More post brexit referendum good news!!!!

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:27 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:Sometimes referred to as the neverendum, or alternatively the best of 3/5/7.(insert number until required result is achieved)

Your argument only makes sense if you assume that democracy is something people have done to them (rather than shape and participate in), which doesn't square with the circle you were trying to paint earlier in the thread of the referendum being the 'greatest expression of democracy in UK history', or words to that effect.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:29 pm

Spiral wrote:The response to a narrow remain win would test to destruction the sincerity of the held belief in the 'will of the people'.

Even a narrow remain win wouldn't, and shouldn't, be the end of the discussion. Anyone with any kind of objectivity knows that a 52/48 decision is basically the public saying "we don't ******* know". And of course, Farage was ready to continue the argument if Remain had won by such a margin but quickly changes his tune when that was the margin for Leave.

No doubt there will have been planet of Remain voters who would be holding the attitude that such a small margin was somehow decisive but they'd be equally is wrong as the likes of Ringo is now.
The Mail on Sunday reported yesterday on a poll that showed Remain holding a 10-point lead over Leave. I think that suggests the public opinion of brexit is shifting in the direction of Remain. And people like Ringo know that, which is why they're desperately opposed to any more "democracy" happening over this.

biggles · Post by **biggles** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:38 pm

can we play WBA at home again? we didn't get the right result last time. or, as per the rules, was it a one-off? and no, i'm not, ever, going to stop whinging about this; it's so painful.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:41 pm

biggles wrote:can we play WBA at home again? we didn't get the right result last time. or, as per the rules, was it a one-off? and no, i'm not, ever, going to stop whinging about this; it's so painful.

Actually, yes. We do get to play them again.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:47 pm

martin_p wrote:Well it’s the reason the first one was held. Although it was UKIP polling well rather than ‘leave’.

And the one held on 23rd June 2016 was held on the understanding that there wouldnt be another.

"“I am absolutely clear a referendum is a referendum, it’s a once in a generation, once in a lifetime opportunity and the result determines the outcome ... You can’t have neverendums, you have referendums.” David Cameron

That was how both sides entered the campaign. One side won. The other side ( not all of them to be fair, loads come on the radio admitting they voted "Leave" but accept the result) has been moaning about it ever since. Like the bloke in the car after a distant away match, going on about how their winning goal was "a mile offside". Every body else has accpeted it, and just wants to get home and catch the last hour of Match of the Day. But him......

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:50 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:And the one held on 23rd June 2016 was held on the understanding that there wouldnt be another.

"“I am absolutely clear a referendum is a referendum, it’s a once in a generation, once in a lifetime opportunity and the result determines the outcome ... You can’t have neverendums, you have referendums.” David Cameron

That was how both sides entered the campaign. One side won. The other side ( not all of them to be fair, loads come on the radio admitting they voted "Leave" but accept the result) has been moaning about it ever since. Like the bloke in the car after a distant away match, going on about how their winning goal was "a mile offside". Every body else has accpeted it, and just wants to get home and catch the last hour of Match of the Day. But him......

Yeah and Theresa May said we wouldn’t have a snap election, just before you called one.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:51 pm

Well, well, well, what do we have here ? i guess the rumours weren't just rumours after all ......

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 16671.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:55 pm

claretandy wrote:Well, well, well, what do we have here ? i guess the rumours weren't just rumours after all ......

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 16671.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lol. What rumours?

biggles · Post by **biggles** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:55 pm

yes we do. but what we don't get is another brexit referendum. shame, i was going to change my vote, too.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:59 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Lol. What rumours?

The double voting rumours.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:00 pm

biggles wrote:yes we do. but what we don't get is another brexit referendum. shame, i was going to change my vote, too.

You haven't explain why we shouldn't have another one. Why shouldn't we be allowed to change our minds on this?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:03 pm

claretandy wrote:The double voting rumours.

The guy literally said on Twitter that he voted twice. Is this the origin of the rumour? Because if one person admitting on Twitter that he voted twice starts a rumour that everyone voted twice then it's a pretty weak basis for a rumour. Or was the rumour that just this guy voted twice? But then he did admit it, so i wouldn't really call that a rumour.

