/ Put it to the people!

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
Trevers - on 10:30 Sat

Is anybody planning to attend the People's Vote march in London next Saturday?

I can't promise great weather, but a great atmosphere and a massive turnout are guaranteed. We're hoping for upwards of a million people this time!

https://www.peoples-vote.uk/march

Report
jkarran - on 14:03 Sat
In reply to Trevers:

Yep. My partner and I are heading down for what good it'll do I don't know.

Jk

Report
Trevers - on 14:51 Sat
In reply to jkarran:

> Yep. My partner and I are heading down for what good it'll do I don't know.

> Jk

Who knows, but it's still better to express oneself than to give up and roll over

Report
George Ormerod - on 15:31 Sat
In reply to Trevers:

The big question is will be can you scrape together enough people to beat the awesome 100 person march Farage is leading?

Report
bouldery bits - on 15:34 Sat
In reply to Trevers:

No.

I'm going surfing.

These self serving w*nkers don't care what you or I do. 

Report
Baron Weasel - on 16:33 Sat
In reply to George Ormerod:

> The big question is will be can you scrape together enough people to beat the awesome 100 person march Farage is leading?

The Gammonball Run!

Report
George Ormerod - on 20:08 Sat
In reply to George Ormerod:

I'm afraid I've done poor old Nige a disservice.  It's 300.  Only 699,700 to go.

Report
john arran - on 20:17 Sat
In reply to George Ormerod:

From looking at videos posted of the hike, if there were 300 people taking part then Trump's inauguration was the most well-attended in US history.

Report
Trevers - on 09:06 Sun
In reply to john arran:

> From looking at videos posted of the hike, if there were 300 people taking part then Trump's inauguration was the most well-attended in US history.

I think most of them were counter-protestors and press. One of Farage's lot already assaulted a woman protesting them yesterday.

Report
John Stainforth - on 12:12 Sun
In reply to Trevers:

Yes

Report
Deadeye - on 13:42 Sun
In reply to Trevers:

I'll be there (again)

Report
Pete Pozman - on 17:03 Sun
In reply to Trevers:

Trouble is we're not the People. The other people are the People.

Report
Trevers - on 10:36 Mon
In reply to Pete Pozman:

If we show up with four orders of magnitude more "people" than the people on Farage's sightseeing tour, I don't think it can be claimed we aren't "the people".

Report
jkarran - on 11:05 Mon
In reply to Trevers:

> I don't think it can be claimed we aren't "the people".

... but you know it will be.

jk

Report
Northern Star on 11:15 Mon
In reply to Pete Pozman:

Are you lot not aware it is anti democratic to give the people any further democratic say in the matter?

Report
thomasadixon - on 11:18 Mon
In reply to jkarran:

And of course that claim will be 100% accurate, they aren’t the people.  We have rule by votes not by who can gather the biggest mob.

Report
Profanitynotsanity - on 11:20 Mon
In reply to Pete Pozman:

And you can't even have the pleasure of calling them "splitters"

Am thinking of going now although I still have reservations about whether or not a third (referendum) vote is the right thing or not.

That being said the Maybot's antics in trying to push her deal which has been soundly beaten twice is not exactly democratic. And now after the horrific massacre in New Zealand -the more of us that peacefully hit the streets celebrating the the multicultural identity of our country and our acceptance that we have to work with other countries to help make a better world - the better it is.

Post edited at 11:21
Report
El Greyo - on 11:28 Mon
In reply to thomasadixon:

Indeed. And of course what this march is calling for is a vote.

Report
Trevers - on 11:37 Mon
In reply to thomasadixon:

> And of course that claim will be 100% accurate, they aren’t the people.  We have rule by votes not by who can gather the biggest mob.

If you'd been on the march in October, you'd be aware that the >500,000 people there showcased the best of Britain. It was open and inclusive, with people of all ages and walks of life, and generated a brilliant friendly atmosphere. There was no trouble whatsoever and I'm not aware there was a single arrest.

Brexiteers can't gather 100 supporters together without one of them punching somebody, impeding an ambulance or throwing a Sieg Heil.

Furthermore, there hasn't been a legal public vote on Brexit so the electorate deserves one, until then it's essentially a coup.

Report
jkarran - on 11:42 Mon
In reply to thomasadixon:

> And of course that claim will be 100% accurate, they aren’t the people.  We have rule by votes not by who can gather the biggest mob.

Aren't we all people Thomas, don't we all deserve representation or do you consider your narrow 2016 win (remind me again what did you actually win?) an excuse to totally disenfranchise those you disagree with?

Of course the irony of this position is that it's going to come back and bite you on the ass too soon enough, whether you see it coming or not. You'll inevitable find yourself squeezed outside the ever shrinking group of 'the people' whose interests brexit actually serves.

jk

Post edited at 11:44
Report
thomasadixon - on 11:47 Mon
In reply to Trevers:

> If you'd been on the march in October, you'd be aware that the >500,000 people there showcased the best of Britain.

Well that’s nice to know, the best of Britain eh.  All from one side of a political divide and according to you that’s the “best”.  Noted.  You don’t represent Britain no matter how much you wish you do.

> Brexiteers can't gather 100 supporters together without one of them punching somebody, impeding an ambulance or throwing a Sieg Heil.

Well that’s factually bollocks.

> Furthermore, there hasn't been a legal public vote on Brexit so the electorate deserves one, until then it's essentially a coup.

Prospects of a general election are growing.  Interesting that to you a legal referendum followed by a general election is a coup, but our representatives doing the opposite of what they promised to do is just fine.

Post edited at 11:48
Report
what the hex on 11:50 Mon
In reply to Trevers:

No subsidiary marches? London on Sat is a no-go for me but would be able to attend a local event ✊🏻

Report
thomasadixon - on 11:52 Mon
In reply to jkarran:

> Aren't we all people Thomas, don't we all deserve representation or do you consider your narrow 2016 win (remind me again what did you actually win?) an excuse to totally disenfranchise those you disagree with?

What’s that got to do with what you said?

Report
Trevers - on 11:55 Mon
In reply to what the hex:

Unfortunately I'm not aware of any - I think the general philosophy is to make a huge statement. If you check the People's Vote website, or local pro-EU facebook groups, there may be other events.

Report
Northern Star on 11:56 Mon
In reply to thomasadixon:

Just to clarify things, 'Leave means Leave' . . . . . . . what sort of 'Leave' did the people vote for?  What sort of 'Leave' did you vote for?

Report
Profanitynotsanity - on 12:05 Mon
In reply to Trevers:

It is a sad statement on our country (and one of the root causes of the 2016 referendum vote) that everything is focussed on London. 500,000 people in London will have more effect than 500,000 in Leeds, Manchester, Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast etc (no disrespect intended to the inhabitants of those cities).

Report
Trevers - on 12:11 Mon
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Well that’s nice to know, the best of Britain eh.  All from one side of a political divide and according to you that’s the “best”.  Noted.  You don’t represent Britain no matter how much you wish you do.

We were a huge group of passionate, motivated, friendly, tolerant and peaceful people with an impressive array of hilariously creative and incisive placards. And patriotic to boot. If that doesn't represent the best of Britain, I don't know what does.

> Well that’s factually bollocks.

Is it? From everything that I've seen, the difference between the way Brexit-supporting and pro-EU protesters have conducted themselves has been stark. What mass pro-Brexit protest marches have there been?

> Prospects of a general election are growing.  Interesting that to you a legal referendum followed by a general election is a coup, but our representatives doing the opposite of what they promised to do is just fine.

The referendum wasn't legal and I don't recognise its validity. I don't really understand what the general election has to do with anything either.

As for Cameron and Osborne, they're no longer our representatives, and I don't want my future dictated by their disingenuous promises.

I do agree that there's a level of hypocrisy for many other MPs from all sides who voted for the referendum in the first place. However, I'd prefer that the rule of law and integrity of constitution (vague in the UK I know!) takes precedence over the words of politicians. The hypocrisy is certainly no worse than that of leave campaigners who promised everything would be quick and easy while producing no plan. Bad faith from both sides.

There's something I'm genuinely puzzled over, and I ask this question in good faith... During the referendum campaign, I was mad as hell at the remain leaders for not only landing us in this situation, but for making such an appalling mess of the campaign. Why aren't you equally mad with the leave campaign leaders for making promises that they never intended to or possible could keep, then running away from all responsibility? Or are you mad at them?

Post edited at 12:15
Report
jkarran - on 12:13 Mon
In reply to thomasadixon:

> What’s that got to do with what you said?

With what I said? You've lost me, sorry, I was responding to what you said.

Still think you're winning? You 'the people' are about to get properly shafted like the rest of us. Expect very limited sympathy.

jk

Report
Basil on 12:19 Mon
In reply to George Ormerod:

A double disservice ....super Nige  from 4 pints forty ciggys a day to walking hundred of miles. What a HERO go Nige go ect,ect.

Report
Trevers - on 12:21 Mon
In reply to Profanitynotsanity:

> It is a sad statement on our country (and one of the root causes of the 2016 referendum vote) that everything is focussed on London. 500,000 people in London will have more effect than 500,000 in Leeds, Manchester, Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast etc (no disrespect intended to the inhabitants of those cities).

I do agree, although I guess if you're going to hold a march of that size, London is probably the only pace you can really pull it off logistically. It would've been nice to host a big march in Leeds, being more-or-less equidistant from Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh and London.

Report
Profanitynotsanity - on 12:27 Mon
In reply to Basil:

"A double disservice ....super Nige  from 4 pints forty ciggys a day to walking hundred of miles. What a HERO go Nige go ect,ect."

Four pints and 40 ciggys! No wonder he's skint ........ my a@%e!!!

