Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[Johnny Bognor]

No Les. Nobody's saying you abandoned your principles. Quite the opposite in fact. You voted for a party that is perfectly aligned with your principles. No shame in that whatsoever pal.

 

Wes voted ukip once and you're making a big deal out of it, whilst you lefties not only voted for an illegal war in Iraq, but returned the war mongerors to power. Millions of innocent lives on your hands.... well done, I hope your proud.

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

Wes voted ukip once and you're making a big deal out of it, whilst you lefties not only voted for an illegal war in Iraq, but returned the war mongerors to power. Millions of innocent lives on your hands.... well done, I hope your proud.

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

Blood on my hands

 

Another characteristically mindbending, thick-as-pigs**t non sequitur there, baldrick.

 

I'm not making a big deal of it. I'm just telling Les that he can look at himself in the mirror and be proud that he voted according to his principles.

 

For your information, I didn't vote in the 2001 GE and the decision to go to war had broad cross-party support. Don't let that get in the way of your lily-livered melodrama, though. Crack on pal.

Edited 3 December, 2016 by shurlock

[buctootim]

Anti-democrats like Blair, Major and buctootim should hang their heads in shame.

 

Two PMs and me bracketed together. My mum would be so proud.

[Plastic]

I voted tactically, that was the fact. You put your own little twist on it if it makes you feel better in yourself. You haven't told me how I abandoned my principles. Pray, do tell. Or are you going to wriggle out of that too?

 

Oh dear. Let me put it another way.

The statement below constitutes a logical contradiction:

 

"I voted for UKIP. My vote did not support UKIP."

 

To your principles, that I suppose I must concede. I had assumed that you were opposed to their ideology, due to you mentioning that your vote was tactical. However I now see this is not the case, and that you align quite comfortably.

Edited 3 December, 2016 by Plastic

[Wes Tender]

Oh dear. Let me put it another way.

The statement below constitutes a logical contradiction:

 

"I voted for UKIP. My vote did not support UKIP."

 

To your principles, that I suppose I must concede. I had assumed that you were opposed to their ideology, due to you mentioning that your vote was tactical. However I now see this is not the case, and that you align quite comfortably.

 

You and Shatlock seem to be experiencing considerable difficulty in understanding these quite simple concepts of tactical voting and matters of principle. Let me try to simplify them for you both.

 

The first hurdle at which you fall is over this matter of whether voting for a Party tactically means that you are a supporter of theirs. The essence of your confusion is clear from your sentence attempting to summarise what I posted, "I voted for UKIP. My vote did not support UKIP" If you both read back slowly, you will note the clear distinction I made, that I am not a supporter of UKIP, although I voted for them once tactically.

 

Secondly, on the matter of principles, I note that you had claimed that I had abandoned mine, whereas Shatlock doesn't, although he is mistaken as to what my principles are. I've said many times that I am a Conservative Party member and most of my principles politically are therefore aligned to theirs. UKIP really has only one main aim politically, to bring about our departure from the EU, which I have always again said was what I wanted. You two can continue acting dumb about such a trival matter as the semantics, but it's making you both look increasingly stupid.

[Plastic]

You and Shatlock seem to be experiencing considerable difficulty in understanding these quite simple concepts of tactical voting and matters of principle. Let me try to simplify them for you both.

 

The first hurdle at which you fall is over this matter of whether voting for a Party tactically means that you are a supporter of theirs. The essence of your confusion is clear from your sentence attempting to summarise what I posted, "I voted for UKIP. My vote did not support UKIP" If you both read back slowly, you will note the clear distinction I made, that I am not a supporter of UKIP, although I voted for them once tactically.

 

Secondly, on the matter of principles, I note that you had claimed that I had abandoned mine, whereas Shatlock doesn't, although he is mistaken as to what my principles are. I've said many times that I am a Conservative Party member and most of my principles politically are therefore aligned to theirs. UKIP really has only one main aim politically, to bring about our departure from the EU, which I have always again said was what I wanted. You two can continue acting dumb about such a trival matter as the semantics, but it's making you both look increasingly stupid.

