Project fear aka pure political fantasy..

[aggi]

Leave it aggi. Ringo clearly has issues understanding the English language, which is what causes most of his problems, namely:

- being unable to write down what he actually means, causing him to cry ‘pedant’ when it’s pointed out he’s wrong because that’s not what he meant and that should be obvious to everyone
- not understanding what he’s being told, causing him to claim people are saying things they aren’t.

I'm normally intrigued to see which new, farcical route he'll take to avoid just admitting that he was wrong but he seems to be stuck in a loop with this one. Someone needs to turn him off and back on again I think.

[aggi]

I said that only the winning parties manifesto is enacted in to law and legislation.


The parliamentary information website backs me up.

"The political party that wins then forms the government, and bases its legislative agenda on its election manifesto"

https://www.parliament.uk/education/abo ... -are-made/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The losing parties manifestos are binned.

Labour campaigned on a manifesto of scrapping tuition fees. They lost. Their manifestos has been binned. Now the Tories have said they'll look at tuition fees. If they subsequently scrap tuition fees in order to gain popularity with younger voters. It is NOT THE LABOUR PARTIES MANIFESTO being enacted and put into law and legislation. THEY LOST.

IT'S THE TORIES BEING POLITICAL OPPORTUNISTS.!!!!

Or are you still insisting on claiming aggi knows more about parliamentary democracy and the constitution, than the official parliamentary information website!!!!!!?

The whole point of my analogy was to point out Leave won the referendum. And on a binary in or out decision, the losing sides argument is binned.

You realise you're arguing a point that no-one else is making (and still doing it badly). It's like a discussion with Ralph Wiggum where you eventually have to concede that the responses bear no resemblance to the matter being discussed.

Even on your new argument The whole point of my analogy was to point out Leave won the referendum. And on a binary in or out decision, the losing sides argument is binned. you're arguing it really badly because your illustration is where ideas clearly weren't binned (public sector pay cap and council tax).

You're saying Leave should bin the ideas of Remain as in the election the conservatives won and didn't bin the ideas of defeated parties. That's a hell of a leap of logic.

[BleedingClaret]

It would be going swimmingly if it wasn't for the same bunch of anti democratic liars doing everything in their power to reverse it ...

I agree
Referendum Vote created by a PM as a tool to remain in the EU with a better deal that backfired.
The Brexit process being run, ultimately, by a PM that voted to remain
The EU is effectively trying to scupper it as we are, still, a large part of their cash cow
Ireland using it as a pawn for their nationalism, whilst wishing to cede control to Europe, rather ironic
Scotland, well the SNP, want independence from England basically whilst wanting to be in the EU
Partly because at the moment they benefit from it
Wales just trying to pretend they’re not like the English, not sure they can really be arsed
My solution is that England votes for independence as NI, Wales & Scotland all have there own parliament as does London but that is a British Parliament
So as a bad nasty Englishmen I’d like to leave the Irish, all of them, the Scots and the Welsh to their devolved Parlaiments and they can remain in Europe as Un United Kingdom and they can be a net contributor and see how they like that.
Time for a Free English Parlaiment, and not just in London

[Lancasterclaret]

Wow, someone has OD on Daily mail editorials.

[Greenmile]

"There will be no 2nd referendum. This is it. Final. A once in a generation chance to shape the future of our country"
David Cameron June 2016.

Project Fear, innit mate.

[AndrewJB]

"It was not whatsoever clear cut as to what voting leave actually meant"

That's your opinion Andrew. And notice I didn't say "just your opinin" because your opinin is as valid as mine and the next man's. But in my opinion it was.

The referendum was only one question - leaving or remaining in the EU. The only mandate the public gave was to leave the EU, and nothing else. How we go about it is as open to debate as anything.

As I've suggested earlier in this thread, the sensible way to do this is as gently as possible. The reason for this is there will be plenty of disruption just through leaving the EU, and no need to add to it by cutting lots of other ties. Give it a while and see what happens, and then consider leaving the customs union.

[ClaretMoffitt]

Has anyone wavered or changed their mind since their original vote on Brexit since June 2016? Just curious

[AndrewJB]

So I suppose the best way to counteract these constraints on public services is to import 350,000 people a year to make their jobs even harder. That'll show the bigots, aye?

