Beggars

[WBA123]

We’ve had over two years of this tripe of cliff edges, crashing and blindfolds and there’s still no sign of these old remoaners calling it quits. If they were to put as much enthusiasm into fighting more important things, such as war, poverty, homelessness, burglaries, stabbings, muggings, grooming gangs as they do into fighting the democratically expressed will of the majority, then the world would be a far better place.

And what is the 'expressed will of the majority'.....

You haven't got a clue, neither have I.

Because the referendum was a complete farce.

It looks like the 'expressed view of the majority' is going to be May's Chequers deal. Out of interest, is that what you voted for?

[Whicka_Mon]

And what is the 'expressed will of the majority'.....

You haven't got a clue, neither have I.

Because the referendum was a complete farce.

It looks like the 'expressed view of the majority' is going to be May's Chequers deal. Out of interest, is that what you voted for?

The referendum was a simple In or Out. A bit like the Big Dave Thread. I don't recall the government beating Leeds 4-1 So why should view's change.
I'm simple so excuse me but the majority voted out. END OF.
Unfortunately May was a remainer. She doesn't represent the majority.

[WBA123]

The referendum was a simple In or Out. A bit like the Big Dave Thread. I don't recall the government beating Leeds 4-1 So why should view's change.
I'm simple so excuse me but the majority voted out. END OF.
Unfortunately May was a remainer. She doesn't represent the majority.

It really isn't that simple mate, because if it was we wouldn't be 2 years down the line trying to negotiate a deal on terms not everyone voted for...

[9goals2hattricks3pen]

People are hijacking the democratic process here.

Firstly, the referendum was completely flawed, in that people were lied to and mislead. Secondly, its not anti democratic to have another democratic vote, its probably the opposite.

Thirdly, flipping it on its head - I could argue that leaving with no deal is anti democratic, because no one can confirm that all 17m people who voted leave, voted in favour of a no deal Brexit. In my view there is no mandate for it. Or did they all vote in favour of Theresa May's Chequers deal?

But mostly, everyone who voted in the last referendum have more information available to them about the outlook of leaving the EU now than what they did 2 years ago to make an informed decision.

There is no doubt in the short to mid term, Brexit will make us poorer. I can't see how anyone can dispute that.

There is no doubt in the short to mid term the biggest threat to our prosperity by a huge margin is not Brexit but a Jeremy Corbyn led Goverment. I can't see how anyone can dispute that.

[Albionic68]

People are hijacking the democratic process here.

Firstly, the referendum was completely flawed, in that people were lied to and mislead. Secondly, its not anti democratic to have another democratic vote, its probably the opposite.

Thirdly, flipping it on its head - I could argue that leaving with no deal is anti democratic, because no one can confirm that all 17m people who voted leave, voted in favour of a no deal Brexit. In my view there is no mandate for it. Or did they all vote in favour of Theresa May's Chequers deal?

But mostly, everyone who voted in the last referendum have more information available to them about the outlook of leaving the EU now than what they did 2 years ago to make an informed decision.

There is no doubt in the short to mid term, Brexit will make us poorer. I can't see how anyone can dispute that.

Hello 123.

I don’t mean to be facetious but if the referendum was completely flawed on the grounds that people were lied to and misled, then every local and national election I’ve ever voted in could be described as the same. So by using your frame of reference for what is or isn’t democratic we’d need to rerun every election since I turned eigh**** in 1986. Well it’s only fair really, I didn’t agree with a lot of the outcomes. Out of nothing more than idle curiosity would you have been so keen on a second referendum had the majority voted to remain?

Flipping things on their head you’ve absolutely no idea whether others voted remain for the exact same reasons you did either. Did they do so with a desire for greater integration with the EU at some future time, trepidation over the unknown or just a willingness to avoid rocking the boat? Did you all vote for a future European Army ala Juncker’s ideal? Did you all vote for whatever crazy idea pops out of some EU Commission quango at some future point? No, you probably didn’t. Is that anti-democratic too then?