Report
thomasadixon - on 12:35 Mon
In reply to jkarran:

> With what I said? You've lost me, sorry, I was responding to what you said.

God you’re slippery!  Those on the march aren’t “the people”, they’re a small, radical, subset.

> Still think you're winning? You 'the people' are about to get properly shafted like the rest of us. Expect very limited sympathy.

Blah blah blah

Report
jkarran - on 12:41 Mon
In reply to thomasadixon:

> God you’re slippery!  Those on the march aren’t “the people”, they’re a small, radical, subset.

Thanks, that answers my question in a way. 2016 brexit supporters: 'the people'. Everyone else, whether or not they are now a majority: not 'the people'. Brexit supporters not getting their version of brexit: not 'the people'. See you this side of the fence in a couple of weeks.

When did a call for democratic engagement and accountability become 'radical' Thomas?

Small is the handful of self-interested looters and their puppets in Westminster just days away from crashing our economy, screwing you and the rest of us over. Small is the bedraggled handful of angry old men rumbling south behind Farage's bus.

jk

Post edited at 12:46
Report
thomasadixon - on 12:47 Mon
In reply to jkarran:

No you muppet all of us are the people!  Not just your side or mine.

Report
jkarran - on 12:56 Mon
In reply to thomasadixon:

> No you muppet all of us are the people!  Not just your side or mine.

But on this very thread you yourself said the Peoples' Vote campaigners aren't 'the people', the implication being their views should not have weight, that they do not matter:

> And of course that claim will be 100% accurate, they aren’t the people.  We have rule by votes not by who can gather the biggest mob.

Which is it?

jk

Post edited at 12:57
Report
Northern Star on 13:13 Mon
In reply to Trevers:

Hmmm, it would seem that even thomasadixon can't even answer what sort of 'Leave' he wanted.  And therein lies the problem with the whole sorry thing.  'Leave means Leave'  . . . . but what sort of Leave???

Report
thomasadixon - on 13:20 Mon
In reply to jkarran:

Take out your false implication, that’ll solve your confusion.

Report
thomasadixon - on 13:21 Mon
In reply to Northern Star:

I’ve answered so many times on here I can’t be bothered to do it again, you’re not interested in the answer anyway.

Report
Rob Parsons on 13:23 Mon
In reply to Trevers:

> The referendum wasn't legal

That statement is nonsense.

Report
jkarran - on 13:26 Mon
In reply to thomasadixon:

If my implication is false, what exactly did you mean by this:

> And of course that claim will be 100% accurate, they aren’t the people.  We have rule by votes not by who can gather the biggest mob.

jk

Report
thomasadixon - on 13:27 Mon
In reply to Trevers:

> We were a huge group of passionate, motivated, friendly, tolerant and peaceful people with an impressive array of hilariously creative and incisive placards. And patriotic to boot. If that doesn't represent the best of Britain, I don't know what does.

People from all sides.  All you’re doing by saying that your side represents the best is arrogantly asserting that you are the best.

> Is it? From everything that I've seen, the difference between the way Brexit-supporting and pro-EU protesters have conducted themselves has been stark. What mass pro-Brexit protest marches have there been?

If you want to change what you said I might no longer disagree with it.

> The referendum wasn't legal and I don't recognise its validity. I don't really understand what the general election has to do with anything either.

Yes, it was.  You just don’t like the result so you declare it non lawful, highly democratic.

> As for Cameron and Osborne, they're no longer our representatives, and I don't want my future dictated by their disingenuous promises.

That’s where the general election comes in.

> I do agree that there's a level of hypocrisy for many other MPs from all sides who voted for the referendum in the first place. However, I'd prefer that the rule of law and integrity of constitution (vague in the UK I know!) takes precedence over the words of politicians. The hypocrisy is certainly no worse than that of leave campaigners who promised everything would be quick and easy while producing no plan. Bad faith from both sides.

What is this “law and integrity of the constitution”?

> There's something I'm genuinely puzzled over, and I ask this question in good faith... During the referendum campaign, I was mad as hell at the remain leaders for not only landing us in this situation, but for making such an appalling mess of the campaign. Why aren't you equally mad with the leave campaign leaders for making promises that they never intended to or possible could keep, then running away from all responsibility? Or are you mad at them?

Being pushed aside is not running away, not being in charge is not running away.  It’s not leavers that aren’t keeping their promises.

Post edited at 13:30
Report
thomasadixon - on 13:29 Mon
In reply to jkarran:

I’ve said it already!  A small subset of the people, drawn from one side, are neither representative of the people nor the people.

Post edited at 13:29
Report
Oceanrower - on 13:30 Mon
In reply to thomasadixon:

>  It’s not leavers that aren’t keeping their promises.

As a remainer, could you please let me know which promises you think I'm not keeping.

Report
thomasadixon - on 13:30 Mon
In reply to Oceanrower:

See Anna Soubry.  You’re not an elected MP so far as I know.

Report
thomasadixon - on 13:33 Mon
In reply to jkarran:

> When did a call for democratic engagement and accountability become 'radical' Thomas?

You don’t half talk shite.  The call is for the result of the referendum to be overturned by those who were voted in promising to enact it, not some vague platitude.

Report
Northern Star on 13:35 Mon
In reply to thomasadixon:

> I’ve answered so many times on here I can’t be bothered to do it again, you’re not interested in the answer anyway.


I genuinely am interested.

Report
jkarran - on 13:52 Mon
In reply to thomasadixon:

> You don’t half talk shite.  The call is for the result of the referendum to be overturned by those who were voted in promising to enact it, not some vague platitude.

LOL, pots and kettles come to mind!

Peoples' Vote (a ratification referendum if you prefer, I do) isn't about re-running 2106 or overturning the result, it's about choosing or rejecting a defined and deliverable future at an obvious juncture, it's about holding those who sold and delivered brexit to account, ensuring they deliver on their promises or rejecting their offering if they haven't. You should come join us.

If a practically deliverable brexit is still 'the will of the people' we'll chose it, you surely have nothing to fear, if in the harsh light of day it doesn't deliver then we shouldn't... unless you'd care to argue otherwise?

jk

Post edited at 14:01
Report
jkarran - on 13:54 Mon
In reply to thomasadixon:

> I’ve said it already!  A small subset of the people, drawn from one side, are neither representative of the people nor the people.

You seem confused. You said we were all 'the people' but now you say small subsets, minorities if you will, aren't 'the people'. Odd position to take given you started this line of discussion moaning about mob rule!

jk

Report
Northern Star on 13:57 Mon
In reply to thomasadixon:

> The call is for the result of the referendum to be overturned by those who were voted in promising to enact it, not some vague platitude.

The way I see it is that it's a check vote.  Now we know the detail (unlike at the last referendum when all we had was guesswork and a load of made up rubbish from both campaigns), then nearly 3 years down the line why not make sure it is still what people really want?  An awful lot has changed in 3 yrs so this is sensible perhaps?

If the result is still to 'Leave' then (whilst personally disappointed), I will accept the result - provided of course the type of leave we get reflects the percentage of the vote, i.e. a very close result to Leave means that we Leave the EU but stay very close to Europe (single market/customs union/free movement - a very soft Brexit).  A landslide victory by Leave means that we should pursue a no deal or hard Brexit.

Report
thomasadixon - on 14:01 Mon
In reply to jkarran:

I am not the people, I am a person, I am one of the people.  What is it that’s too hard for you to understand?

Re your other post - you, Trevers, etc always wanted to overturn the result by whatever means.  You can tell yourself whatever lies make your narrative work, but it’s plain as day what you’re campaigning for.

Report
thomasadixon - on 14:02 Mon
In reply to Northern Star:

Why should I believe you’d accept the result this time?  You didn’t last time.  Why should I agree to another vote?  You certainly wouldn’t if the tables were turned.

Post edited at 14:02
Report
what the hex on 14:06 Mon
In reply to thomasadixon:

I'm assuming you wouldn't object to a no deal brexit?

I ask because you're refusing to extrapolate on what brexit means to you?

Would a no deal brexit be acceptable to you? I'm just trying to work out where you stand.

Cheers.

Report
Northern Star on 14:09 Mon
In reply to thomasadixon:

> I am not the people, I am a person, I am one of the people.  What is it that’s too hard for you to understand?

Then why the difficulty to articulate what sort of 'Leave' you personally want?

> Re your other post - you, Trevers, etc always wanted to overturn the result by whatever means.  You can tell yourself whatever lies make your narrative work, but it’s plain as day what you’re campaigning for.

Not at all - another referendum is simply to check whether it is still what people want.  A vote based on facts rather than fiction.  If the result is now to Remain or to push on with Leave then that reflects the current opinion of the people - rather than the opinion 3 years ago which might by now, given all the information that has come to light, be somewhat out of date.

Report
thomasadixon - on 14:09 Mon
In reply to what the hex:

Yes.

Report
stevieb - on 14:10 Mon
In reply to jkarran:

> You seem confused. You said we were all 'the people' but now you say small subsets, minorities if you will, aren't 'the people'. Odd position to take given you started this line of discussion moaning about mob rule!

> jk

Oh for God's sake it's not complicated.

He's making a totally valid point that any crowd on Saturday will not be representative of the people. A crowd of half a million is more noteworthy than 77 marching (and bussing) people, but it is still clearly not representative of 65 million people.

I believe a people's vote 3 years after the first vote is democratically valid. I believe a people's vote on a specific deal (withdrawal deal and/or final trade deal) is democratically valid. But Thomas's point is not hard to understand

Report
Northern Star on 14:11 Mon
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Why should I believe you’d accept the result this time?

