Boring

[Eccentric_Viewer]

And a more serious question, where does this leave us regarding the Eurovision Song Contest ?

In a similar position to Australia and Israel I reckon.

[Exile]

And a more serious question, where does this leave us regarding the Eurovision Song Contest ?

In a similar position to Australia and Israel I reckon.

Royaume Uni: nil points.

[Manchester Saddler]

Some more food for thought:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-colu ... it-madness

[Wragbyred]

John Cassidy, who only ever writes about failures, crashes and bubbles

To be expected really

[Manchester Saddler]

Exactly.

Brexit is or will be a massive failure.

[SaigonSaddler]

40 billion offered by May now ... wonder how much Farage will chip in.

Guess that part wasn't bus-worthy. :oops: :oops: :oops:

[Surrey Saddler]

Time for Labour, Lib Dem, SNP and sensible Tories (Dominic Grieve, Anna Soubray, Ken Clark etc) to come together and stop this mass hysteria that is Brexit. They should face up to their responsibilities.

[PT]

Time for Labour, Lib Dem, SNP and sensible Tories (Dominic Grieve, Anna Soubray, Ken Clark etc) to come together and stop this mass hysteria that is Brexit. They should face up to their responsibilities.

I think there is a rational debate to be had about a replay. A second referendum.

Farage himself said that if he'd lost the original but it was close then that wouldn't represent the end of his campaign.

I don't think a replay would result in a huge majority for remain but I think the result would switch. People are far better informed now than they were at the first one about what it really means and the consequences of leaving or staying. In any big decision you make in life, sometimes you are subsequently in receipt of more information than you had when you made the original decision. Sometimes it is too late to go back -"if only I'd known". On Brexit, we are in the fortunate position of knowing more stuff and being able to either verify our original choice or change our mind. Why wouldn't you do that?

I don't think it will happen though. May is too far down the line with implementing the "the will of the people" whilst Corbyn is hugely indifferent about the European project. In fact I reckon if Corbyn was still on the back benches he would be alongside the small group of staunch Brexiteers amongst the Labour ranks (the likes of Skinner, Hoey and Field).

[Wragbyred]

In fact I reckon if Corbyn was still on the back benches he would be alongside the small group of staunch Brexiteers amongst the Labour ranks (the likes of Skinner, Hoey and Field).

This is what I can't get my head round, and I agree it is not a left versus right issue, but the EEC/EU was/is generally considered to be a Socialist Project, and yet the leftist part of Labour is in favour of Brexit?
Why would that be?

[saddlerken]

I think there is a rational debate to be had about a replay. A second referendum.

Farage himself said that if he'd lost the original but it was close then that wouldn't represent the end of his campaign.

I don't think a replay would result in a huge majority for remain but I think the result would switch. People are far better informed now than they were at the first one about what it really means and the consequences of leaving or staying. In any big decision you make in life, sometimes you are subsequently in receipt of more information than you had when you made the original decision. Sometimes it is too late to go back -"if only I'd known". On Brexit, we are in the fortunate position of knowing more stuff and being able to either verify our original choice or change our mind. Why wouldn't you do that?

Like your posts and input but this is nonsense. Everyone knows exactly what they did before. Depending on what side you are on, people will listen to the 'expert advice' and 'facts' in order to back up the decision they originally made. I don't believe remain would win at all, id guess there are far more people who value democracy far more and morally will go from remain to leave. I know a fair few who would do this, despite not being best pleased about the result.

I haven't seen one 'fact' or feel any more informed than I did before the vote. The same people are saying the same things to back up what is really a vote on principle.

[Manchester Saddler]

I think there is a rational debate to be had about a replay. A second referendum.

Farage himself said that if he'd lost the original but it was close then that wouldn't represent the end of his campaign.

I don't think a replay would result in a huge majority for remain but I think the result would switch. People are far better informed now than they were at the first one about what it really means and the consequences of leaving or staying. In any big decision you make in life, sometimes you are subsequently in receipt of more information than you had when you made the original decision. Sometimes it is too late to go back -"if only I'd known". On Brexit, we are in the fortunate position of knowing more stuff and being able to either verify our original choice or change our mind. Why wouldn't you do that?

Like your posts and input but this is nonsense. Everyone knows exactly what they did before. Depending on what side you are on, people will listen to the 'expert advice' and 'facts' in order to back up the decision they originally made. I don't believe remain would win at all, id guess there are far more people who value democracy far more and morally will go from remain to leave. I know a fair few who would do this, despite not being best pleased about the result.

