Peoples Vote

Right_winger · Post by **Right_winger** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:55 pm

Ah the people’s vote.... a thinly disguised second referendum to try and get the result they wanted the first time.

We all know what it’s about.

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:59 pm

Regarding the Ireland issue, Leavers in particular have voted because they believe in sovereignty. You cannot believe in sovereignty and want to dispense with our union just because some politicians are being arses (its a bit like the EU punishing Greek people for 50 years because a few Greek politicians were dodgy).

So, the DUP have to have a say. I know they were paid £1bn but that doesn't deny them a say. The Scots get a say too, but they are much lower down the food chain because of the lack of a land border nor a security risk - like all foreign policy, including trade policy, those powers have not been delegated to Holyrood. Maybe that say makes no deal more likely. That doesn't make it wrong. In any event, no deal should be renamed "no deal yet". Even better, should be renamed "WTO terms for the moment".

The Scots and Northern Irish may also be entitled to a new referendum, but those can only be when the new relationship has bedded in and the full impact is known. In 10 years. Referenda should not be conducted at an emotional time (the last one wasn't). It would make them unreflective of considered opinion in favour of knee jerk reactions. Same argument for Peoples Revote.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 4:32 pm

No way the DUP should have more say than the SNP. Thats just asking for the break up of the UK.

I guess its what sort of checks are required and whether or not you consider it "sovereign". Personally, I don't see NI being any less part of the UK if there are checks done at Belfast, Larne or Warrenpoint, but I could see it being an issue if those checks are done at Heysham or Cairnryan.

Right_winger · Post by **Right_winger** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 4:57 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:No way the DUP should have more say than the SNP. Thats just asking for the break up of the UK.

I guess its what sort of checks are required and whether or not you consider it "sovereign". Personally, I don't see NI being any less part of the UK if there are checks done at Belfast, Larne or Warrenpoint, but I could see it being an issue if those checks are done at Heysham or Cairnryan.

Why do you think that? NI has a border with the EU and Scotland doesn’t. What’s it got to do with the SNP what happens in NI?

Also the govt. is relying on DUP support for votes where as it can cast aside the SNP ( who let’s be honest are just disrupting all they can anyway )

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:00 pm

No, I get that but as Sturgeon has pointed out, its not exactly fair not to include the other part of the Union that voted for remain.

There is a distinct possibility that the DUP votes would be counterbalanced by those Lab/Lib/other MPs that want a deal as well.

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:31 pm

Right_winger wrote:Ah the people’s vote.... a thinly disguised second referendum to try and get the result they wanted the first time.

We all know what it’s about.

Stevie wonder can see that. The initial vote was in or out, at no point was it suggested that another vote would be in the offing just in case people aren’t sure, if we are dealing with indecisive people what’s to say the mind won’t be changed again, to late then.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:34 pm

Right_winger wrote:Ah the people’s vote.... a thinly disguised second referendum to try and get the result they wanted the first time.

We all know what it’s about.

Funny, isn't it? We're not allowed to assign motivation to Brexit voters for voting to Leave, but you're allowed to assign motivation to Remain voters for wanting to have a say on the next 50 years for our country.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:39 pm

I think the utter lack of clarity about where we are going to be on just about everything is a massivel factor here as well

PaintYorkClaretnBlue · Post by **PaintYorkClaretnBlue** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:01 pm

https://twitter.com/stigabell/status/10 ... 34688?s=21" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:06 pm

I see the People's vote are pulling out all the stops now. Soros's money is working hard.

Free coaches from most towns and cities across the UK down to London on the 20th October.

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/free-tra ... 1074872318" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Quite sad really. A new low.

South West Claret. · Post by **South West Claret.** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:09 pm

179 days to go now.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:10 pm

burnleymik wrote:I see the People's vote are pulling out all the stops now. Soros's money is working hard.

Free coaches from most towns and cities across the UK down to London on the 20th October.

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/free-tra ... 1074872318" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Quite sad really. A new low.

