Today's Brexit vote

[RingoMcCartney]

Yes! yes! I lost "massively" I really did your right! "Massively" Hahaha I really really lost

Like I say.

There's nothing left to say.

You're still saying it sunshine ......

[quoonbeatz]

mate, you're still here?

give it a rest.

its like the arsenal game on sunday. burnley lost but i got over it straight away.

in your mind, you're claiming it was a draw.

you need to get over it and move on.

[claretandy]

In a general election though, people don't tend to vote about just one thing

Mind you, if UKIP got 400 seats, then we'd have a lot more things to worry about than tariffs on trading with our European neighbours.

Especially if you were not White, straight, male and Christian

It would be a single issue election though, May would be asking, "do you back me on brexit" ?

UKIP probably wouldn't win many, but in leave voting constituencies you would have to be a brexiteer to get elected, be that Labour, UKIP or Tory, either way brexit would win.

[Walton]

Says something when Paul McCartney is the least embarrassing McCartney

[RingoMcCartney]

mate, you're still here?

give it a rest.

its like the arsenal game on sunday. burnley lost but i got over it straight away.

in your mind, you're claiming it was a draw.

you need to get over it and move on.

No! No! You won fella. It was a massive massive victory for you.

You totally and utterly secured a massive massive resounding victory !

You massively put me in my place . And showed the 6 or 7 lads who read this thread what a massive dullard I am!

You're the massive winner! You're the real go getter here!

You're life will be forever immeasurabley enhanced by this massive personal result.

The massive victory is yours!!

Well done tiger!

Grrrrrr!


Haha haha

Have we signed Brady yet pal?

[Lancasterclaret]

No doubt Andy, I'm amazed that may hasn't gambled on going to the polls.

Only reason I can think is that she thinks she can secure a good Brexit deal and keep the Union together with what she's got.

Be interesting to see what the white paper includes, when it eventually appears.

[claretandy]

No doubt Andy, I'm amazed that may hasn't gambled on going to the polls.

Only reason I can think is that she thinks she can secure a good Brexit deal and keep the Union together with what she's got.

Be interesting to see what the white paper includes, when it eventually appears.

I think its her back up option if mp's try and thwart brexit.

[nil_desperandum]

There are some odd posts on here but the one claiming around 250k people have died since the vote and they all probably voted to leave is stupid as is the logic of the 400k who now can vote would vote to remain.

I didn't say that. I was merely providing some further context to counter Ringo's ridiculous point that the country isn't split down the middle.
Maybe I made my point badly.
It's a fact that the electorate changes by be approx 1 million each year, which is more or less equal to the leave majority in June 2016.
Based on evidence that is generally acknowledged to be accurate, it is likely that the majority of those who leave the electoral role will have voted leave, and that the majority who join would most likely want to remain.
I didn't say 100% of each group by any means, but I don't think it's particularly stupid as one poster has said to say that that if everyone who voted in 2016 voted the same way this June but you factored in a change to the electorate, then it is highly likely that the margin would be narrower.
Anyway, that wasn't my broader point. The point being that Ringo suggests that we are not divided down the middle and that a million votes is a massive difference, but not when you put this in the context that the electorate changes by 1 million each year. By the time we get any kind of negotiated agreement the electoral roll may well have changed by about 3+ million. Of course this doesn't imply a swing to the remain side, but it does put Ringo's 1 million into context.

[Lancasterclaret]

Well, unless there is a serious change of plan for Labour (which to be fair, happens weekly if not daily) then she's got nothing to worry about.

It will go down to what sort of deal she can get.

[claretandy]

I didn't say that. I was merely providing some further context to counter Ringo's ridiculous point that the country isn't split down the middle.
Maybe I made my point badly.
It's a fact that the electorate changes by be approx 1 million each year, which is more or less equal to the leave majority in June 2016.
Based on evidence that is generally acknowledged to be accurate, it is likely that the majority of those who leave the electoral role will have voted leave, and that the majority who join would most likely want to remain.
I didn't say 100% of each group by any means, but I don't think it's particularly stupid as one poster has said to say that that if everyone who voted in 2016 voted the same way this June but you factored in a change to the electorate, then it is highly likely that the margin would be narrower.
Anyway, that wasn't my broader point. The point being that Ringo suggests that we are not divided down the middle and that a million votes is a massive difference, but not when you put this in the context that the electorate changes by 1 million each year. By the time we get any kind of negotiated agreement the electoral roll may well have changed by about 3+ million. Of course this doesn't imply a swing to the remain side, but it does put Ringo's 1 million into context.