Because it would be based on the facts that now exist rather than the made up lies and rubbish told by both campaigns at the time of the first referendum.  It would be an informed rather than an idealistic choice.

Report
jkarran - on 14:15 Mon
In reply to thomasadixon:

> I am not the people, I am a person, I am one of the people.  What is it that’s too hard for you to understand?

What I'm struggling with is which minorities you consider not 'the people' and which are 'the people', how you decide and how this tallies with you saying we're all 'the people' when you also clearly say we're not. It's just very confusing!

> Re your other post - you, Trevers, etc always wanted to overturn the result by whatever means.  You can tell yourself whatever lies make your narrative work, but it’s plain as day what you’re campaigning for.

I can't speak for others so won't.

I don't want to overturn the result if there is still a majority for brexit now the trade-offs, costs and benefits(?) are better known, if there isn't then we quite simply shouldn't be doing it. Yes, I will vote to retain the deal we have, to remain in the EU but I will accept the result whichever way it goes. That doesn't mean I won't campaign to rejoin in future, this is how democracy works, it is a process. I don't see this as overturning an old decision but as a new one with democratic legitimacy, we have no problem with this concept come when it comes to elections. I think parliament unilaterally revoking A50 in 10 days as is becoming a possibility would be an awful way to deal with this though I accept it may have to happen, it will not settle matters, nor should it. I actually think we will vote to leave with no deal in a referendum, I think it's politically impossible to keep off the ballot and the emotive argument for it will win out. This is to me the worst possible result but I believe in the process, I think it is important for us to give informed consent.

jk

Post edited at 14:21
Report
Northern Star on 14:16 Mon
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Why should I agree to another vote?  You certainly wouldn’t if the tables were turned.

The Leave supporters would have been perfectly free to campaign for a second vote, and probably would have done should Remain have won the referendum last time.  If enough support was there for it then eventually the government would have to listen.

Report
what the hex on 14:19 Mon
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Yes.

There wasn't an option for a no deal brexit on the ballot paper.

Sorry.

Report
Robert Durran - on 14:24 Mon
In reply to jkarran:

> I think unilaterally parliament revoking A50 in 10 days as is becoming a possibility would be an awful way to deal with this though I accept it may have to happen, it will not settle matters. I actually think we will vote to leave with no deal in a referendum, I think it's politically impossible to keep off the ballot and the emotive argument for it will win out. This is to me the worst possible result but I believe in the process, I think it is important for us to give informed consent.

I agree entirely. Parliament revokes article 50 in order for the people to have the opportunity to give informed consent for such an extreme Brexit - have a binding referendum with a single transferable vote with May's deal, No deal and Remain the options. I don't see how anyone could argue against this solution given where we are now.

Post edited at 14:25
Report
jkarran - on 14:26 Mon
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I agree entirely. Parliament revokes article 50 in order for the people to have the opportunity to give informed consent for such an extreme Brexit - have a binding referendum with a single transferable vote with May's deal, No deal and Remain the options. I don't see how anyone could argue against this solution given where we are now.

If we revoke A50 to buy time we'll no longer have May's deal available.

jk

Report
thomasadixon - on 14:34 Mon
In reply to what the hex:

And...?  The options were leave (no deal specified, no deal at all clearly a possibility) and remain.  I didn’t want no deal, but if that’s all that’s available I’ll take it.

Report
thomasadixon - on 14:35 Mon
In reply to Northern Star:

So no argument then, no reason I should back a vote?

Report
Mike Stretford - on 14:38 Mon
In reply to thomasadixon:

> And...?  The options were leave (no deal specified, no deal at all clearly a possibility) and remain.  I didn’t want no deal, but if that’s all that’s available I’ll take it.

That's fine you'll get to vote leave again. The people I've been talking to who do feel that they were misled by the leave campaign, they can now vote on the facts. Happy days.

Report
deepsoup - on 14:40 Mon
In reply to thomasadixon:

>  The options were leave (no deal specified, no deal at all clearly a possibility) and remain.

The official 'Vote Leave' campaign at the time were specifically ruling out 'no deal' and dismissing any suggestion that that was going to happen as a part of "Project Fear" scaremongering by the other side.

Eg: "Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to leave" 
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/90f07e/vote_leave_2016_taking_back_control_is_a_careful/

Post edited at 14:41
Report
thomasadixon - on 14:46 Mon
In reply to jkarran:

> What I'm struggling with is which minorities you consider not 'the people' and which are 'the people', how you decide and how this tallies with you saying we're all 'the people' when you also clearly say we're not. It's just very confusing!

I don’t believe you’re really that simple.

> I don't want to overturn the result if there is still a majority for brexit now the trade-offs, costs and benefits(?) are better known, if there isn't then we quite simply shouldn't be doing it.

I don’t believe you.  The rhetoric is nothing more than smokescreen.

> I don't see this as overturning an old decision but as a new one with democratic legitimacy, we have no problem with this concept come when it comes to elections.

Theres no problem with it, if you first follow the process the leave vote followed - get MPs promising to do this elected.  The problem is (as said) MPs doing the opposite of what they were voted in promising to do.

Report
Northern Star on 14:51 Mon
In reply to thomasadixon:

> So no argument then, no reason I should back a vote?

So you would rather not have another vote simply because the result might not conform to your own personal beliefs? 

It also sounds like you do not believe that people should be allowed an option to change their minds (especially if their minds do not agree with yours).  It sounds like you would prefer to base the single most important decision this country has ever made in its peacetime history on a referendum campaign riddled with lies and half truths, rather than allow the country to decide based on what we now know will happen. 

I really hope the above is not correct, but sadly I fear that it might be!

Report
Robert Durran - on 14:52 Mon
In reply to jkarran:

> If we revoke A50 to buy time we'll no longer have May's deal available.

Even if we asked the EU nicely?

Report
thomasadixon - on 14:52 Mon
In reply to deepsoup:

That’s an assessment of likelihood, not a promise.  May has arranged a deal, of course.  A shit one imo, but a deal nonetheless.

Report
jkarran - on 15:06 Mon
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Even if we asked the EU nicely?

I think we'd be well past that point if we started playing those games but being wrong isn't a new experience. Hopefully we won't need to find out.

jk

Report
El Greyo - on 15:44 Mon
In reply to thomasadixon:

> That’s an assessment of likelihood, not a promise.  

Where does it say that it is an 'assessment of likelihood'?

In the quote they use 'will' which is, without doubt, the language of a promise.

Report
jkarran - on 15:56 Mon
In reply to thomasadixon:

> I don’t believe you.  The rhetoric is nothing more than smokescreen.

What specifically are you saying I'm lying about?

You'll see what the proposal is in due course, perhaps as soon as tomorrow then you can decide for yourself whether it's 'a smokescreen' or a genuine democratic choice between deliverable futures inside and out of the EU. Either way you are of course welcome to vote for a deliverable leave option, perhaps you'll even get a choice, that's democracy.

jk

Post edited at 15:58
Report
Deadeye - on 18:23 Mon
In reply to Robert Durran:

And that is how May could get her deal over the line.  Both leave and remain camp see it as second best but neither will have a majority for their first preference.

Report
Eric9Points - on 18:53 Mon
In reply to Trevers:

As someone who's unlikely to make it down to London from Edinburgh I've been giving the matter a bit of thought.

What would be really great is a massive emailing campaign where everyone who wants a second vote emails there MP and tells them that they should push for a second referendum and if a vote comes up and they vote against it they will campaign against them the next time they stand for election.

Many MPs are lukewarm about a second vote because they believe it will harm their chances of re election. They should be left in no doubt that they will pay a heavy price if they don't support a second vote.

Report
Trevers - on 19:37 Mon
In reply to thomasadixon:

> So no argument then, no reason I should back a vote?

You should back another vote because as things stand, the divisive result and disputed legitimacy of the 2016 referendum mean that we aren't moving forward as a nation. The public consent for this huge upheaval should be beyond reasonable doubt, because if Brexit turns out to be massively damaging, the current "mandate" will drive a wedge through society.

Post edited at 19:37
Report
thomasadixon - on 23:54 Mon
In reply to Trevers:

It’s no more divisive than Thatcher, or many other politicians.  That’s just part of politics.  It’s only disputed by some, and everything is.  All I see is those who lost the vote endlessly agitating.

The argument for a referendum isn’t a democratic one, it’s just expediency.  Suddenly for this decision we must have not just one referendum but two!  There’s no principle behind it at all - although I do like the comedy in how it’d be us doing precisely what the EU do, votes for ratification for a semblance of democratic consent, worked round if they go the wrong way.

Report
thomasadixon - on 00:01 Tue
In reply to jkarran:

> What specifically are you saying I'm lying about?

That you don’t want us in the EU if there’s no majority, I don’t believe you care if there is one or not. A “Genuine” democratic vote is just one you agree with, you would not be pushing for another vote if the vote had gone the other way.

Report
Trevers - on 00:12 Tue
In reply to thomasadixon:

So do you deny that Vote Leave broke electoral law?

Report
thomasadixon - on 00:22 Tue
In reply to Mike Stretford:

I don’t see a reason there why we should completely depart from how our country normally works.  We don’t have referendums all the time, without a mandate, and we don’t rerun votes because the losers don’t like it, or because voters changed their minds (should there have been recall of Lib Dems to stop tuition fees?  No, it’s unworkable).  Of course MPs in practice can just do whatever they like, but if they do that the system fails.

Report
thomasadixon - on 00:26 Tue
In reply to Trevers:

No.  Do you deny that Cameron spent millions of my money to persuade me to change my vote?  Do you deny that remain campaigners were also fined?

Some people spent a bit too much money/accounted it wrongly, with more spent on the remain side than on leave.