 

Ok, I accept that you are an ex-UKIP supporter.

Also - 'shatlock'? That's an embarrassingly poor pun...

[Wes Tender]

Ok, I accept that you are an ex-UKIP supporter.

 

Look, stop this, you are embarrassing yourself.

[Plastic]

Look, stop this, you are embarrassing yourself.

 

Said democracy to the tactical voter

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

The absurd notion that you can vote for a extremist political party - but somehow not actually support them - is to stretch even Les's somewhat distant relationship with the truth far beyond the bounds of all credibility. If you vote for a Party then it seems to me you are a - de facto - supporter of that grouping. Evasions offered in a attempt to avoid that reality are little more that meaningless drivel.

 

There are right-wingers on this forum more in 'denial' than a shipwrecked Egyptian fisherman. For example, Sour "what have the Muslim's ever done for us" Mash is seemingly incapable now of composing a single contribution without attempting to tell anyone who will listen that he's not really a racist - when it is quite apparent that is exactly what he is. Similarity, our (entirely self-appointed) spokesman for the Bretix movement can't abide for some reason the idea that he is widely seen to be a fanatic, this despite hardly a day passing on here when he does not do his very best to prove the point.

 

What a bargain this place is for just £5 a year - to get this level of entertainment elsewhere a chap might have to spend a small fortune

[adrian lord]

Absolutley priceless:

 

https://youtu.be/Rn3vuKEgTbs

[Batman]

Absolutley priceless:

 

https://youtu.be/Rn3vuKEgTbs

 

[Wes Tender]

Absolutley priceless:

 

https://youtu.be/Rn3vuKEgTbs

 

A really good belly laugh.

 

Julia Hartley Brewer should have been a bit easier on her, as having admitted to voting Lib Dem in the past, she must be a Lib Dem supporter according to the Remoaners CEC, Plastic and Shatlock.

 

But Sarah Olney believes that her victory in Richmond Park gives her a mandate to vote against Article 50. No, Sarah, I am afraid it doesn't, but if you believe that it does, then no doubt your MPs in three other constituencies where the Leave campaign received the majority of votes will have to abide by the wishes of their constituents and vote in favour of the triggering of Article 50, won't they?

[adrian lord]

Italy votes No.

 

E.U. Tower of Babel is tottering tonight.

 

We won't need A50 at this rate!

[Lord Duckhunter]

What will the € to £ ratio be tomorrow? Looking forward to discusing with the remoaners tomorrow

[trousers]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/italian-pm-matteo-renzi-resigns-after-crushing-defeat-in-constitutional-referendum-a7455726.html

[Portugalsaint]

Italy votes No.

 

E.U. Tower of Babel is tottering tonight.

 

We won't need A50 at this rate!

Italy are stoney broke. The people can vote against ridding themselves of their upper house but they are still broke so ANOTHER election is due. All these Southern European countries are broke and need propping up. Italy is just about to fall like the house of cards they cannot afford to be in the rich mans club.

 

Too many people arguing over access to the single market, what about access in return to 60m people in the U.K. Oh....the press forgot to mention that.

[Trader]

But they didn't know what they were voting for!

 

Lol

[Johnny Bognor]

But they didn't know what they were voting for!

 

Lol

 

They're just thick Italians...

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I understand that the actual question put before the Italian people was concerned with internal constitutional mattes that are entirely unconnected with Italian foreign policy and Italy's membership of the EU.

 

So our band of resident euro sceptics on here who may be wetting their pants this morning at the prospect of the imminent demise of the EU would be well-advised I think to 'wind their necks in' a tad. Yes, Prime Minister Renzi has certainly resigned and I understand that the referendum winning 'Five Star' grouping does argue that Italy should withdraw from the Euro currency. However, there remains the small matter of their being elected into government before any such policy could possibly be implemented. It is a matter of record that the leadership of this party does NOT favour that Italy should follow our example and leave the EU. This is one of those 'inconvenient truths' that may well disappoint some on here I suppose.

