We need a 2nd referendum 'final say' and to 'break impasse'
#11
(07-26-2019, 02:35 PM)GMBaggie Wrote:
(07-26-2019, 02:18 PM)baggy1 Wrote:
(07-26-2019, 02:16 PM)GMBaggie Wrote:
(07-26-2019, 01:59 PM)baggy1 Wrote: Not missing the point at all - there are some that will find reason to leave or remain and always vote that way. The reality is that a 2nd leave result would break the impasse because the vast majority of the MPs and the country would accept that is what is wanted. There was so much bullshit spread by the leave campaign it means there will always be a big doubt that people knew what they were voting for.

The 2nd referendum would be better informed, or are you saying that people know less now that they did at the time. That really is a strange argument you put forward.

Just type Boris and 2050 into google - here to help.

And if it helps there is a whole thread (at least one) on the subject where you can post of 'tangible' or otherwise benefits of leaving - knock yourself out.

So much bullshit spread by the leave campaign.


Irony at its finest.

I take it that your argument is that there was bullshit on both parts - surely then that would point to needing a 2nd referendum where everyone has had time to understand the reality of it all.
And the same should apply to a general election as there is bullshit all round then as well.
It does? That's why we keep having them
Reply
#12
(07-26-2019, 02:39 PM)ChamonixBaggie Wrote:
(07-26-2019, 02:35 PM)GMBaggie Wrote:
(07-26-2019, 02:18 PM)baggy1 Wrote:
(07-26-2019, 02:16 PM)GMBaggie Wrote:
(07-26-2019, 01:59 PM)baggy1 Wrote: Not missing the point at all - there are some that will find reason to leave or remain and always vote that way. The reality is that a 2nd leave result would break the impasse because the vast majority of the MPs and the country would accept that is what is wanted. There was so much bullshit spread by the leave campaign it means there will always be a big doubt that people knew what they were voting for.

The 2nd referendum would be better informed, or are you saying that people know less now that they did at the time. That really is a strange argument you put forward.

Just type Boris and 2050 into google - here to help.

And if it helps there is a whole thread (at least one) on the subject where you can post of 'tangible' or otherwise benefits of leaving - knock yourself out.

So much bullshit spread by the leave campaign.


Irony at its finest.

I take it that your argument is that there was bullshit on both parts - surely then that would point to needing a 2nd referendum where everyone has had time to understand the reality of it all.
And the same should apply to a general election as there is bullshit all round then as well.
It does? That's why we keep having them

From reading the posts on here it appears that GM either agrees that there should be a 2nd referendum or that once you've cast your vote that's it for ever, I can't quite work it out.
Reply
#13
(07-26-2019, 12:51 PM)Paul Williams\s Penalty Wrote: Remainers adduce the above arguments in their clamour for a 2nd referendum. I have always suspected that if the result in a second referendum was again a leave verdict that it wouldn't break the impasse because the remain diehard MPs still wouldn't vote in any way for Brexit to go ahead.

I doubt that's true: certainly there would still - and always - be some MPs who would vote to prevent implementation; but I suspect it wouldn't be many if a second referendum had again voted to leave.

I do also think that leavers need to draw the distinction between remainers accepting the result of the referendum and becoming persuaded that Brexit is going to have a happy outcome. I've personally never argued for a second vote, although I think the possibility becomes more likely the further away we get from June 2016; but accepting the outcome is never going to soften my underlying opinion. During the campaign, on the day of the vote, and for every single day since, my view hasn't altered - in fact, if anything it's hardened! Leaving was, is, and will continue to be a thoroughly stupid proposition, and I'm not about to revise that just to satisfy some apparent need for conformity.
Reply
#14
Very good post PWP. Well reasoned, with good objective points raised, using calm and civil language. However, I think, as you have found from the following posts, calm,  reasoned and well made post cut no ice with some of those who hold an opposing view and they have to descend into either personal attacks on the poster or their pet hate politicians. Or  delve into ridiculous Reductio ad Absurdum and deliberately taking similes, metaphors or examples literally. Take your use of just two M.P.s as an example of, as we all know, the majority of M.P.s who refuse to accept the will of the majority of electorate or allow the threat of ‘No deal’ in negotiations with the EU. Thus ensuring the U.K. negotiators are Hogtied. The response you got was “a couple of MPs wouldn’t stop the U.K. leaving”. If a second referendum gave the same result why would the “ vast majority” of MPs vote it through. They haven’t done so for the last referendum and many have voiced that they would never do so. As usual, public domain statements and Hansard records are ignored to try and defeat reasoned argument.
Then we regularly get “the second referendum would be better informed” yes informed by a further three years of ‘Project Fear’. “People were lied to by the side of a bus”. Again, another example of those that argued for remain being either deliberately or pathologically obtuse as the “side of the bus” did not say the whole of the amount we pay would go to the N.H.S. I have listed a couple of times the countless expert ‘predictions’, designed and uttered solely to frighten the populace, and asked why they did not come to fruition but have had no answer. Yet the agonised scribbling we are subject to because they have no one reply to their, “give me one benefit” requests!

