OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone

I'm not making it personal other than to the extent that you are a lone voice for remain and thus I've attributed ownership of the cause to you!!

But I disagree with your assessment of the status quo aspect. IMHO the decision of ref #1 has been accepted by Parliament ( in some cases not entirely with good grace) evidenced by the triggering of the leave clauses and the commencement of negotiations. Thus if you want a 51% of electorate margin to change something, it has to be to overturn the current leave position. Leave is not only where we are now but is also the default position if nothing happens by 29-03.

I can understand why you would want to believe the default position would be remain because the outcome of any referendum is highly unlikely to produce a clear result ( unless you force voting) and so remain gets two shots at it - win outright or win by absence of outright leave.

However I fear that option was lost by the events of the last two years. Certainly at referendum 1 you would have been right and remain would hold the "hung vote", but I don't think that's the case now. Shame for you that the question wording wasn't different, or the voting rules different. The integrity of referendum one is irrelevant. So was the integrity of Gerhard Schulenburg against Juventus: it didn't change the result.

Your best hope is another simple majority of voters hope. But then, what is your yes/no question assuming the May deal is thrown out by Parliament? I suppose ask, on a majority of voters basis, "remain or leave with no deal" . I'd say remain would win that - and I'd vote remain in that choice.

The underlying problem is the 30%, as I said before. With such a big group of a abstainers you will almost never get a 51% of electorate support unless perhaps 2/3rds of voters support it. In which case you wouldn't have needed the referendum in the first place as public opinion would be clear for all to see already.

---

Being a ‘lone voice’ worries me not one jot, GP. Anyway what does a ‘lone voice’ on this forum matter? It just happens to be somewhere I ‘inhabit’ to talk about Derby where the Brexit debate has also evolved.
I’m far from a ‘lone voice’ in the real world and the second referendum, which people on here said would never happen, has got a great deal closer.
People like you and Andy, who I usually have respect for, contradict yourselves at every turn anyway. You both voted Remain and would, as you have conceded tonight, do so again if the alternative was ‘No-deal’ and yet you seek to ridicule those of us who have remained consistently opposed to Brexit.
Anyway...there’s always Swale...>;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

a) I didn’t start the thread and neither did I ‘resurrect’ it earlier this week. .

---

My ears are burning!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

People like you and Andy, who I usually have respect for, contradict yourselves at every turn

---

Not I, RA (GP can speak for himself)

1. I voted Remain, that's fact

2. I've been consistent in saying that, once the result was in, everyone in their own way should fully devote themselves to making Brexit work.

3. I've been consistent in pointing the finger of failure at those who didn't devote themselves in that manner. That cohort includes just about every politician I could name, and, regretrably also you.

4. I've been consistent in stating that if (if iF) the question was asked again I'd vote Remain again

5. The way I square the apparent contradiction of 3. and 4. is that I live in the here and now, where 4. is just a pipedream of a mardy minority, whereas 3. is something I can actually contribute to

Its back to the pragmatist versus idealist thing again

On a related subject, did you see 'Brexit An Uncivil War'? If you didn't you should, it nailed the pre-referendum farce in 90 mins. Fantastically cast, especially Arran Banks, not sure if you'd admire the portrayal or explode with rage at the renewed memory of Banks' existence. And if you want to cut to the quick of the whole thing, go to 1 hour 12 minutes on C4 catchup and watch the next minute, maybe a dramatised event but it crystallises the whole reason Remain lost, a single white female saying it loud and proud for the folk Martin Fry called 'the silent majority, seen and never heard'. As usual I'll sign this off by reminding you I voted, and would vote again, Remain

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy_Faber

Not I, RA (GP can speak for himself)

1. I voted Remain, that's fact

2. I've been consistent in saying that, once the result was in, everyone in their own way should fully devote themselves to making Brexit work.

3. I've been consistent in pointing the finger of failure at those who didn't devote themselves in that manner. That cohort includes just about every politician I could name, and, regretrably also you.

4. I've been consistent in stating that if (if iF) the question was asked again I'd vote Remain again

5. The way I square the apparent contradiction of 3. and 4. is that I live in the here and now, where 4. is just a pipedream of a mardy minority, whereas 3. is something I can actually contribute to

Its back to the pragmatist versus idealist thing again

On a related subject, did you see 'Brexit An Uncivil War'? If you didn't you should, it nailed the pre-referendum farce in 90 mins. Fantastically cast, especially Arran Banks, not sure if you'd admire the portrayal or explode with rage at the renewed memory of Banks' existence. And if you want to cut to the quick of the whole thing, go to 1 hour 12 minutes on C4 catchup and watch the next minute, maybe a dramatised event but it crystallises the whole reason Remain lost, a single white female saying it loud and proud for the folk Martin Fry called 'the silent majority, seen and never heard'. As usual I'll sign this off by reminding you I voted, and would vote again, Remain

---

It’s nothing whatsoever to do with the pragmatist v the idealist, Andy and nobody has been more ‘mardy’ or less pragmatic than those Brexiteers who fear having hollow victory snatched from their grasp by the hard nosed reality of the fact that no one voted to make the people of this country worse of.
You pointing the finger at those who didn’t/couldn’t bring themselves to ‘make Brexit work’ is something I believe you’ve come up with in recent months. The only problem is that Brexit is actually unworkable and the fact that you again suggest that given the chance you would again ‘vote Remain’ simply emphasises how unworkable it is.
You and GP heap scorn and ridicule on those of us who have consistently pointed out the error of the Brexit way and the ridiculous notion of following populist, reactionary and minority advice down the wrong ‘road’, but then both turn round and say ‘but yes...if we had the chance we’d both vote Remain next time’.
It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You either believe in Brexit or recognise it for the charade it is. Unlike you two, I’ve made my mind up.