 

I'm pleased to see that the Austrian people (swimming against the tide somewhat) have decided to rejected Norbert Hofer - a populist far-right candidate that some on here doubtless would approve of - in their presidential election. Nevertheless, it does seem to me that at this particular point in history, almost regardless of the politics being debated, you have a bloody good chance of successfully electing any turd of a politician or argument into power - as long as the excretion in question was somehow seen to be anti-establishment that is ...

[Lord Duckhunter]

Norbert Hofer maybe a populist right winger , but he could teach Clegg, Major , Soubry and the rest of the remoaners something about democracy. After his defeat he stated " the voters are always right".

[Verbal]

But they didn't know what they were voting for!

 

Lol

 

What does this even mean? The Italians knew perfectly well that they were voting on constitutional reforms, which many across the political spectrum felt were undemocratic.

 

 

As for Brexiters:

 

Some want membership of the single market. Some do not.

 

Some want to remain in the customs union. Some do not. Many don't even know what it is.

 

Some want to 'take back control' of immigration. Some do not.

 

Some want dozens of bilateral free trade agreements. Some do not because they won't protect jobs; they want to 'Trump' the UK with a 'Britain First' protectionism.

 

Some want the restoration of Parliamentary 'sovereignty'. Some rail against the metropolitan elite who reside in that same Parliament.

 

 

So which of these binary opposites did you vote for?

[Johnny Bognor]

 

As for Brexiters:

 

Some want membership of the single market. Some do not.

Some want to remain in the customs union. Some do not. Many don't even know what it is.

Some want to 'take back control' of immigration. Some do not.

Some want dozens of bilateral free trade agreements. Some do not because they won't protect jobs; they want to 'Trump' the UK with a 'Britain First' protectionism.

Some want the restoration of Parliamentary 'sovereignty'. Some rail against the metropolitan elite who reside in that same Parliament.

 

So which of these binary opposites did you vote for?

 

Some remainers wanted to remain part of the EU and all it stands for

Some remainers, albeit not liking the EU, think the downside is worth it, to stay in the single market

Some remainers perceive that a higher authority will keep the tories in check (particularly those of a left persuasion)

Some remainers think that it is better the devil you know and think that their vote is one to maintain the status quo

 

So just as there are multiple reasons for a vote to Leave, don't pretend that all remainers voted 'remain' for one reason and one reason only

[Trader]

What does this even mean? The Italians knew perfectly well that they were voting on constitutional reforms, which many across the political spectrum felt were undemocratic.

 

 

As for Brexiters:

 

Some want membership of the single market. Some do not.

 

Some want to remain in the customs union. Some do not. Many don't even know what it is.

 

Some want to 'take back control' of immigration. Some do not.

 

Some want dozens of bilateral free trade agreements. Some do not because they won't protect jobs; they want to 'Trump' the UK with a 'Britain First' protectionism.

 

Some want the restoration of Parliamentary 'sovereignty'. Some rail against the metropolitan elite who reside in that same Parliament.

 

 

So which of these binary opposites did you vote for?

 

What was on the ballot paper, which was crystal clear.

 

All these alternatives you mention have been manufactured by the Remainers since the referendum to try and muddy the waters.

 

A disgraceful act, trying to deny the clear will of the people.

[shurlock]

Some remainers wanted to remain part of the EU and all it stands for

Some remainers, albeit not liking the EU, think the downside is worth it, to stay in the single market

Some remainers perceive that a higher authority will keep the tories in check (particularly those of a left persuasion)

Some remainers think that it is better the devil you know and think that their vote is one to maintain the status quo

 

So just as there are multiple reasons for a vote to Leave, don't pretend that all remainers voted 'remain' for one reason and one reason only

 

Baldrick - you're hopelessly confused. Motives or intentions are more or less irrelevant.

 

As a factual matter, remainers knew exactly what they were voting for i.e. to retain current arrangements. However, it is not clear what arrangements brexiters were voting for. Leaving the EU does not have a precise institutional or practical equivalent.

 

If it does, please tell

Edited 5 December, 2016 by shurlock

[shurlock]

What was on the ballot paper, which was crystal clear.

