OV9

DeskJockey wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 5:06 pm

Rich B wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 5:04 pm But there aren’t 2-3 clear choices to vote for. Just a mess of unresolved plans that no one can agree on.

And that is what people have to decide their stance on. In the light of what the last two years have shown and what has been achieved, what do you want to do?

I wish the whole thing had never happened and I think anyone who has changed their mind is a dick for not thinking it through properly the first time.

But I also worry that if you set a precedent of “keep voting on things until the verdict changes” then you’ll never get anything actually done.

It's only “keep voting on things until the verdict changes” if you're asked to make the same decision without anything changing. And no one is proposing another referendum that just asks people to choose between Remain or Leave with no detail. It's a completely different referendum.

NotoriousREV wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 5:29 pm It's only “keep voting on things until the verdict changes” if you're asked to make the same decision without anything changing. And no one is proposing another referendum that just asks people to choose between Remain or Leave with no detail. It's a completely different referendum.

Put yourself in the position of someone who voted leave and still wants to leave (then after you’ve finished punching yourself in the face) can you say you wouldn’t think a 2nd referendum would be “keep voting until the verdict changes”.

I don’t like it, but i don’t think it can happen without doing even more damage.

Rich B wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 5:04 pm But there aren’t 2-3 clear choices to vote for. Just a mess of unresolved plans that no one can agree on.

There are clear choices, our government are unable to agree on anything but if you take it out of their hands and let the people decide, that doesn't matter.

Rich B wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 5:37 pm

NotoriousREV wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 5:29 pm It's only “keep voting on things until the verdict changes” if you're asked to make the same decision without anything changing. And no one is proposing another referendum that just asks people to choose between Remain or Leave with no detail. It's a completely different referendum.

Put yourself in the position of someone who voted leave and still wants to leave (then after you’ve finished punching yourself in the face) can you say you wouldn’t think a 2nd referendum would be “keep voting until the verdict changes”.

I don’t like it, but i don’t think it can happen without doing even more damage.

If I put myself in the position of someone who voted leave I would hope I'd think "this isn't what I had in mind", and be happy for another bite of the cherry. Even if it's to vote for no deal.

Meh. We are heading for no-deal by default, and we fucking deserve it for allowing ourselves to be led by such a bunch of knobbers. Messrs Trump, Modi et al will take great pleasure from screwing us to the fucking floor as we desperately seek free trade deals, and I anticipate that it will be a great time for those who've shorted Sterling and/or are seeking to buy a house for cash. The rest of us are fucked, and as usual the degree of fuckedness will be inversely proportional to each individual's ability to weather economic storms.

The whole thing is a shambles and if there was any justice in the world we'd be busily stringing up the lying bastards behind the Leave campaign, followed by their UKIP dirty-work puppets and the rest of the useless fuckers in the House of Commons (except Anna Soubry and Yvette Cooper, two people I never thought I'd save). The situation is vaguely reminiscent of 1914, to me: nobody involved really believes that the unpalatable outcome is possible, and proceeds to posture and preen on the basis that someone else will blink first. What a bag of dicks.

Rich B wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 5:37 pmPut yourself in the position of someone who voted leave and still wants to leave (then after you’ve finished punching yourself in the face) can you say you wouldn’t think a 2nd referendum would be “keep voting until the verdict changes”.

I suppose if I’d been lobotomised...

PreacherCain wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 5:54 pm The whole thing is a shambles and if there was any justice in the world we'd be busily stringing up the lying bastards behind the Leave campaign, followed by their UKIP dirty-work puppets and the rest of the useless fuckers in the House of Commons (except Anna Soubry and Yvette Cooper, two people I never thought I'd save). The situation is vaguely reminiscent of 1914, to me: nobody involved really believes that the unpalatable outcome is possible, and proceeds to posture and preen on the basis that someone else will blink first. What a bag of dicks.

Pretty much my opinion, stated more eloquently. Although Anna Soubry can go suck a fuck for reasons that are too boring for this thread, but suffice to say involved her being responsible for deciding whether parliamentary scrutiny was required for some european law coming through.

Given she didn't even know what was in it, that didn't happen.

So she is, in short, part of the problem.

The only positive side to a no deal Brexit is being able to tell the leavers that they’ve got what they voted for and this is the pain they’d signed up to and bandied around. Apart from the moral high ground we’d all be suffering in the same crash.

I do think our only hope in a no deal situation is to make ourselves a tax haven.