Lol. So now a display of democracy is "quite sad really". These people are giving up their free time to demonstrate for a cause they believe in and all you can say is that it's "a new low"? Really? Demonstrating in a democracy is "low"?

Please gain some perspective.

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:12 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Lol. So now a display of democracy is "quite sad really". These people are giving up their free time to demonstrate for a cause they believe in and all you can say is that it's "a new low"? Really? Demonstrating in a democracy is "low"?

Please gain some perspective.

They are demonstrating against democracy, if you want to discuss perspective.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:14 pm

burnleymik wrote:They are demonstrating against democracy, if you want to discuss perspective.

They're literally demonstrating FOR an election.

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:15 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote: They're literally demonstrating FOR an election.

No, they are demonstrating to overturn a democratic decision taken by 17.4 million people, by re-running the referendum.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:18 pm

burnleymik wrote:

No, they are demonstrating to overturn a democratic decision taken by 17.4 million people, by re-running the referendum.

It's a "People's Vote March". It's about getting a vote to happen. If the result of that vote is that the public has changed it's mind on Brexit then how is that undemocratic?
Nothing about your argument here is making sense.

How do you know that people there aren't leave voters who want to have a vote to ensure we leave with No Deal, or some kind of deal? You don't.

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:26 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:It's a "People's Vote March". It's about getting a vote to happen. If the result of that vote is that the public has changed it's mind on Brexit then how is that undemocratic?
Nothing about your argument here is making sense.

How do you know that people there aren't leave voters who want to have a vote to ensure we leave with No Deal, or some kind of deal? You don't.

Firstly it's funded by people with vested interests, not the individuals taking part, something remainers tells us often about how millionaires lied to us to benefit themselves. Surely you don't believe these rich people are doing this for the benefit of anyone other than their own self-interest?

Secondly, this is about putting pressure on the government to re-run something that has already been decided, but not yet enacted. It would be anti-democratic to overturn that result without having implemented that choice. I have no issue with another vote, once Brexit has been tried for a fair period of time.

Thirdly, All these claims the public have changed their mind are unsubstantiated and come from the same polls that told us that voting to remain would win comfortably anyways. It's quite clear they don't really know the actual feeling of the British public, only the vocal minority. There is no conclusive proof the British public have changed their minds.

Finally, I absolutely have no problem with a vote on to leave with a deal or leave without a deal, that would be fine, but if we include the option to remain we then re-tread old ground that has already been walked on.

One other thing, what would be your question? The electoral commission have stated it has to be a straightforward question and having more than 2 options would not be acceptable.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:42 pm

Firstly, There's never been anything wrong or uncontroversial about the logistics around a protest being funded by anyone. Unless the protesters are being paid to be protesters i'm not interested in your whining. Your side literally committed campaign finance crimes to win the referendum in the first place. Funding demonstrations isn't a crime yet that's what you're upset about. If you want to go down the avenue that the funding this demonstration makes it illegitimate then fine, but then so was the referendum result given the crimes committed by Leave campaigners during campaigning for that.

Would you like to declare that result as illegitimate? Didn't think so.

Secondly, of course it's about putting pressure on the government. That's what demonstrations are supposed to do. And it was barely decided 2 years ago and there's strong evidence that the public has changed its mind. If it hasn't then a vote immediately prior to leaving will prove it. But if it has changed it's mind then surely you'll be relieved that we checked. I know how important it is to you that the government doesn't do something that the public doesn't want.

Thirdly, yes it is substantiated, by poll after poll. It's not proof, which is why we should find out at the last possible opportunity we have before we go and make a decision we can't reverse.

Finally, without an option to reject either Leave options then it isn't a democratic decision. We have the right to change our minds. The only reason not to have Remain as an option is if you're worried that we actually have changed our minds but don't want that to be discovered. THAT is anti-democratic, and kinda shameful for a group of people claiming who have spent two years banging on about how important it is to have the will of the people enacted.

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:01 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Firstly, There's never been anything wrong or uncontroversial about the logistics around a protest being funded by anyone. Unless the protesters are being paid to be protesters i'm not interested in your whining. Your side literally committed campaign finance crimes to win the referendum in the first place.

