Brexit

by **navyblueshorts** Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:51 pm

First topic message reminder :

Galted wrote:It will stop foreigners praying in our mosques.

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon Nov 05, 2018 8:27 am

Doesn't behave like an innocent man......Wouldn't let C4 interview him..

Probably the only decent news channel in the UK..

by Samo Mon Nov 05, 2018 1:55 pm

I believe he said “I’d rather put a gun to my head and pull the trigger than talk to C4 news”

You’d think an innocent man would take every avenue possible to prove his innocence. Or he’s scared of C4 because they would actually be prepared to call him out on his cowpat, unlike Marr’s half arsed attempts.

by Duty281 Mon Nov 05, 2018 2:38 pm

He doesn't have to 'prove his innocence', that's not how the justice system in this country works.

by SecretFly Mon Nov 05, 2018 2:48 pm

Duty281 wrote:He doesn't have to 'prove his innocence', that's not how the justice system in this country works.

But it's how the world intends it to work.................... it's probably called neo-socialism - ooh, sex-Y!.
Anti establishment thought crimes to be punishable by no trial and a bullet down some cavernous prison complex dedicated to 're-education' of political dissidents.

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon Nov 05, 2018 3:25 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Duty281 wrote:He doesn't have to 'prove his innocence', that's not how the justice system in this country works.

But it's how the world intends it to work.................... it's probably called neo-socialism - ooh, sex-Y!.
Anti establishment thought crimes to be punishable by no trial and a bullet down some cavernous prison complex dedicated to 're-education' of political dissidents.

Sex crimes as well? I don't see many people one here leaping to Weinstein's defence.

by SecretFly Mon Nov 05, 2018 3:33 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
Duty281 wrote:He doesn't have to 'prove his innocence', that's not how the justice system in this country works.

But it's how the world intends it to work.................... it's probably called neo-socialism - ooh, sex-Y!.
Anti establishment thought crimes to be punishable by no trial and a bullet down some cavernous prison complex dedicated to 're-education' of political dissidents.

Sex crimes as well? I don't see many people one here leaping to Weinstein's defence.

Oh I hope there are a LOT of sex crimes punished - yes indeedy...even by the older more traditional unsexy 'far-right' type of government. Oh I do so wish..............

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon Nov 05, 2018 4:16 pm

SecretFly wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
Duty281 wrote:He doesn't have to 'prove his innocence', that's not how the justice system in this country works.

But it's how the world intends it to work.................... it's probably called neo-socialism - ooh, sex-Y!.
Anti establishment thought crimes to be punishable by no trial and a bullet down some cavernous prison complex dedicated to 're-education' of political dissidents.

Sex crimes as well? I don't see many people one here leaping to Weinstein's defence.

Oh I hope there are a LOT of sex crimes punished - yes indeedy...even by the older more traditional unsexy 'far-right' type of government. Oh I do so wish..............

Yeah - but unless they are convicted, then obviously they are all innocent.

by **Pr4wn** Mon Nov 05, 2018 8:52 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
Duty281 wrote:He doesn't have to 'prove his innocence', that's not how the justice system in this country works.

But it's how the world intends it to work.................... it's probably called neo-socialism - ooh, sex-Y!.
Anti establishment thought crimes to be punishable by no trial and a bullet down some cavernous prison complex dedicated to 're-education' of political dissidents.

Sex crimes as well? I don't see many people one here leaping to Weinstein's defence.

Oh I hope there are a LOT of sex crimes punished - yes indeedy...even by the older more traditional unsexy 'far-right' type of government. Oh I do so wish..............

Yeah - but unless they are convicted, then obviously they are all innocent.

FACT.

by Samo Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:59 am

The largest poll conducted since the referendum shows Remain at 54% (out of 20000 polled) source: Survation.

by **navyblueshorts** Tue Nov 06, 2018 4:30 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
Duty281 wrote:He doesn't have to 'prove his innocence', that's not how the justice system in this country works.