Report
George Ormerod - on 04:43 Tue
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Why should I believe you’d accept the result this time?  You didn’t last time.  Why should I agree to another vote?  You certainly wouldn’t if the tables were turned.

Who said this:  "a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way".

Report
George Ormerod - on 04:46 Tue
In reply to thomasadixon:

And this: "We could have two referendums. As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed".

Report
john arran - on 06:14 Tue
In reply to thomasadixon:

Do you think it's fine that convicted thieves get to keep the loot? Or is it only fine if, in your opinion, they've been hard done by by an unjust society?

Report
jkarran - on 09:47 Tue
In reply to thomasadixon:

> It’s no more divisive than Thatcher, or many other politicians.  That’s just part of politics.  It’s only disputed by some, and everything is.  All I see is those who lost the vote endlessly agitating.

What exactly did you win? 10 days to go...

What is brexit?

What good does it do?

What does it cost?

> The argument for a referendum isn’t a democratic one, it’s just expediency.  Suddenly for this decision we must have not just one referendum but two!

It should have been built into the process from the outset, this would have prevented people promising you the undeliverable. Cameron's failure and a failure of imagination among leave campaigners who expect brexit to deliver for them. By your collective complacent refusal to hold your leaders to account you've effectively guaranteed brexit's failure to deliver positive change for it's supporters brexit's architects can safely serve themselves and their paymasters at our expense.

jk

Report
jkarran - on 10:16 Tue
In reply to thomasadixon:

> That you don’t want us in the EU if there’s no majority, I don’t believe you care if there is one or not. A “Genuine” democratic vote is just one you agree with, you would not be pushing for another vote if the vote had gone the other way.

I've been very clear I want the UK, to remain part of the EU, I think it is clearly in the national and my personal interest. And yes, I would be disappointed if we chose to leave with the damaging deal May has negotiated or worse with none at all, probably to the point of looking to emigrate again but that's my choice. I am a democrat, I think it is essential we make an informed decision and I would accept it if the vote were fairly constituted (no reason to suspect otherwise, indeed I would with very heavy heart argue for the same franchise as in 2016, against my interests because I believe the perception of fairness from the leave perspective outweighs the consideration of our youth and UK resident EU citizens) and the campaigns broadly legal (setting a dismally low bar, should be achievable, right).

I'm going to politely ask you to withdraw your accusation of lying and apologise. It is a direct attack not on my politics or my argument but on my person, it is baseless and it isn't acceptable.

jk

Post edited at 10:29
Report
Mike Stretford - on 10:20 Tue
In reply to thomasadixon:

> I don’t see a reason there why we should completely depart from how our country normally works.  

Erm... the country isn't working normally.

> We don’t have referendums all the time, without a mandate, and we don’t rerun votes because the losers don’t like it, or because voters changed their minds (should there have been recall of Lib Dems to stop tuition fees?  No, it’s unworkable).  Of course MPs in practice can just do whatever they like, but if they do that the system fails.

That's just waffle. 

We rarely have referendum, certainly none that led to this kind of chaos, so there is no precedent to refer to. What we do have is convention of holding GE close to each other if we don't have stable government, or because the PM wants a bigger majority. The only way this leads to a different result is if people have changed their minds in light of new information. No reason this shouldn't be applied to the referendum, especially after 3 years and still no realistic plan from those who campaigned for Brexit.

Post edited at 10:35
Report
Trevers - on 10:20 Tue
In reply to thomasadixon:

> No. Do you deny that Cameron spent millions of my money to persuade me to change my vote?  

That wasn't illegal though was it. A dreadful and cynical campaigning tactic, but not illegal.

> Do you deny that remain campaigners were also fined?

No I don't. This was down to bad bookkeeping though, not deliberate overspending. I'm not defending it, but it's hardly a deliberate corruption of democracy on the same level.

> Some people spent a bit too much money/accounted it wrongly, with more spent on the remain side than on leave.

A bit too much money? It was more than £500,000 of deliberate overspend.

If we accept your assertion that cynical remain tactics were equally as corrupting as leave criminality, you're essentially saying that the referendum was even more corrupt than I'm claiming it was, yet you're perfectly happy with the result.

Report
El Greyo - on 10:37 Tue
In reply to thomasadixon:

It is considerably more divisive than Thatcher but Thatcherism could be reversed whereas Brexit is for keeps and will affect this nation for generations. Constitutional changes, in most countries, require a higher bar for acceptance as they are very long-lasting and, in this case, have much deeper and wide ranging consequences. Usually the higher bar is the requirement of a larger majority, say two thirds. Another way would be to have a confirmatory referendum once the actually reality of the proposed constitutional change is known.

A final decision on constitutional changes should also only be made when there is a clear and practical proposal for what those changes are. There was no such proposal from the leave campaign at the time of the first referendum, indeed there were many different visions and many impractical and unrealistic leave claims. Now it is clearer (or a bit less muddy) so it is entirely appropriate to confirm with the voting population, if this is still what they want.

Many leavers do not want a second referendum because they fear it would prevent Brexit. But it would only prevent Brexit if the majority of the people vote against Brexit. And in that case, we wouldn't want to go against the will of the people now, would we?

Post edited at 10:40
Report
jkarran - on 10:39 Tue
In reply to Trevers:

> That wasn't illegal though was it. A dreadful and cynical campaigning tactic, but not illegal.

Also it didn't cost Thomas 'millions', on average it cost 33pence per household. £9M cost, 27M households.

Contrast that with the billions (£100s/household) squandered since on trying to deliver this undeliverable nonsense...

jk

Report
thomasadixon - on 11:22 Tue
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> Erm... the country isn't working normally.

How so?

> That's just waffle. 

Thats enlightening.  Under what circumstances should votes be reheld?  Just when you’re unhappy with the answers?

> We rarely have referendum, certainly none that led to this kind of chaos, so there is no precedent to refer to.

There are precedents to refer to, this is not our first referendum.  The “chaos” is largely in Westminster and the newspapers.

> What we do have is convention of holding GE close to each other if we don't have stable government, or because the PM wants a bigger majority. The only way this leads to a different result is if people have changed their minds in light of new information. No reason this shouldn't be applied to the referendum, especially after 3 years and still no realistic plan from those who campaigned for Brexit.

I’ve no problem at all with a general election, and no problem with a referendum provided it’s not just being held to fix the result, provided it has a mandate.  As said, get MPs to promise it and get them elected.

Report
Mike Stretford - on 11:25 Tue
In reply to thomasadixon:

> How so?

QED.

Report
thomasadixon - on 11:28 Tue
In reply to Trevers:

> That wasn't illegal though was it. A dreadful and cynical campaigning tactic, but not illegal.

No, not technically illegal.  So?  Millions vs the 500k you think such a big deal.

> No I don't. This was down to bad bookkeeping though, not deliberate overspending.

Being generous to your own side I see.

> A bit too much money? It was more than £500,000 of deliberate overspend.

Such a vast amount of money!

> If we accept your assertion that cynical remain tactics were equally as corrupting as leave criminality, you're essentially saying that the referendum was even more corrupt than I'm claiming it was, yet you're perfectly happy with the result.

Nothing’s perfect.  Minor things don’t overturn votes.

Report
thomasadixon - on 11:28 Tue
In reply to Mike Stretford:

Lol

Report
thomasadixon - on 11:31 Tue
In reply to jkarran:

> What exactly did you win? 10 days to go...

The referendum on whether to leave the EU or remain.

> What is brexit?

Leaving the EU

> What good does it do?

It means we’re no longer in the EU and so not subject to EU law.

> What does it cost?

Some money.

Why do you ask questions that you know the answers to?

> It should have been built into the process from the outset, this would have prevented people promising you the undeliverable. Cameron's failure and a failure of imagination among leave campaigners who expect brexit to deliver for them.

It wasn’t, no.  You’re adding it solely due to the “wrong” answer being reached.

> By your collective complacent refusal to hold your leaders to account you've effectively guaranteed brexit's failure to deliver positive change for it's supporters brexit's architects can safely serve themselves and their paymasters at our expense.

In what way have I failed to hold my leaders to account?  Who are my leaders?  Who is this collective?

Re your other post - no.  It’s certainly an attack on the honesty and integrity of your argument, and fully justified. I do not believe that you’re pushing for another vote out of principled beliefs in democracy, I’m not going to say I do unless you give me some reason to.  Again - if things were reversed you would not be pushing for a vote, would you?

Report
Mike Stretford - on 11:40 Tue
In reply to thomasadixon:

> I’ve no problem at all with a general election, and no problem with a referendum provided it’s not just being held to fix the result, provided it has a mandate.  As said, get MPs to promise it and get them elected.

We have a government that can't govern... what we have seen in the last few months is unprecedented. You are right, general election could get us out of the mess, but we have MPs that won't vote for it. It's a proper mess.

To be honest I'm not that keen on a second referendum at this stage, I just don't agree with the argument you are using. 'rerun' just isn't applicable after the situation has changed sufficiently.... and it certainly has.

Report
Trevers - on 11:44 Tue
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Being generous to your own side I see.

You continually respond belligerently and apparently on the presumption of bad faith on my part. I won't be responding to any further messages of yours.

Post edited at 11:44
Report
jkarran - on 11:59 Tue
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Re your other post - no.  It’s certainly an attack on the honesty and integrity of your argument, and fully justified. I do not believe that you’re pushing for another vote out of principled beliefs in democracy, I’m not going to say I do unless you give me some reason to.  Again - if things were reversed you would not be pushing for a vote, would you?

What change would there be to vote on if remain had won? It wouldn't make any sense, I absolutely don't want a re-run of 2016's vague in/out question. I accept others would be pressing for a re-run, that's life and their prerogative.