Question, do you think the budgets will actually rise to accommodate all these new comers if we maintain or even grow that figure? Do you think a Labour government, who will not only allow FMOP but also probably untold amounts of refugees (who really do cost money to sort out because their skills and cultural vales are so different) will be a shining beacon for the working class?

The budgets should rise to accommodate incoming people, because these incoming people are a net gain to the economy. More people paying tax, spending money on housing, food, entertainment. Most of them in the prime of their lives, so don't need educating or hospitalising.

Cast your mind back to 2010, and George Osborne telling the country we have to tighten our belts, and bragging about how much he was going to cut spending by. THAT is why we have a strained public service. It's not the people who came here. Councils have had their budgets cut by over 60%. The blame for this sits firmly with the government.

[Lancasterclaret]

Hasn't someone already admitted it on this thread?

[ClaretMoffitt]

The budgets should rise to accommodate incoming people, because these incoming people are a net gain to the economy. More people paying tax, spending money on housing, food, entertainment. Most of them in the prime of their lives, so don't need educating or hospitalising.

Cast your mind back to 2010, and George Osborne telling the country we have to tighten our belts, and bragging about how much he was going to cut spending by. THAT is why we have a strained public service. It's not the people who came here. Councils have had their budgets cut by over 60%. The blame for this sits firmly with the government.

EU migration is a net benefit the the economy sure. Not necessarily to living standards for people already here and there are a lot of people in that net total that don't contribute and instead take who in my opinion shouldn't be here. However yes, you are right on a purely economic level, taking away all the details in between, EU migration was good for economic growth.

I could argue the finer details on that such as certain member states making up high 60's percentages to our net benefit alone where as some other more recent EU additions have proven more costly etc, but just for the sake of total simplicity we will go with the EU net benefit.

However, non-EU migration certainly hasn't had a net positive effect. Over 17 years its cost something around 120billion to the economy.

The report analysed figures from 1995 to 2011, during most of which the Labour government was pursuing vigorously pro-immigration policies.

It found that migrants from outside the European Economic Area (EEA) made a negative contribution to the public purse of £117.9 billion because they consumed more in public expenditure – including NHS costs, welfare hand-outs and education – than they contributed in taxes.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews ... llion.html

Which is my primary concern with Labour.

After all, I'm all for immigration from all nations provided it meets two criteria

1.) the migrant will pose a net contribution to our economy and society
2.) Will not undermine national security

[BleedingClaret]

Wow, someone has OD on Daily mail editorials.

I’m too intelligent to read newspapers
I just look at the pictures

[Bacchus]

I'm not entirely sure what point you're making there Moffitt but that position certainly isn't going to be helped by Brexit. Well make it harder for immigrants to come from the EU and make a positive net contribution in favour of immigrants from outside the EU who are less likely to do so. Sounds to me like you should be a Remainer.

[nil_desperandum]

After all, I'm all for immigration from all nations provided it meets two criteria

1.) the migrant will pose a net contribution to our economy and society
2.) Will not undermine national security

Isn't that pretty much the legal position now, even before we leave?
As Bacchus says, if you're happy with that then maybe you should have voted remain.
Leaving the EU will not have an impact on immigration from outside - other than to increase it.

[ClaretMoffitt]

I'm not entirely sure what point you're making there Moffitt but that position certainly isn't going to be helped by Brexit. Well make it harder for immigrants to come from the EU and make a positive net contribution in favour of immigrants from outside the EU who are less likely to do so. Sounds to me like you should be a Remainer.

My gripe is with the overall numbers, I don't think they are sustainable and they are also with quality of immigration, much of that net benefit could be retained whilst significantly reducing overall numbers. We just need to assess everyone on a case by case basis, free movement of all people within a massive block of people (that can grow at anytime with new members) is not the answer.

[ClaretMoffitt]

Isn't that pretty much the legal position now, even before we leave?
As Bacchus says, if you're happy with that then maybe you should have voted remain.
Leaving the EU will not have an impact on immigration from outside - other than to increase it.

I was never under the illusion that leaving the EU would affect our powers regarding non-EU migration, however, I was hoping that it would send a very loud and very clear message to downing street that immigration (as a whole) needed to be addressed. My vote was against FMOP and migrant quotas from the refugee crisis, but I'm not blind nor dismissing of the net benefits of EU migration to the economy. I believe we could implement a better, more specific policy ourselves, that's all

[Lancasterclaret]

You do get that EU migration is very Christian, and non-EU migration isn't going to be don't you?