Following advice directly from the electoral commission. The courts have said as much.

Secondly, of course it's about putting pressure on the government. That's what demonstrations are supposed to do. And it was barely decided 2 years ago and there's strong evidence that the public has changed its mind. If it hasn't then a vote immediately prior to leaving will prove it. But if it has changed it's mind then surely you'll be relieved that we checked. I know how important it is to you that the government doesn't do something that the public doesn't want.

Do you not think that another vote undermines the first vote if we are essentially asking the same question? I think any other representation of that is being disingenuous.

Finally, without an option to reject either Leave options then it isn't a democratic decision. We have the right to change our minds. The only reason not to have Remain as an option is if you're worried that we actually have changed our minds but don't want that to be discovered. THAT is anti-democratic, and kinda shameful for a group of people claiming who have spent two years banging on about how important it is to have the will of the people enacted.

People absolutely have the right to change their minds, but the first decision needs to be implemented and tried. You are asking people to change their minds about something that hasn't yet happened, so how can we judge properly and be "informed", as remainers say?

Also, I will ask again, what should the vote question be? Like I said the Electoral Commission have no stated that there should only be two possible answers...

TonbridgeClaret · Post by **TonbridgeClaret** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:02 pm

‘Thirdly, yes it is substantiated, by poll after poll. It's not proof, which is why we should find out at the last possible opportunity we have before we go and make a decision we can't reverse.’

The latest poll of polls is showing exactly the same percentages as just before the first referendum. I haven’t made my mind up how to vote (depends on the options) but remainers should remember what happened the last time the polls showed these figures.
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-pol ... -of-polls/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TonbridgeClaret · Post by **TonbridgeClaret** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:03 pm

By the way, the poll of polls have been showing the same percentages for some time.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:05 pm

Repeating again, but there will be no need for a 2nd vote if the deal is acceptable to enough to get it through Parliament.

So those of you who want "No Deal" are almost guaranteeing a 2nd vote as a "No Deal" will not get through Parliament.

Time for realistic solutions and some compromise.

Hipper · Post by **Hipper** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:09 pm

As I asked earlier, can you be sure the process of leaving can be stopped?

https://www.ft.com/content/98a2c89a-37e ... 31af407cc8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My current view (and I voted not to leave) is that we should leave under whatever terms we can agree or are deemed the best for us by Parliament, and then get on with our lives for a few years, and if there is still a strong view that we should return then look into it in say ten years time. No second referendum.

We are a strong economy and I feel the EU made a big error by not being more accommodating to Cameron in his talks before the Referendum (I'm assuming the EU wanted us to stay. It is of course possible that they were tired of our constant 'special case' claims and wanted to put us in our place).

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:10 pm

TonbridgeClaret wrote:‘Thirdly, yes it is substantiated, by poll after poll. It's not proof, which is why we should find out at the last possible opportunity we have before we go and make a decision we can't reverse.’

The latest poll of polls is showing exactly the same percentages as just before the first referendum. I haven’t made my mind up how to vote (depends on the options) but remainers should remember what happened the last time the polls showed these figures.
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-pol ... -of-polls/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Exactly. Even on the day of the vote the polls had remain ahead:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 97261.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

An online YouGov poll last night gave Remain a 51-49 lead, while a telephone poll for ComRes had Remain leading 54-46.

An online Populus poll, the last conducted before voting began, gave Remain a 10-point lead, 55 to 45, its strongest performance in days.

Election forecasting experts said that for Leave to win now, it would represent an even bigger polling error than was seen ahead of 2015 or 1992 General Elections.

Yet we are now told that the mood of the country has changed by these very same people

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:17 pm

burnleymik wrote: Do you not think that another vote undermines the first vote if we are essentially asking the same question? I think any other representation of that is being disingenuous.

I think if the result is that we've changed our mind then yes, of course it undermines it. However if the result is that we still want to Leave then it affirms it rather than undermines it.

