Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?


  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Come off it Oates, you're a reasonable bloke!

Even if Fener hadn't been from the UK, surely you can see how people from within the EU, having spent years listening to the British complain about the union, listening to their government blame all it's failings on Brussels and then listening to the nonsense, lies and disdain with which the rest of us have been treated over the last few years of this process, might be inclined to think "feck them, let them go and see how green the grass is on the outside... the self important feckers".

It's obviously not every one of you - 48% and probably a few more at this stage are much sounder. But unless you lads are going to deal with the clowns at the helm, you can't expect the rest of us not to want them dragged down a peg or two.

There was a poll a few months ago in which a sizeable percentage of your country said leaving Europe was more important to them than peace in Northern Ireland. On the whole, Britain has more than earned a little bit of insulting.
Seriously @diarm it was a bit tongue in cheek but with what you've said remembering you are only talking about just over half of the people who voted (finding the issue important enough), picked the Leave option. The rest of us, nearly half of the voters love Europe and the EU to bits. For me as well as Freedom of Movement, Employee Rights instituted by the EU -( never a chance of the Tories keeping them once we leave ) is what I appreciate about being part of a growing part of the world, equality in workers rights all over Europe, just imagine what we'll lose?

For decades now we've had the Mail and Telegraph featuring the likes of BloJo ranting at straight bananas, completely made up stories designed to whip up your average bunch of middle class little englanders. Just remember - as I really wish Mr Macron did that it ain't all of us. Of course the DM and Tellywobble never did remind their readers that Britain had a veto on any of the more silly and sensible directives/policies.

The trouble with wishing 'the feckers' get what they want is that they drag the rest of us with them, bathwater and all. It's all very well hoping they get what they deserve but we don't all deserve it. We're not ALL feckers, well not for the same reasons.

In any case, read a bit further, the exchange ended happily to my mind. And by the way, we discovered that Fener is from the UK, ha!
 
The mere act of asking the question will lead people to think that they must answer it one way or another (perhaps 'Not Bothered' should have been on the ballot paper).

That's a good point. For something as potentially life changing as this perhaps Cameron should've just said that there's no requirement to vote but we will only leave the EU if over half of the people in the UK registered to vote (at the time of the referendum), vote leave. Democracy served and promise upheld albeit not in the manner that the Brexiteers would've wanted.
 
This is true. 17.4 million is a colossal number of so-called angry people. Pre-June 2016 you'd think that just about everyone, in their daily lives would be seeing anti EU sentiment wherever they looked. You would think that there would be arguments all over the place. Marches, protests, TV documentaries, civil unrest even. But no. I was not aware of any of it apart from news reports regarding the Ukip cause and a small group of backbenchers being a thorn in the side of successive Tory governments.

There may have been some sentiment expressed by some groups regarding the political direction the EU was heading. Immigration was seen to be a problem but the net figures were as high from non-EU as they were from the EU and we supposedly had control over non-EU.

However, I do not know anyone who could tell me what EU regulations were causing their daily lives to be a misery, or how much the UK paid in net contributions to the block. Nor did anyone seem that bothered that the ECJ could trump the UK Courts.

The majority of people, like me, may have had minor issues with the EU but not to the degree that they would want to vote themselves a worse standard of living out of pure principle. The case was not that strong for most I would say.

The mere act of asking the question will lead people to think that they must answer it one way or another (perhaps 'Not Bothered' should have been on the ballot paper). Human nature suggests that people will inevitably find things to be disgruntled about even though they were not particularly worried about them before.

Farage is a an excellent speaker, he is clever and knows exactly what levers to pull. He played to the immigration fears and extended that to suggest that the influx of EU immigrants was directly responsible for the deterioration of the lot of poor disenfranchised people in depressed regions. He and the other Brexiteers whipped up a sentiment almost akin to the rise of Nazism. When people have nothing they always look for someone to blame. Back then it was Jewish people and this time it was EU immigrants.

They convinced the masses that there was no good side to immigration.

For me it was a protest vote and a very large proportion of the 17.4 million had no idea of the consequences.

You will find very few those who will admit to it - this is why you get loud voices on the radio and TV debates shouting "we knew what we were voting for".

Some of them did. But an awful lot didn't.

Should we have another referendum? No.

Should we ignore the referendum? No.

We have to suck it up - in the least painful way possible.

I don't know what that is. Nobody does.

Agree with a lot of this apart from 2 points.
Farage is not an intelligent speaker - as soon as he comes up against anyone with any intelligence he cannot back any of his arguments up, he may appeal to a certain section of the public but all that reveals is the standard of education in the UK.

Secondly how long does the UK have to suck it up. There have been many references during this farce to how resilient the British are and fight against all odds whereas now they're expected to roll over and accept their fate. I find this extremely sad.
 
We have to suck it up - in the least painful way possible.

