Who said that? Farage and Mogg both proposed further votes if they lost.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Who said that? Farage and Mogg both proposed further votes if they lost.
Regarding the referendum, I don't agree that such a major decision should be put to the people when they clearly understand so little about it, at the time and still now. I personally do not think there will be another referendum. There's no guarantee the result would be different anyway but why are Leavers frightened of it?
The Treaty of Rome is being put into practice, the theory is becoming practice - in 1975 my hope was that the whole of Europe would become part of it - was not expecting the Soviet bloc to tumble so quickly but thankfully it did. The Uk agreed to all this.
No-one limited the number of countries and the objective was to expand. Hopefully there will be more joining.
What I don't see whatsoever is how the UK can possibly benefit from leaving the EU. And nobody can say beyond clichés spouted by the RW press.
You mean... a... neverendum!?!?!?
This is the kind of childish buzzword that’s been bandied around by Nigel Farage and leavers. Up there with “neverendum” and “project fear”. Childish bollocks bingo
Three-quarters of newly eligible voters would back remain in second poll
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ers-want-peoples-vote-strongly-remain-survey?
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ers-want-peoples-vote-strongly-remain-survey?
Right up there with “snowflake” and “libtard”. Absolutely meaningless phrases muttered when nothing else comes to mind.
Correct. Who needs a point when you have a buzzword to shout?
We should invent our own. Except on the Caf it would be "Leavetard" or worse which might make an unusual sound bite on the evening news.
Being consultative can rig the result as some people might decide not to turn to vote as it doesn't matter that much as they might think things will remain the same, making the result not valid for a binding triggering of the referendum.The referendum was a charade form the beginning.
In fairness Cameron had negotiated a deal, it just got judged as not being very good.
A question. The referendum said that exiting the EU would mean ending free of Movement? what means brexit?
I have been using "the gullibles" for a long time
Is it as bad as just using a post for pure ad homienems, instead of trying to discuss or refute a point?
Exiting the EEA means ending freedom of movement, leaving the EU doesn't necessarily mean that. Looks like they put the wrong question.
Farage, Hannan and all his mates got very confused by this.
So you can have Brexit without ending freedom of movement. Question for you @Bola as you told me to ask you questions. Would you agree with a brexit and staying at the EEA? and having freedom of movement? And be 100% honest with yourself
You tell us.
the equivalent is brextremist
Exactly, they proposed to join EFTA. That's when people should ask themselves what Brexit actually meant, the 17m of leavers didn't vote for the same conclusion, some voted for what is effectively No Deal but many voted for something entirely different and as of today we have no idea who voted for what.
For me a second referendum should have happened whether it is purely about the exit options or the possibility of withdrawing because as things stands most voters from both sides are getting screwed.
Out of your posts, I like what appears to be a genuine concern for the younger and future generations
With Brexit, they will hopefully get more democracy and greater long term prosperity. On the latter point, the freedom* of oppurtunity to sync the British economy with larger and rapidly growing economies, will hopefully generate the wealth to allow a generous 'welfare state' ** it will be much harder to do that if tied into a protectionist organisation, with a protectionists mindset that is likely already on a course to have a shrinking share of the world's economy.
History has already started to make the 'Occident' insignificant. I'd rather the younger/ future generations that will see out the best part of the 21st Centuary, will do so in an economy that is tied into the rapid growth of the 'new world'
* in this post i'm referring to a specific nuance of freedom, namely having greater ability to trade and 'freed' from the constraints of multiple internal vested interests that are associated with protectionism, and having a 30th (ish) share of say in a consortium
** I'm customising the term a little, but I'm refering to return to free education, continuation of the NHS, free elderly care. We may be able to even stretch to a higher spend on international development if enough people are up for it
But that has nothing to do with freedom of movement, backstops and the likes. Brexit can mean many things. Shouldn't be another vote to see which brexit the people wants?
What is your evidence for any of your speculations and on what timescale are they supposed to happen.
I wasn't asking you to ask me a question, I was asking if your earlier ad homienem post has a question
I will give you the courtesy of an answer as your request was polite.
If you are asking if I would want to sign up to an agreement of freedom of movement with a large body of nations of Europe - then its a no. Control over immigration is key to prosperity, some will call it selfish, but I want the following two things:
A) The ability of the UK to select skilled labour (or our specific labour needs at that time) that directly benefits our economy. This is along with the side benefits of enriching our culture and sustaining ageing communities with new people (across the Isles preferably, not in concentrated areas like the current situation)
B) The ability to control 'dependents' on the welfare state, so as to maintain or increase the standard of services offered
That is just a Brexit fantasy wet dream. Leaving will be a very expensive disaster. How we leave will only determine just how big a disaster.
Best performing economy at 9.9% according to the Economist in January 2019 is Syria. Good luck.
The to.escakes are roughly from 2030 to at least the end of the century
I can't quote you recent economic trade trends to answer a timescale thst has many factors thst cause uncertainty , but I can state what I believe are abilities that help a national economy thrive in a changing global economy
I've highlighted some of those in the previous post. But as a quick sum, I don't believe Europe will grow as quick as other parts of the world and it is currently based on a culture of protectionism. Those two key components are not a good mix for long term prosperity
I presume you have high hopes for the economic prosperity of the EU for the next 80 - 100 years. Or Is that too long term?
But that is YOUR Brexit. Not other's people brexit. Shouldn't the government asked for which kind of brexit?
It already is an expensive disaster.
True
Not long term enough. I'd like the peace and stability that we have enjoyed since the war to continue and the relative peace achieved in Ireland to improve further.
And Gammon should get a mention
They could also ask for which type of Remain as well.
Then whoever wins, the losing side can moan
Then have another referendum
And do the same again
Hence my viewpoint on neverendums and what amounts to national indecision
What is really sad is these markets where they are aspiring to improve their sales.
The biggest sales at the moment (while the UK is in the EU) to the USA and China for example are cars.
Leaving the EU will mean the car manufacturers leave the UK so they won't have any cars to sell. Logic goes out the window.
A negative term directed towards a particular ethnicity. Classy
So, you are saying that this referendum didn't have to be done
No
Yes you did.
You are saying with the neveredum that you can't go asking people all the option. And one of the options is remain or leave so the referendum is part of the neverendum that you don't want.
You claim that remainers want to try till it goes their way
Aren't you doing the same as you just want to stop now because it goes your way?
Circumstances brought the country to a referendum. Leave was voted in.
To revisit the result so soon undermines democracy and incubates the disease of a neverendum
I really have no more to say to you on this particular matter.
Is shown that the leave campaign was financed with illicit money. That lies were told like the 350 millions for the NHS and many other lies. They didn't take in account the GFA, the delays on customs, losing the FTA and many others
You claim that circumstances brought the country to a referemdum. Leave was voted in
Many others claims that the circumstances I state above are circumstances that should bring the country to a referendum. The result should be respected under this new circumstances
Don't you think you are waving another referendum under the same circumstances and reasons?
Is a pitty that you are leaving this way. One might think you don't like solid arguments