2.7 Million Brexiteers Have Changed to Remain

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:10 am

tiger76 wrote:I can understand your sentiment bm,but if more Brexiteers think along these lines,by default remain will win,it's up to each voter if they feel strongly enough to reinforce a leave outcome.

This situation should never have been allowed to linger,as the government and civil service from day one post the referendum,have sat on their hands and obstructed the process,sadly this didn't come as a surprise.

I know tiger, but there honestly wouldn't be any point, in my mind. If we win again more excuses follow and more dragging of the heels until such a time that they feel strong enough to go for a third vote.

How many times before the referendum were we told this was a once in a generation vote and there could be no going back?

Also there is such strong feeling and resentment now, I can only see a 2nd referendum creating utter chaos and a complete lack of faith in our democratic system.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:39 am

Jakubclaret wrote:Something that has already been decided shouldn’t need reinforcing it should be final.

"We've booked our holiday. We're going to country X"
"Yes, but a civil war has just broken out there and it's not safe"
"Doesn't matter we've booked so we're going - we can take body armour, and enough rations to get by for a couple of weeks. If someone gets hurt - well so be it, we'll be ok, we're British"
People change their minds and adjust all the time taking into account new and developing situations. I'm sure you and your family do really, despite what you just wrote.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:56 am

If the second referendum comes,then we should appeal to the premier league to replay our first 5 games as I don't think the results were fair
Come on premier league be democratic and let us play these games again

One great thing about these threads is that you can guarantee one of you will outdo yourself in the "Look how daft I can be" stakes.

It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:04 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:One great thing about these threads is that you can guarantee one of you will outdo yourself in the "Look how daft I can be" stakes.

It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

It wouldn't matter how daft they got. They're never gonna catch you. Don't you fret about that.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:22 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:One great thing about these threads is that you can guarantee one of you will outdo yourself in the "Look how daft I can be" stakes.

It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

Any thoughts on Labour ruling out remaining in the EU if there was a second referendum ? sounds like Corbyn et al want no deal, then a general election.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:28 am

if he listens to his members, then that isn't an option

if he doesn't listen to his members, then people who have doubts about what level of democracy he's going to allow in his party will have had a point from Day One.

I sympathise with them a bit to be honest, Brexit is a toxic hot potato for the two main parties as both sides are completely entrenched in their views and no one can say for sure just how many votes are won or lost if the postion changes.

In a fully functioning democracy with proportional representation, then it would be bad enough, but in a FPTP system were it could be very close in the fifty or so swing seats, it could be that maybe only 10000 votes swing an election.

End of the day though, they want an GE before a referendum, but they won't get a GE but they might get a referendum. Be interesting to see where they go this week.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:38 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:if he listens to his members, then that isn't an option

if he doesn't listen to his members, then people who have doubts about what level of democracy he's going to allow in his party will have had a point from Day One.

I sympathise with them a bit to be honest, Brexit is a toxic hot potato for the two main parties as both sides are completely entrenched in their views and no one can say for sure just how many votes are won or lost if the postion changes.

In a fully functioning democracy with proportional representation, then it would be bad enough, but in a FPTP system were it could be very close in the fifty or so swing seats, it could be that maybe only 10000 votes swing an election.

End of the day though, they want an GE before a referendum, but they won't get a GE but they might get a referendum. Be interesting to see where they go this week.

Labour wants a general election put they won't be able to sit on the fence on brexit this time, they either back a peoples vote with remain as an option, or they campaign to leave on their terms, either way they lose voters.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:42 am

The ceaseless Remoaners incessant whining and increasingly desperate calls for a 2nd referendum ( not on this message board, none of any of this matters, but in the Westminster bubble ) has only emboldened the intransigence and pig headed belligerence of the EU elite.

Consequently it will lead to the very thing they don't want.

A no deal Brexit, and on the 30th of March, when the sky hasn't fallen in , they're all going to look very very silly.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:43 am

Or gain them

Problem they have is that the rest of their policies are not bad, but they are a lot more further along than anyone has tried for generations, and that could but voters off.

I've got to be honest, I think Brexit plus a JC Government would make a disaster into a catastrophe, while Brexit plus a Conservative party under god knows who would make a disaster into one as well.