I don't know what that is. Nobody does.

Surely the least painful way is the Norway option which seems to be completely off the table right now.

Given how tight the race was, that seems to be most logical option.
 
Surely the least painful way is the Norway option which seems to be completely off the table right now.

Given how tight the race was, that seems to be most logical option.

I think I've said this fifty times but Norway does not solve the Irish Border nor does it solve the biggest problem of customs checks at the other ports and airports.
It's better than no deal but it is still a disaster.
 
The only valid argument for a second referendum is if the original referendum was illegitimate and it's a stretch to say that. I don't think the public were any less informed than usual GEs.

As much as I'd prefer a second referendum in my view it would be circumventing democracy, a vote should follow through to action and a terrible precedent would be set if we overturn referendums and GEs.

We will end up voting to go back in and when we do they'll be difficult challenges as part of those negotiations and huge compromises. Can people really say they'd accept a second referendum in that situation too?
Imagine having another vote a few years after a GE, craziness.
 
If the referendum had offered two clearly defined, realistic alternatives, then I would be willing to respect the result. The problem is that the Leave option was conpletely open-ended and was promoted by Farage, Fox, Johnson etc as a relatively painless process thanks to the inevitable intercession of desperate German car manufacturers and Italian prosecco producers. In October 18, there is no longer any room for delusion as to tbe fact that leaving involves serious downsides and costs and, if we wish to avert complete disaster, compromises. Such a once in a generation upheaval must be decided on the facts, not on bluster and lies. Ideally parliament would make that decision but, as Cameron was moronic enough to throw it open to a referendum in 16, then it can only be settled by s second referendum.

I think it was much more naivety. Despite what people seem to think on here, he is an incredibly genuine and good natured person (I know I'm going to get slaughtered for this but go feck yourselves) who endowed the British public with more sense than they deserved to be endowed with. The likes of Johnson got it right by relying on the mob mentality and the lowest common denominator. He knew the British public are, at least 50%, thick as shit and racist as hell, and played on that to get the result he wanted, in the hope that he would get the top job out of it. That somewhat backfired on him, but he still has designs on No10 and will do what he has to do to get there, sooner or later.
 
The only valid argument for a second referendum is if the original referendum was illegitimate and it's a stretch to say that. I don't think the public were any less informed than usual GEs.

As much as I'd prefer a second referendum in my view it would be circumventing democracy, a vote should follow through to action and a terrible precedent would be set if we overturn referendums and GEs.

We will end up voting to go back in and when we do they'll be difficult challenges as part of those negotiations and huge compromises. Can people really say they'd accept a second referendum in that situation too?

The terrible precedent set is making a decision of this staggering magnitude on a binary question in the first place. Given the transparently obvious confusion across the country right now and the very narrow margin in the original vote (and let's not even go into the misinformation campaign run by the millionaire elite run Leave campaign) it is difficult to see how it is undemocratic to vote again. GE's are completely different for many reasons, not least the fact that within half a decade we all get to vote again.
 
The only valid argument for a second referendum is if the original referendum was illegitimate and it's a stretch to say that. I don't think the public were any less informed than usual GEs.

That could only possibly be true if it was a legally binding referendum, which it never was, never has been.
 
Seriously, the more I think about it I want a second referendum. It's no more embarrassing then the last few years. It's no more undemocratic than refusing the chance to change your mind 2 years after the fact when new information and context have come to light.

Make the vote more clear cut, require a proper majority, stipulate that it's final, then be done with it. Remain or Leave...

If there's another march or whatever give me a heads up... I don't think it's that likely but I'm down regardless.
 
Seriously, the more I think about it I want a second referendum. It's no more embarrassing then the last few years. It's no more undemocratic than refusing the chance to change your mind 2 years after the fact when new information and context have come to light.

Make the vote more clear cut, require a proper majority, stipulate that it's final, then be done with it. Remain or Leave...

If there's another march or whatever give me a heads up... I don't think it's that likely but I'm down regardless.

Make a funny sign.
 
Seriously, the more I think about it I want a second referendum. It's no more embarrassing then the last few years. It's no more undemocratic than refusing the chance to change your mind 2 years after the fact when new information and context have come to light.

Make the vote more clear cut, require a proper majority, stipulate that it's final, then be done with it. Remain or Leave...

If there's another march or whatever give me a heads up... I don't think it's that likely but I'm down regardless.
What if we decide the voters weren't informed enough after this vote, have another?
 
Maybe the answer is civil unrest? Not something I would generally, at all, advocate, but very occasionally it has worked. It resulted in the Poll Tax being changed.

Any other occasions where civil unrest has been effective? Can't be many. The French used to riot all the time in the 60s & 70s, did it get them anywhere?

It had some effect in rights for African Americans.
 