But it's how the world intends it to work.................... it's probably called neo-socialism - ooh, sex-Y!.
Anti establishment thought crimes to be punishable by no trial and a bullet down some cavernous prison complex dedicated to 're-education' of political dissidents.

Sex crimes as well? I don't see many people one here leaping to Weinstein's defence.

Yep. I would, until and unless he's convicted. Otherwise it's just hearsay and rumour.

by **navyblueshorts** Tue Nov 06, 2018 4:32 am

Samo wrote:The largest poll conducted since the referendum shows Remain at 54% (out of 20000 polled) source: Survation.

And?

by Duty281 Tue Nov 06, 2018 4:39 am

Samo wrote:The largest poll conducted since the referendum shows Remain at 54% (out of 20000 polled) source: Survation.

Indeed, asking an outdated and irrelevant question - as the 2016 referendum won't be rerun, and even if it were to be rerun, people would take into consideration the previous result. Farage also made a good point that the Leave side have stopped campaigning, whilst Remain have never ceased. So, even if this 54% figure were accurate and we were heading for another referendum (which there isn't enough time for), the numbers would soon slide towards Leave once Leave start campaigning again (just like last time, when Ipsos Mori laughably claimed Remain were ahead by 19% before campaigning properly began).

Furthermore, it's not even 54% Remain, it's 49%, once you take into account the undecideds (who are crucial).

The most interesting thing from the poll was that, in the event of no-deal, 36% think we should leave, 35% think we should stay. 19% think departure should be delayed. Not the greatest of appetite's for a 'people's vote'.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:04 am

We all know only 16% want to Remain. Duty told us.

by Duty281 Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:25 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:We all know only 16% want to Remain. Duty told us.

According to a BMG poll (which I posted the link to, and which you are quite free to look at). Quite easy to understand, really: most people respect the decision taken on the 23rd June 2016 and want to move ahead with it.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:46 am

navyblueshorts wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
Duty281 wrote:He doesn't have to 'prove his innocence', that's not how the justice system in this country works.

But it's how the world intends it to work.................... it's probably called neo-socialism - ooh, sex-Y!.
Anti establishment thought crimes to be punishable by no trial and a bullet down some cavernous prison complex dedicated to 're-education' of political dissidents.

Sex crimes as well? I don't see many people one here leaping to Weinstein's defence.
Yep. I would, until and unless he's convicted. Otherwise it's just hearsay and rumour.

So would Arron Banks

by **Pr4wn** Tue Nov 06, 2018 6:25 am

Duty281 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:We all know only 16% want to Remain. Duty told us.

According to a BMG poll (which I posted the link to, and which you are quite free to look at). Quite easy to understand, really: most people respect the decision taken on the 23rd June 2016 and want to move ahead with it.

This link:https://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/huffpost-bmg-labour-conference-polling-results-part-1-2/

And to quote Julius:

"Would that link include this paragraph?
"One might view the fact that only 16% selected remaining in the EU on our current terms as a headline in itself. However, readers should be cautious when interpreting this figure. We certainly cannot conclude that only 16% of voters would now back remaining in the EU in an in-out scenario. This is not the question that was put to respondents of this poll."

Obviously, you should have put the link in your original post in order that people would be aware of the silly spin you put on it. Although, to be fair we assumed it, as you put silly spin on a lot of things.

It also says "In fact BMG polling has actually shown a narrow lead for remaining in the EU over recent months, with little evidence that many voters on either side of the debate have changed their mind since 2016."

But you, of course, seek to mislead - an approach that is "utter sh*te".

by Duty281 Tue Nov 06, 2018 6:36 am

I’m not misleading at all, I posted the link in the original post and the headline data. Thank you for pointing out, however, that BMG also agree that few voters have changed their mind re: the 2016 question.

by **Pr4wn** Tue Nov 06, 2018 6:36 am

Oh, it's just that you didn't respond after getting called out on your BS. Was just making sure you'd seen it.

by Duty281 Tue Nov 06, 2018 6:39 am

Those delicious tears. No BS, only actual polls and evidence.

by **Pr4wn** Tue Nov 06, 2018 6:54 am

You keep referring back to the tears when you get found out, my guy. Doesn't look good, you know?