Is this perhaps just a rumour that has spread among the far-right websites you inhabit?

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:06 pm

martin_p wrote:Yeah and Theresa May said we wouldn’t have a snap election, just before you called one.

Just before I called one!? Genuinely dont know what you mean.

Anyway, I agree with the great arch Brexiteer, Paddy Ashdown when he said on the night of the referendum. When he was convinced that his side had won.

He proclaimed:

"I will forgive no one who does not respect the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken whether it is a majority of one per cent or 20 per cent.

When the British people have spoken you do what they command. Either you believe in democracy or you don’t."

Be more like the democracy accepting Paddy, Martin. Not the boring moaner in the back of the Delorean stuck in traffic near North Staffs services at 22.40 on a Saturday night. Nobody wants to hear him any longer. 2 of the lads are worried about catching last orders (the drivers spitting feathers!) Let it go Martin....

Gnulty · Post by **Gnulty** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:19 pm

Bite the bullit, beg the EU for another chance or else you're all doomed.. just like the Norwegians..

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:25 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:The guy literally said on Twitter that he voted twice. Is this the origin of the rumour? Because if one person admitting on Twitter that he voted twice starts a rumour that everyone voted twice then it's a pretty weak basis for a rumour. Or was the rumour that just this guy voted twice? But then he did admit it, so i wouldn't really call that a rumour.

Is this perhaps just a rumour that has spread among the far-right websites you inhabit?

"far right websites" ? que ? I saw screenshots of more than 1 person bragging on twitter.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:45 pm

biggles wrote:well done Ringo. great to see the apoplexy youv'e created in these remainers. so entertaining. youve' suffered obscene insults and abuse from them [and we are told its' us leavers who are uneducated]! you've been taught english grammar and shown where you went wrong by voting to leave the car-crash that is the EU. those EU politicians do'nt like it one bit that we'v'e seen through their evil plans to fully control our future and we have opened the door, ever so slightly, for other nations to follow. the UK doesnt' follow; weve' always lead and will manage very well, thank you, without the EUS'' dictatorial management. keep going Ringo, 'its a hoot. hope i not made any punktuation or spilling mistakes.

Your spelling is mostly fine but you have a really idiosyncratic way of using apostrophes. Maybe an education would fix that

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:03 pm

randomclaret2 wrote:Has someone actually suggested a second referendum is held because of an opinion poll ?

If you consider that the sole purpose of a referendum is to test public opinion at a point in time then opinion polls suggesting a significant shift in public opinion would probably be a good justification for another referendum. That is, of course, unless you subscribe to the view that you get to voice an opinion once and then it's never allowed to change regardless of what happens or becomes apparent in the meantime.

Also by that logic, refusing a second referendum in those circumstances would be fairly undemocratic, no?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:23 pm

I dunno what Ringo and Andy are worried about.

We will just call the second referendum advisory and see what happens.....

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:37 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Hi Paul,
Simple Maths really. Find the total of people eligible to vote in the referendum and subtract it from the "official" population.

Now you could make quite a reasonable argument to discount the under 18s from this list, but bear in mind that by the planned end of the "transitional period" (i.e. March 2021), anyone who was over 13 at the time of the referendum will by then be 18.

So the "don't knows (i.e. eligible and registered, but didn't vote) plus those who were not eligible for a variety of reasons totals just over 31 million.
(The figures are in the public domain).

Hi nil_d, so, re 13 year olds - how were we expected to count their vote in 2016? Should we count them all as "remain" or all as "leave" or judge that they are already represented by the people who were eligible to vote and exercised their right to vote?

I'm not sure that adding up the people that were alive on the date of the vote but were not eligible to vote - for whatever reason - is relevant to how the votes that were cast in the referendum should be counted. We might just as well argue that no one in the UK got to vote in the recent German elections, the French presidential election earlier this year or last year's USA presidential election. One way of another we can claim to be impacted by the results of those elections - but, we didn't get the chance to vote.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:43 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:

Hi Lancs, thanks for posting Edward Heath's message in Dec 1972 announcing that the UK would be joining the European Community, aka "Common Market."