I've given you my word, I have no more to give and I've given you no cause to doubt me. I think your refusal to apologise for publicly calling me a liar without justification is thoroughly dishonourable.

jk

Post edited at 12:03
Report
kevin stephens - on 12:29 Tue
In reply to Trevers:

Back on topic.  Who's going (rather than just spouting on UKC)?  We're going on the train from Sheffield and looking forward to a good day out

Report
thomasadixon - on 12:33 Tue
In reply to Trevers:

Says the man who asked me if i deny recorded facts!  You’re belligerent yourself.  I’ve stated quite openly what I think youre doing, and that i think it’s in bad faith based on what you say.

Funny comment to pick on though, you clearly are being generous to your side.  Some crimes you forgive (which goes to support my opinion that you’re acting in bad faith).

Report
thomasadixon - on 12:42 Tue
In reply to jkarran:

> What change would there be to vote on if remain had won? It wouldn't make any sense, I absolutely don't want a re-run of 2016's vague in/out question. I accept others would be pressing for a re-run, that's life and their prerogative.

What change has there been in the EU over the years?  Lots and lots.  That’s what we were voting on.

> I've given you my word, I have no more to give and I've given you no cause to doubt me. I think your refusal to apologise for publicly calling me a liar without justification is thoroughly dishonourable.

You could give a decent argument.  I think, as said, that you and others want to change the result because you don’t like it and that the reasons you give are constructed around that.  I think because you’ve given me much cause to.  I won’t be apologising for that unless you give me a reason to.

Report
willworkforfoodjnr - on 13:00 Tue
In reply to jkarran:

> I've given you my word, I have no more to give and I've given you no cause to doubt me. I think your refusal to apologise for publicly calling me a liar without justification is thoroughly dishonourable.

> jk

I would go several steps further, its %^&* disgusting, and I find it hilarious that he can go on about remainers being abusive then double down on unacceptable attacks on your character, what a prick

Report
jkarran - on 13:14 Tue
In reply to thomasadixon:

> What change has there been in the EU over the years?  Lots and lots.  That’s what we were voting on.

So if remain had won in 2016 what question do you think I should be pressing to have answered in 2019 and why? You're not making much sense with this line.

> You could give a decent argument...

I'm telling you what my *opinion* is and you're repeatedly saying I'm lying about that!

I could argue how I arrived at that opinion but what's the point, we've been round this loop plenty of times before and ultimately it's still just an opinion how would that argument change your position that I'm dishonestly representing it?

jk

Post edited at 13:15
Report
thomasadixon - on 13:14 Tue
In reply to willworkforfoodjnr:

Funny how people can say I’m dishonourable in my views without comment - I’m told I just don’t want a vote cause I’ll lose - but I have to take his word for it or I’m being abusive.  Does everyone have to believe me too?

Report
Andy Hardy on 13:18 Tue
In reply to thomasadixon:>

 I think, as said, that you and others want to change the result because you don’t like it and that the reasons you give are constructed around that. 

I want to change the result not because I "don't like" brexit, or because I love the EU but because brexit will be catastrophically bad for my country, my home, where me and my family have lived for more generations than the Saxe-Coburgs of Windsor.

Report
willworkforfoodjnr - on 13:23 Tue
In reply to thomasadixon:

Actually I've seen people mainly asking you why you are scared of one if you still think the will of the people is to leave, which you haven't answered properly.

But I'm done arguing with leavers - that division thats been stoked is well set in me now - if anyone is a leaver right now knowing everything we know, they will never be a friend of mine. I'll hate what you've all done to this country for the rest of my life. I don't particularly like that, but thats what has been done to me over the past 3 years, in all likelyhood I'll leave the country after brexit, if anywhere wants to take Brits any more

Report
jkarran - on 13:25 Tue
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Funny how people can say I’m dishonourable in my views without comment - I’m told I just don’t want a vote cause I’ll lose - but I have to take his word for it or I’m being abusive.

I challenge you to quote me saying that about you.

jk

Report
thomasadixon - on 13:29 Tue
In reply to Andy Hardy:

Fair enough, you voted remain I presume?  That’s when we had that argument.  My mum’s family can trace back much further than the Windsors too...

Enjoy your hate willworkforfood

Post edited at 13:30
Report
El Greyo - on 15:46 Tue
In reply to thomasadixon:

> I don’t see a reason there why we should completely depart from how our country normally works.  We don’t have referendums all the time, without a mandate, and we don’t rerun votes because the losers don’t like it, or because voters changed their minds (should there have been recall of Lib Dems to stop tuition fees?  No, it’s unworkable).  Of course MPs in practice can just do whatever they like, but if they do that the system fails.

Thomas, leaving the EU is far more important with far greater consequences than tuition fees (!?), will affect the country for generations and is irreversible - it is a constitutional change. That is why there should be way way more consideration before taking the step than for normal legislation, most of which can be reversed by later governments.

I have heard leavers say that 'remoaners' are just sore losers (I don't know whether you have, I'm not going to go through your posting history to find out). This is not a game though: it will have a dramatic affect on the lives of me, my family, my friends and the country. Perhaps I can illustrate:

I work for an engineering consultancy firm which puts us in the services sector. Our Europe business manager has told us that, with WTO rules, we will have to pay an 8% tariff to do business in the EU where we currently pay none. There were also some other trading barriers and VAT issues that I didn't quite follow. There are a number of trade agreements the EU has with third countries that we also stand to lose. So we will either have to be less competitive, cut costs or decide not to do so much business in the EU.

Now I don't know whether that will result in me or colleagues losing our jobs, having to face salary cuts or, on the bright side, just no pay rises for years. But it is the greatest foreseeable risk to our business and my livelihood. This is the same for my wife and many friends.

It's not just us of course - it will be across the board: services, manufacturing, agriculture etc. Hence, companies deciding to relocate. Such costs, reduction in profitability, job losses or stagnating pay will then affect tax revenues. The country's finances are very likely to be worse off - in fact they already are because of a fall in business investment.

I think it is extremely sensible to have a confirmatory referendum to ensure that, given the consequences, it really is what the country wants. Even if a second referendum voted for leave, which is not unlikely, I would be more resigned to leaving as at least I would know that the public had the chance for due consideration. As it is, I will be campaigning this weekend for a confirmatory referendum which includes remain as an option.

Report
patrickcd - on 22:44 Tue
In reply to Trevers:

> Is anybody planning to attend the People's Vote march in London next Saturday?

Yes, I'm going. A big turnout will shift the debate.

Will any climber not regret the loss of freedom to live, study, work, retire and get healthcare in Europe?

Plus (for boulderers), marching in huge demonstrations has a hugely beneficial impact on body composition, increasing basal metabolic rates & fat burning by up to 29.5% for 5-6 weeks after the event. (S. Purious PhD, Charles Atan Msc, Northern University of Brexit Quakery, 2016)

Report
krikoman - on 00:19 Wed
In reply to Trevers:

See you there

And the week after we can support Palestinian rights too

Report
thomasadixon - on 01:58 Wed
In reply to jkarran:

I didn’t say you had.  Above you accuse me of thinking that only “Brexiter” views matter though, which is similar.  You haven’t apologised, I’m not asking you to.  On the other hand what I initially said, and should have stuck to, was that I don’t believe you.  There is a difference, and it’s that I meant so sorry I take it back.

You want another vote on the same issue, preferably one with a crap deal and remain as the options, and I’m supposed to believe that’s somehow not a (rigged) rerun even though that’s exactly what it looks like.  I’m supposed to believe it’s needed because the facts have now changed when there’s been pressure for this from the start - people’s vote itself was founded a year ago, and dreamt up the year before.  I’m supposed to believe it’s because major decisions need a check when those saying it weren’t saying that until after the result.  It’s just not credible.  You really think we should remain in the EU and really think it’s bad to leave, and so you want that to happen, fair enough, but I can’t see that the other reasons are more than rationalisation.

Report
thomasadixon - on 02:08 Wed
In reply to El Greyo:

Yes, it’s far more important than tutition fees, which is why we had the referendum.  We’d been considering it for years, which is another reason why we had the referendum.  Of course it will affect people, that’s not new knowledge.  How it will affect people generally isn’t a fact you can tell me...and we’re back rerunning the vote.  I hope you’re okay, and I certainly think we all will be.

As already said, I just can’t see the stated reasons behind the March as the real ones, it doesn’t stack up.  You all have a great time anyway.

Report
Northern Star on 04:51 Wed
In reply to thomasadixon:

> I’m supposed to believe it’s because major decisions need a check when those saying it weren’t saying that until after the result.  It’s just not credible.

I think it has gradually become apparent to both sides (Leave or Remain), that the Brexit process, within only a few months of the referendum result has been de-railed and made a shambles by the ineptness of this government and it's opposition.  I think the dire and chaotic situation we are in right now is not what anyone would have voted for. 

I suspect that those who voted to Remain by enlarge feel great disappointment that the government has swung too far to appease the hard line Brexiteers in the Tory party.  They are sad that the current and protracted wrangling is damaging our country, our economy and our relations with Europe.  You would think that if their first choice (Remain) was taken off the table that a compromise would somehow be enacted that at least keeps us close to Europe and also reflects the closeness of the original referendum result.  A Norway + type Brexit or similar.

I am guessing that those who voted to Leave must be fuming with the current situation.  No one seems to be getting the type of Leave that they voted for.  Theresa May's deal is a terrible one.  Many of the promised benefits of Brexit extolled during the referendum campaign have fallen by the wayside or been ruled out as no longer possible.  The government, because of the chaos, seems to be stalling, backtracking and is currently seeking to delay Brexit (possibly and eventually resulting in no Brexit).