And it was a poll that was completely devoid of context for the point you were making. You know that though, you're just trying to gaslight, just like you've been gaslighted yourself, hence you still believing in the Cult of Brexit.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue Nov 06, 2018 7:14 am

Duty281 wrote:I posted the link in the original post

No you didn't, iirc. Can't be bothered to check though.

by Duty281 Tue Nov 06, 2018 9:15 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Duty281 wrote:I posted the link in the original post

No you didn't, iirc. Can't be bothered to check though.

I did, you responded with a quote from that which I linked to.

by Duty281 Tue Nov 06, 2018 9:17 am

Pr4wn wrote:You keep referring back to the tears when you get found out, my guy. Doesn't look good, you know?

And it was a poll that was completely devoid of context for the point you were making. You know that though, you're just trying to gaslight, just like you've been gaslighted yourself, hence you still believing in the Cult of Brexit.

More tedious drivel. I haven't been 'found out'. The majority of people voted to Leave, the majority of people still want to Leave.

Keep with the tears, though, they're excellent.

by **Pr4wn** Tue Nov 06, 2018 9:19 am

Keep with the gaslighting, chump. There is absolutely no way you can prove that statement and you know it.

Or maybe you're just trolling, I don't know.

by Duty281 Tue Nov 06, 2018 9:28 am

Pr4wn wrote:Keep with the gaslighting, chump. There is absolutely no way you can prove that statement and you know it.

Or maybe you're just trolling, I don't know.

Well...there's the small matter of the poll of 33 million on the 23rd June 2016, And decades of research on the UK's attitude towards the EU. And follow-up research post-referendum. All that stuff. Could be quite important, that.

by **Pr4wn** Tue Nov 06, 2018 9:29 am

"The majority of people still want to leave"

There is no way you can prove that. You're gaslighting. You know what that means, don't you?

by Duty281 Tue Nov 06, 2018 9:41 am

Yes, it means you need to dip into a thesaurus and find an alternative word! As explained numerous times, though: I've supported 'Brexit' since before the referendum was announced and I intensely disliked the official Leave campaign. I'm not the greatest fan of Leave.EU either (And never have been). You seem to operate under the assumption that Boris (who I also dislike) and chums tricked me into voting for something, and now I'm too embarrassed to admit it wasn't the sensible thing to do - nothing could be further from the truth.

The majority of people still want to Leave, as proven by the 2016 referendum, the 2017 General Election and further research. You can accept that reality or not, it makes no odds or difference to the situation.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue Nov 06, 2018 10:01 am

I don't doubt your current or historical position, but I don't understand why you a) sometimes attempt to mislead (unless it's just for a laugh), b) assume, without evidence either way, that the vast majority of other Leave voters feel the same as you.

There is also a big difference between a majority of people wanting to leave, if given another identical referendum (which won't and shouldn't happen, but which may yield a different result if it did), and a majority of people accepting that we have to leave, given the previous referendum. I don't want to leave, but I accept that we have to - you would spin that into a statistic that shows me wanting to leave, which is deliberately misleading.

by **Pr4wn** Tue Nov 06, 2018 10:36 am

Julius, there's no point. Apparently a referendum two years ago, a GE in which the only pro-leave party didn't win a single seat and the somewhat pro-leave government lost its majority and "further research" - whatever that means - are concrete proof that the majority of people want to leave the EU.

It's gaslighting, pure and simple. Sorry to keep using that word but it is what it is.

by Duty281 Tue Nov 06, 2018 11:26 am

Pr4wn wrote:Julius, there's no point. Apparently a referendum two years ago, a GE in which the only pro-leave party didn't win a single seat and the somewhat pro-leave government lost its majority and "further research" - whatever that means - are concrete proof that the majority of people want to leave the EU.

It's gaslighting, pure and simple. Sorry to keep using that word but it is what it is.

85%+ of votes went to parties who pledged to honour the referendum result, in leaving the European Union in its entirety.

