OV9

NotoriousREV wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:42 am

Jobbo wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:34 am I'm not sure the public were clamouring for a referendum. UKIP didn't have *that* much support.

They weren’t. It’s more Brexiteer bullshit, whitewashing and gaslighting. Very few people gave a shit. UKIP only gained prominence due to being excessively represented in the media given their stature and support base compared to other parties.

Bullshit Dave.

NotoriousREV wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:40 am

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:20 amIt then goes on to identify the unarguable issue of the Leave campaign's law breaking. It mentions nothing, however, of the fact that Cameron's Government used public funds to campaign for the Remain vote, contrary to the (admittedly not legally binding) Venice Commission Code of good practice which states that “public authorities (national, regional and local) must not influence the outcome by excessive, one-sided campaigning. The use of public funds for campaigning purposes must be prohibited”.

I love this argument being put forward by Brexiteers.

First we have the false equivalence: “OK, our side broke the law, leading to criminal charges against individuals but the other side went against a good practice document. A GOOD PRACTICE DOCUMENT!!”

Then, rather than accept that the result of the referendum is therefore suspect due to said law breaking and wanton disregard for good practice, they’re quite happy to accept the result of the non-binding referendum, but equally, if the government fails to implement the result of the illegally-fought, non-binding referendum, then they’re “traitors” and “quislings” etc.

What is it now? 4 years since this really began in earnest and there’s still NOTHING that stacks up as a logical argument.

I never once commented either way on the argument itself or what you might want to take from it. Just using it to highlight what a turd piece the article was. The reality is that both sides were run awfully, something on which we pretty much all agree, and something we all predicted would happen after the Scots Indyref shitshow.

GG. wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:00 am

NotoriousREV wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:42 am

Jobbo wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:34 am I'm not sure the public were clamouring for a referendum. UKIP didn't have *that* much support.

They weren’t. It’s more Brexiteer bullshit, whitewashing and gaslighting. Very few people gave a shit. UKIP only gained prominence due to being excessively represented in the media given their stature and support base compared to other parties.

UKIP won 12.5% of all votes cast in the 2015 election and pushed the liberal democrats into fourth place. I'd say they did have a very significant amount of support. Under a PR system they'd have had over 50 MPs in parliament.

Also remember that Cameron won an outright majority with an explicit manifesto pledge to call an EU referendum and significantly outperformed the previous GE.

The "noone cared" and "UKIP wan't that popular" arguments don't hold much water when trying to explain why a pro-Europe prime minister who was desperate to avoid being dragged into the debate about Europe decided to do what he did. He did it because he thought it was a necessity.

And before that? Before UKIPs unexplainable appearance on TV and in newspapers? The referendum only came about to stop the Tories losing votes to the Kippers. Prior to 2015, less than 3% of the population voted for UKIP because no one cared. People only started to care because they were asked their opinion and needed to give an answer.

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:14 am

NotoriousREV wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:42 am

Jobbo wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:34 am I'm not sure the public were clamouring for a referendum. UKIP didn't have *that* much support.

They weren’t. It’s more Brexiteer bullshit, whitewashing and gaslighting. Very few people gave a shit. UKIP only gained prominence due to being excessively represented in the media given their stature and support base compared to other parties.

Bullshit Dave.

Facts. Logic. Please use some.

So

> nearly 40% of the population considered it the most important issue facing the country between 1997-2000 (when it was looking like Labour wanted to take us into the Euro and promising a referendum on such).

> less than 10% considered it the most important issue facing the country during the party years where everybody was busy pissing it up the wall

> less than 5% considered it the most important issue facing the country when the financial crisis dropped in 2008/2009, plunging us into a global recession.

Funny that. Plus, as I'm sure I don't need to tell you, not being the most important issue facing the country does not equate to people in large numbers not wanting a referendum.

Facts and logic?

Resolved by the end of this page, max.

JLv3.0 wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:03 pm Resolved by the end of this page, max.

Brexit?

Oh I thought that was sorted ages back tbh.

GG. wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:00 am UKIP won 12.5% of all votes cast in the 2015 election and pushed the liberal democrats into fourth place. I'd say they did have a very significant amount of support. Under a PR system they'd have had over 50 MPs in parliament.

Also remember that Cameron won an outright majority with an explicit manifesto pledge to call an EU referendum and significantly outperformed the previous GE.

The "noone cared" and "UKIP wan't that popular" arguments don't hold much water when trying to explain why a pro-Europe prime minister who was desperate to avoid being dragged into the debate about Europe decided to do what he did. He did it because he thought it was a necessity.

The fact that the Tories won the 2015 election was not just based on the manifesto pledge, you realise. I voted Tory then and that vote had nothing to do with the EU referendum. Don't forget that UKIP's own leader didn't managed to win the seat he contested in 2015, despite Thanet South being heavily in favour of leaving.

You'd be forgiven for thinking that was the only manifesto commitment of any party though, since Brexit-related stuff seems to be all that has happened since 2016.

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:53 am So

> nearly 40% of the population considered it the most important issue facing the country between 1997-2000 (when it was looking like Labour wanted to take us into the Euro and promising a referendum on such).

> less than 10% considered it the most important issue facing the country during the party years where everybody was busy pissing it up the wall

> less than 5% considered it the most important issue facing the country when the financial crisis dropped in 2008/2009, plunging us into a global recession.

Funny that. Plus, as I'm sure I don't need to tell you, not being the most important issue facing the country does not equate to people in large numbers not wanting a referendum.

Facts and logic?

Feel free to post the data that supports your position.

Project fear

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... ng-brexit/

Tonight's amendments have been slimmed down:

Motion C: Committing the government to negotiating "a permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union with the EU" as part of any Brexit deal - proposed by Tory former chancellor Ken Clarke

Motion D: Referred to as Common Market 2.0, this option would mean joining the European Free Trade Association and European Economic Area - proposed by Tory MP Nick Boles

Motion E: This is for a confirmatory referendum, giving the public a vote to approve any Brexit deal passed by Parliament before it can be implemented - proposed by Labour MPs Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson

Motion G: The motion aims to prevent the UK leaving without a deal, including a vote on whether to revoke Article 50 - stopping Brexit - if the EU does not agree to an extension - proposed by the SNP's Joanna Cherry

Suggestions that Labour could be whipped to vote for CM2.0, and the SNP also supporting it. Rumours of increased support for a CU as well.

Seems like the correct choice of amendments?

Interesting choice, let’s see what happens at 10pm-ish.

Do you want to go out? No
Do you want to stay in? No
Why don’t you think about it a bit longer? No
Why not just go into the garden? No
Shall we just forget the whole thing? No

Top bit of dramatic resigning from Nick Boles.

At least another vote got the most support this time. It's clearly the only way to go.

Another vote on what? Leave with no deal or remain?

speedingfine wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:31 pm At least another vote got the most support this time. It's clearly the only way to go.

Also the joint largest number of votes against.

The one that was nearest to succeeding was Ken's CU proposal. God knows how they're going to go forward. Although watching the debates shows that there are some articulate intelligent people in Parliament, it's clear that the majority aren't concerned with compromise, instead digging their heals in to get only their desires met.

Simon wrote: Tue Apr 02, 2019 5:47 amCU proposal

This would appear to be 50% complete.