People absolutely have the right to change their minds, but the first decision needs to be implemented and tried. You are asking people to change their minds about something that hasn't yet happened, so how can we judge properly and be "informed", as remainers say?

Absolutely, as long as it was clear what the decision was. Did we want to leave at all costs? Did we want to leave with some kind of trade deal? We don't know because we were told a billion different things about the kind of deals available to us on leaving.

Also, I will ask again, what should the vote question be? Like I said the Electoral Commission have no stated that there should only be two possible answers...

I think the question should be something along the lines of "which of these options would you like the UK government to pursue, ranked in order of preference. 1 being your most preferred, and 3 being your least preferred."

The options should be; Leave with no deal, Leave with the available deal, Remain a member of the EU.

The option with the fewest 1st choice options is eliminated and it becomes between the two most popular options. This way we are given two clear options, there are no wasted votes and the final decision is what a majority of us want out of the two most popular options.

Aside from all that, this is the only way it can truly be put to rest as a debate. If there isn't a "People's Vote" then for decades it will be used to sling mud from one political party to another, one claiming that they made the wrong decision and the other saying the opposite. To avoid all that bullshit, since we had the stupid referendum in the first place, it should be us who decide what we do, not the shower of **** that's in parliament.

LoveCurryPies · Post by **LoveCurryPies** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:19 pm

It’s simple. Boris & Gove life about £350million extra each week for NHS. They knew most of the country love the NHS.

Truth is we are going to be worse off.

Many don’t want another election because they know they will lose. These are the people who think immigrants are going to be sent home and new barriers put up to stop others coming in. Neither is going to happen so they are deluded as well as racist.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:21 pm

burnleymik wrote:Exactly. Even on the day of the vote the polls had remain ahead:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 97261.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yet we are now told that the mood of the country has changed by these very same people

Polls have margins of error, usually between 3 and 5%. I'm not an expert but whichever "expert" said that it would be a bigger polling error than 2015 or 1992 is not an expert.

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:22 pm

LoveCurryPies wrote:
Truth is we are going to be worse off.

Do elaborate...

Do you know what kind of foreign investment would come in if we are an independent nation? Do you know what kind of trade deals we could strike? Do you know what we could do to entice big business into the country by having the ability to modify our own tax laws and regulations?

The truth is nobody knows, yet you seem to state it as a matter of fact. I guess if the media push it hard enough people will swallow and regurgitate on demand.

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:24 pm

LoveCurryPies wrote:It’s simple. Boris & Gove life about £350million extra each week for NHS. They knew most of the country love the NHS.

Shame you didn't understand the sentiment of the bus. Honestly, through all the deabtes over the years it only seems to be a majority of remainers that took the words on that bus quite literally.

.

Many don’t want another election because they know they will lose. These are the people who think immigrants are going to be sent home and new barriers put up to stop others coming in. Neither is going to happen so they are deluded as well as racist.

Talking of delusion, do you really believe this or are you just fishing?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:28 pm

burnleymik wrote:Shame you didn't understand the sentiment of the bus. Honestly, through all the deabtes over the years it only seems to be a majority of remainers that took the words on that bus quite literally.

.

Talking of delusion, do you really believe this or are you just fishing?

If the sentiment of the bus was something other than "we send the EU £350m/week" then why were they also saying that we should instead spend that £350m/week on the NHS?

Does that count as honesty now? Tell the public something that is untrue, and then claim "ah, but the sentiment was true". Is that OK now?

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:30 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:
Aside from all that, this is the only way it can truly be put to rest as a debate. If there isn't a "People's Vote" then for decades it will be used to sling mud from one political party to another, one claiming that they made the wrong decision and the other saying the opposite. To avoid all that bullshit, since we had the stupid referendum in the first place, it should be us who decide what we do, not the shower of **** that's in parliament.

I think that would happen whatever happens. They always spend all their time slinging mud and blaming each other. Nothing new there.

Hypothetically, if we were forced to vote again, why should this vote be any different from the first? In 2 years things will be different from what they are now, so should we have another "once in a generation" referendum on membership then?