No Brexit, or a much more sensible Brexit withdrawal schedule then I reckon JC might not be as bad as a still divided Conservative Govt.

But I guess we will see.

BleedingClaret · Post by **BleedingClaret** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:12 am

I have no problem with a second referendum should Labour win a General Election caused by a no deal.
Well as long as Mrs May is still Prime Minister for the first 2 years of their 4 year term and after 2 years the General Election is re run before they even had a chance to be in full control.

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:48 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:"We've booked our holiday. We're going to country X"
"Yes, but a civil war has just broken out there and it's not safe"
"Doesn't matter we've booked so we're going - we can take body armour, and enough rations to get by for a couple of weeks. If someone gets hurt - well so be it, we'll be ok, we're British"
People change their minds and adjust all the time taking into account new and developing situations. I'm sure you and your family do really, despite what you just wrote.

You've got me there, there's no way I can trump such a extreme unrealistic analogy, credit where credits due

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:51 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:You've got me there, there's no way I can trump such a extreme unrealistic analogy, credit where credits due

It's worth pointing out that people have , indeed, changed their minds.

We voted to remain in , what was, the common market in 1975.

We've changed our minds.

In 2016 we voted to Leave what it became.

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:55 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:It's worth pointing out that people have , indeed, changed their minds.

We voted to remain in , what was, the common market in 1975.

We've changed our minds.

In 2016 we voted to Leave what it became.

We've had more than enough time to assess something that clearly isn't working, when I voted out I honestly expected a hard brexit sever all ties if you will, not a diluted version of what we are likely to get, would have not voted had I known.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:14 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:You've got me there, there's no way I can trump such a extreme unrealistic analogy, credit where credits due

Your original quote was such a blanket generalisation that frankly any analogy would fit.
You said that once you make a decision you always stick to it. Have you changed your mind?

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:25 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:I'm sure you are.

However, that's not what I asked for.

I asked- Which political UK party has been democratically elected, on a manifesto, based on over turning the 2016 referendum result, giving it the mandate to do so?

Name one

Try again......

I’m equally happy to provide you with a list of things the current government has done that weren’t in their manifesto. Yes, of course the current government was elected on a Brexit manifesto, but it’s a complete red herring. Governments on both sides of the political spectrum have been more than happy to drop things that were in their manifesto and do things that weren’t. They react (hopefully with some common sense) to the situations they find themselves in whether it be compatible with their manifesto or not. And that’s exactly what good government should do.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:29 pm

martin_p wrote:I’m equally happy to provide you with a list of things the current government has done that weren’t in their manifesto. Yes, of course the current government was elected on a Brexit manifesto, but it’s a complete red herring. Governments on both sides of the political spectrum have been more than happy to drop things that were in their manifesto and do things that weren’t. They react (hopefully with some common sense) to the situations they find themselves in whether it be compatible with their manifesto or not. And that’s exactly what good government should do.

Article 50 is enshrined in law.

In order to repeal it a government would have to get new legislation, over turning it, thru parliament. But a government wanting to do that, would , first, have to get elected.

So i ask again, which political UK party has been democratically elected, on a manifesto, based on over turning the 2016 referendum result, giving it the mandate to do so?

Name one

Try again......

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:33 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:We've had more than enough time to assess something that clearly isn't working, when I voted out I honestly expected a hard brexit sever all ties if you will, not a diluted version of what we are likely to get, would have not voted had I known.

Absolutely.

Remoaners bleat on about "we should be able to change our minds"

Problem Is, they simply don't accept our new decision, after 40 odd years to make it.....

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:36 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:Article 50 is enshrined in law.

In order to repeal it a government would have to get it thru parliament. But a government wanting to do that, would , first, have to get elected.

So i ask again, which political UK party has been democratically elected, on a manifesto, based on over turning the 2016 referendum result, giving it the mandate to do so?

Name one

Try again......

No, this government could do it if it wanted to and could get the votes in parliament.

The answer to your question is the same as the number of political parties democratically elected, on a manifesto, based on delivering the 2016 referendum result, i.e. none. This government only exists because it’s propped up by the DUP, not because it was democratically elected.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:10 pm

martin_p wrote:No, this government could do it if it wanted to and could get the votes in parliament.