[BleedingClaret]

There is no reason that once fully in charge of our own countries legislation again, that we can’t impliment a sensible immigration policy that is economically in our interest but that also allows for a humanitarian policy within its doctrine.
The scaremongering idea that it will lead to decent work ready people from Europe being turned away whilst allowing a larger number of people from further afield who detest everything about our country, but the hand outs, and ultimately are a threat to our way of life, well that is basically how the foreign policy of the last 40 odd years played out in reality anyway.
Can it be much worse.

[BleedingClaret]

You do get that EU migration is very Christian, and non-EU migration isn't going to be don't you?

Why can we not determine who we let in?

[nil_desperandum]

Why can we not determine who we let in?

Well, we probably can, but at a huge price.
This is sort of how it works:
UK to the EU: We are leaving your free trade block, customs union, single market etc because we want an end to free movement of goods, services and people.
UK to India: Can we make a trade agreement with you?
Reply: Yes, of course, so long as we can have free movement of goods, services and people.
UK: Ok, how many have you got?
India: About 1.32 billion.

Ref:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5994207/i ... rade-deal/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Lancasterclaret]

You are only going to get trade deals with the countries that are not already in trade areas with some concessions.

Those concessions are going to be 100% guaranteed based on immigration with countries other than the US.

You do realise this? According to Ringo et al, all this was known before the referendum?

[BleedingClaret]

Well, we probably can, but at a huge price.
This is sort of how it works:
UK to the EU: We are leaving your free trade block, customs union, single market etc because we want an end to free movement of goods, services and people.
UK to India: Can we make a trade agreement with you?
Reply: Yes, of course, so long as we can have free movement of goods, services and people.
UK: Ok, how many have you got?
India: About 1.32 billion.

Ref:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5994207/i ... rade-deal/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ok I understand the principle but for example I supply kitchens for a living, I don’t agree to look after someone’s unruly nephew in return.
However the Mr customer might do PVC windows and I feel obliged to let him at least quote for my new windows and probably I am pre disposed to favour him even if he’s not the cheapest because he’s recommended his sister to get a kitchen from me and I told one of my mates about his services.
Surely that’s how it should work and the rest of it needs refusal.

[Lancasterclaret]

Er, yeah.

Just bear with me for a minute though, in the very unlikely event its a lot more complicated than that (there might be a smidgen of a chance that it could be, but only a smidgen) its going to take an ace group of negotiators (which we apparently haven't got, just going to shrink the department concerned because of cuts) some time to sort it out. And what if that is a red line for them? What do we do then?

How long will this take? 200+ countries is going to take some time surely?

And in all this time, all the stuff that we do (that everybody does as well) will be struggling because its hasn't got the preferential trade deals with anyone. That might be a concern if I'm being honest.

Doesn't matter, its all going to be ok, cos, you know "Project Fear"

[nil_desperandum]

Ok I understand the principle but for example I supply kitchens for a living, I don’t agree to look after someone’s unruly nephew in return.
.

Yes, but if you've just lost a big contract that you've had for the past 40 years, and you nowhave no work and no money and a mortgage to pay, then you might have to consider it.

[BleedingClaret]

Er, yeah.

Just bear with me for a minute though, in the very unlikely event its a lot more complicated than that (there might be a smidgen of a chance that it could be, but only a smidgen) its going to take an ace group of negotiators (which we apparently haven't got, just going to shrink the department concerned because of cuts) some time to sort it out. And what if that is a red line for them? What do we do then?

How long will this take? 200+ countries is going to take some time surely?

And in all this time, all the stuff that we do (that everybody does as well) will be struggling because its hasn't got the preferential trade deals with anyone. That might be a concern if I'm being honest.

Doesn't matter, its all going to be ok, cos, you know "Project Fear"

Twinned with project negativity
We should be free to have trade agreements on a 1 to 1 basis with all sovereign countries.
In time I like to think that more countries will free themselves from the shackles of EU malpractice.
I have smidgen of a feeling, only a smidgen,that selling fighter jets to India for 10 years in return for 2 to 3 million people that Morph into 10 to 15 million in 25 years when India haven’t bought any fighter jets off us for the previous 15 years is a tad more, just a tad more, problematic than not selling India fighter jets atall

[If it be your will]

.