I typed Boris 2050 into Google and did get a result.  “Our United Kingdom of 2050 will no longer make any contribution whatsoever to the destruction of our precious planet brought about by carbon emissions – because we will have led the world in delivering that net zero target.” and   “ The United Kingdom could be the most prosperous economy in Europe by 2050.”  So, not about how long it will take for Britain to begin to benefit at all.       “Here to help” (sic)   Here to correct.  Still again, let’s ignore the actual words and meaning and put our own populist negative spin on it. And they deride Trump for doing that very thing.
Again PWP, nice to see a good post on the subject without bile, aggression or insults.
Reply
#15
The described bile, aggression and or insults are a defence mechanism built in to avoid answering questions I find. It gets frustrating when remainers agree that the referendum was based on a load of bullshit but should still stand to make the worst decision of our lifetimes. That frustration may come across as aggressive and insulting but it is simply frustration when there really has been no answer to the question of how we be better placed after we have left.

Boris 2050 - "By 2050 it is more than possible that the United Kingdom will be the greatest and most prosperous economy in Europe – at the center of a new network of trade deals that we have pioneered." Obviously you needed a bit more help than I initially gave.

I'll ask a couple of civil questions -
Do you think that the referendum gave everyone a clear view of Brexit and how it would be?
and
Do you think we are better placed as a country to make a more informed decision now?
Reply
#16
(07-26-2019, 04:12 PM)baggy1 Wrote: The described bile, aggression and or insults are a defence mechanism built in to avoid answering questions I find. It gets frustrating when remainers agree that the referendum was based on a load of bullshit but should still stand to make the worst decision of our lifetimes. That frustration may come across as aggressive and insulting but it is simply frustration when there really has been no answer to the question of how we be better placed after we have left.

Boris 2050 - "By 2050 it is more than possible that the United Kingdom will be the greatest and most prosperous economy in Europe – at the center of a new network of trade deals that we have pioneered." Obviously you needed a bit more help than I initially gave.

I'll ask a couple of civil questions -
Do you think that the referendum gave everyone a clear view of Brexit and how it would be?
and
Do you think we are better placed as a country to make a more informed decision now?
1, So you admit you and fellow remainers use bile, aggression and insults and avoid answering questions whilst expecting answers to theirs?

2, You know full well you were inferring that it would take thirty years for benefits to begin to come through. The very point I was making. (i.e. deliberately twisting the meaning of what was actually said) The word used was by. To get to the point of being “The greatest and most prosperous” clearly improvement must begin before then.  Obviously you clearly need me to correct your obtuseness more than I initially thought.

3, No,

3, No.
Reply
#17
(07-26-2019, 05:26 PM)John Osborne’s Knuckle Wrote:
(07-26-2019, 04:12 PM)baggy1 Wrote: The described bile, aggression and or insults are a defence mechanism built in to avoid answering questions I find. It gets frustrating when remainers agree that the referendum was based on a load of bullshit but should still stand to make the worst decision of our lifetimes. That frustration may come across as aggressive and insulting but it is simply frustration when there really has been no answer to the question of how we be better placed after we have left.

Boris 2050 - "By 2050 it is more than possible that the United Kingdom will be the greatest and most prosperous economy in Europe – at the center of a new network of trade deals that we have pioneered." Obviously you needed a bit more help than I initially gave.