The answer to your question is the same as the number of political parties democratically elected, on a manifesto, based on delivering the 2016 referendum result, i.e. none. This government only exists because it’s propped up by the DUP, not because it was democratically elected.

But this government clearly doesn't want to. Mrs May said that agreeing to a second vote would equate to a "gross betrayal of our democracy…and trust."

So there would have to be a government prepared to do it.

So for the last time-

Which political UK party has been democratically elected, on a manifesto, based on over turning the 2016 referendum result, giving it the mandate to do so?

Name one

Try again......

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 3:05 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Your original quote was such a blanket generalisation that frankly any analogy would fit.
You said that once you make a decision you always stick to it. Have you changed your mind?

Don't be a silly Billy, of course people change their minds I fancied a pizza last night & ended up getting a kebab, on a serious note how fair would it be on the people who haven't changed their minds, there's no real tangible evidence that that many people from leave have turned to remain, anyhow with the latest shenanigans if anything it's probably the other way round.

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 3:30 pm

https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2 ... -FINAL.pdf

And here it is.

The alternative plan.

Endorsed by David Davis and Boris.

Excellent work, a great future blueprint, positive for Britain, the reason we voted out (the economic reason, there were plenty of non economic ones before folk start to revisit Groundhog Day in saying our current deal is economically better).

No doubt the Doubting Thomas’s will still say “The EU won’t allow it”, or “what about NI” or “you can’t have supply chains”. I prefer to say that we will manage all the risks and downsides, and actively push to maximise the opportunities and upsides.

Come on Theresa - you know it makes sense.

(P.s. don’t bother commenting unless you have read, as a minimum, the Exec Summary - I’ve had enough nonsense to reply to in the last few days from people who claim to know everything but don’t study the detail)

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 3:49 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2 ... -FINAL.pdf

And here it is.

The alternative plan.

Endorsed by David Davis and Boris.

(P.s. don’t bother commenting unless you have read, as a minimum, the Exec Summary - I’ve had enough nonsense to reply to in the last few days from people who claim to know everything but don’t study the detail)

I'll be honest and say that I haven't read it yet - just about to, but the obvious question is:
If it's such a good and workable plan, why did neither DD or Boris put it forward whilst in office?

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:04 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:I'll be honest and say that I haven't read it yet - just about to, but the obvious question is:
If it's such a good and workable plan, why did neither DD or Boris put it forward whilst in office?

Davis did, but was railroaded by the Chequers plan and resigned, as did Boris.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:16 pm

Very, very quick scan of the IEA plan, thorough on financial services reforms, increasing market liquidity etc and very enthusiastic about moving away from regulation adopted post-2008 crisis.

Immigration:

"Free movement of workers and the associated rights of EU citizenship cannot continue after the UK has left the EU. The UK will therefore need a comprehensive and sensible immigration policy. This policy needs to enable dynamic recruitment of skills and talent where the market requires."

...and thus if the market requires foreign strawberry pickers, the market will get its foreign strawberry pickers.

Becoming clearer and clearer that this has always been about financial services. Country is screwed, but a least a few commodity brokers see a nice bump in commission. Working class folks sold a pup by the true elite.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:20 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:Don't be a silly Billy, of course people change their minds I fancied a pizza last night & ended up getting a kebab,

Sorry, I must have misread or misinterpreted what you originally wrote:

Something that has already been decided shouldn’t need reinforcing it should be final.

But as you've just said: "people change their minds". I'm glad we've cleared that up.

Hope you made the right decision. I'd have stuck with Pizza myself.

Claretnick · Post by **Claretnick** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:21 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2 ... -FINAL.pdf

And here it is.

The alternative plan.

Endorsed by David Davis and Boris.

Excellent work, a great future blueprint, positive for Britain, the reason we voted out (the economic reason, there were plenty of non economic ones before folk start to revisit Groundhog Day in saying our current deal is economically better).

No doubt the Doubting Thomas’s will still say “The EU won’t allow it”, or “what about NI” or “you can’t have supply chains”. I prefer to say that we will manage all the risks and downsides, and actively push to maximise the opportunities and upsides.

Come on Theresa - you know it makes sense.