[BleedingClaret]

Yes, but if you've just lost a big contract that you've had for the past 40 years, and you nowhave no work and no money and a mortgage to pay, then you might have to consider it.

I have sympathy for established businesses that this process undermines.
2 relevant things, to me, to those trading disasters though, it has ultimately been like building on sand. For all the trade we do it has ultimately cost us dearly in unsustainable contributions to the EU just for the right to trade and secondly for the social disruption it has also unacceptably caused to us as a Sovereign nation trying to maintain that freedom in the face of an increasingly federal Europe.
Goal posts moved a lot over the years from that Common Market.ideal
More relevantly though all that trade could and should continue, it only can’t because of the closed shop EU Cartel.

[ClaretMoffitt]

According to the polls, not very many (unless there's been large movements in both directions cancelling each other out - unlikely).

I'm not sure that is the point anymore, though. We don't yet know the final deal, but I think we can agree it looks like it's going to be a really stupid one, one that no sensible person would have voted for pre-referendum, on account of its sheer stupidity (and my definition of 'sensible' is a very loose one here - it would easily include Ringo, for example): a deal with the same existing EU rules but without any influence.

So, to a fellow Brexiteer calling from the opposite end of the political spectrum, what should we do now? Is it time to accept we'd obviously be better off remaining than the deal we're going to get? Or do we carry on arguing for a meaningful Brexit, even though we know it's not going to happen? Perhaps allow the totally stupid deal to go through, then push for a proper brexit in 5 years? It's not a rhetorical question. I honestly don't know the answer.

Same, to be honest.

I've become so disillusioned with the incompetence, infighting and political opportunism since the vote I can barely be arsed even following it anymore.

[nil_desperandum]

I have sympathy for established businesses that this process undermines.
2 relevant things, to me, to those trading disasters though, it has ultimately been like building on sand. For all the trade we do it has ultimately cost us dearly in unsustainable contributions to the EU just for the right to trade and secondly for the social disruption it has also unacceptably caused to us as a Sovereign nation trying to maintain that freedom in the face of an increasingly federal Europe.
Goal posts moved a lot over the years from that Common Market.ideal
More relevantly though all that trade could and should continue, it only can’t because of the closed shop EU Cartel.

You make some reasonable points, and it's a pity that some of the other "Brexiters" on this board don't engage in mature debate as you do. Constantly trotting out the "We won, you lost" / "bring out yer dead" rhetoric contributes absolutely nothing to what is a debate for serious adults.
With regards to the "unsustainable contributions" to the EU, you are, presumably, aware of what a tiny proportion of GDP it is?
It's quite a bit less than 0.5% of GDP, and apart from all the EU benefits we get back directly in return , the CBI estimates the direct net economic benefits of membership to the UK are between £62bn and £78bn every year.

[AndrewJB]

My gripe is with the overall numbers, I don't think they are sustainable and they are also with quality of immigration, much of that net benefit could be retained whilst significantly reducing overall numbers. We just need to assess everyone on a case by case basis, free movement of all people within a massive block of people (that can grow at anytime with new members) is not the answer.

This is the thing. I read what you have written as; "Britain is completely full and overloaded, and can't cope with many more people" - please correct me if I'm wrong. I disagree.

Firstly most of Britain is owned by a very small minority of the population, and the actual amount of Britain that is built on (concreted, tarmacked, buildings, etc) is miniscule. We have the physical room, but we might need some land redistribution - which would be no bad thing. There is an initial cost (or more correctly - investment) required to build a new city, however that money goes around the economy again and again and again. It pays wages spent on other businesses, and pays tax funding the local social infrastructure. And then once it's there it participates in the national economy. Put the opposite way, take any large town or city out of our economy, and we'll see a net loss.

Secondly, our immigration system should be reconfigured, but not around the way you've described. It shouldn't be just about accepting people who fill a particular skill gap. Our first (and legal) obligation is to refugees. It's not a huge burden (pretty much every other country signed up to taking them), so we should keep to it. Why are refugees good for Britain? Because when treated well they become first rate citizens. Imagine for yourself; you flee your home, and what feelings would you have for the place that takes you in? The evidence is there in Canada, Australia, and the USA. And here as well - the Huguenots, the Jews from Tsarist Russia, the East African Asians - all of which struggled, but thrived. They put down roots here, and became British and enhanced our country.