I have posted numerous times about the further research which underlines this, and it's all out there for you to look at. You can start with 'Brexit: Why Britain Voted to Leave the European Union' by Clarke and Whiteley and Goodwin.

by Duty281 Tue Nov 06, 2018 11:37 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:I don't doubt your current or historical position, but I don't understand why you a) sometimes attempt to mislead (unless it's just for a laugh), b) assume, without evidence either way, that the vast majority of other Leave voters feel the same as you.

There is also a big difference between a majority of people wanting to leave, if given another identical referendum (which won't and shouldn't happen, but which may yield a different result if it did), and a majority of people accepting that we have to leave, given the previous referendum. I don't want to leave, but I accept that we have to - you would spin that into a statistic that shows me wanting to leave, which is deliberately misleading.

a) I'm sorry if you feel that way and I shall make an effort to be more accurate in future.

b) Unsure what this refers to. The main two reasons for voting to Leave were to regain supremacy of law-making power and to have greater control over immigration - this is shown by post-referendum polling conducted by Lord Ashcroft (12,000 or so Leave voters), YouGov and Kantar (summarised neatly below). My main reason was the first of those.

http://csi.nuff.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Carl_Reasons_Voting.pdf

You accepting that we have to Leave, even though that wasn't your original choice, is very important in the context of a proposed 'People's Vote'. That's why I dispute the findings of Survation's poll yesterday - that asked if the referendum was re-run, what would you do? That is a null and void question.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue Nov 06, 2018 11:50 am

For b) my belief is that plenty of people were fooled by the misinformation provided by various Leave campaigners, even if you weren't. Of course, that could also be true for Remainers/Remain Campaigners, and we'll never know the number involved in either case.

You dispute the findings or the question?
If, for example, it was 99% instead of 54%, would that still make it null and void (i.e. a pointless poll) or is it that 54% is too low a percentage to take any action based on it?

I think maybe humans are by nature isolationists - perhaps this goes back to having to protect your turf back in the hunter/gatherer days. But that has also led to millennia of war, and only by overcoming that can we move forward as a species. However, I doubt that we will, and I actually see the world turning into a worse place, and the Leave vote was an example of that imho. So if I do have tears, they're not for me, they're for everyone.

by Sin é Wed Nov 07, 2018 9:38 am

Duty281 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:I don't doubt your current or historical position, but I don't understand why you a) sometimes attempt to mislead (unless it's just for a laugh), b) assume, without evidence either way, that the vast majority of other Leave voters feel the same as you.

There is also a big difference between a majority of people wanting to leave, if given another identical referendum (which won't and shouldn't happen, but which may yield a different result if it did), and a majority of people accepting that we have to leave, given the previous referendum. I don't want to leave, but I accept that we have to - you would spin that into a statistic that shows me wanting to leave, which is deliberately misleading.

a) I'm sorry if you feel that way and I shall make an effort to be more accurate in future.

b) Unsure what this refers to. The main two reasons for voting to Leave were to regain supremacy of law-making power and to have greater control over immigration - this is shown by post-referendum polling conducted by Lord Ashcroft (12,000 or so Leave voters), YouGov and Kantar (summarised neatly below). My main reason was the first of those.

http://csi.nuff.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Carl_Reasons_Voting.pdf

You accepting that we have to Leave, even though that wasn't your original choice, is very important in the context of a proposed 'People's Vote'. That's why I dispute the findings of Survation's poll yesterday - that asked if the referendum was re-run, what would you do? That is a null and void question.

So Duty, what should be done with the British border in Ireland?

On the lawmaking power, whats your beef with who makes those laws - are there some you don't agree with?

by Samo Wed Nov 07, 2018 9:59 am

Sin é wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:I don't doubt your current or historical position, but I don't understand why you a) sometimes attempt to mislead (unless it's just for a laugh), b) assume, without evidence either way, that the vast majority of other Leave voters feel the same as you.

