Because the average person is more in touch with reality then the average politician
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.
Because the average person is more in touch with reality then the average politician
Bollocks. The average politician knew feck all about how the EU worked and the average Joe knew even less .
I would have some sympathy for this opinion if there was a way of ensuring the people expressing it had to bear the brunt of the impact if/when the shit hits the fan. People like James O'Brien and Terry Christian champion this idea, which is unfortunately a complete fantasy, that if there are job losses after Brexit, as a result of Brexit, people who voted for it, people who advocated a no deal outcome, should be the first ones out the door. If there are shortages of medicine, the people who wanted no deal should be at the back of the queue. Then it would be slightly more palatable.
Unfortunately this could and would never happen. What you would actually have is the majority of people who advocate this kind of thing complaining bitterly about the inconvenience to their lives, the same as people who saw it coming, blaming the government for it and demanding something is done about it.
Bollocks again, you claimed that all leave voters know what they voted for. So, Striker10, how many voters have you actually spoken to?
"(not on the internet chartrooms)"
The referendum proved there is a disparity between what the people think and what parliamentarians think. I think May's deal might get a lot of support if it was put to the people up against no deal.
So during the referendum campaign when Boris Johnson and Daniel Hannan were talking about staying in the single market and the likes of Farage and Rees-Mogg were talking of something similar to the Norway model, all 17.4m leave voters were more aware of the reality and were ignoring those comments as they wanted no deal?
Your just trying to turn my question on me when I wasn't even talking to you. So I won't respond. But this is all in regards to the nwo. The reality is we have no power without the ability to make money anyway. What the poster stated was a blanket statement. I don't have to answer to you.
That article basically says that no one in the EU proposed or is interested in a lengthy extension. The only scenario of an extension is in case of an actual agreement and for implementation of that agreement whatever that is.
This is the key point and one that needs to be answered first
Last edited:
Leaving without a deal wasn’t even an option on the table a year ago. Some shifted their position to no deal once they realised May wasn’t going to get good terms from the EU, but it wasn’t being talked about as a realistic option during the referendum. If it was the Brexit option then I suspect Remain would’ve won.
People need to wake up. The people pushing for No Deal (Farage, JRM, Johnson) are in it for themselves, and stand to make money from it. They’re not pushing for it because of ‘the will of the people’.
Politicians lie. For a whole host of reasons. But that isn't the totality of the reason people voted to leave the Eu
The idea of brexit was to be out of the EU. As far as i'm aware. Do we want to live in a dictatorship? I hear china care for their workers. The ones that get stressed, if they jump out the window they'll land in a safety net. As a nation people need to understand, we need to make the laws and we also need to make the money. Because the money system for starters is hampering us big time. We're being screwed by the bankers anyway.
I think it probably would to. But if the vote has to include two options, and one of them has to be to cancel Brexit, it becomes a decision about which Brexit option you offer. How can MPs offer the people May's deal as the only option for Brexit when they themselves dont think it is fit for purpose? And when, anecdotally at least, there seems to be quite a decent appetite in the country for no deal?
Its a difficult question, that connects with the post I made a couple of minutes ago. Democratically, should MPs give the people the right to vote for something that know / believe is going to hurt them, that they believe they will end up regretting? Should the sheer stupidity of that option disqualify it from inclusion on the ballot paper? Should electorates be treated like children, basically?
I dont see how a referendum would be legitimate without no deal as an option. In that sense finding some way to make it a three way vote, without unfairly splitting the Brexit vote, seems the only way to go - so a two question referendum. Or, more likely, for this reason a second referendum is a non starter.
But leaving the EU doesn't dictate that it's leaving with no deal and a lot of people who voted leave would have done so based on those lies (which were framed as promises).
It was not a single idea. I'm sure there are plenty who wanted to leave at any cost. Given how much effort was spent on talking up the economic prospects of brexit and dismissing the economic downsides of it, it seems equally clear that a lot of people who voted leave did not vote for doing so at all costs. They voted because they had been duped into believing brexit would be largely free of economic consequences.
I don't need to speak to them, it's obvious from the media and the backtracking that people had no idea. They bought into the idea that the NHS would get an extra £350m a week (it hasn't), they bought into the idea that immigration would drop (it won't), they bought into the idea that the UK would be better off outside the EU (it won't). They were fooled, they were promised all these things that they won't get now. They bought the lies.
So.. how many people have you talked to who knew exactly what they were voting for? Can you categorically say that those who voted to leave knew exactly what they were voting for, which is what you said in your first post.
I don't even know what you're on about in the rest of your posts. Nonsensical ramblings.
You know how politics is. They tweak a few things but it amounts to the same thing.
How can it be undemocratic to give the people one more say?
Who’re people going to blame if we leave without a deal and the country suffers? I can’t believe how stubborn people are being over this, like their lives are suddenly going to be better when the UK leaves?
Firstly why you so angry? Don't you know you can't think properly when your emotional? Obvious from the media? Gimme a break. Look, the media is about as corrupt as the church is. The nation will be flooded. So why have a government at this point?...
I'm not emotional or angry
it's an internet forum, I wouldn't post on it if it made me angry. Why is the go to reply on here when someone has no viable argument in return to just go "omg you're being so emotional and angry man". I guess you don't have a viable response to me so I'll leave it at that.Only if they accept the reason we put forward for an extension; however since the EU keep saying the UK doesn't know what it wants, then logically they can't grant an extension?