It's interesting to see how far the "EEC" has progressed from those exciting days.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:51 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I didn't. Because there was no reason to believe that there had been a significant change in public opinion. Now there is.

And the argument that we shouldn't be allowed the opportunity to change our mind by havign a second referendum because we want unlimited referendums until we get the result we want is as asinine now as it was 18 months ago. It's a weak as **** argument.

Here's a challenge. Explain to me that actual reason why we shouldn't have a second referendum. Since we were given the right to vote on it in the first place, explain to me why you believe we shouldn't have the right to change our mind.

Surely a decision as massive and impactful as this one should at least be made with as much certainty as a contestant answering a question on a Chris Tarrant quiz show. But if not, why not?
Measure twice, cut once.

If remain lost again then we'd end up going through all the same old boring crap again where we have to listen to people like you telling us its the uneducated non-degree holders who're ruining this country for bloody starters.

People still don't know what the impact of brexit will be, no one does, all the experts are doing is guessing.

Having a 2nd referendum will result in one side being ****** off either way.

Has there been a significant change of opinion or is it just based on a poll which can be as swayed to suit the poll takers anyway?
As far as I'm aware even Gina Miller has stopped her court cases, but I could be wrong.

Most people still won't understand what they're voting for, lots don't at a general election they're just sheep and vote for the same party time and again regardless of how badly they've performed.
The average person has little knowledge of the ins and outs of the EU, they're never going too, but the majority of those who voted decided to leave and that result has bizarrely always been contested by bad losers.

Would you shut up if Labour were leading brexit?

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:52 pm

Bacchus wrote:If you consider that the sole purpose of a referendum is to test public opinion at a point in time then opinion polls suggesting a significant shift in public opinion would probably be a good justification for another referendum. That is, of course, unless you subscribe to the view that you get to voice an opinion once and then it's never allowed to change regardless of what happens or becomes apparent in the meantime.

Also by that logic, refusing a second referendum in those circumstances would be fairly undemocratic, no?

Can we keep having referendums every few years just to make sure everyone's happy?

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:54 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:I dunno what Ringo and Andy are worried about.

We will just call the second referendum advisory and see what happens.....

Hi Lancs (and others who think there should be a second referendum), I assume that the second referendum will be 40 ish years after the UK has left the EU? Or will we "ask the people" how we think it's going a little more frequently next time?

I watched QT last week. I was struck by the eloquence of the audience member who stated that the referendum question was a simple "remain" or "leave" question. There was no, second, multiple choice question if you indicated "leave" - "now tell us what type of leave you want...."

Perhaps there should have been a second question also for those that choose "remain:" - do you mean "remain" and the EU should remain static and un-changing from this point? "do you mean, let's change a few things - but the UK will always have a veto over anything we don't like?" "do you mean, let's go for full federal USofE as quickly as possible" - or do you just mean "I've got a villa in Tuscany and an au pair from central Europe and... I've no idea what it's like north of Watford....and that's all I understand about the EU."

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:55 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:You haven't explain why we shouldn't have another one. Why shouldn't we be allowed to change our minds on this?

How many times is the country allowed to change its mind out of interest?

We could hold a referendum every 4 yrs, smack bang inbetween general elections, similar rotation to world and Euros for example.
I think that's a good idea, that way we can make sure the opinion of being in or out is current.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:57 pm

martin_p wrote:Yeah and Theresa May said we wouldn’t have a snap election, just before you called one.

She didn't really have much choice.
So many were calling her an unelected leader and disputing her right to lead us during Brexit that she had to win an election to shut them up.
She did, its won and now we are moving forwards without people like Sturgeon moaning that May hasn't won an election.

randomclaret2 · Post by **randomclaret2** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:01 am

If another referendum were ever held and the vote was to stay in , or go back in, that would be the last one. There would be no more. The "its only advisory/ cant we change our minds" automatons would see to that. If the result were to be repeated the foot stamping and tantrums would go on.

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:08 am

A first referendum was conducted under strict OFCOM and campaigning rules, and Leave clearly won (by well over a million votes, from memory). That all our major political parties campaigned for Remain was unfortunate, but the event was as neutral as it could be.