Now you can believe whatever you choose is the reason behind a second referendum request.  A lot of people of course want to use it as an opportunity to overturn the original result, that is a given.  But if you look at the situation we are in right now you can see that:

a) an awful lot has changed in 3 years, the goalposts and global situation have been hugely shifted since the referendum.

b) no one seems to be getting what they voted for with the current situation whether Leave or Remain.

c) given all that has happened since the referendum, no one really seems to know what the public think any more.  We knew what they thought 3 years ago but not now.  There is no clarity and no one has asked them.  The will of the people from 3 years ago is currently being interpreted and manipulated by those in power to mean many different and contradictory things.

d) the government and it's opposition is is total deadlock without a plan or mandate to move forward.

Whether Leave or Remain, the government needs to be given direction to proceed forward based on the situation we now find ourselves in.  Sadly they seem to lack the will or ability to do this themselves which is why we find ourselves in this mess and it is not going to get any better.  Another referendum would help to break the deadlock, would give the government a fresh mandate, whether that is Leave or Remain, to move forward on a path chosen by the electorate.  Hopefully you can agree with some of the above?

Post edited at 05:01
Report
jkarran - on 10:19 Wed
In reply to thomasadixon:

> I didn’t say you had.

Yes you did, you said this:

> Funny how people can say I’m dishonourable in my views without comment - I’m told I just don’t want a vote cause I’ll lose - but I have to take his word for it or I’m being abusive.

The 'his' in this, in context clearly refers to me. The single sentence contains an impressive three mistakes.

* I haven't said your views are dishonourable. I have said your *action* in baselessly accusing me of lying and your subsequent refusal when asked to apologise was dishonourable.

* I haven't said you're opposed to a referendum because you're afraid you'll lose.

* I haven't accused you of being abusive.

> Above you accuse me of thinking that only “Brexiter” views matter though, which is similar.

No, I accuse the government and the opposition of acting as if only brexiter views matter. I can't find the post but I believe at one point I asked if you agreed with this position or cared to defend it. I'm unsure if you hold that view as I don't think you answered either way.

> On the other hand what I initially said, and should have stuck to, was that I don’t believe you.  There is a difference, and it’s that I meant so sorry I take it back.

I'm confused, I guess there's a missing word or something.

> You want another vote on the same issue, preferably one with a crap deal and remain as the options, and I’m supposed to believe that’s somehow not a (rigged) rerun even though that’s exactly what it looks like.

These are the options we face. This is reality, we have to choose between them, both have serious implications for our society and economy, we should make an informed democratic choice. We could and probably will end up including no-deal if it gets put back to the electorate. So be it.

> I’m supposed to believe it’s needed because the facts have now changed when there’s been pressure for this from the start - people’s vote itself was founded a year ago, and dreamt up the year before.

You didn't know how we'd be leaving the EU in 2016. I can say that with absolute certainty because three years on with 9 days to go *nobody* knows. Once we do know then the facts have changed, we have two defined and deliverable realities we can test against each other, not one against a thousand and one contradictory fantasies. The idea of a ratification isn't new, it wasn't dreamed up this year though the most prominent campaign was named funded and has become active of late.

> I’m supposed to believe it’s because major decisions need a check when those saying it weren’t saying that until after the result.

They fu*king well should have been! Indeed many of us actually were. This failure of foresight has let all of us down miserably. It happened because we weren't 'supposed' to vote leave, Cameron was just playing games with his party and pandering to UKIP, he never expected to lose so never designed a viable process with safeguards and accountability for actually leaving.

> It’s just not credible.  You really think we should remain in the EU and really think it’s bad to leave, and so you want that to happen, fair enough, but I can’t see that the other reasons are more than rationalisation.

I frankly don't care if you agree, I don't expect to persuade you.

jk

Post edited at 10:26
Report
jkarran - on 10:52 Wed
In reply to Trevers:

Well it seems I may have misjudged the public mood in believing leave would win a rattification referendum, the latest YouGov poll puts remain ahead of government's withdrawal agreement by 22 points, 61/39 and with a similar margin when tested against 'no-deal'. Another bruising campaign will take a massive dent out of that of course.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/zrgautmsk5/PV_190315_Results_w.pdf

The 'will of the people' appears to be shifting.

jk

Report
thomasadixon - on 11:19 Wed
In reply to jkarran:

> Yes you did, you said this:

> The 'his' in this, in context clearly refers to me. The single sentence contains an impressive three mistakes.

Yes, it does refer to you.  I’m referring to you in the third person because I’m not talking to you!  I didn’t say you said anything, I said people said things - and since then it’s again been implied that my stated reasons aren’t real ones.  I’m not asking for any apologies, just pointing out double standards.

> No, I accuse the government and the opposition of acting as if only brexiter views matter. I can't find the post but I believe at one point I asked if you agreed with this position or cared to defend it. I'm unsure if you hold that view as I don't think you answered either way.

You accused me, on this thread, 12.41 Monday.  You did not ask, you asserted.

> I'm confused, I guess there's a missing word or something.

No words missing.  I don’t believe that honestly (deep down) your reasons are other than rationalisations.  You might well believe them though.

> You didn't know how we'd be leaving the EU in 2016.

No, but then I didn’t vote on how, none of us did.  If you want a vote on how to leave then that wouldn’t include remain since remaining isn’t a way to leave.  As said, it’s a rerun you want.

Post edited at 11:24
Report
jkarran - on 11:43 Wed
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Yes, it does refer to you.  I’m referring to you in the third person because I’m not talking to you!  I didn’t say you said anything, I said people said things - and since then it’s again been implied that my stated reasons aren’t real ones.  I’m not asking for any apologies, just pointing out double standards.

> You accused me, on this thread, 12.41 Monday.  You did not ask, you asserted.

I summarised your confusing and contradictory responses to that point, that you do not consider the views of people who did not vote for brexit in 2016 or did but no longer support it in the form we're faced with (which is?) to matter when it comes to shaping brexit policy. I formed this view by asking questions and reading your answers. I am sorry if you feel I misrepresented you, the misunderstanding is genuine, if that isn't what you meant by what you wrote then I'm still confused.

> No words missing.  I don’t believe that honestly (deep down) your reasons are other than rationalisations.  You might well believe them though.

So when I tell you what my opinion is and you tell me you don't believe it genuinely is my opinion you are calling me a liar. It's that simple.

> No, but then I didn’t vote on how, none of us did.  If you want a vote on how to leave then that wouldn’t include remain since remaining isn’t a way to leave.  As said, it’s a rerun you want.

I want a vote to choose between the deliverable options available to us.

What do you think about the current poll showing 62/39% for remain, would you as a good democrat just dismiss that and plough on anyway with something there is now apparently very substantial public opposition to?

jk

Post edited at 11:43
Report
thomasadixon - on 11:51 Wed
In reply to jkarran:

> I summarised your confusing and contradictory responses to that point, that you do not consider the views of people who did not vote for brexit in 2016 or did but no longer support it in the form we're faced with (which is?) to matter when it comes to shaping brexit policy. I formed this view by asking questions and reading your answers. I am sorry if you feel I misrepresented you, the misunderstanding is genuine, if that isn't what you meant by what you wrote then I'm still confused.

I said that a subset do not represent the whole, and you rewrote that to put words in my mouth.  You do this all the time.  It’s rude, and I think you know exactly what you’re doing.  ...then you get all precious when I’m not perfectly polite.

> So when I tell you what my opinion is and you tell me you don't believe it genuinely is my opinion you are calling me a liar. It's that simple.

Not heard of confirmation bias and similar?  Don’t think it’s at all possible for people to be deluded?

> What do you think about the current poll showing 62/39% for remain, would you as a good democrat just dismiss that and plough on anyway with something there is now apparently very substantial public opposition to?

Polls are just polls, I’ll regard them the same way I always have.  Do you think that polls mean something specific must happen?  Should we change policy to accord with poll results?

Report
Northern Star on 12:23 Wed
In reply to thomasadixon:

So having completely failed to respond to my reasoned assessment as to why we might need another referendum, and how this could help us move forward with Brexit and possibly allow us to Leave the EU, it would seem that @thomasadixon is simply here for an argument?

Report
thomasadixon - on 12:41 Wed
In reply to Northern Star:

Little aggressive there!  If I’ve got time I’ll read your post properly later, it’s a bit long.

Report
jkarran - on 12:53 Wed
In reply to thomasadixon:

> I said that a subset do not represent the whole, and you rewrote that to put words in my mouth.  You do this all the time.  It’s rude, and I think you know exactly what you’re doing.  ...then you get all precious when I’m not perfectly polite.

Well I'm very sorry I misrepresented you. I wasn't trying to but I feel you were rather muddled about what you meant when asked.

> Not heard of confirmation bias and similar?  Don’t think it’s at all possible for people to be deluded?

So now I'm deluded and liar? You're moving on somewhat from not perfectly polite.

> Polls are just polls, I’ll regard them the same way I always have.  Do you think that polls mean something specific must happen?  Should we change policy to accord with poll results?

I think those polls should serve as a loud and clear warning to those who pretend public opinion is settled on this matter to force what will be very painful changes on the population. They and I include you in this will be judged very harshly indeed for their obdurance.

jk

Post edited at 12:56
Report
thomasadixon - on 13:34 Wed
In reply to jkarran:

> Well I'm very sorry I misrepresented you. I wasn't trying to but I feel you were rather muddled about what you meant when asked.

You repeated it when corrected, and you’re standing by it.  I don’t see that apology means much.

> So now I'm deluded and liar? You're moving on somewhat from not perfectly polite.