Maybe the answer is civil unrest? Not something I would generally, at all, advocate, but very occasionally it has worked. It resulted in the Poll Tax being changed.

Any other occasions where civil unrest has been effective? Can't be many. The French used to riot all the time in the 60s & 70s, did it get them anywhere?

It had some effect in rights for African Americans.

Don't exaggerate too much.:lol:
 
What if we decide the voters weren't informed enough after this vote, have another?
I've (and many others) replied to this 'what if' in the last few pages... In the post you quoted I even state you can make it final if you want to. It's a weak excuse not to give people a chance to change their mind imo...
 
EU may offer British PM a UK-wide customs union

The EU will offer British Prime Theresa May a UK-wide customs union as a way around the Irish backstop issue, but it will have to be negotiated beyond the Withdrawal Agreement as a separate treaty, RTÉ News understands.

The Withdrawal Agreement will contain a specific commitment to a UK-wide customs arrangement by way of a legal article, but that commitment will say that a formal EU-UK customs union will require a separate agreement.

However, the EU, and the Irish Government still insist that a Northern Ireland-specific backstop remains in place, even if a separate UK-wide customs arrangement is negotiated.



London has long sought a UK-wide customs arrangement as a way to avoid customs checks on both the Irish land border and along the Irish Sea.

Re-worked elements of the draft Withdrawal Treaty have been seen by RTÉ News.

They appear to be in conflict with the Mrs May’s demand that the Withdrawal Agreement contain a UK-wide customs backstop that is "legally-binding" and temporary, and her position that a Northern Ireland-specific backstop remains "unacceptable".

It is not clear that London will be content with a legal "commitment" to arrange a UK-wide customs backstop if it has to be negotiated as a stand-alone agreement that sits outside the Withdrawal Agreement.

Yesterday in the House of Commons, Mrs May outlined four steps that the UK was demanding in order for an agreement to be reached, including "the commitment to a temporary UK-EU joint customs territory legally binding, so the Northern Ireland only proposal is no longer needed."

RTÉ News understands that the promise of a UK-wide customs backstop will feature prominently near the top of a re-drafted Withdrawal Agreement, and that previous references to Northern Ireland being part of the EU's "customs territory" will be dropped.

Northern Ireland will be referred to in more oblique terms further down the text, according to a draft.

However, the text will say that in the event of the Northern-Ireland specific backstop coming into effect, a separate annexe will set out how that would work.

That annexe will refer to the EU's Union Customs Code (UCC) applying in Northern Ireland, according to a draft text.

These drafts could change further when negotiations resume.

Customs remains the most sensitive issue in the negotiations, with the UK regarding any customs differential between Northern Ireland and the UK as unacceptable, and tantamount to having a customs border along the Irish Sea.

The European Commission has been attempting to "de-dramatise" the issue, by suggesting customs checks on goods between Britain and Northern Ireland could be electronically pre-cleared away from ports, and through the use of scanning and barcode technology.

While the EU has shifted its position to accommodating a UK-wide customs arrangement, it seems certain it will not be agreed and finalised within the Withdrawal treaty.

Officials say such an agreement would be highly complex, and would take some time to negotiate.

"That's complicated," one EU source told RTÉ News. "It's much more complicated than it sounds.

"The first point is the legal basis. You can't do it under Article 50. That's always been our stance. The second point is the practical aspects. It's very complicated to work out all the details in a short period of time. These things need to be negotiated properly."

The EU will want to know which part of the Union Customs Code acquis (body of law) the UK is willing to swallow in order to be part of such a customs union.

In particular, it would have to be decided whether or not the UK will seek to negotiate, sign and implement its own trade deals, or whether it will still avail of free trade agreements (FTAs) the EU currently has with third countries.

The EU will also need to know whether, as it continues to negotiate its own trade deals around the world, it is doing so on behalf of 27 or 28 countries.

The other problem is that the only off-the-shelf arrangement the EU operates, aside from its own, is a customs union with Turkey.

The EU-Turkey customs union does not absolve Ankara of having to carry out checks for regulatory compliance.

Furthermore, Turkey must abide by EU-third country trade agreements, but not in a reciprocal way.

In the case of the EU-Canada trade deal (CETA), Turkey has to allow Canadian goods into its market on the same terms as they enter the EU, but Turkish goods are not given the same privileged access to the Canadian market.

"The EU-Turkey Customs Union has lots of issues," says the source. "Those are bound to be raised. But it's very difficult right now under the pressure of time, in the current context of the [Withdrawal Agreement] negotiations."

The other problem is regulatory compliance.

In order to avoid checks for industrial goods, live animals and food products on the Irish border, there would have to be alignment of the EU's single market rules.

However, a UK-wide backstop does not address that issue, implying that some kinds of checks would be required between GB and Northern Ireland.