 

All these alternatives you mention have been manufactured by the Remainers since the referendum to try and muddy the waters.

 

A disgraceful act, trying to deny the clear will of the people.

 

Glad to see you're maintaining your form as a clueless simpleton. I thought you would have learned your lesson and known your limits by now, pal.

[Johnny Bognor]

Baldrick - you're hopelessly confused. Motives or intentions are more or less irrelevant.

 

As a factual matter, remainers knew exactly what they were voting for i.e. to retain current arrangements. However, it is not clear what arrangements brexiters were voting for. Leaving the EU does not have a precise institutional or practical equivalent.

 

If it does, please tell

 

Please define current arrangements oh wise one???? The EU/EEC has not stood still in 40 years, or were you naive enough to think everything would remain exactly the same indefinitely??? (Hint: there is no status quo, never was and never will be, me old pedigree chum)

Edited 5 December, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[shurlock]

Please define current arrangements oh wise one???? The EU/EEC has not stood still in 40 years, or were you naive enough to think everything would remain exactly the same indefinitely??? (Hint: there is no status quo, never was and never will be, me old pedigree chum)

 

To remain a member of the European Union with all the legal rights and obligations that entails.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/516501/Rights_and_obligations_of_European_Union_membership_web_version.pdf

 

Even for you that shouldn't be too hard to comprehend.

 

Now please do tell what rights and obligations and institutional arrangements follow from leaving the EU -and more importantly what precisely leavers were voting for.

Edited 5 December, 2016 by shurlock

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

What was on the ballot paper, which was crystal clear.

 

All these alternatives you mention have been manufactured by the Remainers since the referendum to try and muddy the waters.

 

A disgraceful act, trying to deny the clear will of the people.

 

Well I've just spoken to 'Will of the People' and I must inform you that he is not of 'one mind' of the subject.

 

If you want to talk about the will of the British people then methinks that the expressed will of slightly more than 48% of our people can't realistically be ignored in a democracy because slightly less than 52% of the people voted the other way. That notion is something close to an absurdity in this day and age. That referendum wasn't an ordinary 'first past the post'' General Election where we can all collectively change our minds five years later if it suits us to - no - it was a fundamental economic and constitutional change with a potentially massive impact that will resonate not for a few years, but rather for generations yet to come. For that matter many of those who will be most effected by that decision (i.e. our children) didn't even have a vote.

 

The herculean - virtually impossible perhaps - task the British people have set their government is for them to find some way to steer the 'ship of state' onto a course that might minimise the damage from the coming storm. Yes the referendum result means that this nation is now set to leave the EU, but if you really think that mandate amounts to the same thing as government having permission to ignore the will of half the nation then you Sir are very much mistaken.

 

That too is 'crystal clear' I think.

[Wes Tender]

Glad to see you're maintaining your form as a clueless simpleton. I thought you would have learned your lesson and known your limits by now, pal.

 

Easy to see when you are rattled. You always revert to puerile name calling and the inference that everybody who argues against you is clueless when pitted against what solely you consider to be your towering intellect. It really is very infantile.

[Johnny Bognor]

To remain a member of the European Union with all the legal rights and obligations that entails.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/516501/Rights_and_obligations_of_European_Union_membership_web_version.pdf

 

Even for you that shouldn't be too hard to comprehend.

 

Now please do tell what rights and obligations and institutional arrangements follow from leaving the EU -and more importantly what precisely leavers were voting for.

 

Very good, but it still doesn't tell me where it's all heading.

[shurlock]

Easy to see when you are rattled. You always revert to puerile name calling and the inference that everybody who argues against you is clueless when pitted against what solely you consider to be your towering intellect. It really is very infantile.

 

Trader has form, not only on this forum.

 

Yours

Shatlock

[Wes Tender]

Well I've just spoken to 'Will of the People' and I must inform you that he is not of 'one mind' of the subject.

