Bye Bye Boris!

[DeskJockey]

Head <---> brick wall.

I imagine that a lot of people don't know why they voted Brexit beyond some vague notion of what they consider to be patriotism, as misguided as that is when they're rolling the dice on the country's future, but are just too embarrassed to admit it. It's the only reason I can think of for why they refuse to discuss it.

Utter shite.

I'm not going to argue on here with you 5 people who care.

Let's see what happens.

Why is that? If you genuinely believe Brexit was the right thing for the country, and your statements suggest that is the case, why won't you tell us what your view is? What harm can it do to explain the reasoning behind your statements?

[Broccers]

we're all disabled hobbits anyway, right broccers?

Probably.

[Broccers]

Should someone rename this thread Remainers R Us. I'll not read it then. Bless you angry people.

[Jezh]

Head <---> brick wall.

I imagine that a lot of people don't know why they voted Brexit beyond some vague notion of what they consider to be patriotism, as misguided as that is when they're rolling the dice on the country's future, but are just too embarrassed to admit it. It's the only reason I can think of for why they refuse to discuss it.

Utter shite.

I'm not going to argue on here with you 5 people who care.

Let's see what happens.

Can you tell me Broccers? JL's comment is correct. My dad and mother in law both voted to leave and neither can give me one good reason why they did so. I would welcome your view on the leavers decision making process and why it could possibly be better for this country.

[ZedLeg]

It's pointless, Broccers only comes into this thread to stir shit. He has no interest in actually making a point.

[Broccers]

Why should they? You won't agree.

[NotoriousREV]

Why should they? You won't agree.

How do we know if you won't tell us?

[Jezh]

Why should they? You won't agree.

You misunderstand, they haven't given me a reason full stop to disagree with hence my comment that JL's remark was essentially correct. They are both in their 70's so it is the only conclusion I can draw. I put it too them that they had contributed to fucking up my life and that of their Grandchildren for years to come and they just went silent. Surely if you had a case you would wish to put that forward?

[Broccers]

Why should they? You won't agree.

How do we know if you won't tell us?

'Us'

Pointless.

[Broccers]

Why should they? You won't agree.

You misunderstand, they haven't given me a reason full stop to disagree with hence my comment that JL's remark was essentially correct. They are both in their 70's so it is the only conclusion I can draw. I put it too them that they had contributed to fucking up my life and that of their Grandchildren for years to come and they just went silent. Surely if you had a case you would wish to put that forward?

'too them' sic then anger. Chill fella

[NotoriousREV]

I guess it's a case of "it's better to say nothing and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt", eh Broccers?

[Swervin_Mervin]

Romesh Ragnanathan summed up my views on such debates, in last week's Misadventures - he was in Zimbabwe. He left two natives (white and black) arguing about Cecil Rhodes. To paraphrase he summed up that "this just demonstrates the futility of political arguments - neither side will ever be convinced to shift from their position."

[Jezh]

Why should they? You won't agree.

You misunderstand, they haven't given me a reason full stop to disagree with hence my comment that JL's remark was essentially correct. They are both in their 70's so it is the only conclusion I can draw. I put it too them that they had contributed to fucking up my life and that of their Grandchildren for years to come and they just went silent. Surely if you had a case you would wish to put that forward?

'too them' sic then anger. Chill fella

You can pic up on a grammatical error but not put your views across. Anyway I am not angry just disappointed, anger is a wasted emotion that leavers seemed to have in abundance.

[NotoriousREV]

Romesh Ragnanathan summed up my views on such debates, in last week's Misadventures - he was in Zimbabwe. He left two natives (white and black) arguing about Cecil Rhodes. To paraphrase he summed up that "this just demonstrates the futility of political arguments - neither side will ever be convinced to shift from their position."

Probably not, but I'd like to understand, at the very least, that you at least have some idea of the benefits you think you were voting for. As it stands, given that I literally can't find a single person who can explain their viewpoint and spell out what they think those tangible benefits are (no meaningless platitudes, please) then it's impossible to even agree to disagree. It's simply wanton vandalism and a shrug of the shoulders as to why.

[Broccers]

I guess it's a case of "it's better to say nothing and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt", eh Broccers?

Lots of evidence right here if you are wrong, again

Too (spelt correct like) much emotion in this - it's out of your control so watch from the sides.

[NotoriousREV]

I guess it's a case of "it's better to say nothing and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt", eh Broccers?

Lots of evidence right here if you are wrong, again

Too (spelt correct like) emotion in this - it's out of your control so watch from the sides.

At least I have the courage of my convictions to explain my views, make the case for them and defend them. Even if I'm wrong, I'm not a coward.

[Broccers]

I guess it's a case of "it's better to say nothing and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt", eh Broccers?

Lots of evidence right here if you are wrong, again

Too (spelt correct like) emotion in this - it's out of your control so watch from the sides.

At least I have the courage of my convictions to explain my views, make the case for them and defend them. Even if I'm wrong, I'm not a coward.

Thats nice.

Maybe expend your energy in something more worthwhile, and the rest of you, than trying to change others views.

The road ahead is exciting not scary. We can all sell up and live somewhere cheaper like most people my age planned waaaaaaaay before Brexit.

[Swervin_Mervin]

Probably not, but I'd like to understand, at the very least, that you at least have some idea of the benefits you think you were voting for. As it stands, given that I literally can't find a single person who can explain their viewpoint and spell out what they think those tangible benefits are (no meaningless platitudes, please) then it's impossible to even agree to disagree. It's simply wanton vandalism and a shrug of the shoulders as to why.

I think I have, multiple times. I keep getting sucked in despite not wishing to! I didn't vote for any benefits, other than being out of the EU as a political entity. I have a deep loathing of them and what they have/continue to get up to. However, I have absolutely no issue with us remaining as part of the trading block (e.g. a Norway-esque arrangement), and have no issue with any of the 4 freedoms.

But that's where we get into the issue of "what is Brexit?". And that should have been decided post-referendum prior to any discussions with the EU or lodging of Article 50. May decided that meant "out out" and cracked on with it, and I think that action was one of the most divisive in modern British politics that has only served to drive a wedge to create two "seemingly" distinct camps that could have been avoided.

[NotoriousREV]

Probably not, but I'd like to understand, at the very least, that you at least have some idea of the benefits you think you were voting for. As it stands, given that I literally can't find a single person who can explain their viewpoint and spell out what they think those tangible benefits are (no meaningless platitudes, please) then it's impossible to even agree to disagree. It's simply wanton vandalism and a shrug of the shoulders as to why.

I think I have, multiple times. I keep getting sucked in despite not wishing to! I didn't vote for any benefits, other than being out of the EU as a political entity. I have a deep loathing of them and what they have/continue to get up to. However, I have absolutely no issue with us remaining as part of the trading block (e.g. a Norway-esque arrangement), and have no issue with any of the 4 freedoms.

But that's where we get into the issue of "what is Brexit?". And that should have been decided post-referendum prior to any discussions with the EU or lodging of Article 50. May decided that meant "out out" and cracked on with it, and I think that action was one of the most divisive in modern British politics that has only served to drive a wedge to create two "seemingly" distinct camps that could have been avoided.

So you'd be happy with something like Schengen minus the Euro? Does the fact that we'd end up being held to EU rules with no say in those rules not bother you? Do you not feel that the UK, as one of the 3 most influential countries in the EU bears some responsibility for what the EU has done/does? For Broccers' benefit: I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, just trying to understand.

[Broccers]

Have you ever been AS positive on any subject you fully understand Rev? I haven't seen it - lots of questioning and tearing apart - zero positivity. Maybe something to work on