I don't want to turn this into an essay, so I'll leave it here. Yes, we need immigration controls (which we already have, and seem quite nasty by current evidence), but I'd rather not we turn into a country that just picks what it thinks it needs, and stops treating people as human beings.

[BabylonClaret]

ne'er since the dawn of time hath so many sought to educate one so thick, with such futility.

I honestly dont know whythey keep trying. I thought most of them pretty intelligent but it seems not.

This thread pops up every month or so. And it goes like this...

Ringo: heres some news showing we are ok. I thought we were doomed? Bollpcks to that project fear ********.
Remainers: (insert any number of approached to challenge opinion that Brexit will be a golden age)
Ringo: yah boo! We won you lost. You sad losers! Stop remoaning.
Thread: bloats into several pages of circular posts.

Id have thought Lancaster and co would have learnt by now that its an exercise in futility. Ringo doesnt even understand that the People arent sovereign in this country- the Monarch is. We're not a republic. None of it is written down or vested in a formal constitution - its a complex mix of historical precedent, tradition and understandings developed over a thousand years.

[Lancasterclaret]

We sell fighter jets to India now.

Are we going to sell more after brexit?

Take your point Babylon, but its a fluid argument as the parameters keep changing. Every day another issue turns up that hasn't been thought through.

[BabylonClaret]

Im not having a pop really. Just sick of the argument which is always always started by Leave supporters in a sort of crowing gloaty way. And with very little credible argument.

Thats like you arguing that most folks voted brexit just to keep johnny foreigner away.

In fact I am past caring now. Personally i will probably be ok if the country goes to **** so Im just in a place where i tbink "fine - lets go for it - just pull ouy and shut the ******* up"

[CrosspoolClarets]

There is plenty of evidence now that economics was not the major factor behind the Brexit vote, yet all the Remain side want to do is talk about it. That includes this message board, the media, the politicians and the rest.

The so called less educated Brexit voters probably recognise through life experience that economics swings one way and the other, and government policies tends to affect the pound in the pocket more than the macro picture - hence they do not fear the risks (arguably the ones in high risk professions like car manufacturing fear prioritise it even less, given that they voted out).

They do though care hugely about other things - culture, autonomy, family and many others. Yet nobody ever talks about these things despite them being the reason that if there is a bad deal people will still want to leave.

[Lancasterclaret]

I'm reconciled to leaving, just gobsmacked that we are currently unable to arrange it without looking like we want both a financial disaster and the break up of the Union, and astonished that a "we'll be fine, we are British" attitude appears to be our only plan.

[Spijed]

There is plenty of evidence now that economics was not the major factor behind the Brexit vote, yet all the Remain side want to do is talk about it. That includes this message board, the media, the politicians and the rest.

The so called less educated Brexit voters probably recognise through life experience that economics swings one way and the other, and government policies tends to affect the pound in the pocket more than the macro picture - hence they do not fear the risks (arguably the ones in high risk professions like car manufacturing fear prioritise it even less, given that they voted out).

They do though care hugely about other things - culture, autonomy, family and many others. Yet nobody ever talks about these things despite them being the reason that if there is a bad deal people will still want to leave.

And what about the 16 million who wanted to remain?

Should they just be dismissed, considering they have been through life's experiences, just like those who wanted to leave?

[BabylonClaret]

They do though care hugely about other things - culture, autonomy, family and many others. Yet nobody ever talks about these things despite them being the reason that if there is a bad deal people will still want to leave.

Thats exactly why people voted Leave. And you are right about economics in that people dont worry as much about it. But actually the macro part of economics impacts far more than the micro twiddling that government policies can do.

Unfortunately for the Leave supporters the economic part of the argument is the really important big screwy shitty messy horrible stuff that we have to sort out in leaving. Not caring about it doesnt mean it isnt the most improtant part of the deal. And it being the most important bit to get right (or as right as possible) means that its the bit that people want to discuss.

And therin lies the problem. One side voted on culture and want to talk about that to the exclusion of anything else. One side voted witj at least one eye on the overall macro position of this island as part of the wider stage. Of course thats a bit of an oversimplification because there will be varying degrees of that (and i am sure lots of remain voters si.ply thought 'i really dont know but its generally ok so lets not rock the boat') but i think ypur final paragraph sums up the whole sorry debacle.