 

If you want to talk about the will of the British people then methinks that the expressed will of slightly more than 48% of our people can't realistically be ignored in a democracy because slightly less than 52% of the people voted the other way. That notion is something close to an absurdity in this day and age. That referendum wasn't an ordinary 'first past the post'' General Election where we can all collectively change our minds five years later if it suits us to - no - it was a fundamental economic and constitutional change with a potentially massive impact that will resonate not for a few years, but rather for generations yet to come. For that matter many of those who will be most effected by that decision (i.e. our children) didn't even have a vote.

 

The herculean - virtually impossible perhaps - task the British people have set their government is for them to find some way to steer the 'ship of state' onto a course that might minimise the damage from the coming storm. Yes the referendum result means that this nation is now set to leave the EU, but if you really think that mandate amounts to the same thing as government having permission to ignore the will of half the nation then you Sir are very much mistaken.

 

That too is 'crystal clear' I think.

 

So what percentage of the British people affirmed their consent to the Treaty Of Maastricht? How many voted to accept the Treaty of Lisbon? It is a bit rich you bleating over the majority of the electorate who voted to leave the EU when they were not given an opportunity to vote on whether to join the EU. I'm getting rather tired of pointing out that the last referendum was to join a Common Market, not the EU, the Federal European project that it has morphed into without our blessing. You'll happily paint your bleak picture about the Government being set the difficult task of sailing the ship of state post Brexit, and ignore the course that previous governments have sailed towards uncontrolled immigration, loss of sovereignty and the subordination of our legal system.

 

Nobody suggested that the referendum was akin to a Parliamentary election, reversible at the next election. But it was a referendum that took us into the original European project and it was one that will also take us out of it, much as you find that unpalatable.

 

Regarding your usual "our future generations will suffer" diatribe, why don't you just wait and see? As I have pointed out several times before, you Remainians don't have a monopoly of care and concern for the future generations, although no doubt it comforts your ego to believe that you do. I am confident that my children and grandchildren will come to reap the benefits of our decision to leave the sclerotic EU and to trade with the rest of the World.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

So what percentage of the British people affirmed their consent to the Treaty Of Maastricht? How many voted to accept the Treaty of Lisbon? It is a bit rich you bleating over the majority of the electorate who voted to leave the EU when they were not given an opportunity to vote on whether to join the EU. I'm getting rather tired of pointing out that the last referendum was to join a Common Market, not the EU, the Federal European project that it has morphed into without our blessing. You'll happily paint your bleak picture about the Government being set the difficult task of sailing the ship of state post Brexit, and ignore the course that previous governments have sailed towards uncontrolled immigration, loss of sovereignty and the subordination of our legal system.

 

Nobody suggested that the referendum was akin to a Parliamentary election, reversible at the next election. But it was a referendum that took us into the original European project and it was one that will also take us out of it, much as you find that unpalatable.

 

Regarding your usual "our future generations will suffer" diatribe, why don't you just wait and see? As I have pointed out several times before, you Remainians don't have a monopoly of care and concern for the future generations, although no doubt it comforts your ego to believe that you do. I am confident that my children and grandchildren will come to reap the benefits of our decision to leave the sclerotic EU and to trade with the rest of the World.

 

 

First off, I would like to thank you Les for claiming the other day that you experienced a 'belly laugh'. This gloriously unlikely notion was itself very funny

 

As for simplistically comparing the implications of the referendum decision to leave the EU entirely, with the lesser matter of past treaty amendments, your comparison attempt here is, true to form, superficial. Given your rather inconsistent replies on the subject I don't suppose many on here are very sure whether you happened to vote for the Tory administration in power at the time of Maastricht or not. I wonder if John Major was perhaps too moderate and decent a man for your tastes? Be that as it may, the record shows that our democratically elected parliament passed (after much scheming from "the bastards") the enabling act in question - as of course is customary in our representative democracy. For further information you might research the 'European Communities Amendment Bill' and actually learn something.

 

If you seek to compare the 1975 referendum with this year's vote then by all means do so. However, I would have hoped that if you intend to do that then you might have been honest enough to at least mention in passing that the '75 referendum that took us into the Common Market was a significantly more clear-cut (67% in favour) affair than the comparatively narrow vote that will take us out of the EU. So a case of 'apples and oranges' then. But this omission on your part is also 'true to form' I suppose.