I haven't seen one 'fact' or feel any more informed than I did before the vote. The same people are saying the same things to back up what is really a vote on principle.

I disagree Ken. And so do a lot of others. People DO change their minds and would not vote for tipping the country into the abyss just because of some flawed idea about democracy. This decision is wrong and a stance about a "once in a generation vote" is nonsense. People changed their minds between the last two elections. Why wouldn't they change their minds 18 months after the referendum? Especially given the news yesterday about wages, growth forecasts etc. compared to the EU? We are seeing the ripple effects of Brexit NOW Ken. People are feeling the effects. People read the unbiased news. Why wouldn't they change their minds?

[PT]

I think there is a rational debate to be had about a replay. A second referendum.

Farage himself said that if he'd lost the original but it was close then that wouldn't represent the end of his campaign.

I don't think a replay would result in a huge majority for remain but I think the result would switch. People are far better informed now than they were at the first one about what it really means and the consequences of leaving or staying. In any big decision you make in life, sometimes you are subsequently in receipt of more information than you had when you made the original decision. Sometimes it is too late to go back -"if only I'd known". On Brexit, we are in the fortunate position of knowing more stuff and being able to either verify our original choice or change our mind. Why wouldn't you do that?

Like your posts and input but this is nonsense. Everyone knows exactly what they did before. Depending on what side you are on, people will listen to the 'expert advice' and 'facts' in order to back up the decision they originally made. I don't believe remain would win at all, id guess there are far more people who value democracy far more and morally will go from remain to leave. I know a fair few who would do this, despite not being best pleased about the result.

I haven't seen one 'fact' or feel any more informed than I did before the vote. The same people are saying the same things to back up what is really a vote on principle.

In that case a second vote would ratify the first and the nation would unite around our exit.

My hunch though is that it would switch. Take Grimsby. 70% vote to leave. I'm not sure that all of that 70% realised that they would be begging the government to try to negotiate a special exemption for fish food because if there is no such exception , Grimsby will be far worse off. I think they voted for a "we'll fish where we want" agenda, were rightly pissed of at Bob Geldof flicking the v's at their colleagues and had immigration concerns. As the dots are now joining up though, fishing where you want might be tremendously liberating and indeed a sign of "taking back control", pissing off Bob Geldoff ways/is always a good thing but unless you're fishing for sport, depriving yourself of a massive chunk of your market seems counter productive.

If it was as you suggest a vote on principle which I guess is linked to identity rather than economics then a second vote that confirmed or strengthened this would put the whole thing to bed once and for all. Blessed relief.

[SaigonSaddler]

I think there is a rational debate to be had about a replay. A second referendum.

Farage himself said that if he'd lost the original but it was close then that wouldn't represent the end of his campaign.

I don't think a replay would result in a huge majority for remain but I think the result would switch. People are far better informed now than they were at the first one about what it really means and the consequences of leaving or staying. In any big decision you make in life, sometimes you are subsequently in receipt of more information than you had when you made the original decision. Sometimes it is too late to go back -"if only I'd known". On Brexit, we are in the fortunate position of knowing more stuff and being able to either verify our original choice or change our mind. Why wouldn't you do that?

Like your posts and input but this is nonsense. Everyone knows exactly what they did before. Depending on what side you are on, people will listen to the 'expert advice' and 'facts' in order to back up the decision they originally made. I don't believe remain would win at all, id guess there are far more people who value democracy far more and morally will go from remain to leave. I know a fair few who would do this, despite not being best pleased about the result. I haven't seen one 'fact' or feel any more informed than I did before the vote. The same people are saying the same things to back up what is really a vote on principle.

Not only would Remain win, it would drink the blood of it's victims from their upturned skulls. :idea:

Pragmatism will hopefully win in the end and we'll remain in the biggest trading block in the world, leaving the increasingly exposed and irrelevant Leave arguments behind.

[Exile]

I think there is a rational debate to be had about a replay. A second referendum.

Farage himself said that if he'd lost the original but it was close then that wouldn't represent the end of his campaign.

I don't think a replay would result in a huge majority for remain but I think the result would switch. People are far better informed now than they were at the first one about what it really means and the consequences of leaving or staying. In any big decision you make in life, sometimes you are subsequently in receipt of more information than you had when you made the original decision. Sometimes it is too late to go back -"if only I'd known". On Brexit, we are in the fortunate position of knowing more stuff and being able to either verify our original choice or change our mind. Why wouldn't you do that?