(P.s. don’t bother commenting unless you have read, as a minimum, the Exec Summary - I’ve had enough nonsense to reply to in the last few days from people who claim to know everything but don’t study the detail)

Instead of producing fancy looking booklets containing language and acronyms designed to turn off the average man in the street these so called experts can be putting a plan in place to ensure todays Government 'technical notices' don't come to fruition. May, Davis, Johnson, Mogg get this total incompetence sorted and sorted now! You are all a bloody disgrace.....Just wait for the panic buying to start now not in 6 months time....

http://www.fdf.org.uk/news.aspx?article=8062" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:23 pm

claretandy wrote:Davis did, but was railroaded by the Chequers plan and resigned, as did Boris.

Can you show where and when? I'll happily withdraw my statement.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:35 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2 ... -FINAL.pdf

And here it is.

The alternative plan.

Endorsed by David Davis and Boris.

Excellent work, a great future blueprint, positive for Britain, the reason we voted out (the economic reason, there were plenty of non economic ones before folk start to revisit Groundhog Day in saying our current deal is economically better).

No doubt the Doubting Thomas’s will still say “The EU won’t allow it”, or “what about NI” or “you can’t have supply chains”. I prefer to say that we will manage all the risks and downsides, and actively push to maximise the opportunities and upsides.

Come on Theresa - you know it makes sense.

(P.s. don’t bother commenting unless you have read, as a minimum, the Exec Summary - I’ve had enough nonsense to reply to in the last few days from people who claim to know everything but don’t study the detail)

I had a quick scan through, lots of words and very little numbers which seemed surprising (and potentially some significant issues with those numbers it seems https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45625724" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ).

I wouldn't be averse to a lot of it but it seemed quite optimistic (although obviously the IEA are very pro-Brexit so not that surprising). It seemed to be suggesting that joining NAFTA would be an option whilst in reality NAFTA is going through all sorts of troubles and it's looking to be very in the USA's favour (which was covered in a brief paragraph). Similarly, the India FTA glossed over the immigration issue that is going to be a huge point in that deal (I can't imagine many Brexit voters will be happy to swap Eastern European immigrants for Indian immigrants).

Immigration as a whole was almost entirely glossed over:

• Immigration
Free movement of workers and the associated rights of EU citizenship cannot continue after the UK has left the EU. The UK will therefore need a comprehensive and sensible immigration policy. This policy needs to enable dynamic recruitment of skills and talent where the market requires

No restrictions on low-skilled immigration if big business wants it is one interpretation of that.

Lots of talk about cutting regulation, some sensible, some less so (I know we have different views on that). However, a fair bit of talk of us having regulations that would seemingly satisfy everyone which was somewhat taken for granted.

If we could implement all of that then it would probably be a decent deal but I fear it's all a little optimistic.

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:35 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Sorry, I must have misread or misinterpreted what you originally wrote:

But as you've just said: "people change their minds". I'm glad we've cleared that up.
Hope you made the right decision. I'd have stuck with Pizza myself.

Quite. for me choosing a pizza or a kebab & deciding whether to leave the European Union or not are poles apart in the gravity of my decision making process.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:06 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:Quite. for me choosing a pizza or a kebab & deciding whether to leave the European Union or not are poles apart in the gravity of my decision making process.

Freudian slip?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:24 pm

Experts kicking the **** out of the IEA plan on twitter.

I think aggis link is to the Chris Cook one

Lots of people who know their stuff all saying the same thing

"Optimistic"

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:53 pm

Has to be some give with ongoing regulatory recognition, it’s a far more plausible than the chequers which got short shrift.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:28 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:But this government clearly doesn't want to. Mrs May said that agreeing to a second vote would equate to a "gross betrayal of our democracy…and trust."

So there would have to be a government prepared to do it.

So for the last time-

Which political UK party has been democratically elected, on a manifesto, based on over turning the 2016 referendum result, giving it the mandate to do so?

Name one

Try again......

If you’re not going to bother reading the bit where I explicitly answer your question there’s really no point in replying further. I’ll give you a clue, the sentence starts with the words ‘The answer to your question’.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:02 pm

Do I understand Labour's position correctly (I suspect we're not meant to so that no matter what they do is in line with it...)