Its leave with no deal, or revoke A50 and remain, which is exactly what we voted on 23rd June 2016, the binary choice was implicit in the question and it still is. Its this self delusion that our politicians have practised for two almost three years that has made the UK a laughing stock. Everyone outside the UK knew after Mays Lancaster House speech when she said "No deal is better than a bad deal" that it was always doing to be no deal or no Brexit, the EU could not, even if they wanted to, give us a 'good deal' They would be signing EU's own death warrant.
The only extension now the EU might consider is if our PM says we are revoking A50 but need time to pass the legislation through parliament.
Because to ignore a vote is to set a dangerous president. From a psychological POV, you can transpose it ideologicially to what the nazis did - which is repeat a lie often enough and eventually you'll believe it. You have to respect the people. If there is no respect to begin with then what does it say about the country? Are we still wearing diapers? Can we not accept a choice that people made and be positive? Diversity is our strength yes? It is or it isn't? We're pretty diverse....so what exactly are we doing as a nation? Progressing or regressing?...
I'm not emotional or angry
Yes, so less of the attitude.
Because you make things up. The campaign was heavily based on the idea that the UK would get a more favorable deal from the EU and that German manufacturers and French farmers would put pressure on their respective governments in order to make sure that it happens, prominent Leave campaigners claimed that the UK would not leave the single market and that Norway was their favored model. The public was never sold the idea of a total break with no deal.
There is no mandate for no deal. Asking people how they want to leave the EU isn't ignoring the vote, it is respecting it.
Again people answering for other people. What is this? Farmers with pitchforks? People voted out of the EU.
@Striker10 no offence but you're an idiot
And the EU isn't the EEA or the EUCU.
For having a different opinion? Who are you again?
There's haven't a different opinion and then there's just being blind to the realities of Brexit.
Surely having a ballot with Remain & Leave (No Deal) would give everyone a fair chance to have their final say. It’s not ignoring the vote, it’s progress. May’s deal is dead and won’t ever get through the HoC so it’s pointless including that.
Two years of negotiations has led us here where parliament can’t come to a consensus. Giving the people a final say is the democratic thing to do. If they really want to leave at any cost then this is their chance.
Nothing is going to be decided in parliament and stumbling towards a No Deal Brexit is dangerous/irresponsible.
Ok lemme ask a question. When this was first proposed, was brexit all about striking a better deal and staying in the EU. If you have articles etc, please post and if you're correct that's fine.
Teach me about brexit. I'm happy to learn new things, you got the floor. What are the pros and cons? How do you envisage the future and based on what projections? And btw, I look into a lot of topics. So now i'm interested.
Some people did, a lot of those because they were lied to (fact) and because they didn't realise what an awful idea it was.
Tell me how, after a hard brexit, we can import fresh fruit and veg as cheaply as we currently do (because we can't produce enough so we rely on eu imports).
Spoiler: we can't. Even the absolute basics of every day life will be fecked if we leave with no deal.
Its stuff like that the people who repeatedly go "brexit means brexit" are either too thick or ignorant to grasp.
If you come into a thread and start saying stuff without anything to back you up then you should expect people to react in that way. It would be fine if you could actually present rational arguments and facts to back yourself up, but you haven't, at all. There are a lot of people in here who know a hell of a lot more on this than you seem to (not claiming I'm one of them) so maybe try to take their points in instead of blindly dismissing them, eh?
Every damn time, Brexiteer's come in here claiming they want to have a debate on it and then never actually listen to argue in a rational way.
I personally think it is undemocratic to have elections every four years. You voted for them once, you should stand for the consequences. This business of electing new people for government just because things changed in the past four years is simply undermining democracy. You think people didn't know what they voted for four years ago? Let the people's vote stand and keep elected officials in office until they retire. It's the will of the people.
Norway is associated with the Union through its membership in agreements in the European Economic Area (EEA). Teach us about that. Because as you say Norway isn't a member state of the EU. It's still better then what we have. This or a no deal is a much of a muchness. Even with a no deal, you have to create your own trade agreements outside the EUs scope. So what have our people done in the last 2/3 years? Have they even started negotiating with any other nation? People should be asking this question because what's pushed on people is the no deal...- well, they've had 2/3 years to negotiate deals...right? Where's the reporting of this? - That changes the perception of a no deal into other trade agreements but of course if no ones reporting them they no exist....
Last edited:
He's called Trump.
Where on your ballot paper did you vote to leave the EEA by the way?
Why are you so scared of another vote?
Of course we should have another vote. The leave campaign was based on lies, and we were always told we would stay in the customs union - that's what leave kept repeating. A no deal means we leave that.
May's own lawyer stood up in court and said she knew the leave vote was corrupted. If the referendum had been legally binding (it wasn't) then it would have been declared void.
the whole idea of a vote is to have your say. Once it's done it's undemocratic to ignore it. The reality is that this whole second referendum came about because a PM who didn't want it, did a deal no one wanted and went back and the same thing.....so now we have to vote again? What if we vote and it goes the other way. What happens to those whose vote was stolen? Do you see what happens in France? How would Mays Lawyer know that? From May? How would she know that? It causes a problem. It's all smoke and mirrors. How many times? Oh so if we vote to stay, 2 votes is enough? Are we sure?