Like your posts and input but this is nonsense. Everyone knows exactly what they did before. Depending on what side you are on, people will listen to the 'expert advice' and 'facts' in order to back up the decision they originally made. I don't believe remain would win at all, id guess there are far more people who value democracy far more and morally will go from remain to leave. I know a fair few who would do this, despite not being best pleased about the result.

I haven't seen one 'fact' or feel any more informed than I did before the vote. The same people are saying the same things to back up what is really a vote on principle.

Like your posts and input but that's utter bobbins. To imply a vote over a year old was conducted with the same information available now rather stretches the bounds of credibility. Still, at least it wasn't a binding vote, and the government didn't have to impose it, unless it suited their own agenda. Oh, hang on...

[SaigonSaddler]

I think there is a rational debate to be had about a replay. A second referendum.

Farage himself said that if he'd lost the original but it was close then that wouldn't represent the end of his campaign.

I don't think a replay would result in a huge majority for remain but I think the result would switch. People are far better informed now than they were at the first one about what it really means and the consequences of leaving or staying. In any big decision you make in life, sometimes you are subsequently in receipt of more information than you had when you made the original decision. Sometimes it is too late to go back -"if only I'd known". On Brexit, we are in the fortunate position of knowing more stuff and being able to either verify our original choice or change our mind. Why wouldn't you do that?

Like your posts and input but this is nonsense. Everyone knows exactly what they did before. Depending on what side you are on, people will listen to the 'expert advice' and 'facts' in order to back up the decision they originally made. I don't believe remain would win at all, id guess there are far more people who value democracy far more and morally will go from remain to leave. I know a fair few who would do this, despite not being best pleased about the result.

I haven't seen one 'fact' or feel any more informed than I did before the vote. The same people are saying the same things to back up what is really a vote on principle.

In that case a second vote would ratify the first and the nation would unite around our exit.

My hunch though is that it would switch. Take Grimsby. 70% vote to leave. I'm not sure that all of that 70% realised that they would be begging the government to try to negotiate a special exemption for fish food because if there is no such exception , Grimsby will be far worse off. I think they voted for a "we'll fish where we want" agenda, were rightly pissed of at Bob Geldof flicking the v's at their colleagues and had immigration concerns. As the dots are now joining up though, fishing where you want might be tremendously liberating and indeed a sign of "taking back control", pissing off Bob Geldoff ways/is always a good thing but unless you're fishing for sport, depriving yourself of a massive chunk of your market seems counter productive.

If it was as you suggest a vote on principle which I guess is linked to identity rather than economics then a second vote that confirmed or strengthened this would put the whole thing to bed once and for all. Blessed relief.

Exactly ... the first vote was largely a 'sod you!' to Cameron.

[shrewsbury saddler]

I think a second referendum is more likely than people think. If this government collapses the Lib Dems would make it a precursor to support a minority government. Or,as I said above, I can see the whole thing stagnating with the Tories unable to get any Brexit deal through parliament. UK would remain a member but one that was technically going to leave. If this situation looked like becoming the norm, the Leavers might start to demand another early 2020's.

[reedswood sadler]

Time for Labour, Lib Dem, SNP and sensible Tories (Dominic Grieve, Anna Soubray, Ken Clark etc) to come together and stop this mass hysteria that is Brexit. They should face up to their responsibilities.

Never happen although there is a majority of MPS who are remainers and could easily winthe vote their main responsibility is to themselves ,the wages ,perks and looking after themselves before the country .They would lose their seat if voted against in leaver areas. self first always has been always will be.

[shrewsbury saddler]

The argument has morphed from the benefits of Brexit to enforcing the "will of the people." The mistake people are making is assuming that everyone who voted "out" was as passionate about it as they are. Most voters for or against weren't that engaged. A lot were taken in by the Johnsonesque lack of hard detail in the mechanics of withdrawal and beyond. These were deliberately avoided. People who brought them up were "negative","moaners" "unpatriotic." Now they are reaping what they sowed.

As time goes by, the question will increasingly become whether "the people" still actually want their "will" of 2016 enforced, now they see what it entails.