There was an audience member of question time last week who voted remain because of project fear but would now vote leave as it was lies, how many others are they ?

[Lancasterclaret]

About the same amount who voted leave because of lies at a guess.

[nil_desperandum]

There was an audience member of question time last week who voted remain because of project fear but would now vote leave as it was lies, how many others are they ?

I'm not trying to argue that point Andy, merely to put the figure of 1 million into some kind of context.
I'm not trying to guess how people would vote now, just pointing out that the 500,000 swing required that would have produced a different result is only 1%, and in my book that means we were pretty much split down the middle.

[RocketLawnChair]

I didn't say that. I was merely providing some further context to counter Ringo's ridiculous point that the country isn't split down the middle.
Maybe I made my point badly.
It's a fact that the electorate changes by be approx 1 million each year, which is more or less equal to the leave majority in June 2016.
Based on evidence that is generally acknowledged to be accurate, it is likely that the majority of those who leave the electoral role will have voted leave, and that the majority who join would most likely want to remain.
I didn't say 100% of each group by any means, but I don't think it's particularly stupid as one poster has said to say that that if everyone who voted in 2016 voted the same way this June but you factored in a change to the electorate, then it is highly likely that the margin would be narrower.
Anyway, that wasn't my broader point. The point being that Ringo suggests that we are not divided down the middle and that a million votes is a massive difference, but not when you put this in the context that the electorate changes by 1 million each year. By the time we get any kind of negotiated agreement the electoral roll may well have changed by about 3+ million. Of course this doesn't imply a swing to the remain side, but it does put Ringo's 1 million into context.

The point your making is a valid one nil but their is so much else to factor into them approximate figures. The one that immediately springs too mind is the electoral turnout for brexit was 72% so using that as rough guide on your new 1 million voters added to the electorate list that's 280,000 of them not actually voting and 840000 by the time we leave the EU. And the turnout for Brexit was uniquely high so that should actually give more credibility to the result.

You should also factor in younger voters are less likely to vote than old duffers like me and you!

[Guich]

I think, speaking to friends and colleagues, that quite a lot of moderate remainers would switch to leave if they had another chance. I'm in that category and it'd be a real dilemma for me. The claim that more leave voters didn't understand what they were voting for than remain voters is weak. Yes there will be a few on each side, but if the demographic tells us older people often voted leave, surely they would have more chance, given experience, of understanding all the arguments.

Both campaigns were shameful but the worst thing politicians can ever do is suggest the electorate is wrong. So the Lib dems need a new leader.

[quoonbeatz]

No! No! You won fella. It was a massive massive victory for you.

You totally and utterly secured a massive massive resounding victory !

You massively put me in my place . And showed the 6 or 7 lads who read this thread what a massive dullard I am!

You're the massive winner! You're the real go getter here!

You're life will be forever immeasurabley enhanced by this massive personal result.

The massive victory is yours!!

Well done tiger!

Grrrrrr!


Haha haha

Have we signed Brady yet pal?

You still here?

[SammyBoy]

I think, speaking to friends and colleagues, that quite a lot of moderate remainers would switch to leave if they had another chance. I'm in that category and it'd be a real dilemma for me. The claim that more leave voters didn't understand what they were voting for than remain voters is weak. Yes there will be a few on each side, but if the demographic tells us older people often voted leave, surely they would have more chance, given experience, of understanding all the arguments.

Both campaigns were shameful but the worst thing politicians can ever do is suggest the electorate is wrong. So the Lib dems need a new leader.

Tim Farron probably knows his campaign to overturn the referendum result is a non-starter, but it's a good way for the Lib Dems to gain support among ardent remainers, especially given how impotent Labour are under Corbyn at the moment.

[Lancasterclaret]

Someone has to stand up for the 48% btw.

Thats why we have a democratic system, it means people can vote for what they want and who they want.