Yeah, but when it’s all shit and we’re drowning in non-EU immigrants and bleached chicken, it’ll be the fault of the Remainers for not wishing hard enough.

NotoriousREV wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:16 pm Yeah, but when it’s all shit and we’re drowning in non-EU immigrants and bleached chicken, it’ll be the fault of the Remainers for not wishing hard enough.

It’s at that point I’ll happily punch them very hard, in the face, followed by a battering with the nearest solid object because I’ll also be buying myself a roof and three square meals a day, something most people will aspire to.

At least I've got my settled status sorted. I still hope that someone in a position of power comes to her senses and puts effort into avoiding this clusterfuck. However, I suspect I might as well hope to be able to ride a unicorn to work. Both outcomes are equally unlikely.

NotoriousREV wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:16 pm Yeah, but when it’s all shit and we’re drowning in non-EU immigrants and bleached chicken, it’ll be the fault of the Remainers for not wishing hard enough.

Interesting. That describes my O/H. Are EU migrants 'better' than non-EU migrants then?

Simon wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:29 pm

NotoriousREV wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:16 pm Yeah, but when it’s all shit and we’re drowning in non-EU immigrants and bleached chicken, it’ll be the fault of the Remainers for not wishing hard enough.

Interesting. That describes my O/H. Are EU migrants 'better' than non-EU migrants then?

In general, EU migrants are whiter than non-EU migrants, however the racist component of the brexiteers failed to grasp that
Where they thought they were voting to kick out the EU foreigners that were coming over ere, stealing our jobs etc, they didn't realise they would get replaced with browner foreigners...

Simon wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:29 pm

NotoriousREV wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:16 pm Yeah, but when it’s all shit and we’re drowning in non-EU immigrants and bleached chicken, it’ll be the fault of the Remainers for not wishing hard enough.

Interesting. That describes my O/H. Are EU migrants 'better' than non-EU migrants then?

Talk about missing the point.

You'd like to think (so it's not likely to happen) that when they fail to vote for the deal in a couple of weeks, because it won't have changed, and because they voted that they wanted to avoid no deal, and they voted that they didn't want to extend the Article 50 period, that they might think, you know, we took two+ years trying to work out what leave meant, and clearly we aren't going to get there any time soon, so clearly sensibly leaving the EU cannot actually be a thing at the moment, so let's revoke Article 50. They could then argue to those that voted leave that they gave it their best shot but clearly it needs a bit more thinking about but we still want to respect the referendum result. That might be enough to satisfy the leave voters/leave-leaning MPs, if they prefer that to leaving with no deal.

That sounds eminently sensible Jon...

Can we have that please...

GG. wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 3:38 pm He isn't saying that a second ref is the only option compliant with the constitution is he? He's saying that's his preferred outcome from a policy rather than constitutional law perspective. I was referencing his opinion on a point of law. DAG for example is not often legally wrong, but I disagree with a lot of his political positions.

Other than stating his proclaimed liberalism, he doesn't comment on politics so I don't know which political positions you're referring to. When we were at university he was a proper Tory boy and he's certainly no fan of them now. Anyway, as we all know the whole leave/remain argument is not a party political divide so I think this is an unnecessary diversion.

I don't think a further referendum is a good idea; I didn't think the first was a good idea but we had it, so we are where we are. If there were to be a further referendum how would that actually help Parliament and the Government? What if the outcome were 'remain', if that were even an option? What if the outcome were 'no deal'? It might be perceived to hasten the act of leaving (well, it wouldn't, obviously, since we're currently leaving in under 2 months and a further referendum would delay that) but it wouldn't do anything to prepare us. If the outcome were to leave with a deal, what deal? The Withdrawal Agreement which Parliament has already rejected by a massive majority? Some unknown fudged variation of it? Still the same argument as to whether people knew what they were voting for. A referendum is not the outcome; you don't hold one expecting a particular result, and you need to prepare for every possibility.

Really the only purpose of a further referendum is to ask the original question again to check whether people really want to leave now. Politically that would be suicidal (I know it's not a party political question but sadly the whole shebang is run by politicians). So I can't see it happening.

Good points as always Jobbo...

What do you think the outcome would have been if Leave had a higher majority - say 65% o 70%. Was this outcome always going to happen ??

If so, this does beg a different question. If this was always going to be the outcome, no matter what because if the scale of the decision and it's impacts, how do you think it would have gone down if Cameron had NOT offered a referendum on the basis that "It doesn't matter how many of you vote to leave, we just can't do it - it's not possible within the constraints of the political system, here and in Europe"