They want a GE. If they don't get that, they want a referendum. That referendum would possibly be (at least) a three-way choice (in, no deal, deal) but definitely not a 4th option - "renegotiate" or possibly a two-way choice (no deal, deal). If they do get a GE and lose, do they still want the same 2/3 way choice? If they get a GE and win they will... what? Obviously take up negotiations. Still finish by November? Ask for an extension to negotiations?

And here's the bit I I'm really not clear on. Are they also committing to a referendum if THEY win a GE and propose a deal? Surely, no-one could be inconsistent enough to NOT promise that?

tiger76 · Post by **tiger76** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:52 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Experts kicking the **** out of the IEA plan on twitter.

I think aggis link is to the Chris Cook one

Lots of people who know their stuff all saying the same thing

"Optimistic"

The time frame is the major obstacle for all this to be arranged by next March is hopeful at best,if the Transition Period was to kick in then perhaps some of this could see the light of day,the Irish border again being left vague,ditto immigration.

If these plans had been produced 18 months ago,they would have been a much more sensible starting point for negotiations than Chequers,the EU response will be intriguing.

tiger76 · Post by **tiger76** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:58 pm

burnleymik wrote:I know tiger, but there honestly wouldn't be any point, in my mind. If we win again more excuses follow and more dragging of the heels until such a time that they feel strong enough to go for a third vote.

How many times before the referendum were we told this was a once in a generation vote and there could be no going back?

Also there is such strong feeling and resentment now, I can only see a 2nd referendum creating utter chaos and a complete lack of faith in our democratic system.

If there is a 2nd referendum i might vote or i might abstain,depends how the campaign goes,but if the public decide to remain(if that's an option) then i most likely won't vote in the next General Election,it would be pointless.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:43 pm

That is a silly rationale to be honest Tiger76

if all the people who voted for Brexit don't vote in a general election, you'll get a government that would have them all going "****, knew I should have voted"

Essentially that happened in the referendum, and the people who didn't vote in that went "****, knew I should have voted" and made damn sure they voted in the GE that followed, which crippled the Tories and left us where we are.

And as i've said on here before, the Mayor in Jaws is still the Mayor in Jaws II, so don't ever tell me that democracy isn't vital.

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:52 pm

There would be no point voting. We voted once and that doesn't seem to be good enough or to count (if a 2nd ref is forced), so why bother voting again?

The excuse that people thought their side would win so didn't bother voting is utterly ridiculous. Everyone who cared enough would have voted and that stands for both sides.

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:24 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Essentially that happened in the referendum, and the people who didn't vote in that went "****, knew I should have voted" and made damn sure they voted in the GE that followed, which crippled the Tories and left us where we are.

Morning Lancs. Really sorry to let facts get in the way again, but the above isn't true. It didn't ring true so I've checked it.

9% of non-2016 Referendum voters voted in 2017. Let's charitably say that 7% of those wished they had voted Remain and were Labour or Lib Dem voters in 2017. That's a 5% gap (7%+2%=9%). You can derive the figures by looking at the unweighted sample at the top.

The table also says that 15% of Remain voters did not vote in 2017, and 26% of Leave voters did not vote in 2017 (most of the latter are formerly UKIP or Labour Leave voters).

So, in conclusion, the biggest impact on the current Parliament was Leavers not voting - given we now have a hung Parliament, that says to me that Leavers hold the balance of power for whoever can get them out to vote again. They are, typically, labour heartland voters who may have temporarily switched to UKIP. The kind that Corbyn has been accused of neglecting and the kind that the Tories will be keen to hoover up by persuading them to hold their nose and vote Tory with the promise of migration reform.

Whichever way you look at it, Remainers don't hold the balance of power. They tend to be congregated in relatively few seats in Scotland, N Ireland and the metropolitan liberal areas of England. That's why, for better or worse, the future can only be leaving the EU, at least for a decade so these people can get their chance and see what life is like outside. I don't see anything but turmoil from all this 2nd Ref talk for this reason.

The below link is the Youguv 2017 analysis.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/c ... hers_W.pdf

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:40 am

I didn't say they won the election though Crosspool (and its very nice to see you use facts to back up your points for a change. Does make me wonder why you don't do it for the ideas you have that lack them but I digress)

Whichever way you want to spin it, plenty of people tactically voted to make sure their voice was heard.