We've voted for Brexit, and its going ahead. It does not mean that you then have to listen to **** being shoved at you and accept it as gospel, or further, not campaign to stay in the EU, or not campaign for a 2nd referendum, or if you want, campaign to build a wall between us and Scotland, or that Blackburn Rovers should never be allowed to have a football club or whatever.

[RingoMcCartney]

You still here?

Sure am winner!!

1. 1 undefeated

1. 1 I say

1. 1 undefeated

Winning massively the quoonbeatz way!

Hahaha

[Guich]

I agree with Sammyboy. I think Farron is being opportunistic but it's crucially important that the Lib Dems don't become a one policy party...a kind of anti-Ukip

[Lancasterclaret]

But they aren't!

And in the nicest possible way, have you seen the way the world is going at the moment? You don't climb on a bandwagon doing that, you do everything you can to derail it.

[ClaretMoffitt]

About the same amount who voted leave because of lies at a guess.

You're probably right, but it does lay waste to the theory that all the brexit voters are regretting their vote as some in the media would have us believe.

[RocketLawnChair]

I agree with Sammyboy. I think Farron is being opportunistic but it's crucially important that the Lib Dems don't become a one policy party...a kind of anti-Ukip

He certainly his being opportunistic Guich, in fact I would say he's being bloody desperate.

[Lancasterclaret]

Its Lib Dem policy RLC, and hasn't changed.

Its a pro-EU party and always has been.

Thats not "Alt facts" btw!

[SammyBoy]

He certainly his being opportunistic Guich, in fact I would say he's being bloody desperate.

I actually think it's quite smart from a domestic point of view, the Lib Dems are a non-entity right now, is it 8 MPs that they have? Pushing an issue that is high on the agenda for 48% (give or take) of the population could get them back on the main stage of British politics.

[Guich]

I actually think it's quite smart from a domestic point of view, the Lib Dems are a non-entity right now, is it 8 MPs that they have? Pushing an issue that is high on the agenda for 48% (give or take) of the population could get them back on the main stage of British politics.

I can see the logic but there won't be many constituencies quite as vociferously pro-remain than Richmond Park.

Lancaster, I just think that given Corbyn's determination to destroy the labour party there is an opportunity for a someone to tap into a huge vote which, you rightly say, is fed up with extreme, ego driven movements. If the Lib Dems can remain democratic and avoid putting all eggs in one basket they may persuade these moderate voters, and some of the Labour talent to work with them, rather than taking offers of jobs elsewhere. That will be on the increase as I can't see Corbyn and his shrinking band of lunatics thinking of anyone but themselves.

[Lancasterclaret]

Guich, Lib Dems are not going to be able to appeal to people who want Brexit. Its just not possible or likely.

Sammyboy sums it up better than I can, but there are a lot of people (not enough to derail Brexit btw I suspect) who voted Lab or Con who will be very uneasy about the current state of affairs.

[JohnMcGreal]

Tim Farron is being opportunistic, and he's right to be. The Lib Dems have a genuine opportunity to take millions of votes at the next GE by positioning themselves as a pro-EU party (which they have always been) and by speaking up for the 48% who currently have no representation in politics.

I know it's only anecdotal, by I know several 'remain' Labour and Conservative voters who are talking about voting Lib Dem at the next election.

[Mala591]

Do the LDs have a policy on immigration?

Controlled vs Uncontrolled?

[RocketLawnChair]

I was probably a bit bullish in my statement that Farron is desperate but the Lib Dems will never be able to say or do enough to form a credible opposition. It's fine being pro EU but you need a hell of a lot more. The very best they could hope for is half and half parliamentary seats with Labour and that' plays right into the Tories hands.

The Labour Party needs to sort itself out and bloody quick or the government will be almost uncontested for the foreseeable...

[summitclaret]

The LD policy on immigration is unlimited. I suspect that if you stripped out the immigrant vote and the southern money driven 'privilged' people that run/invest in the city, then there would be about at least a 67/33 view that uncontolled immigration is not a price worth paying to stay in the single market.

We play hardball with the EU now and await the Dutch, German and in particular French elections. The climate could be a lot more favourable to the UK view by the end of the year, amongst national leaders.