There is also a big difference between a majority of people wanting to leave, if given another identical referendum (which won't and shouldn't happen, but which may yield a different result if it did), and a majority of people accepting that we have to leave, given the previous referendum. I don't want to leave, but I accept that we have to - you would spin that into a statistic that shows me wanting to leave, which is deliberately misleading.

a) I'm sorry if you feel that way and I shall make an effort to be more accurate in future.

b) Unsure what this refers to. The main two reasons for voting to Leave were to regain supremacy of law-making power and to have greater control over immigration - this is shown by post-referendum polling conducted by Lord Ashcroft (12,000 or so Leave voters), YouGov and Kantar (summarised neatly below). My main reason was the first of those.

http://csi.nuff.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Carl_Reasons_Voting.pdf

You accepting that we have to Leave, even though that wasn't your original choice, is very important in the context of a proposed 'People's Vote'. That's why I dispute the findings of Survation's poll yesterday - that asked if the referendum was re-run, what would you do? That is a null and void question.

So Duty, what should be done with the British border in Ireland?

On the lawmaking power, whats your beef with who makes those laws - are there some you don't agree with?

Oh! I know these ones. The answer to the border is technology (which hasnt been invented yet) and he doesnt like not having supremacy of law (despite the UK having a major role in former EU law) and his "Smoking Gun" law he doesnt like is the European Arrest Warrant.

by Duty281 Wed Nov 07, 2018 10:05 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:For b) my belief is that plenty of people were fooled by the misinformation provided by various Leave campaigners, even if you weren't. Of course, that could also be true for Remainers/Remain Campaigners, and we'll never know the number involved in either case.

You dispute the findings or the question?
If, for example, it was 99% instead of 54%, would that still make it null and void (i.e. a pointless poll) or is it that 54% is too low a percentage to take any action based on it?

I think maybe humans are by nature isolationists - perhaps this goes back to having to protect your turf back in the hunter/gatherer days. But that has also led to millennia of war, and only by overcoming that can we move forward as a species. However, I doubt that we will, and I actually see the world turning into a worse place, and the Leave vote was an example of that imho. So if I do have tears, they're not for me, they're for everyone.

I dispute the question asked of the Survation poll as it asked something outdated. Nothing can be done, in my opinion, until the results of the initial referendum in 2016 have been implemented. There after, it is of course fair game and completely democratic for groups/parties/people to advocate for a vote to rejoin.

I'm not an isolationist, I merely disagree with how the EU is run and its direction of travel. And I feel the world is a far better place than it was 40/50/60 years ago.

by Duty281 Wed Nov 07, 2018 10:08 am

Sin é wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:I don't doubt your current or historical position, but I don't understand why you a) sometimes attempt to mislead (unless it's just for a laugh), b) assume, without evidence either way, that the vast majority of other Leave voters feel the same as you.

There is also a big difference between a majority of people wanting to leave, if given another identical referendum (which won't and shouldn't happen, but which may yield a different result if it did), and a majority of people accepting that we have to leave, given the previous referendum. I don't want to leave, but I accept that we have to - you would spin that into a statistic that shows me wanting to leave, which is deliberately misleading.

a) I'm sorry if you feel that way and I shall make an effort to be more accurate in future.

b) Unsure what this refers to. The main two reasons for voting to Leave were to regain supremacy of law-making power and to have greater control over immigration - this is shown by post-referendum polling conducted by Lord Ashcroft (12,000 or so Leave voters), YouGov and Kantar (summarised neatly below). My main reason was the first of those.

http://csi.nuff.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Carl_Reasons_Voting.pdf

You accepting that we have to Leave, even though that wasn't your original choice, is very important in the context of a proposed 'People's Vote'. That's why I dispute the findings of Survation's poll yesterday - that asked if the referendum was re-run, what would you do? That is a null and void question.

So Duty, what should be done with the British border in Ireland?

On the lawmaking power, whats your beef with who makes those laws - are there some you don't agree with?

Keep the common travel area.

Unhappy with the general law-making process of the EU, from its overly bureaucratic nature to the unaccountability of its Commissioners. I support a far more localised system, with regular outbursts (if you like) of direct democracy, of referenda.