I’m pulling your leg and playing devil’s advocate here, but you may all as well have voted for all those different things as you don’t know for certain what the EU’s agenda is going forward. There is more than an element of the unknown in any vote and subsequent outcome. You state people are more informed now but are they really? Or have they just been force fed more of the same from a different latrine thus becoming even more entrenched in other people’s sh it? And if the British electorate are now more informed, what will your response be if the result once again goes against your hopes, dreams and future aspirations?

Only the naive or stupid would suggest there’ll be no short to medium term issues untangling ourselves from the EU and securing future trade deals. For anyone to suggest it’s going to be plain sailing across an open and calm sea would be ridiculous. But what about the long term outcomes, will we be better off in future? Or will we definitely be worse off? Who knows? Would we definitely be better off in the long term if we were to remain? I don’t know, do you? I may use this here internet thingy and Google translate to ask a few Italians and Greeks what they think.

What I fervently believe though is the EU should never have expanded to the number of nations currently under its umbrella. Rather than diversifying our collective economic portfolio, I believe they’re diluting the economic gene pool. For me it isn’t a case of whether we should leave, but whether we’ve left it too late for me to see sufficient long term gains in my lifetime.

Toodle pip and all of the very best chap .

[mickd1961]

Hello 123.

I don’t mean to be facetious but if the referendum was completely flawed on the grounds that people were lied to and misled, then every local and national election I’ve ever voted in could be described as the same. So by using your frame of reference for what is or isn’t democratic we’d need to rerun every election since I turned eigh**** in 1986. Well it’s only fair really, I didn’t agree with a lot of the outcomes. Out of nothing more than idle curiosity would you have been so keen on a second referendum had the majority voted to remain?

Flipping things on their head you’ve absolutely no idea whether others voted remain for the exact same reasons you did either. Did they do so with a desire for greater integration with the EU at some future time, trepidation over the unknown or just a willingness to avoid rocking the boat? Did you all vote for a future European Army ala Juncker’s ideal? Did you all vote for whatever crazy idea pops out of some EU Commission quango at some future point? No, you probably didn’t. Is that anti-democratic too then?

I’m pulling your leg and playing devil’s advocate here, but you may all as well have voted for all those different things as you don’t know for certain what the EU’s agenda is going forward. There is more than an element of the unknown in any vote and subsequent outcome. You state people are more informed now but are they really? Or have they just been force fed more of the same from a different latrine thus becoming even more entrenched in other people’s sh it? And if the British electorate are now more informed, what will your response be if the result once again goes against your hopes, dreams and future aspirations?

Only the naive or stupid would suggest there’ll be no short to medium term issues untangling ourselves from the EU and securing future trade deals. For anyone to suggest it’s going to be plain sailing across an open and calm sea would be ridiculous. But what about the long term outcomes, will we be better off in future? Or will we definitely be worse off? Who knows? Would we definitely be better off in the long term if we were to remain? I don’t know, do you? I may use this here internet thingy and Google translate to ask a few Italians and Greeks what they think.

What I fervently believe though is the EU should never have expanded to the number of nations currently under its umbrella. Rather than diversifying our collective economic portfolio, I believe they’re diluting the economic gene pool. For me it isn’t a case of whether we should leave, but whether we’ve left it too late for me to see sufficient long term gains in my lifetime.

Toodle pip and all of the very best chap .

The usual brilliant piece of prose by you 68.

The remarkably sharp Sir John Nott,former Tory minister was on SKY this morning and at 86 still as sharp a tart grasping the fiver before a blow job.

He echoed my simple sentiments on Europe in that he voted to join the “Common Market” and that this was never described as something that would become a political union.

So if we’re going to be preached to about Brexit being a “lie” then let’s accept the Common Market idea was a lie and that politicians stitched us all up.

In that regard we call it quits and revert back to what we were sold back in 74/75 which was a free trade agreement which is what we are requesting now.

Seems fair doesn’t it?

[WBA123]

Hello 123.

I don’t mean to be facetious but if the referendum was completely flawed on the grounds that people were lied to and misled, then every local and national election I’ve ever voted in could be described as the same. So by using your frame of reference for what is or isn’t democratic we’d need to rerun every election since I turned eigh**** in 1986. Well it’s only fair really, I didn’t agree with a lot of the outcomes. Out of nothing more than idle curiosity would you have been so keen on a second referendum had the majority voted to remain?