You’ve quite rudely called me deluded on this thread!  If you think someone is evidently wrong on something (like me thinking things will be fine with no deal)  then you think they’re deluded, saying so is just honest.  Should I lie and say I think your view is rational and reasonable?  No, and I don’t expect you to either.  It’d be nice if you weren’t such a dick about it but hey ho.

> I think those polls should serve as a loud and clear warning to those who pretend public opinion is settled on this matter to force what will be very painful changes on the population. They and I include you in this will be judged very harshly indeed for their obdurance.

Judge me as you like, I judge that May and co, you know the people in charge and making the decisions, and pretty much all remainers, are responsible for where we are right now.  Polls shift by the day and the question.

Report
Robert Durran - on 13:44 Wed
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Pretty much all remainers, are responsible for where we are right now.  

I think you will find that leavers are entirely responsible. Obviously.

Report
jkarran - on 13:49 Wed
In reply to thomasadixon:

> You’ve quite rudely called me deluded on this thread!  If you think someone is evidently wrong on something (like me thinking things will be fine with no deal)  then you think they’re deluded, saying so is just honest.  Should I lie and say I think your view is rational and reasonable?  No, and I don’t expect you to either.  It’d be nice if you weren’t such a dick about it but hey ho.

I quite simply haven't called you deluded or delusional, I checked (ctrl f if anyone is interested). Yours is the first use of it today. I wonder are you confusing delusional and deliverable, I write deliverable a lot in the context of brexit.

> Judge me as you like, I judge that May and co, you know the people in charge and making the decisions, and pretty much all remainers, are responsible for where we are right now.  Polls shift by the day and the question.

Yes they do and pretty much all in one direction for months now, I'm just genuinely surprised at quite how far opinion has shifted against brexit. 39/61 is a remarkable result from this poll, wouldn't you agree? The questions are in the link I provided if you're interested, I know you're implying they steer the result but in this case they're about as dispassionate as could be.

jk

Post edited at 13:53
Report
wercat on 13:49 Wed
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Judge me as you like, I judge that May and co, you know the people in charge and making the decisions, and pretty much all remainers, are responsible for where we are right now.

Idiot! - Brexit has been run exclusively for the leavers with no thought for the almost as many people who voted Remain.  How can Remainers be to blame? 

Report
john arran - on 13:49 Wed
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I think you will find that leavers are entirely responsible. Obviously.

And the EU of course, for being mean.

Report
Sir Chasm - on 13:50 Wed
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Judge me as you like, I judge that May and co, you know the people in charge and making the decisions, and pretty much all remainers, are responsible for where we are right now.  

It's always someone else's fault when you're a leaver.

Report
Rob Exile Ward on 13:53 Wed
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Being in leave means never having to say you're sorry.

(I'm quite proud of that!)

Report
Harry Jarvis - on 13:56 Wed
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Judge me as you like, I judge that May and co, you know the people in charge and making the decisions, and pretty much all remainers, are responsible for where we are right now.

Are you sure that the opposition from the ERG (Tory leavers) and the DUP (leavers) might not have something to do with the mess we're in? And if we're speaking of the people in charge, these have included, since the referendum, a Foreign Secretary leaver, and three successive DExEU secretaries; all leavers, the international trade secretary - a leaver - and I could go on with more leavers in positions of influence. I would concede that suggesting that anyone is 'in charge' might be stretching definitions beyond breaking point. 

And furthermore, could it not be suggested that the mess we are in now has some roots in the complete lack of planning undertaken by every element of the Leave campaign at every stage. Blaming everything on remainers seems as delusional as the hapless May belief that she could win simply by repeatedly putting the same deal to a vote over and over again until she wins. 

Report
thomasadixon - on 14:01 Wed
In reply to jkarran:

> I quite simply haven't called you deluded or delusional, I checked (ctrl f if anyone is interested). Yours is the first use of it either word today. I wonder are you confusing delusional and deliverable, I write deliverable a lot in the context of brexit?

You don’t have to use the word deluded to call me deluded!  Did you read my explanation?  Do you think I ought to declare your view rational and reasonable when I don’t think that?

> Yes they do and pretty much all in one direction for months now, I'm just genuinely surprised at quite how far opinion has shifted against brexit. 39/61 is a remarkable result from this poll, wouldn't you agree? The questions are in the link I provided if you're interested, i know you're implying they steer the result but in this case they're about as dispassionate as could be.

It’s just a poll, and it’s taken at a time when the prevailing media wind is pretty much all pushing one way.  I don’t find it particularly surprising, and I don’t think it would stand if the leave side had a chance to speak - as we did in the referendum.  You’ll recall the polls shifting during the campaign I’m sure.

Report
Dave Garnett - on 14:05 Wed
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Judge me as you like, I judge that May and co, you know the people in charge and making the decisions, and pretty much all remainers, are responsible for where we are right now. 

I would have said that this was obvious nonsense but you must be right.  Apparently democracy is dead and we should have had Trump handle it all for us.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47634365

Report
thomasadixon - on 14:05 Wed
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> Are you sure that the opposition from the ERG (Tory leavers) and the DUP (leavers) might not have something to do with the mess we're in? And if we're speaking of the people in charge, these have included, since the referendum, a Foreign Secretary leaver, and three successive DExEU secretaries; all leavers, the international trade secretary - a leaver - and I could go on with more leavers in positions of influence. I would concede that suggesting that anyone is 'in charge' might be stretching definitions beyond breaking point. 

May is in charge until she gets voted out. She decided on this deal against the recommendations of the leavers you mentioned.

> And furthermore, could it not be suggested that the mess we are in now has some roots in the complete lack of planning undertaken by every element of the Leave campaign at every stage. Blaming everything on remainers seems as delusional as the hapless May belief that she could win simply by repeatedly putting the same deal to a vote over and over again until she wins. 

Yes, leavers are responsible for the way we voted - and those who took us in are responsible for creating the situation in the first place.  That doesn’t make leavers, or the original joiners, responsible for every decision since.

Report
thomasadixon - on 14:09 Wed
In reply to wercat:

> Idiot! - Brexit has been run exclusively for the leavers with no thought for the almost as many people who voted Remain.  How can Remainers be to blame? 

Absolute bollocks.  This shit deal is designed as a compromise.

Report
Harry Jarvis - on 14:09 Wed
In reply to thomasadixon:

> I don’t think it would stand if the leave side had a chance to speak - as we did in the referendum.  You’ll recall the polls shifting during the campaign I’m sure.

Are you suggesting that the leave side is being hampered in any efforts to present its case? This seems a little odd to me - headlines in the Telegraph, Mail, Sun and Express all seem suitably unconstrained, Nigel Farage has a radio programme of his own, and there are ample opportunities for leave MPs to make their case - just this afternoon we've already had Mark Francois and the idiot Duncan-Smith making fools of themselves - sorry, asking questions in the House. Perhaps you could explain how the leave campaign is being silenced? Perhaps the lack of reporting on the Leave Means Leave March? 

Report
Harry Jarvis - on 14:11 Wed
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Yes, leavers are responsible for the way we voted -

And appear to have taken no responsibility for anything since the referendum. Hardly a promising route to the sunlit uplands. 

Report
Robert Durran - on 14:17 Wed
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Absolute bollocks.  This shit deal is designed as a compromise.

In what way is it in any way a compromise with remainers?

Report
jkarran - on 14:20 Wed
In reply to thomasadixon:

> You don’t have to use the word deluded to call me deluded!  Did you read my explanation?  Do you think I ought to declare your view rational and reasonable when I don’t think that?

So I didn't call you deluded, despite you clearly saying I did whereas you have suggested I am deluded and a liar. My irony meter's twitching a bit here Thomas.

> It’s just a poll, and it’s taken at a time when the prevailing media wind is pretty much all pushing one way.  I don’t find it particularly surprising, and I don’t think it would stand if the leave side had a chance to speak - as we did in the referendum.  You’ll recall the polls shifting during the campaign I’m sure.

Presented another way, it comes at a time when the public are becoming aware of the seriousness of the situation we've put ourselves in, that they aren't going to be getting what they thought brexit delivered. It is also one poll in hundreds that indicate the same trend over many months.

Still, 'the will of the people' is for brexit, right?

You berate me for my imagined motives, you say I only want a re-run of 2016 when I have over and over for the past two years on here and in writing to my MP explicitly stated that is exactly what we don't need, what we need is a choice between reality vs reality, we need informed public intervention to break parliamentary deadlock, not another re-run of reality vs fantasy. Yet here you seek to pretend despite clear evidence to the contrary that the public mood can't have shifted against brexit or that if it has then it hasn't really the polls are manipulated by the pollsters or the commissioners (leave commissioned polls fit the trend) or the media and either way, it should be ignored. https://pollofpolls.eu/GB/23/post-brexit-eu-membership-polls

jk

Report
Doug on 14:21 Wed
In reply to thomasadixon:

> ... May and co, you know the people in charge and making the decisions...

Is she making decisions ? And it doesn't look as if she's in charge, least of all of her own cabinet

Report
kevin stephens - on 14:26 Wed
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Absolute bollocks.  This shit deal is designed as a compromise.

its not a compromise at all. Hard Brexiteers fail to accept that the backstop is essential to avoid a hard border in Ireland. If you were able to accept a fence and customs post beteeen NI and Eire and ignore the Good Friday Peace Agreement your problem would be solved. Of course this would actually be  disaster and unacceptable. So that being so the only other options are a customs union or stay in, with the added benefit of protecting UK industry. Of course most English Brexit supporters don’t give a f*** about Ireland and can’t understand why the politicians don’t ignore it too and finish Brexit 

Report
Mike Stretford - on 14:34 Wed
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Absolute bollocks.  This shit deal is designed as a compromise.