Since then, polls, briefings and lobbying can take place without those safeguards. The “twitchy bums” in the middle of the argument will naturally wobble in the polling. Politicians have different rules (Boris and Gove for example, clearly have instructions to stay “on message”).

So, any talk of a 2nd referendum based on polling is simply fantasy land. If somehow it happened, it would rip our country apart. The animosity would have no precedent in our lifetimes.

It’s all fairly obvious how to proceed.

If Remain had won, with 48% voting leave, a true leader would say there is sufficient scepticism to have to withdraw but to retain full single market and customs union access, as something akin to the EEA / EFTA.

If Leave won, which it did, the public voted to “take back control” in full knowledge of the risks, but due to the hefty number voting Remain, we should target a free trade deal (a softish but full Brexit if you will) as close as possible to what we have now, but with clear red lines around the issue of control. If the entire Parliament agreed that, and it is scandalous that they do not, we would have an incredibly strong negotiating position and we would get the deal that benefitted all voters the most whilst staying faithful to the result.

As far as I can see, May is trying to get the latter, and thus anyone opposing her is an absolute disgrace to the office they hold.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:11 am

randomclaret2 wrote:If another referendum were ever held and the vote was to stay in , or go back in, that would be the last one. There would be no more. The "its only advisory/ cant we change our minds" automatons would see to that. If the result were to be repeated the foot stamping and tantrums would go on.

It's always possible that the EU does what De Gaulle did in the 1960s: "Non."

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:18 am

Sidney1st wrote:How many times is the country allowed to change its mind out of interest?

We could hold a referendum every 4 yrs, smack bang inbetween general elections, similar rotation to world and Euros for example.
I think that's a good idea, that way we can make sure the opinion of being in or out is current.

If Remain had won i'd be fine with another referendum to check the pulse of the public on this issue. Especially had they won by as small a margin as Leave did.

If Remain had won 52-48 do you think that should be the end of the issue? Of course not. Do you think Leave voters would let it be the end of the issue? Of course not. So why must it be the end of the issue if Leave won by that margin? Do you not see the double-standard?

I don't mind having a referendum queston on EU membership on the ballot every general election. There no reason why it can't be legislated that we have them and if Leave wins two consecutively then we leave. Referendums can be made legally binding like that, so there's no reason for people to be making the "unlimited referendums" bullshit argument.

I hated the fact that we even had the referendum because i argued that there's no way the public can be informed enough to make the decision, and we didn't have good, objective enough journalism to be informed accurately. It was always going to be corrupted by lies and i was proven right by the number of U-turns the Leave campaign had to do within days of the vote. But if we have this referendum then what is the argument against double-checking the answer? Especially when the answer last time was so uncertain? It can be made legally binding, so why not? If Leave voters are so confident than why don't they want a referendum that MUST be obeyed? (we both know why). And we can even eliminate the possibility of us not knowing what we're voting Leave for by making the Leave vote immediately actioned. Withdrawal the very next day.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:23 am

CrosspoolClarets wrote:If Remain had won, with 48% voting leave, a true leader would say there is sufficient scepticism to have to withdraw but to retain full single market and customs union access, as something akin to the EEA / EFTA.

See? Even if Remain had won these people would still be saying the result proves we should leave.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:54 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:If Remain had won i'd be fine with another referendum to check the pulse of the public on this issue. Especially had they won by as small a margin as Leave did.

If Remain had won 52-48 do you think that should be the end of the issue? Of course not. Do you think Leave voters would let it be the end of the issue? Of course not. So why must it be the end of the issue if Leave won by that margin? Do you not see the double-standard?

I don't mind having a referendum queston on EU membership on the ballot every general election. There no reason why it can't be legislated that we have them and if Leave wins two consecutively then we leave. Referendums can be made legally binding like that, so there's no reason for people to be making the "unlimited referendums" bullshit argument.