Flipping things on their head you’ve absolutely no idea whether others voted remain for the exact same reasons you did either. Did they do so with a desire for greater integration with the EU at some future time, trepidation over the unknown or just a willingness to avoid rocking the boat? Did you all vote for a future European Army ala Juncker’s ideal? Did you all vote for whatever crazy idea pops out of some EU Commission quango at some future point? No, you probably didn’t. Is that anti-democratic too then?

I’m pulling your leg and playing devil’s advocate here, but you may all as well have voted for all those different things as you don’t know for certain what the EU’s agenda is going forward. There is more than an element of the unknown in any vote and subsequent outcome. You state people are more informed now but are they really? Or have they just been force fed more of the same from a different latrine thus becoming even more entrenched in other people’s sh it? And if the British electorate are now more informed, what will your response be if the result once again goes against your hopes, dreams and future aspirations?

Only the naive or stupid would suggest there’ll be no short to medium term issues untangling ourselves from the EU and securing future trade deals. For anyone to suggest it’s going to be plain sailing across an open and calm sea would be ridiculous. But what about the long term outcomes, will we be better off in future? Or will we definitely be worse off? Who knows? Would we definitely be better off in the long term if we were to remain? I don’t know, do you? I may use this here internet thingy and Google translate to ask a few Italians and Greeks what they think.

What I fervently believe though is the EU should never have expanded to the number of nations currently under its umbrella. Rather than diversifying our collective economic portfolio, I believe they’re diluting the economic gene pool. For me it isn’t a case of whether we should leave, but whether we’ve left it too late for me to see sufficient long term gains in my lifetime.

Toodle pip and all of the very best chap .

You make some interesting points;

In terms of local and national elections, you do get the chance to vote again every 4/5 years. This referendum instance is different because we may not have another vote for 40 years..

Would I have been keen on a second referendum had the majority voted to remain? No is the answer, but if remain voters felt they had been deceived I could understand their point of view calling for a 2nd referendum.

I think your 3rd point doesn't make any sense to me, because the UK have a veto over issues such as an EU army. The EU army was just another load of rubbish from the Right Wing rags. But if this was to ever happen, our government, who we democratically vote in, could literally have just vetoed the EU army plan or any other 'quango' idea. That is democracy and its also written into EU law.

I would think 2 years of Brexit being in the news every day has made the population more informed, but this is just my opinion. If the result of a 2nd referendum was leave again, despite not understanding the result whatsoever, I'd respect it. I can't speak for others though.

Long term outcomes of Brexit - who knows. Flip a coin in the air maybe? Rees-Mogg, who spouts nothing but rubbish anyway, said that the benefits could take 50 years. If he is right, then even my kids won't see the full benefits until they're approaching retirement age.

My opinion is this, being in the EU we're better off economically, we're more secure, health and food standards are higher, we have greater global influence and we have the opportunity to live, work and travel in 27 other countries.

And in my opinion, there is not one tangible benefit to leaving the EU.

And going back to the origin of the whole thread, which were beggars on the street. I do agree with Kettering that the number of homeless is more likely to go up because of Brexit than down. Because if we remain in the EU, we'll be better off economically and it will enable us to have more government funds for social issues such as these.

[talkSAFT]

Going slightly off-topic:
pre-referendum, a lot of the Public thought Boris Johnson was just a cuddly big softy, a bit of a laugh.
He was at the forefront of Brexit and, a week before the Referendum he lied that the UK would save £350m per week, which the Tory Chancellor would put straight into, and thus save, the NHS. I can imagine that when that statement was blazed across the tabloids, 2% of the Electorate "Don't Knows" might have been tempted to think "Oh sod it! That's good enough for me". That 2% swung it, as we know.
Seriously, how was Johnson allowed to get away with what he did? Everyone in the country knows what a complete buffoon he is now, and would never trust him again, and yet he's still being talked about as a future PM. I just don't get it.
I'm no Corbyn follower by any means, but just fancy a General Election quandary: Corbyn or Johnson. LibDems would clean up!