What if remain did lose again, would that allow us to have Brexit and for people to get behind it? I mean they didn't the first time, so why would they now?

Why would leave voters vote again? They are being told to vote for something they already voted for, and won. You surely understand that it is a huge kick in the teeth and they would have no reason to trust democracy anymore at that point?

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:37 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:If the sentiment of the bus was something other than "we send the EU £350m/week" then why were they also saying that we should instead spend that £350m/week on the NHS?

Does that count as honesty now? Tell the public something that is untrue, and then claim "ah, but the sentiment was true". Is that OK now?

They were pointing out we send a lot of money to the EU, money we could use in the UK. The specific amount is definitely disputable, but the fact it is a very large sum of money, isn't.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:38 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Firstly, There's never been anything wrong or uncontroversial about the logistics around a protest being funded by anyone. Unless the protesters are being paid to be protesters i'm not interested in your whining. Your side literally committed campaign finance crimes to win the referendum in the first place. Funding demonstrations isn't a crime yet that's what you're upset about. If you want to go down the avenue that the funding this demonstration makes it illegitimate then fine, but then so was the referendum result given the crimes committed by Leave campaigners during campaigning for that.

You're obsessed with this crime. For which no-one has yet been convicted, incidentally. But as we both know, the government rigged the rules so that Remain could spend £16m while Leave could only spend £7m; and if it turned out that Remain actually spent £16m while leave spent £7.5m, does that prove that Leave had an unfair advantage?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:39 pm

burnleymik wrote:I think that would happen whatever happens. They always spend all their time slinging mud and blaming each other. Nothing new there.

Hypothetically, if we were forced to vote again, why should this vote be any different from the first? In 2 years things will be different from what they are now, so should we have another "once in a generation" referendum on membership then?

What if remain did lose again, would that allow us to have Brexit and for people to get behind it? I mean they didn't the first time, so why would they now?

Why would leave voters vote again? They are being told to vote for something they already voted for, and won. You surely understand that it is a huge kick in the teeth and they would have no reason to trust democracy anymore at that point?

There is nothing stopping the UK government from making the referendum legally-binding the same way the Scottish independence referendum was legally binding had 'Yes' won. It can be written into the legislation for the referendum that whatever the result of the referendum it triggers the chosen option. There doesn't have to be any doubt involved, which is why all these idiots going on about having endless referendums are full of ****.

And if any voter is too lazy to turn out and vote for what they want then their opinion doesn't matter anyway. That goes for lazy Remain supporters too. Their inaction says as much.

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:40 pm

dsr wrote:You're obsessed with this crime. For which no-one has yet been convicted, incidentally. But as we both know, the government rigged the rules so that Remain could spend £16m while Leave could only spend £7m; and if it turned out that Remain actually spent £16m while leave spent £7.5m, does that prove that Leave had an unfair advantage?

I think the leaflets should have counted towards the remain campaign spending. They got around it on a technicality that the leaflets were printed before the campaigning begun, but didn't mention that they were not delivered until campaigning begun. If they want to talk about dishonesty, I think that would be a good place to start....

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:41 pm

Do you know what kind of foreign investment would come in if we are an independent nation? Do you know what kind of trade deals we could strike? Do you know what we could do to entice big business into the country by having the ability to modify our own tax laws and regulations?

The truth is nobody knows, yet you seem to state it as a matter of fact. I guess if the media push it hard enough people will swallow and regurgitate on demand.

Thing is, lots of trade experts are pointing out that these deals have trade offs AND can't be done overnight.

The idea that the US will sign an FTA with us without us making significant concessions to stuff we will regret is pie in the sky stuff.

And this new found desire to join the TTPP is great, but its worth mentioning that the US pulled out that. Not sure us joining that will go down well in Washington.