I hated the fact that we even had the referendum because i argued that there's no way the public can be informed enough to make the decision, and we didn't have good, objective enough journalism to be informed accurately. It was always going to be corrupted by lies and i was proven right by the number of U-turns the Leave campaign had to do within days of the vote. But if we have this referendum then what is the argument against double-checking the answer? Especially when the answer last time was so uncertain? It can be made legally binding, so why not? If Leave voters are so confident than why don't they want a referendum that MUST be obeyed? (we both know why). And we can even eliminate the possibility of us not knowing what we're voting Leave for by making the Leave vote immediately actioned. Withdrawal the very next day.

If leave wins two consecutively then we leave?

OK then, because that would be accepted about as much as another leave vote would be if someone stupidly held another referendum.

Remains campaign wasn't entirely true either.

Why do leave voters have to be confident about another outcome, they're not the ones whinging their dicks off constantly about the last one.

Double check a vote?
Can I ask for that if Labour win an election?
Fairs fair after all.

No reasons to be making unlimited referendum arguments but apparently a double checking referendum is acceptable?
Words fail me.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:39 am

Sidney1st wrote:If leave wins two consecutively then we leave?
OK then, because that would be accepted about as much as another leave vote would be if someone stupidly held another referendum.

Remains campaign wasn't entirely true either.

Why do leave voters have to be confident about another outcome, they're not the ones whinging their dicks off constantly about the last one.

Double check a vote?
Can I ask for that if Labour win an election?
Fairs fair after all.

No reasons to be making unlimited referendum arguments but apparently a double checking referendum is acceptable?
Words fail me.

Of course you can ask for that if Labour wins an election. You get another election in a few years time.

Leave campaigners spent years demanding a referendum, and we got one. So why is it that when remain supporters want a referendum simply to either back up the decision, or to tell government that we've changed our mine, is it so ridiculous and laughable? Isn't that a double-standard?

Why is it that when leave want something it must be granted but when remain ask for the same thing we're being ridiculous?
And why should we not be allowed the opportunity to change our mind?

Answer these questions, please.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:08 am

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/blog ... for-remain" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Loyalclaret · Post by **Loyalclaret** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:33 am

Sounds like the city will be protected...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... SApp_Other" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:35 am

It's interesting to see how far the "EEC" has progressed from those exciting days.

Its an interesting read, because its clear the PM of the time is telling you all that its more than just a trading bloc. Of course, the suspicious part of me thinks that people like you were alive at the time have forgotten that.

I was struck by the eloquence of the audience member who stated that the referendum question was a simple "remain" or "leave" question.

You mean the old guy who went on about immigration and had a go at Starmer for wanting us to join the single market (the one we have been part of for quite a while) and shouting over everybody who tried to interrupt him? That guy? Well, there is a shock.

As far as I can see, May is trying to get the latter, and thus anyone opposing her is an absolute disgrace to the office they hold.

As far as I can see, the sovereignty of parliament isn't a obey/disobey choice. You can't have it if you are not prepared to accept that MPs are allowed to vote on what they want.

Course, if you just took off the Brexit glasses for a second and looked at what actually happened, then you'd know that May took us to the polls to get her "hard brexit" and was told to foxtrot oscar. The reason she did that is because she knew the Brexit promised before the referendum was unachievable. Now she's got to get the best deal she can, and anyone who thinks it will be better than the one we have now is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Thats just the three most obvious bits of "WTF are you guys on?" out of your posts.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:00 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Of course you can ask for that if Labour wins an election. You get another election in a few years time.

Leave campaigners spent years demanding a referendum, and we got one. So why is it that when remain supporters want a referendum simply to either back up the decision, or to tell government that we've changed our mine, is it so ridiculous and laughable? Isn't that a double-standard?

Why is it that when leave want something it must be granted but when remain ask for the same thing we're being ridiculous?
And why should we not be allowed the opportunity to change our mind?

Answer these questions, please.

The dust hasn't settled on the old referendum yet.
If there was a 2nd then Leave could demand another one to triple check, that's how silly it would become, an endless circle of referendums because people can't accept a decision.

How many referendums would you want to make sure?
2, 3, 4, 5.....

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:04 am

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ssion=true

Brexit Britain is going to be so ace.

taio · Post by **taio** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:10 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ssion=true

Brexit Britain is going to be so ace.