[reedswood sadler]

[quote="shrewsbury saddler"]The argument has morphed from the benefits of Brexit to enforcing the "will of the people." The mistake people are making is assuming that everyone who voted "out" was as passionate about it as they are. Most voters for or against weren't that engaged.


A good point reading this board you would imagine everybody was really solid for or against EU.
I voted leave and would again but there are/were good reasons on both sides that did not make it a certainty I balanced it up and rightly or wrongly made a choice,many others were probably like me.
The referendum was run wrong from the start, both sides were more interested in lying to public rather than giving facts or advise both sides looking after their own interests rather than the country.
Cameron was that smug he was on a winner and Corbyn disappeared so no leadership there.
I am one of the older posters who had a previous vote where I voted to join the Common Market a great idea and still is but cannot remember having a vote to become an EU state ruled by others rather than our own government, many of the reasons people voted out.could have been sorted in uk parliament if our MPS had any guts.

[tinned]

The argument has morphed from the benefits of Brexit to enforcing the "will of the people." The mistake people are making is assuming that everyone who voted "out" was as passionate about it as they are. Most voters for or against weren't that engaged.


A good point reading this board you would imagine everybody was really solid for or against EU.
I voted leave and would again but there are/were good reasons on both sides that did not make it a certainty I balanced it up and rightly or wrongly made a choice,many others were probably like me.
The referendum was run wrong from the start, both sides were more interested in lying to public rather than giving facts or advise both sides looking after their own interests rather than the country.
Cameron was that smug he was on a winner and Corbyn disappeared so no leadership there.
I am one of the older posters who had a previous vote where I voted to join the Common Market a great idea and still is but cannot remember having a vote to become an EU state ruled by others rather than our own government, many of the reasons people voted out.could have been sorted in uk parliament if our MPS had any guts.

I'm not old enough to have voted for or against the EEC but would've happily stayed in a purely trading block. I too voted leave, but only just. In the end it came down to the fact I don't want to live in the United States of Europe, which is the ultimate aim of the organisation.

[Exile]

The argument has morphed from the benefits of Brexit to enforcing the "will of the people." The mistake people are making is assuming that everyone who voted "out" was as passionate about it as they are. Most voters for or against weren't that engaged.


A good point reading this board you would imagine everybody was really solid for or against EU.
I voted leave and would again but there are/were good reasons on both sides that did not make it a certainty I balanced it up and rightly or wrongly made a choice,many others were probably like me.
The referendum was run wrong from the start, both sides were more interested in lying to public rather than giving facts or advise both sides looking after their own interests rather than the country.
Cameron was that smug he was on a winner and Corbyn disappeared so no leadership there.
I am one of the older posters who had a previous vote where I voted to join the Common Market a great idea and still is but cannot remember having a vote to become an EU state ruled by others rather than our own government, many of the reasons people voted out.could have been sorted in uk parliament if our MPS had any guts.

I'm not old enough to have voted for or against the EEC but would've happily stayed in a purely trading block. I too voted leave, but only just. In the end it came down to the fact I don't want to live in the United States of Europe, which is the ultimate aim of the organisation.

Britain has a veto on that.

[Welsh_Saddler]

The argument has morphed from the benefits of Brexit to enforcing the "will of the people." The mistake people are making is assuming that everyone who voted "out" was as passionate about it as they are. Most voters for or against weren't that engaged.


A good point reading this board you would imagine everybody was really solid for or against EU.
I voted leave and would again but there are/were good reasons on both sides that did not make it a certainty I balanced it up and rightly or wrongly made a choice,many others were probably like me.
The referendum was run wrong from the start, both sides were more interested in lying to public rather than giving facts or advise both sides looking after their own interests rather than the country.
Cameron was that smug he was on a winner and Corbyn disappeared so no leadership there.
I am one of the older posters who had a previous vote where I voted to join the Common Market a great idea and still is but cannot remember having a vote to become an EU state ruled by others rather than our own government, many of the reasons people voted out.could have been sorted in uk parliament if our MPS had any guts.

I'm not old enough to have voted for or against the EEC but would've happily stayed in a purely trading block. I too voted leave, but only just. In the end it came down to the fact I don't want to live in the United States of Europe, which is the ultimate aim of the organisation.

Britain has a veto on that.

Errrmm .... "had" ?? :?

[tinned]

The argument has morphed from the benefits of Brexit to enforcing the "will of the people." The mistake people are making is assuming that everyone who voted "out" was as passionate about it as they are. Most voters for or against weren't that engaged.