And there are lots and lots and lots more, but you have to be willing to look and be willing to accept that its not as simple as you want it to be.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:42 pm

dsr wrote:You're obsessed with this crime. For which no-one has yet been convicted, incidentally. But as we both know, the government rigged the rules so that Remain could spend £16m while Leave could only spend £7m; and if it turned out that Remain actually spent £16m while leave spent £7.5m, does that prove that Leave had an unfair advantage?

How is mentioning it in a rebuttal of someone's complaints that demonstrators are having their travel expenses taken care of evidence of an "obsession"?

And nothing was rigged. Leave was more than welcome to spend as much money as they liked outside the campaign too. Just because they didn't doesn't mean it's OK to break the law.

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:46 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Thing is, lots of trade experts are pointing out that these deals have trade offs AND can't be done overnight.

The idea that the US will sign an FTA with us without us making significant concessions to stuff we will regret is pie in the sky stuff.

And this new found desire to join the TTPP is great, but its worth mentioning that the US pulled out that. Not sure us joining that will go down well in Washington.

And there are lots and lots and lots more, but you have to be willing to look and be willing to accept that its not as simple as you want it to be.

I absolutely agree it's not as simple as anyone wants, but that is why we voted in our government and they have the civil service to do all the leg work and get these issues sorted.

As for the TPP (I assume that is what you meant?), the Japanese have already welcomed us with open arms and as it would not directly interfere with any deal done with the US, I don't think it would matter greatly to them as they voluntarily pulled out.

At least you have given it a fair hearing that there are solutions and new exciting avenues we could explore, rather than just flat out telling us it will be a disaster.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:52 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:How is mentioning it in a rebuttal of someone's complaints that demonstrators are having their travel expenses taken care of evidence of an "obsession"?

And nothing was rigged. Leave was more than welcome to spend as much money as they liked outside the campaign too. Just because they didn't doesn't mean it's OK to break the law.

It's not the first time you've mentioned it, by a long chalk.

The point is, they didn't break the law. The government framed the law and used its civil service resources to get round the law in what many of us think is sharp practice, to enable them to spend more than double the Leave side's budget. Is that legal? Yes. Is it fair? That's a question which doesn't appear to trouble you. When you offset the Leave side's illegal half a million extra spend that Remain couldn't, with the extra £9m that Remain spent but Leave couldn't, does that constitute clear evidence that Leave had an unfair advantage? Of course not.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:55 pm

There are not new exciting avenues though Mik

Wherever we go, we will have to be better at their current suppliers and beat the trade deals that they already have.

We can't get an FTA with China, ones with TPP (cheers btw!) will not replace the drop in trade with the EU (assuming we can't get a deal, which is looking likely due to the intransigence of people like the ERG) and an FTA with the US will be weighted in their favour.

There is no doubt at all that we are a powerful economy, but we are giving ourselves no chance at all here by bad preparation AND an idealogical zeal for forcing this through as soon as possible.

People like the ERG want us out asap, as it then means getting back in becomes a lot harder. In all honesty, they don't care if it does massive economic damage, as they can use the resulting crisis to finalise their ideas of what they believe the UK should look like.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:03 pm

dsr wrote:It's not the first time you've mentioned it, by a long chalk.

The point is, they didn't break the law. The government framed the law and used its civil service resources to get round the law in what many of us think is sharp practice, to enable them to spend more than double the Leave side's budget. Is that legal? Yes. Is it fair? That's a question which doesn't appear to trouble you. When you offset the Leave side's illegal half a million extra spend that Remain couldn't, with the extra £9m that Remain spent but Leave couldn't, does that constitute clear evidence that Leave had an unfair advantage? Of course not.

I dare say you've mentioned this leaflet the government sent out long before the campaign period more than I've mentioned Leave breaking campaign spending laws.

What you're whining about is the government sending out a leaflet or a booklet outside the official campaigning period. You and I both know that the spending limits were only set to the official campaign period.

The official Remain campaign didn't break their spending limits. They stuck to the rules. True enough the government themselves spent some money OUTSIDE the campaign period, but so what? Are you going to sit there and tell me that no Leave campaigners spent any money outside the campaign period? are you that delusional.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:24 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I dare say you've mentioned this leaflet the government sent out long before the campaign period more than I've mentioned Leave breaking campaign spending laws.