I'll ask a couple of civil questions -
Do you think that the referendum gave everyone a clear view of Brexit and how it would be?
and
Do you think we are better placed as a country to make a more informed decision now?
1, So you admit you and fellow remainers use bile, aggression and insults and avoid answering questions whilst expecting answers to theirs?

2, You know full well you were inferring that it would take thirty years for benefits to begin to come through. The very point I was making. (i.e. deliberately twisting the meaning of what was actually said) The word used was by. To get to the point of being “The greatest and most prosperous” clearly improvement must begin before then.  Obviously you clearly need me to correct your obtuseness more than I initially thought.

3, No,

3, No.

1. I admit that you see it as those things when in fact it's frustration at not getting a straight and honest answer (see the 2nd 3 in your list which I'm guessing means 4 for an example.)

2. It would be good if he could outline when it will start to get better rather than give a date so far in the future then. And i'm not certain why we need to be the greatest when economically compared with the rest of the world things weren't that bad before. This is a bit like Seals expecting to be winning the Champions League.

3. I agree

4. Bullshit, you know full well we are better informed now. Unfortunately that information points in the opposite direction to where you want to go.
Reply
#18
(07-26-2019, 04:00 PM)John Osborne’s Knuckle Wrote: Very good post PWP. Well reasoned, with good objective points raised, using calm and civil language. However, I think, as you have found from the following posts, calm,  reasoned and well made post cut no ice with some of those who hold an opposing view and they have to descend into either personal attacks on the poster or their pet hate politicians. Or  delve into ridiculous Reductio ad Absurdum and deliberately taking similes, metaphors or examples literally. Take your use of just two M.P.s as an example of, as we all know, the majority of M.P.s who refuse to accept the will of the majority of electorate or allow the threat of ‘No deal’ in negotiations with the EU. Thus ensuring the U.K. negotiators are Hogtied. The response you got was “a couple of MPs wouldn’t stop the U.K. leaving”. If a second referendum gave the same result why would the “ vast majority” of MPs vote it through. They haven’t done so for the last referendum and many have voiced that they would never do so. As usual, public domain statements and Hansard records are ignored to try and defeat reasoned argument.
Then we regularly get “the second referendum would be better informed” yes informed by a further three years of ‘Project Fear’. “People were lied to by the side of a bus”. Again, another example of those that argued for remain being either deliberately or pathologically obtuse as the “side of the bus” did not say the whole of the amount we pay would go to the N.H.S. I have listed a couple of times the countless expert ‘predictions’, designed and uttered solely to frighten the populace, and asked why they did not come to fruition but have had no answer. Yet the agonised scribbling we are subject to because they have no one reply to their, “give me one benefit” requests!

I typed Boris 2050 into Google and did get a result.  “Our United Kingdom of 2050 will no longer make any contribution whatsoever to the destruction of our precious planet brought about by carbon emissions – because we will have led the world in delivering that net zero target.” and   “ The United Kingdom could be the most prosperous economy in Europe by 2050.”  So, not about how long it will take for Britain to begin to benefit at all.       “Here to help” (sic)   Here to correct.  Still again, let’s ignore the actual words and meaning and put our own populist negative spin on it. And they deride Trump for doing that very thing.
Again PWP, nice to see a good post on the subject without bile, aggression or insults.

Well said that man.
Reply
#19
Really? Aggression, bile and insults? Yes of course this is simply a trait of those on the remain side of the debate. You won’t read nasty comments, silly GB, US and weirdly Israel emoji’s used on platforms such as Twitter before the account holder delivers well thought out, polite comments.

The subject divides people and people are all different, some will use diplomatic language some won’t. Here are two good examples Boris Johnson and Jacob Reece Mogg. Same shit different approach.

On the subject of a second referendum how come it’s only those who have been ‘persuaded’ for obviously altruistic reasons to now go along with leaving without a deal can change their mind in Parliament but the general public cannot be trusted to now, but it could then? Oh and almost every fervent leading Brexiteer MP and MEP said they would continue to campaign to leave and not accept the vote, again for completely altruistic reasons.

In short worra load of bollocks!
Reply
#20
FWIW. I don't know anyone at all that would change their vote should there be another referendum. Therein lies much of the problem, inasmuch as, no one is working towards the best solution.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)