A good point reading this board you would imagine everybody was really solid for or against EU.
I voted leave and would again but there are/were good reasons on both sides that did not make it a certainty I balanced it up and rightly or wrongly made a choice,many others were probably like me.
The referendum was run wrong from the start, both sides were more interested in lying to public rather than giving facts or advise both sides looking after their own interests rather than the country.
Cameron was that smug he was on a winner and Corbyn disappeared so no leadership there.
I am one of the older posters who had a previous vote where I voted to join the Common Market a great idea and still is but cannot remember having a vote to become an EU state ruled by others rather than our own government, many of the reasons people voted out.could have been sorted in uk parliament if our MPS had any guts.

I'm not old enough to have voted for or against the EEC but would've happily stayed in a purely trading block. I too voted leave, but only just. In the end it came down to the fact I don't want to live in the United States of Europe, which is the ultimate aim of the organisation.

Britain has a veto on that.

So what is the point of staying a member of a club that has completely different aims to those you hold?

If their ultimate situation is a United States of Europe and our intention is to constantly veto it then why would we stop in the EU? Much better to get out and let them get on with their dream.

[El_Nombre]

The argument has morphed from the benefits of Brexit to enforcing the "will of the people." The mistake people are making is assuming that everyone who voted "out" was as passionate about it as they are. Most voters for or against weren't that engaged.


A good point reading this board you would imagine everybody was really solid for or against EU.
I voted leave and would again but there are/were good reasons on both sides that did not make it a certainty I balanced it up and rightly or wrongly made a choice,many others were probably like me.
The referendum was run wrong from the start, both sides were more interested in lying to public rather than giving facts or advise both sides looking after their own interests rather than the country.
Cameron was that smug he was on a winner and Corbyn disappeared so no leadership there.
I am one of the older posters who had a previous vote where I voted to join the Common Market a great idea and still is but cannot remember having a vote to become an EU state ruled by others rather than our own government, many of the reasons people voted out.could have been sorted in uk parliament if our MPS had any guts.

I'm not old enough to have voted for or against the EEC but would've happily stayed in a purely trading block. I too voted leave, but only just. In the end it came down to the fact I don't want to live in the United States of Europe, which is the ultimate aim of the organisation.

Britain has a veto on that.

Errrmm .... "had" ?? :?

Exactly. So instead of stopping this awful thing that would be utterly terrible for us all (apparently), we now have no say in the matter as one of those European Countries. Genius.

[tinned]

Exactly. So instead of stopping this awful thing that would be utterly terrible for us all (apparently), we now have no say in the matter as one of those European Countries. Genius.

As long as we're out of the club it matters not one jot what mess they make of it.

[SaigonSaddler]

Exactly. So instead of stopping this awful thing that would be utterly terrible for us all (apparently), we now have no say in the matter as one of those European Countries. Genius.

As long as we're out of the club it matters not one jot what mess they make of it.

It kind of does ... the entire history of the 20th century is basically an object lesson in us being unable to be unaffected by Europe. :?

[El_Nombre]

Exactly. So instead of stopping this awful thing that would be utterly terrible for us all (apparently), we now have no say in the matter as one of those European Countries. Genius.

As long as we're out of the club it matters not one jot what mess they make of it.

What a ridiculous stance to take though. We can:

A) Stay in, prevent that from happening, keep all the divorce money plus all the public funding for this campaign and the administration works already created, lose no trade deals and retain our links (social as well as economic) with the rest of Europe.

B) Come out, let it happen, and cost ourselves billions in the mean time while we wait for the rest of Europe to catch up.

People like Farage give no time frame on when this will happen though. Could be 5, 10. 15 years? Just staring at Europe saying "Watch! It will happen! Just watch!".

[tinned]

I can't believe people really believe Europe would be happy for us to continue vetoing their grand plan for evermore.

[SaigonSaddler]

I can't believe people really believe Europe would be happy for us to continue vetoing their grand plan for evermore.

Europe isn't one voice though, that's the entire point. 'Their' grand plan, whatever you think that is, is just some people with ideas in various different countries. It was probably a good idea to be part of the dialogue, rather to be outside and wait for 'them' to decide what happens.

[El_Nombre]

I can't believe people really believe Europe would be happy for us to continue vetoing their grand plan for evermore.

Why would they have any say? Agreements, like we are finding out to the tune of 50 billion pounds, are there to be adhered to.