[quoonbeatz]

Sure am winner!!

1. 1 undefeated

1. 1 I say

1. 1 undefeated

Winning massively the quoonbeatz way!

Hahaha

This nothing more to say thing is going well for you.

[Imploding Turtle]

650 seats in parliament, estimated 400+ had a Brexit majority.

Thatr makes more sense than what i was thinking. However that would highlight how flawed our version of democracy is.

[Imploding Turtle]

Do you see homosexuality as something that needs parliamentary ratification? I thought it was widely believed to be something you were born with. The whole homosexuality thing is a perfect example of what I am getting at.

In outline, parliament has never granted people the right to be homosexual or indulge in homosexual behaviour, any more than it has granted rights to be heterosexual. All parliament has ever done re. homosexuality is stick its oar in and make it illegal.

There's an old joke that starts with "In England, everything is allowed, except what is expressly forbidden". It's broadly speaking true, as well. We don't have to rely on parliamentary approval for any sort of behaviour, sexual or otherwise - if it's not illegal, we don't have to wait for parliament to tell us we can do it.

Ask gay people if they think homosexuality is a right granted by parliament.

Are you deliberately missing the point? Do you think homosexuality was always legal?

It was made legal by parliament. Gay marriage was made legal by parliament. These are rights that parliament granted. Are you still going to continue this losing argument that parliament doesn't grant rights?

[RingoMcCartney]

This nothing more to say thing is going well for you.

Hey you're so right winner!

It's just been on a sky sports update confirming my "massive loss"

Listen I'll tell you what tiger. I promise not to post any more replys. That means you can have what you obviously want. The last word.! That means you can prove to the massive audience we have of at least half a dozen other posters that you're massive victory is possibly even more massive than my defeat.! That should give you even more of a massive sense of well being.

So that's my side of the deal .

Don't disappoint me now!

The stage is all yours!

Fill those , final word, boots!

Ready!?


Heeeeeeeeeeres quoonbeatz!

[SammyBoy]

Hey you're so right winner!

It's just been on a sky sports update confirming my "massive loss"

Listen I'll tell you what tiger. I promise not to post any more replys. That means you can have what you obviously want. The last word.! That means you can prove to the massive audience we have of at least half a dozen other posters that you're massive victory is possibly even more massive than my defeat.! That should give you even more of a massive sense of well being.

So that's my side of the deal .

Don't disappoint me now!

The stage is all yours!

Fill those , final word, boots!

Ready!?


Heeeeeeeeeeres quoonbeatz!

For some reason Patrick Bateman's huge mental breakdown at the end of American Psycho popped into my head when I read this.

[dsr]

Are you deliberately missing the point? Do you think homosexuality was always legal?

It was made legal by parliament. Gay marriage was made legal by parliament. These are rights that parliament granted. Are you still going to continue this losing argument that parliament doesn't grant rights?

Parliament hasn't granted a right, it has removed a prohibition. If and when anyone in this country has sexual intercourse, it isn't because Parliament has given them the right to do so, it's because Parliament hasn't chosen to make it illegal. You don't need Parliament to pass an Act of Parliament for the right to breathe, play football, pick your nose, or have sex with any adult you can persuade into bed. Parliament's job is - or ought to be - to ban what is wrong, not to license what is right.

[Imploding Turtle]

Parliament hasn't granted a right, it has removed a prohibition. If and when anyone in this country has sexual intercourse, it isn't because Parliament has given them the right to do so, it's because Parliament hasn't chosen to make it illegal. You don't need Parliament to pass an Act of Parliament for the right to breathe, play football, pick your nose, or have sex with any adult you can persuade into bed. Parliament's job is - or ought to be - to ban what is wrong, not to license what is right.

"Parliament hasn't granted a right, it has removed a prohibition."

I'm sorry, but i laughed out loud when i read that. Does this mean that i have a right to go around killing people but for a legal prohibition stopping me?

What do you think "rights" are? What do you think "rights" mean in this context? A right is, "A moral or legal entitlement to have or do something" is you look it up in an online dictionary. So if there is no legal entitlement to marry people of the same sex then that means there is no right to it.

It's ridiculous that i even have to explain this to you.