I’ve recorded ‘Brexit an Uncivil War’ and will watch it soon. I’ll keep an eye out for the parts you refer to...especially to try and recognise who you regard as the ‘silent majority, seen and never heard’.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manofpride

Well put, GP.
I remember George Galloway getting beaten up by thugs, made a story for a day and Soubry gets name called and we'll be hearing about it until we leave.

---

Likewise Farage being manhandled by a Remainer mob and smacked on the head with a placard. An example of the increasing ability of the media to suppress/magnify issues as they see fit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

Struggling to understand the difference between a ‘suggestion’ and ‘what you think will happen’, MA.

---

I was taking the "put forward for consideration" meaning of the word rA. No way would I wish to stir up riots on the streets and hope that nobody understood that I was putting riots up as action to be considered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadAmster

I was taking the "put forward for consideration" meaning of the word rA. No way would I wish to stir up riots on the streets and hope that nobody understood that I was putting riots up as action to be considered.

---

I think we all know that ‘Amster and, as I hope I’ve made clear, it was never my intention to suggest otherwise. You’re not the first to put forward the likelihood of the idiotic far right rioting though and I’m simply suggesting that it should not even be a factor in deciding any future course of action.

I’ve never seen the incident you refer to Andy and one wonders, if the media are so good at suppressing/magnifying issues as they see fit, how you have.
You really need to get over your anti BBC obsession. The overwhelming tone of the media in this country...Sky, ITV, Express, Mail, Sun, Telegraph, Times etc is unequivocally right of centre. Imo the BBC is relatively impartial where conventional, as opposed to ‘politically correct’, politics is concerned and I know plenty who object to the ‘establishment leaning’ aspect of the BBC in the same way as you believe them to be ‘left leaning’.

Quote rA "You and GP heap scorn and ridicule on those of us who have consistently pointed out the error of the Brexit way..."

Really? I believe I have merely pointed out flaws in your pro EU arguments and, most recently, the impossibility of a referendum which requires a majority of eligible voters, given the high percentage of abstainers.

You have been totally consistent in your beliefs, as, in a perverse way, have I: ie I have consistently been unsure, seeing plusses and minuses in both outcomes. Thus, by the very nature of debate, interchanges of conflicting opinion will result.

As the only passionate remainer consistently posting here, you may feel this is a personal attack, but believe me it isn't. I have the same debates in real life with people who are equally as passionate as you both pro and against.

The problem is that you're trying to find a solution to the insoluble and so there will always be factors that make those solutions not work. That's not a personal attack, that's pointing out flaws in logic. OK I may flower it up a bit and use inflammatory examples, but at its core, the underlying logic is irrefutable.

Take the 30% non voting question. Clearly when almost 1/3rd don't vote, that means you will never get an overall majority in any close run contest. It doesn't matter why those people didn't vote, be it holidays, illness, imprisonment etc. Fact is they didn't vote thus they were responsible for the mixed message outcome of referendum 1. I'm sure this was not a deliberate act, but nonetheless that is the consequence.

Now if we had had a 100% turnout (or as near as would be practical to that) we would not have had this dilemma that has blurred the past 2.5 years. Decisions could have been made without the need to look over the shoulder or pander to dissenting views. We could have negotiated more confidently, our stance would be stronger - during the whole negotiation process we have had one hand tied behind our back and the EU knew it.

Hence the lame duck deal that we now have on the table: basically stay in, whilst being out, and sitting at the back, gagged, as our future is decided by eurocrats.

All because of an ill conceived and ill worded referendum... and you want another one, with redefined rules almost guaranteed to have no valid outcome? I just don't get it, other than to assume that what you are trying to do is rerun the first one on a better basis as if the last 2.5 years didn't happen, and to fix the result to yield what you want!! (nothing wrong with that 😉😉😀)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone

Quote rA "You and GP heap scorn and ridicule on those of us who have consistently pointed out the error of the Brexit way..."

Really? I believe I have merely pointed out flaws in your pro EU arguments and, most recently, the impossibility of a referendum which requires a majority of eligible voters, given the high percentage of abstainers.

You have been totally consistent in your beliefs, as, in a perverse way, have I: ie I have consistently been unsure, seeing plusses and minuses in both outcomes. Thus, by the very nature of debate, interchanges of conflicting opinion will result.