What we got is exactly what is the case, a split country.

In a FPTP system, it will only take about 10,000 people in select constituencies (that is a rough guess btw) to swing it either remain or leave, which is one of the reasons why Labour in particular are tiptoeing around the issue.

I have no clue where we go from here btw, but one thing is for sure, whichever way we go there will be millions of ****** off voters.

The government have to sort this out with a plan that satisfies enough of leave and remain to get this through both the EU and the Uk parliaments. That is going to involve some sort of compromise about stuff in the UK first (with of course delicate feelers out to the EU to see if they are going to be acceptable to them)

pureclaret · Post by **pureclaret** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:41 am

10 Million remainers now voting to leave !!!!

Just a thought if at the moment some of the biggest companies are owned by foreign investment.
If Labour get in to power then foreign workers may well come to work in these companies and will receive shares in those companies and a 3rd of the companies board will be made up of said share holders. New policy not to employ lazy good for nothing indigenous people will not be employed.
But dont worry social housing and compulsory purchase of homes means that home owners will have to kick out there families to move a foreign working family in so your bills will be paid but then any profit taken of you and an increase in your tax .

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:58 am

CrosspoolClarets wrote:Morning Lancs. Really sorry to let facts get in the way again, but the above isn't true. It didn't ring true so I've checked it.

9% of non-2016 Referendum voters voted in 2017. Let's charitably say that 7% of those wished they had voted Remain and were Labour or Lib Dem voters in 2017. That's a 5% gap (7%+2%=9%). You can derive the figures by looking at the unweighted sample at the top.

The table also says that 15% of Remain voters did not vote in 2017, and 26% of Leave voters did not vote in 2017 (most of the latter are formerly UKIP or Labour Leave voters).

So, in conclusion, the biggest impact on the current Parliament was Leavers not voting - given we now have a hung Parliament, that says to me that Leavers hold the balance of power for whoever can get them out to vote again. They are, typically, labour heartland voters who may have temporarily switched to UKIP. The kind that Corbyn has been accused of neglecting and the kind that the Tories will be keen to hoover up by persuading them to hold their nose and vote Tory with the promise of migration reform.

Whichever way you look at it, Remainers don't hold the balance of power. They tend to be congregated in relatively few seats in Scotland, N Ireland and the metropolitan liberal areas of England. That's why, for better or worse, the future can only be leaving the EU, at least for a decade so these people can get their chance and see what life is like outside. I don't see anything but turmoil from all this 2nd Ref talk for this reason.

The below link is the Youguv 2017 analysis.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/c ... hers_W.pdf

You've used facts to prove him wrong.

He'll wriggle, nit pick and pretend to misunderstand the point you're clearly making.

When you stick to your guns and repeatedly present the stone cold facts again and again.

He'll simply block you.

Remember this was the arrogant , holier than pretty much every body, self appointed political behemoth who claimed " I do have the unfortunate habit of being right pretty much most of the time" !!!

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:02 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:That is a silly rationale to be honest Tiger76

if all the people who voted for Brexit don't vote in a general election, you'll get a government that would have them all going "****, knew I should have voted"

Essentially that happened in the referendum, and the people who didn't vote in that went "****, knew I should have voted" and made damn sure they voted in the GE that followed, which crippled the Tories and left us where we are.

And as i've said on here before, the Mayor in Jaws is still the Mayor in Jaws II, so don't ever tell me that democracy isn't vital.

"so don't ever tell me that democracy isn't vital"

No body said otherwise.

He should take his own advice and start respecting democracy and accepting the results it delivers

Democracy - it means sometimes you lose Lancaster " nearly always right" Claret.

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:25 am

The polls are clear - nobody can win a majority by standing on a Remain platform. The opposite though can be the case - a Leave platform CAN win a majority.

In 2017 both parties were vaguely Leave in their manifestos but are led by Remainers across their cabinets / shadow cabinets (which made people sceptical and didn’t lure them out to vote). If that changed, and one was clearly Leave, and the other was clearly Remain, you would see the effect in a General Election. It would be a minimum 50 seat majority. A hung parliament is NOT all we are destined for. We do not have a country split 50/50.