Clear discrimination but what's it got to do with the decision to leave the EU?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:10 am

A chronology of Brexit -

https://twitter.com/PolakPolly/status/9 ... 2518901760*" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

*if you think Brexit is ace, then don't bother reading it.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:14 am

Clear discrimination but what's it got to do with the decision to leave the EU?

Nothing whatsoever

Its just a sign of the times we live in now.

taio · Post by **taio** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:18 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Nothing whatsoever

Its just a sign of the times we live in now.

There's been countless examples of such discrimination throughtout my lifetime. You presumably thought it added to the brexit debate by posting it on this thread and making a direct reference to brexit.

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:20 am

Loyalclaret wrote:Sounds like the city will be protected...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... SApp_Other" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The EU will be bending over backwards to do a deal with us any day now.....

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:22 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ssion=true

Brexit Britain is going to be so ace.

I'm not sure how this is a Brexit issue, but I'm sure you can explain it.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:23 am

You think the owner would have got away with it if it had said "No asians" or "no Irish"?

He'd have never put it up.

Its the casual racism against EU migrants that has become acceptable that I have an issue with, and that is most definitely linked to the referendum

taio · Post by **taio** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:30 am

It is discriminatory and such discrimination against eastern europeans existed before brexit was even on the agenda.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:36 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Its an interesting read, because its clear the PM of the time is telling you all that its more than just a trading bloc. Of course, the suspicious part of me thinks that people like you were alive at the time have forgotten that.

.

Good morning, Lancs. Yes, I was "alive at the time," just old enough to vote and an eager student of politics and economics. I was a big supporter of the UK joining the EEC.

Both Harold Wilson and Ted Heath were enthusiastic for the UK to join the EEC - and a majority of the electorate. The subsequent referendum - the first held in the UK - resulted from a significant number of the Labour party/Labour government being against membership. (There were also senior members of the Tory party who were against, but not as prominent a group).

I've posted many times of my support for many aspects of the EU. But, there are a number of areas where the EU is failing, not least the "Brussells establishment" and, of course, the euro. I'm also aware of the dissatisfaction of the direction of development of the EU amongst the populations of many of the other EU nations.

I'd happily remain in a reformable EU. But, the EU politicians cannot afford to admit their errors with the euro and they are unrealistic in other important areas. The UK cannot stay in and continually block everything by using a veto (we had no veto over the euro, for example). So, "standing aside" and allowing the rest of the EU to make their own decisions without us is a logical way of avoiding a worst "bust up" at some time in the future.

Ted Heath referred to the EU being "outward-looking" and "breaking down barriers." If the EU today was what Ted Heath spoke about in 1972 it would be a champion for free trade. It would be offering the UK - and many other countries - easy access to the EU "single market and customs union."

The EU needs to change in the same way that France needed to change in 1789.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:38 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:You think the owner would have got away with it if it had said "No asians" or "no Irish"?

He'd have never put it up.

Its the casual racism against EU migrants that has become acceptable that I have an issue with, and that is most definitely linked to the referendum

Not now, but in times gone by he would've put them up and got away with a No Irish/blacks etc.
Casual racism exists, has done before Brexit was even an idea and will do long after it's done.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:11 am

Loyalclaret wrote:Sounds like the city will be protected...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... SApp_Other" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

More post brexit referendum good news.

Order books for 20% of the economy are doing well whilst the other 80% suffers.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:12 am

Sidney1st wrote:She didn't really have much choice.
So many were calling her an unelected leader and disputing her right to lead us during Brexit that she had to win an election to shut them up.
She did, its won and now we are moving forwards without people like Sturgeon moaning that May hasn't won an election.

Well given she no longer has a majority ‘won’ is not a term most people are using. Only if her objective was to revitalise Labour and be beholden to a dozen MPs in JI is it a real victory.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:20 am

martin_p wrote:Well given she no longer has a majority ‘won’ is not a term most people are using. Only if her objective was to revitalise Labour and be beholden to a dozen MPs in JI is it a real victory.

Majority or not, no one is calling her an unelected leader anymore.
She 'won' the right to lead the country and is doing so.