There should be a law against lying to the public on such a grand scale. Johnson should be banned from Westminster if only to deter other tw*ts like him.

[baggieal]

Going slightly off-topic:
pre-referendum, a lot of the Public thought Boris Johnson was just a cuddly big softy, a bit of a laugh.
He was at the forefront of Brexit and, a week before the Referendum he lied that the UK would save £350m per week, which the Tory Chancellor would put straight into, and thus save, the NHS. I can imagine that when that statement was blazed across the tabloids, 2% of the Electorate "Don't Knows" might have been tempted to think "Oh sod it! That's good enough for me". That 2% swung it, as we know.
Seriously, how was Johnson allowed to get away with what he did? Everyone in the country knows what a complete buffoon he is now, and would never trust him again, and yet he's still being talked about as a future PM. I just don't get it.
I'm no Corbyn follower by any means, but just fancy a General Election quandary: Corbyn or Johnson. LibDems would clean up!

There should be a law against lying to the public on such a grand scale. Johnson should be banned from Westminster if only to deter other tw*ts like him.

The biggest **** is Jeremy Corbyn who swayed all the youngsters with crap about abolishing university fees but he forgot to work out where the millions would come from!

Any budding Politicians out there? Just mimic our Jeremy - free university fees - get rid of military arms and services - hate the Jews -befriend terrorists - get your boots on with any national disaster - go to Glastonbury and lastly let Diane Abbott sit on your face!

[stripes39]

It puzzles me how so many choose to ignore the documented facts about what happened at the time of Britain’s entry in to the EEC. The expression about people throwing stones and glass houses springs to mind if we are to talk lies and deception.

For many people of a certain age, the recent referendum was an opportunity to redress the lies the country was told at the time. I’m not sure how many voters voted at the time for the UK to end up as a region in a European super-state. A state that would have its own flag and anthem, its own currency, a state that could over-rule UK laws and to have our daily lives ultimately governed by an unelected commission answerable to no one but themselves. Why, it’s even changed its name in the process going from being a sweet and pleasant sounding ‘community to a more formal ‘union’.

Britain had been kept out of the EEC largely by De Gaulle (driven by self interest) who wanted to establish the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) first in order to subsidise inefficient French farmers. Heath by this time was so desperate to join the EEC, he was willing to pay almost any price and he and his closest supporters happily and knowingly, repeatedly lied to his own Party, Parliament and the UK people.

Heath’s lies included the claim that the EEC was nothing more than a framework to trade in. The country was assured that membership involved no loss of sovereignty and that this fine democratic group was essential to our future economic prosperity. Heath never acknowledged that the long-term objective of the EEC was the creation of a federalist European super-State. This would be presided over by an unelected but all powerful Commission, advised by a Council of Ministers and with a directly-elected European Parliament whose only purpose was to rubber-stamp Commission decisions but who are ultimately mere window dressing in this farce.

From the outset, the Commission alone could initiate, amend or withdraw legislation. It's guiding principle was accumulation by stealth of sovereign powers, Using a whole range of dirty tactics (including refusing to allow Parliament to scrutinise the fine print of our membership and its legislative implications), Heath narrowly secured Parliamentary approval for his treachery and took the country into the EEC in 1973. He had no mandate for this action and during the crucial Parliamentary debate connived with the Speaker of The House of Commons to prevent the leading opponents of his plan from speaking.

Heath was so determined to force the UK into the EEC that when he was advised that a new emerging French policy on fisheries would destroy our own fishing industry and fish stocks he replied that the UK fishing industry was “expendable”. For him, it was a small price to pay.

In closing this little rant, I think it pays to ponder the fact that much of the mess we are in during our divorce from Europe goes back to the lies, the deceit and the total disregard for democracy that was peddled at the time we joined. Had the electorate at the time been told the truth, I’ve no doubt we would not have joined. No wonder so many voters of a certain age voted to leave having originally voted to join based on the lies they were told only to watch the emergence of a european super-state and the erosion of our hard won democracy that has been handed to a bunch of unelected old men.