As the only passionate remainer consistently posting here, you may feel this is a personal attack, but believe me it isn't. I have the same debates in real life with people who are equally as passionate as you both pro and against.

The problem is that you're trying to find a solution to the insoluble and so there will always be factors that make those solutions not work. That's not a personal attack, that's pointing out flaws in logic. OK I may flower it up a bit and use inflammatory examples, but at its core, the underlying logic is irrefutable.

Take the 30% non voting question. Clearly when almost 1/3rd don't vote, that means you will never get an overall majority in any close run contest. It doesn't matter why those people didn't vote, be it holidays, illness, imprisonment etc. Fact is they didn't vote thus they were responsible for the mixed message outcome of referendum 1. I'm sure this was not a deliberate act, but nonetheless that is the consequence.

Now if we had had a 100% turnout (or as near as would be practical to that) we would not have had this dilemma that has blurred the past 2.5 years. Decisions could have been made without the need to look over the shoulder or pander to dissenting views. We could have negotiated more confidently, our stance would be stronger - during the whole negotiation process we have had one hand tied behind our back and the EU knew it.

Hence the lame duck deal that we now have on the table: basically stay in, whilst being out, and sitting at the back, gagged, as our future is decided by eurocrats.

All because of an ill conceived and ill worded referendum... and you want another one, with redefined rules almost guaranteed to have no valid outcome? I just don't get it, other than to assume that what you are trying to do is rerun the first one on a better basis as if the last 2.5 years didn't happen, and to fix the result to yield what you want!! (nothing wrong with that ������)

---

Right...so it was another Geoff Parkstone who disparagingly referred to ‘my Referendum’, talked about ‘mealy mouthed wimpish liberal supporting Remainers’, ‘RA’s stockpile of WW2 weapons’ and ‘being lectured by RA’ was it? Glad that’s clear.

Neither am I the ‘only passionate Remainer on here’. Swale is at least as passionate. You and Andy perversely both say that given another chance you’d both vote Remain. I’m fairly sure that of the regulars, mista and ‘Amster share an overall opposition to Brexit, in fact now Ram59 and one or two others appear to have departed I’d say that only the otherwise admirable MoP and DCFCA along with that oddity from Barnsley, whose name I forget, are committed ‘Leavers’.

I obviously agree with much of what you write about the inadequacy of using a referendum to form national policy. It was always a nonsense imo, but it isn’t a question of ‘fixing the result to yield what I want’. This is of course why the Brexiteers are so opposed to the idea of a second Referendum...because a better informed Joe Public and a better worded question is not likely to give them what they want.
From my point of view however...yes I’m entirely opposed to Brexit but if there was a genuine majority I’d get on with it...I’m even more opposed to the creeping paralysis of just about everything concerning business and politics in our country for approaching three years because of bloody Brexit and I simply want to find a way forward.

1. I hate the EU with a vengeance and anything that looks like upsetting the apple cart is OK by me, however.....
2. A proper Brexit, complete with no freedom of movement, no Customs Union but with a good trade deal was possible.... but only if the government had got off its hind quarters and put together a credible stance/negotiating position in the first 6 months following the refeerendum. Instead they prevarificated and hummed and aared right up to the last moment and then agreed the current Mayhem proposal which does no more than take the UK out of the EU whilst keeping it in the EU........ if you get my drift.
3. There are 3 options open as far as I can fathom, one of which really would cause riots, and that is to stay in the EU as is. The 2nd is the Mayhem deal which has the UK in and out at the same time but with no say in EU law making. The 3rd is no deal. #1 is not really an option which is a shame as my thoughts on banking, multinationals, stock markets and money markets would be better served by having them done through the EU. A single country going it alone on those measures would collapse quicker than a Russian spy who has just taken his cyanide pill. No deal is also ruinous which leaves the Mayhem deal as no more than the best of a bad bunch. What a mess and I point the finger not at the 52 or 48 or 63 or 67 or even the 30% but fairly and squarely at the Conservative and Unionist Party who have perfectly screwed up any chance of the UK getting the best it could through a lack of concerted action and effort which, IMO, they did on purpose so that leaving the EU whilst staying in it would be best for them and their paymasters whilst placating, they hope, the 52% who, according to the rules under which the referendum took place, "won".
4. IMO it should not matter whether the PM is a Leaver or a Remainer, as long as that PM appointed a Leaver as Brexit Minister. Someone who would toil night and day do push for the very best deal for the UK and I am convinced the best deal is not what is currently on the table.
5. It is my considered opinion that the UK could have taken down the EU by staying in and undermining the whole inefficient monolith from within. There are, IMO, enough member states now going against the Commission's wishes to be able to destroy it from within. Greece, Italy and Spain (the people of more than the politicians) don't want Northern Europe style taxes and tax gathering machines in place. The Eastern Bloc refuse to have African immigrants and there it is both government and populace against the immigration.
6. Austria is the most recent country to back out of the EU Army project, more will follow IMO.

The whole kit and caboodle is falling apart at the seams. People in most countries want less interference from Brussels. The Commission belives that MORE Europe is the answer. A totally ridiculous situation.