EU officials were taken aback by Mrs May's very public new red lines, as there was an expectation that any new ideas would have been presented in private by the British negotiating team, who had been operating with their EU counterparts in highly secretive conditions in the run up to the last summit.

EU sources say member states will want to see firm details of the proposal Theresa May outlined in the House of Commons.

It is expected that the British negotiating team, lead by Mrs May's Europe advisor Olly Robbins, will return to Brussels shortly to details of the new UK demands.
 
Your lot used a love a good old riot back then, didn't you?

No, you have May 68 that could be likened to a sort of riot by the students but that's it. The 60s have seen big manifestations too but nothing comparable to riots.
 
Why do you think this? I'd say that your average Joe - including remain supporters - had no idea what they were asked to vote on. The only comparison to a GE would be if people were voting for new parties they don't know much about. Either way GEs are held every five years to curb this type of thing.

Because the public doesn't understand basic economics or the complexities of nearly any issue discussed as part of a general election. There's very little difference between the Tories usual GE campaigns and the type of nonsense proclaimed by Leave.

Imagine having another vote a few years after a GE, craziness.

There's a huge difference between a domestic general election and a more generational vote on a strategic partnership with the EU. For one thing the EU will not tolerate a continued back and forth vote on this and they said as much during the first vote, the consequences are too large for the other members and the general markets.
 
I think it was much more naivety. Despite what people seem to think on here, he is an incredibly genuine and good natured person (I know I'm going to get slaughtered for this but go feck yourselves) who endowed the British public with more sense than they deserved to be endowed with. The likes of Johnson got it right by relying on the mob mentality and the lowest common denominator. He knew the British public are, at least 50%, thick as shit and racist as hell, and played on that to get the result he wanted, in the hope that he would get the top job out of it. That somewhat backfired on him, but he still has designs on No10 and will do what he has to do to get there, sooner or later.

Let’s agree on “reckless”. Cameron may be nice and genuine but, inadvertently or not, he has done more damage to this country than any PM in living memory. You simply don’t take such gambles when you are in that position of responsibility.
 
I've (and many others) replied to this 'what if' in the last few pages... In the post you quoted I even state you can make it final if you want to. It's a weak excuse not to give people a chance to change their mind imo...
If this was set before the first referendum I would agree 100 percent. Its also remainers that seem to be setting these new wishful rules in place for a second referendum which I'm not comfortable with.
It just seems letting voters change their mind is a convenient argument when the result didn't go as planned. That line of thought was also brought up about changing how the president is elected after Trump won out.
The mistake is already made, going back and rerunning it because its been decided that leave voters are uneducated just doesn't sit right with me and I'm saying this as a man who will get fecked in the ass when Brexit happens.
 
If this was set before the first referendum I would agree 100 percent. Its also remainers that seem to be setting these new wishful rules in place for a second referendum which I'm not comfortable with.
It just seems letting voters change their mind is a convenient argument when the result didn't go as planned. That line of thought was also brought up about changing how the president is elected after Trump won out.
The mistake is already made, going back and rerunning it because its been decided that leave voters are uneducated just doesn't sit right with me and I'm saying this as a man who will get fecked in the ass when Brexit happens.

A least Trump will be gone by 2025 at the latest. The UK can't just go back into the EU. We're about to jump off a cliff and the question is, do we really have to?
 
If this was set before the first referendum I would agree 100 percent. Its also remainers that seem to be setting these new wishful rules in place for a second referendum which I'm not comfortable with.
It just seems letting voters change their mind is a convenient argument when the result didn't go as planned. That line of thought was also brought up about changing how the president is elected after Trump won out.
The mistake is already made, going back and rerunning it because its been decided that leave voters are uneducated just doesn't sit right with me and I'm saying this as a man who will get fecked in the ass when Brexit happens.
All that doesn't matter tho does it? Leave voters get to vote again too don't they? 'The will of the people' is not being usurped is it? It's being confirmed...

You're just making sure, like people normally do...

Are you sure your want to delete this?
Sign this to indicate consent...
Declare after me.....
Etc etc...

To me it smells like fear for the most part when Leave voters state that the referendum is final and people shouldn't get another chance.

Unfortunately a lot of remain voters or people that didn't take part go along with it and after a point start parroting it without actually taking a step back and thinking about it.

Imo of course, but I'm yet to have anyone explain to me convincingly why its problematic other than something about protecting democracy and 'the will of the people'*... I'm all ears.



Protecting democracy by denying a confirmation vote and the will of 51% of the the people that bothered to vote...
 
Last edited:
Let’s agree on “reckless”. Cameron may be nice and genuine but, inadvertently or not, he has done more damage to this country than any PM in living memory. You simply don’t take such gambles when you are in that position of responsibility.
My living memory includes Thatcher, and Cameron doesn't begin to compare in those stakes.
 
23-15-zmckm-2nsa1.jpg