff and what people wanted is just speculation.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 08:58 AM

Apparently Sky News has just held a twitter poll which asked the question "We want to know, do you really know what does 'No-deal' mean?"

26% of people who responded thought No-deal meant remaining in the EU.


(This was not broken down into Leavers and Remainers, so no one should treat it as a slur on their affiliation.)

So even if a majority of people were to vote for no-deal in a new referendum, it looks like we will STILL not know what they want.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 09:03 AM

At one level that is not actually surprising to me, to be honest. In general in life if you don't make a deal you stay as you are. So I can understand people who got fed up of following the whole palaver nearly two years back being confused into thinking 'no-deal' means 'no change.'

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 11:52 AM

Nothing positive to say when your motley crew are hellbent on destroying it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 12:33 PM

We keep on getting stuff about how 17.4million voted for Brexit, with this being interpreted as meaning they all voted for an end to freedom of movement, and for leaving the single market and the custome union etc. But there is no evidence whatsoever about that. The priority for some would have been quite other matters - to end limits on state aid or nationalisation, or on issues about fishing rights, for example. The only thing we know that all 17.4 voted about was the bare words of the question. The other stuff just wasn't on the voting paper.

And of course the number of new voters on the electoral roll is several times the size of the narrow margin of victory.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 03:14 PM

i'd agree with that, jim. it's very rare to have a political topic that lasts for more than a few posts without bickering and insults coming into it. it's why i often disappear for a few weeks at a time. it's a shame because i do like a political discussion and am finding the current real-life political scene difficult at the moment.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 04:19 PM

Rupert Murdoch was once asked why he hated the EU so much. ‘That’s easy,’ he replied.’When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.’.
Jim, by using sky box you are financially contributing to rupert murdoch and brexit

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 04:44 PM

From: Raggytash - PM
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 10:36 AM
PS I will ask the Moderators to delete any post that contains even a slight personal attacks on anybody no matter which side they support.

You can get the same session that you get talking to him by wiping your arse with your finger and smelling it
Jim



Well?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 04:59 PM

Leave it, lads.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 05:09 PM

Iains, I have asked on numerous occasions for several posts to be deleted, including at least one of my own.

The moderators have a hard enough job without constantly checking this thread.

Perhaps if you were a little less abusive and actually posted regarding Brexit the situation may improve.

Down to you I think.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 06:20 PM

"We keep on getting stuff about how 17.4million voted for Brexit, with this being interpreted as meaning they all voted for an end to freedom of movement, and for leaving the single market and the custome union etc. But there is no evidence whatsoever about that. The priority for some would have been quite other matters - to end limits on state aid or nationalisation, or on issues about fishing rights, for example. The only thing we know that all 17.4 voted about was the bare words of the question. The other stuff just wasn't on the voting paper."

I think there were also quite a few people who voted Leave, not because they were particularly anti-EU, but as a protest against the government, austerity, the widening equality gap, etc, etc., not because they desperately wanted to Brexit, but simply to give the finger to the government. And I'm guessing those voters no more expected to 'win' than to walk on the moon.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 07:33 PM

We keep on getting stuff about how 17.4million voted for Brexit, with this being interpreted as meaning they all voted for an end to freedom of movement, and for leaving the single market and the custome union etc. But there is no evidence whatsoever about that. The priority for some would have been quite other matters - to end limits on state aid or nationalisation, or on issues about fishing rights, for example. The only thing we know that all 17.4 voted about was the bare words of the question. The other stuff just wasn't on the voting paper.

Well you can always throw ridiculous speculation about why people voted leave back in the faces of those leavers who claim these things without foundation. How about this, which is no more ridiculous than those claims:

"The majority for leave was 1,269,500. If just half of those had voted the other way, that is 634,750 plus one, remain would have won. 634,750 is less than one percent of the UK population and is just 1.37 percent of the electorate, by the way. The anti-immigrant, xenophobic, some would say racist sentiments expressed in the leave campaign, looking at the recent past history of BNP and UKIP successes, could confidently be said to have have influenced far more people than that 1.37 percent to vote leave, which was the intention of course, and probably swung the vote to the leave side. Therefore leavers should be careful when it comes to crowing about their victory, which was, after all, only made possible by appealing to racist sentiment."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: robomatic
Date: 21 Jan 19 - 10:00 PM

There's a pretty good National Public Radio Program called On the Media. Saturday I heard their presentation: "Why Brexit Shouldn't Have Been A Surprise" It was good, particularly in explaining UK business to American ears. I especially appreciatged the commentary by Matthew Goodwin, professor of politics and international relations at the University of Kent and author of National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy. He had a strong opinion that another referendum would be a bad idea.

---

This has run its course and Brexit events are changing. Perhaps it is time for a fresh start. --mudelf