Question Time

[WhiteRoseKillie]

1 minute ago, tirso said:

bloody hell this will be good.  how many wanted to leave then?

I said ten minutes, but Milkymilky has gone from posting in here to buggering off.

I don't know the answer offhand, but what I do know is that there was not a 100% turnout in 2016. I seem to recall that it worked out about 37% actually voted to leave (whatever they thought that meant), which gives a figure of over 60% who did not. Aren't numbers fucking great? You can make them sing and dance to whatever tune you want!

[tirso]

8 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

I said ten minutes, but Milkymilky has gone from posting in here to buggering off.

I don't know the answer offhand, but what I do know is that there was not a 100% turnout in 2016. I seem to recall that it worked out about 37% actually voted to leave (whatever they thought that meant), which gives a figure of over 60% who did not. Aren't numbers fucking great? You can make them sing and dance to whatever tune you want!

the box literally said Leave

The hundred percent electorate angle is ridiculous.  if that's the case even fewer voted to remain.  

 

[WhiteRoseKillie]

13 minutes ago, tirso said:

the box literally said Leave

The hundred percent electorate angle is ridiculous.  if that's the case even fewer voted to remain.  

 

The post I replied to said that 52% of the electorate voted to leave. This is incorrect.

I said you could make numbers say anything. I didn't claim that what they said would be logical.

[renton]

14 minutes ago, tirso said:

the box literally said Leave

The hundred percent electorate angle is ridiculous.  if that's the case even fewer voted to remain.  

 

I suppose the difference is that in the Indy Ref you had the white paper that set out a prospectus of what the proposed independent country would look like (i.e. keeping Sterling, Monarchy, NATO and the likes) so that ticking the yes box came with a broad, sketched out idea of what they were going to get. Not so with the EU referendum. The ridiculous nature of May's Leave means Leave comments being that 'Leave' contains multitudes, and that a concrete vision for Leave was not given to the electorate until afterwards.

IN that respect, a second referendum in this context might not be such a bad idea, with either May's original agreement or No deal vs. Remain.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

I suppose the difference is that in the Indy Ref you had the white paper that set out a prospectus of what the proposed independent country would look like (i.e. keeping Sterling, Monarchy, NATO and the likes) so that ticking the yes box came with a broad, sketched out idea of what they were going to get. Not so with the EU referendum. The ridiculous nature of May's Leave means Leave comments being that 'Leave' contains multitudes, and that a concrete vision for Leave was not given to the electorate until afterwards. IN that respect, a second referendum in this context might not be such a bad idea, with either May's original agreement or No deal vs. Remain. 

 

57 varieties of Leave with the added confusion of the Leave campaign promising a Norway-style deal then reneging on it further compounded by May's red lines plucked out of thin fucking air.  

 

We would never be here if she or Cameron had had a spine and stood up to this tail wagging the dog cabal.

 

 

 

 

 

[renton]

Can't help but feel part of this mess hasn't been helped by the Tories wanting to present it as a one party triumph. It should have been dealt with on a cross party basis from the start. It might have avoided much of the psychodrama in the Tory backbenches as well as spreading the blame effectively for the f**k ups. There may even have been a consensus, compromise version of leave that was palatable to all (UK) parties.

[welshbairn]

5 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Leave campaign promising a Norway-style deal then reneging on it

 

[Malky3]

2 minutes ago, renton said:

I suppose the difference is that in the Indy Ref you had the white paper that set out a prospectus of what the proposed independent country would look like (i.e. keeping Sterling, Monarchy, NATO and the likes) so that ticking the yes box came with a broad, sketched out idea of what they were going to get. Not so with the EU referendum. The ridiculous nature of May's Leave means Leave comments being that 'Leave' contains multitudes, and that a concrete vision for Leave was not given to the electorate until afterwards.

IN that respect, a second referendum in this context might not be such a bad idea, with either May's original agreement or No deal vs. Remain.

Meh! The White Paper, as it transpired, was a load of shit though Renton. It was supposed to show that we'd continue with everything we had at that point, and be richer thanks to huge oil tax revenues which we all know didn't happen. Instead if we'd followed the White Paper to the letter we'd be staring at a fiscal deficit that would have topped £40Bn whilst trying desperately to follow a policy of Sterlingisation. 

The SNP had no more right to presuppose the terms of a divorce agreement with the rest of the UK than the UK were to presuppose the terms of a divorce deal with the EU. Scotland wasn't asked if it wanted a hard or a soft UKexit, just as the UK wasn't asked if it wanted a hard of a soft Brexit. The questions in both cases were unequivocal though. "Should Scotland be an Independent country?" Yes / No; and "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union, or leave the European Union?" Leave / Remain. 

 

[Hedgecutter]

8 minutes ago, renton said:

I suppose the difference is that in the Indy Ref you had the white paper that set out a prospectus of what the proposed independent country would look like (i.e. keeping Sterling, Monarchy, NATO and the likes) so that ticking the yes box came with a broad, sketched out idea of what they were going to get. 

Unlike the No campaign that basically limited it to vocal key promises such as "if you want to stay within the EU, then stay within the UK" 

[Malky3]

5 minutes ago, renton said:

Can't help but feel part of this mess hasn't been helped by the Tories wanting to present it as a one party triumph. It should have been dealt with on a cross party basis from the start. It might have avoided much of the psychodrama in the Tory backbenches as well as spreading the blame effectively for the f**k ups. There may even have been a consensus, compromise version of leave that was palatable to all (UK) parties.

I don't get that either Renton. 

Like I've said Cameron and Osbourne resigned such was the "triumph" and during the referendum Labour and Conservative MP's argued on both sides of the debate. 