[Lancasterclaret]

People will not want to leave if it hits them in the pocket.

I think that is the issue why we are not further along. Someone is going to have to break ranks soon and explain that "actually, you have to decide whether you want to be financially in the same position as you are now, or worse off but with all the other things that you wanted".

Until that happens, then we'll just keep kicking the can of worms down the road, and the longer it takes, the worse its going to be.

[martin_p]

I honestly dont know whythey keep trying. I thought most of them pretty intelligent but it seems not.

This thread pops up every month or so. And it goes like this...

Ringo: heres some news showing we are ok. I thought we were doomed? Bollpcks to that project fear ********.
Remainers: (insert any number of approached to challenge opinion that Brexit will be a golden age)
Ringo: yah boo! We won you lost. You sad losers! Stop remoaning.
Thread: bloats into several pages of circular posts.

Id have thought Lancaster and co would have learnt by now that its an exercise in futility. Ringo doesnt even understand that the People arent sovereign in this country- the Monarch is. We're not a republic. None of it is written down or vested in a formal constitution - its a complex mix of historical precedent, tradition and understandings developed over a thousand years.

But it’s fun!

[SmudgetheClaret]

The EU is a sinking ship jump on the Brexit lifeboats leave voters and patriots first..

[Lancasterclaret]

This is another point made by Brexiteers that really bugs me.

We want trade with the EU, but you want it to collapse?

And who in their right mind wants the EU to collapse?

The economic ramifications are bloody scary, and that is before you take into account any geopolitical effects.

[SmudgetheClaret]

Want it to collapse? or suggest that it will which did I say ?

[BabylonClaret]

People will not want to leave if it hits them in the pocket.

I think that is the issue why we are not further along. Someone is going to have to break ranks soon and explain that "actually, you have to decide whether you want to be financially in the same position as you are now, or worse off but with all the other things that you wanted".

Until that happens, then we'll just keep kicking the can of worms down the road, and the longer it takes, the worse its going to be.

But they still want to Lancaster - because any actual impact on pockets wont happen until its been a wgile after leaving. And to be fair its all speculation either way - even though the logic says that you cant have your cake and eat it we cant say for certain what will happen. Thats why you cant win this argument. Its a hearts vs minds thing.

Re read crosspool's post. Leavers* dont care about the money side - or rather they have decided it will be fine. They dont want to debate the economic issues because they voted for 'an independent britain thats great again'- whatever that is.

*Im generalising here to make the point but it seems to me that nearly every person i know who voted leave did so for societal reasons rather rhan economic

[RingoMcCartney]

You realise you're arguing a point that no-one else is making (and still doing it badly). It's like a discussion with Ralph Wiggum where you eventually have to concede that the responses bear no resemblance to the matter being discussed.

Even on your new argument The whole point of my analogy was to point out Leave won the referendum. And on a binary in or out decision, the losing sides argument is binned. you're arguing it really badly because your illustration is where ideas clearly weren't binned (public sector pay cap and council tax).

You're saying Leave should bin the ideas of Remain as in the election the conservatives won and didn't bin the ideas of defeated parties. That's a hell of a leap of logic.

An earlier poster said this-

"Rubbish. Democracy is about expressing an opinion. Parties which lose an election still campaign for the next opportunity. Remainers have every right to make their case and every right to campaign for the opportunity to reverse the Democratic decision made 2 years ago,"

He was trying to justify Remoaners trying to reverse the referendum result and continue campaigning. By comparing what happens following a general election.

I pointed out that he's not comparing like for like. A referendum is a once in a generation event. He's right by saying that "parties lose an election still campaign for the next opportunity"

I pointed out that he shouldn't do, but if he wanted to compare a referendum to a general election then he should remember. That following a general election, The political party that wins then forms the government, and bases its legislative agenda on its election manifesto. The losing party does not.

Therefore, the losing side in a binary referendum should not have any influence in the procedure and allow the winning view to take presidence.

He wanted to cherry pick the aspects of a general election that suited his argument and apply them to a referendum. But not consider the ones that didn't.

I said he shouldn't compare them. But if you want to in order justify that losing parties continuing to try and reverse the decision. Fine. But if you do want to compare,
be aware that the losing sides manifesto is binned.