And I utterly despise the European Arrest Warrant.

by Duty281 Wed Nov 07, 2018 10:12 am

Samo wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:I don't doubt your current or historical position, but I don't understand why you a) sometimes attempt to mislead (unless it's just for a laugh), b) assume, without evidence either way, that the vast majority of other Leave voters feel the same as you.

There is also a big difference between a majority of people wanting to leave, if given another identical referendum (which won't and shouldn't happen, but which may yield a different result if it did), and a majority of people accepting that we have to leave, given the previous referendum. I don't want to leave, but I accept that we have to - you would spin that into a statistic that shows me wanting to leave, which is deliberately misleading.

a) I'm sorry if you feel that way and I shall make an effort to be more accurate in future.

b) Unsure what this refers to. The main two reasons for voting to Leave were to regain supremacy of law-making power and to have greater control over immigration - this is shown by post-referendum polling conducted by Lord Ashcroft (12,000 or so Leave voters), YouGov and Kantar (summarised neatly below). My main reason was the first of those.

http://csi.nuff.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Carl_Reasons_Voting.pdf

You accepting that we have to Leave, even though that wasn't your original choice, is very important in the context of a proposed 'People's Vote'. That's why I dispute the findings of Survation's poll yesterday - that asked if the referendum was re-run, what would you do? That is a null and void question.

So Duty, what should be done with the British border in Ireland?

On the lawmaking power, whats your beef with who makes those laws - are there some you don't agree with?

Oh! I know these ones. The answer to the border is technology (which hasnt been invented yet) and he doesnt like not having supremacy of law (despite the UK having a major role in former EU law) and his "Smoking Gun" law he doesnt like is the European Arrest Warrant.

What on earth are you blathering about? If you want to know what fantastic technology can be used at borders, look at Norway (it certainly has been invented, unless I hopped into a time machine recently). Singapore has also introduced some superb advancements.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41412561
http://fintechnews.sg/19677/blockchain/blockchain-based-e-certificate-of-origin-singapore-chamber-of-commerce

by Samo Wed Nov 07, 2018 10:36 am

Norway is in the Single Market (which we're leaving) and a member of Schengen (which we're not). No single market = hard border. Technology cant solve that.

The Singapore E-Certificate wouldnt remove the need for customs checks, infact it relies on one. Its just a sugar-coated way of replacing paper with tablets. It also doesnt cover the fact that the Irish border covers farms, streets, homes and churches, so as a means of monitoring the border its already redundant.

Also

Duty281 wrote:

Unhappy with the general law-making process of the EU, from its overly bureaucratic nature to the unaccountability of its Commissioners. I support a far more localised system, with regular outbursts (if you like) of direct democracy, of referenda.

And I utterly despise the European Arrest Warrant.

Called it, aaaand called it.

by Duty281 Wed Nov 07, 2018 10:40 am

Eire isn't a member of Schengen, which is why we're not having a hard border and keeping the common travel area.

by Samo Wed Nov 07, 2018 10:45 am

Duty281 wrote:Eire isn't a member of Schengen, which is why we're not having a hard border and keeping the common travel area.

You cant keep a common travel area without being a member of the CU or SM, even if we joined Schengen to allow limited FoM there would still need to be border controls.

by Duty281 Wed Nov 07, 2018 11:39 am

Of course you can keep the common travel area, which predates CU and SM membership. Certain non-EU countries (e.g. South Africa) already have different visa requirements with Eire than they do with the UK, and no one complains about that in keeping with the common travel area.

This is all old hat, anyway. Read the below paper from the European Parliament to see how there is no need for a hard border between the UK and ROI.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596828/IPOL_STU(2017)596828_EN.pdf

-------

https://www.606v2.com/viewtopic.forum?t=68180

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu Nov 15, 2018 11:39 am

Fernando wrote:Prime Minister Theresa May will hold a news conference at 5pm

To be completed at 5.30 by ex-Prime Minister Theresa May

by Sponsored content