[ICTJohnboy]

The only sensible answer to this mess now would be revoke Article 50. Any kind of a deal that Boris (or anyone else) manages to get will be the subject of dispute for decades to come. As we all know No Deal would be a complete disaster. We've got an excellent deal with the EU right now - we send MEPs to its Parliament and have a say in its affairs. The T's and C's of our present deal can be looked at and revised where necessary.

Cancel this Brexit mess NOW. 

[Dons_1988]

Meh! The White Paper, as it transpired, was a load of shit though Renton. It was supposed to show that we'd continue with everything we had at that point, and be richer thanks to huge oil tax revenues which we all know didn't happen. Instead if we'd followed the White Paper to the letter we'd be staring at a fiscal deficit that would have topped £40Bn whilst trying desperately to follow a policy of Sterlingisation. 

The SNP had no more right to presuppose the terms of a divorce agreement with the rest of the UK than the UK were to presuppose the terms of a divorce deal with the EU. Scotland wasn't asked if it wanted a hard or a soft UKexit, just as the UK wasn't asked if it wanted a hard of a soft Brexit. The questions in both cases were unequivocal though. "Should Scotland be an Independent country?" Yes / No; and "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union, or leave the European Union?" Leave / Remain. 

 

 

Whether you thought it was shit or not, It was a detailed plan to be scrutinised ahead of the referendum.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

13 minutes ago, ICTJohnboy said:

The only sensible answer to this mess now would be revoke Article 50. Any kind of a deal that Boris (or anyone else) manages to get will be the subject of dispute for decades to come. As we all know No Deal would be a complete disaster. We've got an excellent deal with the EU right now - we send MEPs to its Parliament and have a say in its affairs. The T's and C's of our present deal can be looked at and revised where necessary.

Cancel this Brexit mess NOW. 

Absolutely agree - the correct thing to do is to hit the reset button, getinto talks with the EU, firm up proposals for a deal, and only then present that as a choice with remain in a new vote.

Unfortunately, such has been the hysteria whipped up by and among people with unrealistic ideas of what can and cannot be achieved, it would be a brave PM (of whatever Party) who proposed revocation.

[tirso]

I persobally agree it's best not to pursue brexit but there's no mandate to cancel it right now. Note Parliament asking for a delay not a cancellation. An election and another referendum is needed.

The only sensible answer to this mess now would be revoke Article 50. Any kind of a deal that Boris (or anyone else) manages to get will be the subject of dispute for decades to come. As we all know No Deal would be a complete disaster. We've got an excellent deal with the EU right now - we send MEPs to its Parliament and have a say in its affairs. The T's and C's of our present deal can be looked at and revised where necessary.
Cancel this Brexit mess NOW. 

[MONKMAN]

The hundred percent electorate angle is ridiculous.  if that's the case even fewer voted to remain.  
 

No, stating 52% of the electorate voted leave is ridiculous, as it’s simply not true. Something which he was rightly corrected for, which happens quite often when Malky makes a bold claim.

[tirso]

Fair enough - I didn't notice the pedantry. Quite right.

No, stating 52% of the electorate voted leave is ridiculous, as it’s simply not true. Something which he was rightly corrected for, which happens quite often when Malky makes a bold claim.

[ICTJohnboy]

1 minute ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Absolutely agree - the correct thing to do is to hit the reset button, getinto talks with the EU, firm up proposals for a deal, and only then present that as a choice with remain in a new vote.

Unfortunately, such has been the hysteria whipped up by and among people with unrealistic ideas of what can and cannot be achieved, it would be a brave PM (of whatever Party) who proposed revocation.

 

I would like to think that he might be man enough to admit that he got it all wrong by joining the Leave campaign. Maybe he should have listened to his brother who I'm sure would probably have pointed out that leaving the EU might not be a piece of cake he was envisioning.

Obviously if he did admit his mistakes and own up it would be the end of his political career. It needn't be the end of the world for him - he's not short of money, and he could always go  back to presenting Have I Got News For You.

I'm sensing a change of mood here in my local community now, in that no one wants to talk about it anymore. No one voted to leave to make themselves worse off. It's like the message that there will be no Utopia at the end of all this shite is finally getting across. This change of mood has really come about since Boris became PM. Without a doubt it has been the most disastrous appointment in my living memory.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

3 minutes ago, ICTJohnboy said:

 

I would like to think that he might be man enough to admit that he got it all wrong by joining the Leave campaign. Maybe he should have listened to his brother who I'm sure would probably have pointed out that leaving the EU might not be a piece of cake he was envisioning.

Obviously if he did admit his mistakes and own up it would be the end of his political career. It needn't be the end of the world for him - he's not short of money, and he could always go  back to presenting Have I Got News For You.

I'm sensing a change of mood here in my local community now, in that no one wants to talk about it anymore. No one voted to leave to make themselves worse off. It's like the message that there will be no Utopia at the end of all this shite is finally getting across. This change of mood has really come about since Boris became PM. Without a doubt it has been the most disastrous appointment in my living memory.

I'm glad to hear it - I've been noticing the same. Nobody likes to be on the losing side, but even less do they like discovering they've been consistently lied to for the benefit of , not "the country" or "us", but a few entitled arseholes who will not be affected in anyway however this shakes out.

[Malky3]

47 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

 

Whether you thought it was shit or not, It was a detailed plan to be scrutinised ahead of the referendum.

It was as realistic as Boris and Nigel standing next to that bus though. More detailed I'll grant you, but full of lies and over generous and dangerously unrealistic supposition. 

[Dons_1988]

3 minutes ago, Malky3 said:

It was as realistic as Boris and Nigel standing next to that bus though. More detailed I'll grant you, but full of lies and over generous and dangerously unrealistic supposition. 

The responsibility lies with David Cameron for calling a referendum to resolve internal party politics, assuming he'd win and having absolutely no idea how to implement a leave vote.