That's when , firstly, nil desperandum joined in. Claiming that manifestos weren't binned but "resurrected"

Then you, claiming that the Lib dems manifesto had been put into law and legislation.

I pointed out, and still maintain you're wrong on that point. Because, to do so according to the official parlimant website -

"The political party that wins then forms the government, and bases its legislative agenda on its election manifesto"

You were trying to claim something entirely different (political opportunism on behalf of the tory government) was effectively what would be a breach of parliamentary convention.

Political opportunism- Political opportunism refers to the attempt to maintain political support, or increase political influence, in a way which disregards relevant ethical or political principles.

That's what the Tories did by nicking the LibDems ideas. It wasn't Vince cable as the losing party leader enacting a manifesto pledge.

In summary -

You said this- "You're saying Leave should bin the ideas of Remain as in the election the conservatives won and didn't bin the ideas of defeated parties. That's a hell of a leap of logic"

I'm not saying that. I'm saying if people want to oppose brexit by using general elections as a yard stick to justify continued opposition. They should be made aware that by all means use the general election. But think what happens the losing parties manifestos.

[BabylonClaret]

By your binary logic Ringo there shouldnt even have been a referendum on this issue. We voted to join and then again to remain.

However a bunch of folks never shut the **** up about leaving. In fact some of them even formed a party that specifically aimed to reverse a double decision to be part of Europe.

By your logic that's doubly undemocratic.

And stop quoting that website. Its an education website simplifying the process for kids to understand it.

[RingoMcCartney]

By your binary logic Ringo there shouldnt even have been a referendum on this issue. We voted to join and then again to remain..

WRONG!

The Heath Government took the UK into the Common market in 1973, Without A referendum. A referendum to decide whether the UK should continue to remain wasnt held until 1975.

Try and get your facts right before you try to start belittling.....

This website may help improve your knowledge

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_ ... ndum,_1975" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Or is that one simplified for kids as well!?

[martin_p]

WRONG!

The Heath Government took the UK into the Common market in 1973, Without A referendum. A referendum to decide whether the UK should continue to remain wasnt held until 1975.

Try and get your facts right before you try to start belittling.....

So it was undemocratic to try and reverse the Remain vote of ‘75 then?

[BabylonClaret]

WRONG!

The Heath Government took the UK into the Common market in 1973, Without A referendum. A referendum to decide whether the UK should continue to remain wasnt held until 1975.

Try and get your facts right before you try to start belittling.....

This website may help improve your knowledge

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_ ... ndum,_1975" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Or is that one simplified for kids as well!?

Its probably written by kids

The point is still valid though. You cant argue its undemocratic to publicly disagree with the 2016 vote when that vote is the direct result of 40 years of people doing exactly that about the 1975 vote. Well you can but you would be dead wrong.

But hey just shout WRONG and complain about being belittled. Meanwhile my logic torpedo has holed your argument :p

[RingoMcCartney]

So it was undemocratic to try and reverse the Remain vote of ‘75 then?

1. A referendum takes place on 1975. The will of the People is expressed in a remain vote (yes). Subsequently, The will of the People is ALLOWED to be enacted and the country remains in the common market. That's democracy.

Following the Will of the People being enacted, people begin campaining to leave the EU. That's democracy.

Fast forward 40 years,

2. A referendum takes place in 2016. The Will of the People is expressed in a Leave vote. Subsequently, BEFORE the Will of the People is ALLOWED to be enacted by Leaving the EU. People try and stop it. That is not democracy.

[martin_p]

Its probably written by kids

The point is still valid though. You cant argue its undemocratic to publicly disagree with the 2016 vote when that vote is the direct result of 40 years of people doing exactly that about the 1975 vote. Well you can but you would be dead wrong.

But hey just shout WRONG and complain about being belittled. Meanwhile my logic torpedo has holed your argument :p

It won’t put him off his stride, he doesn’t do logic. He can’t understand the simple logic of ‘ending the public sector pay cap is a Lib Dem manifesto promise’ and ‘the Tories enacted the ending of the public sector pay cap’ means ‘ the Tories enacted a Lib Dem manifesto promise’.

It’s primary school level, but he’s struggling with it.

[BabylonClaret]

Hes a moron. I dont know why people engage with him.

I know I know .... (sigh)