 

I see that you are still attempting to maintain a claim that you do care about the impact on our young that the decision to leave the EU will bring. Perhaps you have forgotten old chap that I stated that I didn't believe you the first time you claimed this and God alone knows why you would think repeating such a thing is any more believable now. For the record, I believe that you are the type of obsessive 'political animal' for whom compassionate considerations take a (distant) second place to political matters.

[Winnersaint]

Thought I'd put my twopenneth in.

https://scontent.flhr2-2.fna.fbcdn.net/t45.5328-0/c0.0.539.539/p180x540/15085835_1174636912630055_7757095074155986944_n.jpg

Edited 5 December, 2016 by Winnersaint

[aintforever]

To remain a member of the European Union with all the legal rights and obligations that entails.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/516501/Rights_and_obligations_of_European_Union_membership_web_version.pdf

 

Even for you that shouldn't be too hard to comprehend.

 

Now please do tell what rights and obligations and institutional arrangements follow from leaving the EU -and more importantly what precisely leavers were voting for.

 

The vote was crystal clear, to leave the EU. How it ends up is anyone's guess but we will not find out until we start the process.

 

No one knows what our future inside the EU would have looked like so it is pointless moaning about every little detail.

[Johnny Bognor]

Point of order.

 

There was no referendum join the common market.

 

We joined and after two years, had a referendum to remain.

 

Less than 50% of the population and less than 50% of the registered voters opted to remain.

Edited 5 December, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[Winnersaint]

47% of the Austrian electorate voted for a far right candidate representing a party founded by ex-Nazi officers after WW2. Does that make them a politically significant force or political non-entity? If you live in the UK over 48% represents the latter.

Edited 5 December, 2016 by Winnersaint

[Lord Duckhunter]

**** me, the simplest question ever put to the British people and the remoaners still try to claim it wasn't clear.

 

Personally , im not against another vote . I'm all for a referendum on the terms of the deal May can secure outside of the EU. The British people should be given a choice . Mays deal outside the EU or WTO rules outside the EU. If May loses the vote then a GE should be called. Each party can then try and secure a mandate for their option. Liberal Undemocrats can campaign on rejoining the EU , labour on their vision of life outside the EU , UKIP & the Tories on theirs.

[Winnersaint]

The way I see it is that the will of the people has to be paramount. That said, like it or not we the 48% are significant. We shouldn't be branded as 'remoaners' just because we voice concerns over the terms of our exit from the EU or about the economic impact, but equally like it or not, we have to accept that those who voted for Brexit had a right to do so. Accepting that they voted that way for reasons that represented concerns over EU immigration into the UK does not necessarily make them racists. Those of us who live in areas where EU migration brings way more positives than negatives can never comprehend the effects that it has had in other communities in the UK. I have good friends in Lincolnshire, both of whom voted out who see things very differently. Neither could be regarded as having any sort of racist agenda. Where I do think things need to change is in the gloating and triumphalist attitude of those who voted to leave and that includes those on here. FFS just grow up. You've got what you wanted. Fine. Is it necessary to rub people's noses in it at every possible opportunity. None of us know what will happen, but I hope those that voted for Brexit will hold their hands up if it all goes t_i_t_s-up.

[Johnny Bognor]

Personally , im not against another vote . I'm all for a referendum on the terms of the deal May can secure outside of the EU. The British people should be given a choice . Mays deal outside the EU or WTO rules outside the EU. If May loses the vote then a GE should be called. Each party can then try and secure a mandate for their option. Liberal Undemocrats can campaign on rejoining the EU , labour on their vision of life outside the EU , UKIP & the Tories on theirs.