What you're whining about is the government sending out a leaflet or a booklet outside the official campaigning period. You and I both know that the spending limits were only set to the official campaign period.

The official Remain campaign didn't break their spending limits. They stuck to the rules. True enough the government themselves spent some money OUTSIDE the campaign period, but so what? Are you going to sit there and tell me that no Leave campaigners spent any money outside the campaign period? are you that delusional.

"Long before the official campaigning period"????? I know you're anxious to paint the Remain campaign as squeaky clean, but if you are describing a leaflet posted on 13th of April as being sent out "long before" April 15th when the referendum period started, and you're doing it with a straight face, then I think you and truth have somehow lost touch with each other. Google the facts and renew your contact with reality.

I suspect I have mentioned the £9m taxpayer-funded Remain leaflet about the same number of times as you have mentioned the Leave campaign's odd half-million that they spent in accordance with Electoral Commission advice.

LoveCurryPies · Post by **LoveCurryPies** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:29 pm

burnleymik wrote:Hypothetically, if we were forced to vote again, why should this vote be any different from the first

Because, having listened to 2 years of debate in the media and observing the Brexit negotiations, we are perhaps now better informed than we were for the first vote.

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:35 pm

Does anybody honestly think had remain won & leave was on the wrong end of 48% that they’d be any recourse a 2nd roll of dice I don’t think so. Apart from a few complaints & grumbles, nothing would have changed & I don’t think they’d be any input from a leave perspective not seriously considered anyhow.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:36 pm

dsr wrote:"Long before the official campaigning period"????? I know you're anxious to paint the Remain campaign as squeaky clean, but if you are describing a leaflet posted on 13th of April as being sent out "long before" April 15th when the referendum period started, and you're doing it with a straight face, then I think you and truth have somehow lost touch with each other. Google the facts and renew your contact with reality.

I suspect I have mentioned the £9m taxpayer-funded Remain leaflet about the same number of times as you have mentioned the Leave campaign's odd half-million that they spent in accordance with Electoral Commission advice.

I mis-remembered. But my point stands. The official campaign period was clearly stated and Leave were more than welcome to make spending outside that period as much as they liked. As were Remain btw, who isn't who sent out that leaflet.

You knew the rules.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:40 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:Does anybody honestly think had remain won & leave was on the wrong end of 48% that they’d be any recourse a 2nd roll of dice I don’t think so. Apart from a few complaints & grumbles, nothing would have changed & I don’t think they’d be any input from a leave perspective not seriously considered anyhow.

What rubbish. Nigel Farage had said before the result that had remain won there SHOULD be another vote!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics- ... m-36306681" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:40 pm

But it wouldn't have stopped people wanting it, people protesting for it, people actively campaigning for it.

I don't want a 2nd vote but I want us to come out of this with a deal that works for the UK. If we can't get that deal, then we need to vote again as it would be the only way democratically out of this.

I don't like the current deal (as its worse than the one we have now) but its better than a "No Deal" and would at least settle this (up to a point of course).

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:43 pm

Spijed wrote:What rubbish. Nigel Farage had said before the result that had remain won there SHOULD be another vote!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics- ... m-36306681" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The hose would have quickly dampened the flames, he said it allegedly but in truth we’ll never know what would have transpired.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:44 pm

Spijed wrote:What rubbish. Nigel Farage had said before the result that had remain won there SHOULD be another vote!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics- ... m-36306681" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And i think most of us on the winning side would be understanding. 52-48 Remain win would have been a ridiculous result to use to try and claim that the argument was over.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:46 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:Does anybody honestly think had remain won & leave was on the wrong end of 48% that they’d be any recourse a 2nd roll of dice I don’t think so.

Funny how you claim to know, then when it turns out that you are demonstrably wrong your argument becomes "we'll never know".

Jakubclaret wrote:The hose would have quickly dampened the flames, he said it allegedly but in truth we’ll never know what would have transpired.