That isn’t opinion, it’s fact, by interpreting the polling statistics.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:29 am

wait, the very same polls are saying Remain now have a majority

And its growing all the time (and it will continue to grow as the shitshow gets worse and worse)

TonbridgeClaret · Post by **TonbridgeClaret** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:51 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:wait, the very same polls are saying Remain now have a majority

And its growing all the time (and it will continue to grow as the shitshow gets worse and worse)

I don't know yet which way to vote if there is a second referendum. But I do know that the latest poll of polls is showing 52% remain and 48% leave, https://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-pol ... -of-polls/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
exactly the same as just before the original vote, and we all know how accurate that was don't we? Sadly, because (for some reason) people seem ashamed to say they intend to vote leave (especially when asked in company with their friends by pollsters), polls are skewed in favour of remain. Added to this, I have remain friends who do not want a second referendum.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:54 am

There is a +/- 5% (I think, or is it 2%?) on these things.

I'm like you, I have no clue which way to vote at the moment because there is still a chance for a deal. If the deal isn't bad then I'd probably vote for it.

But absolutely there is no question at all which way I'd vote, if its "No Deal" or "Remain"

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:01 pm

AndrewJB wrote:It’s accepted that under Thatcher entire communities were devestated through industries shutting down, and this was a result of her policies. Those people were left to rot on the dole. This was her government’s conscious choice. Any improvement in living standards (as technology improved) must be measured against this.

Hi Andrew, I've been away for 2 weeks - I don't post when I'm on holiday.

Yes, I know that it is "accepted" left wing view that that is what Thatcher did. It is probably also true that it was only "shutting down" firms (not "industries") that had failed to "keep up" and had long since been "uncompetitive." Maybe Thatcher would never have been PM if an earlier government had taken some of those "difficult" or "corrageous" (choose your own adjective) and allowed failing firms to fail and new firms to emerge much sooner - just like in a number of other European economies.

Improvements in living standards come from moving forward - and not holding on to the past, whether it is in technology - or the jobs we do.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:10 pm

claretspice wrote:This is a remarkably self-entitled argument. Its based on the premise the EU should put the UK's interests above those of the EU bloc when the two dont align. It assumes a club based on strict membership rules should waive at least some of those rules to facilitate the UK leaving on terms palatable to the UK.

And the EU has no incentive to go along with that. None. It has an interest in making sure the UK cannot be held up in future as an example that leaving can be painless. Thats worth a lot to the EU because it only works if the entire bloc plays by the same rules.

Whatever the faults of the EU - and there are many - it is also the Union the Uk created. The two things which seemingly cause problems for us now - the entirely seamless free market, the enornous expansion into Eastern Europe that both makes it sprawling an unwieldy and causes unequal living standards to bring out the worst in free movement - those are UK creations. They weren't forced upon us. Thatcher and Blair led Europe in creating them. To paint it as an aloof foreign body is therefore wrong.

Finally, whilst Juncker and Tusk are hardly impressive statesmen, they've behaved nowhere near as boorishly towards Britain as Johnson and his cronies have towards the EU. And in any event, Tusk and Juncker are effectively civil servants. The people who stuck two fingers up at May for her plans (which are a fudge) on Thursday had no issue with democratic deficit or being EU insiders. They were the elected heads of government of the EU members, not faceless unanswerable administrators.

Hi claretspice, as with AJB, I've been away.

I'd argue that you are "grasping at the wrong end of the stick:" it's not about "the UK's interest" - it's about how the EU (a "club" with the aim of promoting "peace and prsoperity") seeks to engage with countries that were once members but have chosen to leave. Should that ex-member be treated in a worse fashion that countries that have never been members? should that ex-member continue to been treated as a "friend" - or should those things be made difficult. Those are the incentives for the EU - to act as though they believe in "peace and prosperity."

I've heard recently that Michelle Obama had a saying: "if you go low, I'll go high...." I think it works in many situations.

SmudgetheClaret · Post by **SmudgetheClaret** » Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:45 pm

All I can't say to the anti democratic Britain hating remainers is have your 2nd referendum just be like all the others who have been bullied by the new communist block and reverse the result and I will just sit back and enjoy watching our Orban/Salvini emerge and take real control of the country...