 

This makes a lot of sense and would be for it

[Wes Tender]

First off, I would like to thank you Les for claiming the other day that you experienced a 'belly laugh'. This gloriously unlikely notion was itself very funny

 

As for simplistically comparing the implications of the referendum decision to leave the EU entirely, with the lesser matter of past treaty amendments, your comparison attempt here is, true to form, superficial. Given your rather inconsistent replies on the subject I don't suppose many on here are very sure whether you happened to vote for the Tory administration in power at the time of Maastricht or not. I wonder if John Major was perhaps too moderate and decent a man for your tastes? Be that as it may, the record shows that our democratically elected parliament passed (after much scheming from "the bastards") the enabling act in question - as of course is customary in our representative democracy. For further information you might research the 'European Communities Amendment Bill' and actually learn something.

 

If you seek to compare the 1975 referendum with this year's vote then by all means do so. However, I would have hoped that if you intend to do that then you might have been honest enough to at least mention in passing that the '75 referendum that took us into the Common Market was a significantly more clear-cut (67% in favour) affair than the comparatively narrow vote that will take us out of the EU. So a case of 'apples and oranges' then. But this omission on your part is also 'true to form' I suppose.

 

I see that you are still attempting to maintain a claim that you do care about the impact on our young that the decision to leave the EU will bring. Perhaps you have forgotten old chap that I stated that I didn't believe you the first time you claimed this and God alone knows why you would think repeating such a thing is any more believable now. For the record, I believe that you are the type of obsessive 'political animal' for whom compassionate considerations take a (distant) second place to political matters.

 

Simplistically comparing the implications of the referendum with the lesser matter of past treaty amendments? Typical response from a self-appointed apologist for the Remainians; you totally miss the point and then infer that the point is simplistic, stupid or superficial. It wasn't a comparison. The treaties were a major factor in the growth of public dissent which led to the referendum, therefore they might be superficial to your mind, but they weren't in the minds of the electorate, as they proved when they voted to leave the EU that had brought about via those treaties the very issues that prompted them to vote to leave it.

 

So then you suggest that my past voting patterns make it unclear whether I voted for the Conservatives at the time of Maastricht. I really don't know why you are confused about this, unless your ability to comprehend simple English has clouded the issue for you. I have stated categorically that I have always voted Conservative apart from one protest vote for UKIP at the European elections. As that election was in 2014 and Maastricht was in 1992, I can see why you were confused by the proximity of the two dates. Of course, had Major called a referendum on Maastricht as he should have done, I would have voted against it.

 

I don't need to read about the European Communities (Amendment) Act, (which incidentally followed the Lisbon Treaty, not Maastricht) to know that the democratic imperative when Maastricht was debated required a referendum on the changes it brought about to the original treaty signed by us when we joined the Common Market. The same applied to the Treaty of Lisbon.

 

Again, I don't need to be schooled about the original Wilson referendum on whether we stayed in the Common Market that Heath signed us up to, as I have already indicated that I actively campaigned on the doorstep for a "yes" vote.

 

Finally, you continue to question my regards for our future generations and say that you don't believe them. Well, frankly my dear, I don't give a damn what you think. I'm not about to lose any sleep over it, as I am comfortable with my positive hopes and expectations for my children's future outside of the EU. For the record, I believe you to be rather condescending, patronising and self righteous, and those character traits don't allow you to accept that others can hold different opinions with just as much conviction and compassion as yours.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

My dear Les, it's going to take a lot more than inserting two smilies in your post to convince anyone on here that you are not the humourless extremist that you appear to be.

 

As for the significance, or otherwise, of the Maastricht treaty it is abundantly clear that this development certainly excited Daily Mail readers and the 'bastard' wing of the Tory party inordinately. This point is freely conceded. Whether less fanatical types are quite as obsessed as you are about that old treaty is a rather debatable point. By the way, there have been a number of Parliamentary Acts published with similar titles, but it seems clear enough when read in context that I was referring to the 1993 European Communities (Amendment) Act which does indeed relate to the (1992) Maastricht Treaty and not the (2007) Treaty of Lisbon as you claim - do try to keep up. Again, even you should be bright enough to comprehend that all significant amendments to EU treaty arrangements have been agreed to in council by this nation's democratically elected leadership and then subsequently approved of by both houses of Parliament in the normal constitutional manner. Do you not understand this basic truth?