Whaw! I'm actually suprisaed you think that.

May has chased the Brexiteer's fantasy from day one. At each juncture she's done what they wanted only to butt up against reality.

This deal is the result of that.

Report
thomasadixon - on 14:41 Wed
In reply to jkarran:

Misrepresenting me again, and while you tell me off for being rude!  I note that you’ve not responded re my explanation either.  I have not at all suggested that the polls are manipulated by anyone.

Report
thomasadixon - on 14:45 Wed
In reply to Mike Stretford:

She’s set up a deal which we cannot leave without the EUs consent, and you think leavers pushed for that!?

Report
kevin stephens - on 14:47 Wed
In reply to thomasadixon:

But that’s only because of Ireland!!! Read my post

Report
Sir Chasm - on 14:49 Wed
In reply to thomasadixon:

> She’s set up a deal which we cannot leave without the EUs consent, and you think leavers pushed for that!?

Leave what?

Report
jkarran - on 14:53 Wed
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Misrepresenting me again, and while you tell me off for being rude!  I note that you’ve not responded re my explanation either.  I have not at all suggested that the polls are manipulated by anyone.

I have no idea what you're talking about re. your explanation for the accusation nor which bit of what have I misrepresented now?

You said poll results vary with the question asked. The clear implication of course is results can be chosen by the questioner (indeed they can to a degree) and perhaps these strongly anti-brexit results were (appears not, sorry).

If I understand you correctly you think the polls are very bad for brexit of late because the leave case isn't being made or heard... do you live in a cave, they're running the country and the press! This is risible stuff.

I acknowledge another leave (probably 'no-deal') campaign will make a big dent in those numbers but it'll do so like in 2016 by dissembling, discrediting reputable sources, stoking divisions and pandering to people with contradictory fears, hopes and ideas.

jk

Post edited at 14:56
Report
thomasadixon - on 14:55 Wed
In reply to kevin stephens:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-theresa-may-northern-ireland-customs-union-a8234766.html%3famp

One Teresa May’s view on what would happen in NI if we voted leave.  The no hard border requirement is her invention, not an invention of leavers.

Report
Dave Garnett - on 15:00 Wed
In reply to thomasadixon:

> She’s set up a deal which we cannot leave without the EUs consent, and you think leavers pushed for that!?

The reality is that we signed one treaty that made us part of a single market and customs union.  We signed another that agreed there would be no physical border between the north and south of Ireland.  The government has an arrangement with the DUP (who represent a minority Leave faction in Ulster) who will not countenance any customs border between the north and mainland Britain.

Now people who were either ignorant or dishonest have promised we can end the first treaty, whilst continuing to be bound by both of our other obligations.  Quite obviously we can't.  Equally obviously, it isn't the EU's fault that some of us (many of whom should certainly know better) have somehow convinced ourselves otherwise.

Report
kevin stephens - on 15:01 Wed
In reply to thomasadixon:

not just her invention but that of the ERG, DUP and most of the whole Brexit movement

Report
thomasadixon - on 15:01 Wed
In reply to jkarran:

My explanation re deluded.  You seem to think it requires use of a specific word, it doesn’t it’s a concept and can be expressed using other words.  Do you really think I must think your view rational and reasonable?

You said I think polls have been manipulated when I didn’t suggest that at all, that’s the misrepresentation.

Report
thomasadixon - on 15:05 Wed
In reply to Sir Chasm:

The deal!  “A deal which we cannot leave”. Is basic reading beyond you?

Report
thomasadixon - on 15:08 Wed
In reply to kevin stephens:

If you really think the ERG, a group that want the EU to not have any say in our affairs, invented a requirement that we must be tied into the EU indefinitely then I won’t be convincing you otherwise.

Report
kevin stephens - on 15:10 Wed
In reply to thomasadixon:

No that's what I'm saying.  Its a willful ignorance of the need to have a hard border in Ireland and to bin the Good Friday Agreement.

Report
thomasadixon - on 15:10 Wed
In reply to Dave Garnett:

The GFA does not require no customs controls with the EU, and the DUP would accept no deal at all.

jk - you gonna have a go at Dave for calling me dishonest?

Post edited at 15:13
Report
thomasadixon - on 15:10 Wed
In reply to kevin stephens:

Don’t understand that, sorry.

Report
kevin stephens - on 15:17 Wed
In reply to thomasadixon:

I know, that's the problem

Report
thomasadixon - on 15:18 Wed
In reply to kevin stephens:

Lol.  Your words in the order you put them conveyed no meaning.

Report
jkarran - on 15:24 Wed
In reply to thomasadixon:

> My explanation re deluded.  You seem to think it requires use of a specific word, it doesn’t it’s a concept and can be expressed using other words.

You've made a demonstrably false claim: that I'd called you deluded now you're rowing back with this 'you think I'm deluded, it's implied' waffle. Ok: quote me implying you are delusional.

> Do you really think I must think your view rational and reasonable?

I don't much care either way, what you think is your business.

> You said I think polls have been manipulated when I didn’t suggest that at all, that’s the misrepresentation.

So you don't think polls are manipulated? Odd, I do, I didn't think that was controversial. Otherwise why would contemporaneous leave and remain commissioned polls fairly consistently show bias toward their commissioner's positions? I thought when you said:

> Polls shift by the day and the question.

you were indicating you understood that, indeed I thought you were highlighting it as a possible explanation for leave's very weak polling of late. My mistake apparently.

jk

Post edited at 15:25
Report
thomasadixon - on 15:45 Wed
In reply to jkarran:

> You've made a demonstrably false claim: that I'd called you deluded now you're rowing back with this 'you think I'm deluded, it's implied' waffle. Ok: quote me implying you are delusional.

11.42, 12.13, Monday.

> I don't much care either way, what you think is your business.

Okay...stop asking me to apologise then?

> So you don't think polls are manipulated? Odd, I do, I didn't think that was controversial.

No, I don’t think in general polls are manipulated.  Polling companies are businesses that care about their reputations.

Report
kevin stephens - on 15:47 Wed
In reply to thomasadixon:

So Thomas are you coming to the People's vote march on Saturday?  I'll buy you a pint

Report
Sir Chasm - on 15:53 Wed
In reply to thomasadixon:

> The deal!  “A deal which we cannot leave”. Is basic reading beyond you?

I was merely checking that you did mean the withdrawal agreement, arrived at courtesy of Mr Davis and Mr Raab.

Report
Harry Jarvis - on 16:02 Wed
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Do you mean the Mr Davis who once said:

"In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. So legislation should be debated by Members of Parliament on the Floor of the House, and then put to the electorate for the voters to judge."?

Wise fellow. 

Report
jkarran - on 16:03 Wed
In reply to thomasadixon:

> 11.42, 12.13, Monday.

11.42 Of course the irony of this position is that it's going to come back and bite you on the ass too soon enough, whether you see it coming or not. You'll inevitable find yourself squeezed outside the ever shrinking group of 'the people' whose interests brexit actually serves.

12:13: Still think you're winning? You 'the people' are about to get properly shafted like the rest of us. Expect very limited sympathy.

Neither of those imply you're delusional. I think you're complacent and in for a rude awakening, as is I think clearly implied in both of those posts.

> Okay...stop asking me to apologise then?

I don't care what you think, I do care about what you write about me in public. Again, the very important difference between ideas and actions appears curiously difficult to grasp.

> No, I don’t think in general polls are manipulated.  Polling companies are businesses that care about their reputations.

Businesses, yes. Who pays their bills?

jk

Report
thomasadixon - on 16:16 Wed
In reply to jkarran:

> Neither of those imply you're delusional. I think you're complacent and in for a rude awakening, as is I think clearly implied in both of those posts.

Yes, they do.  I won’t add anything further as you’ve said you’re not interested.

> I don't care what you think, I do care about what you write about me in public. Again, the very important difference between ideas and actions appears curiously difficult to grasp.

Cool, we’ll leave it there then.

> Businesses, yes. Who pays their bills?

Customers.  Poll companies don’t just do Brexit, there are other issues in life too.

Enjoy your day out.

Report
thomasadixon - on 16:17 Wed
In reply to kevin stephens:

I am in London...but at a kid’s bday party.  Why would I go?

Report
Mike Stretford - on 16:25 Wed
In reply to thomasadixon:

> She’s set up a deal which we cannot leave without the EUs consent, and you think leavers pushed for that!?

No I didn't say that. She's ended up with this deal by trying to pander to Brexiteers, which meant that everything up until last November was a waste of time. She was then told what she could have, which might eventually lead the her 'red lines' being met. By then we were already on borrowed time so there was no time for meaningful negotiation.

There was never any effort to compromise with those who voted remain, if you think that you haven't been paying attention.

Report
Dave Garnett - on 17:07 Wed
In reply to thomasadixon:

> The GFA does not require no customs controls with the EU, and the DUP would accept no deal at all.

The Good Friday Agreement promises cross-border co-operation between the UK and Ireland, and the removal of checks on the border was an important part of the process.  I know that Brexiteer magical thinking thinks that this can be accomplished without any border checks but frankly the EU doesn't believe it and can't allow a back door into the single market.  Therefore, in practice, any asymmetry in customs arrangements across the border reduces cross-border cooperation, contrary to the GFA.

Of course the DUP don't care if there's no deal.  However, in the interests of peace and in order to guarantee no reduced cross-border cooperation with the south, the EU is prepared (as a concession) to extend the customs union to include the north, which would require a customs border with mainland UK.  The DUP say they don't want a border with the south but know that the only way round it would be a customs border in the Irish Sea, which, of course, they won't accept.  Only they tend not to express it as clearly as this.  Obviously. 

Post edited at 17:08
Report

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.