 

The record shows that it was you who decided to raise the 1975 referendum yesterday in order to try and compare it with this year's vote. Methinks those who seek to draw simplistic analogies had better make their artwork as truthful as possible don't you agree? But all you can say in reply to criticism is that you are aware of the facts - so that is 'aware' of but decided to overlook anyway is it? I will be charitable here and depict your tactics as not an outright lie, but rather another example of you just being 'economical with the truth' then. I must congratulate you in making such a determined attempt to 'corner the market' in sophistry - well done.

I suspect that your voting history may not be quite as interesting to others as it is to you. But confusion is bound to occur old bean when people offer inconsistent accounts of their record and then try to excuse their behaviour as mere 'tactical voting'. My advice to you is that you try to stick to one version of the truth in future as this might lessen the chances of confusion.

 

Finally, would you please explain how you can 'not give a damn' about whether I happen to believe your unlikely claim to be concerned about the fate of the younger generation, while electing to raise the subject with me what must be half a dozen times now. Yes we all know that you like to have things both ways on here, but this really makes no sense at all. Despite your claims to indifference I'm thinking that my scepticism irritates you greatly - in which case my day hasn't been entirely wasted.

Edited 6 December, 2016 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[Saint86]

Well I've just spoken to 'Will of the People' and I must inform you that he is not of 'one mind' of the subject.

 

If you want to talk about the will of the British people then methinks that the expressed will of slightly more than 48% of our people can't realistically be ignored in a democracy because slightly less than 52% of the people voted the other way. That notion is something close to an absurdity in this day and age. That referendum wasn't an ordinary 'first past the post'' General Election where we can all collectively change our minds five years later if it suits us to - no - it was a fundamental economic and constitutional change with a potentially massive impact that will resonate not for a few years, but rather for generations yet to come. For that matter many of those who will be most effected by that decision (i.e. our children) didn't even have a vote.

 

The herculean - virtually impossible perhaps - task the British people have set their government is for them to find some way to steer the 'ship of state' onto a course that might minimise the damage from the coming storm. Yes the referendum result means that this nation is now set to leave the EU, but if you really think that mandate amounts to the same thing as government having permission to ignore the will of half the nation then you Sir are very much mistaken.

 

That too is 'crystal clear' I think.

 

TBH, Europe is in a far worse state than the UK, and getting out now was the best thing for us.

 

As has been pointed out both before and since the referendum, the EU was/is doomed to fail; not least because of its completely uncompromising socialist dogma. People revolt at the best of times, let alone an entire continent full of passionate nationalists - and lets face it, europe is full of patriots. But beyond that, how can you support a system that has done what this one has to Greece? Or a system that threatens those it doesn't agree with, a system that tries to squash democracy and to silence all who speak out against it?

 

As for your negativity; there are so many opportunities for Britain outside of the EU I find it odd that the best consequence you see is "minimising the damage from the coming storm"?!?!

 

Seriously? You can't even accept that this may be a good thing, both short and long term? You are only concerned about short term pain. That is a very selfish outlook for someone who wants to go on about protecting future generations.

 

FYI, this will affect me for my entire working life, and it will affect my generation far more than my kids. So I have to disagree with your sentiment on that entirely. The 20's to 30's were allowed to vote, and those who cared did.

 

And in summary, for all those who bit into "project fear", if you go to an interview or your employer, and in every scenario see only doom and negativity you won't be landing to many good jobs throughout your career.

 

Britain will be fine, provided the moaning stops and people pull their fingers out. For too long this attitude of negativity and can't do has spread throughout people, fortunately Brexit will bring an injection of the opposite and tackle people who've been far to comfortable on the EU/government gravy trains.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

More rumours are emerging from Brussels this morning that the UK may (I say may) ultimately end up with something resembling the 'Norwegian Model' of semi-detached relationship with the EU. If that comes to pass then we would probably still have to pay in to EU coffers, but be without any real say about how the money is spent. We might have some degree of access to the EU Single Market, without having our voice heard when it comes to administering it. Even the cherished eurosceptic dream of complete national control of immigration policy is likely to prove an illusion.

 

We've been sold a pig in a poke.

[Lord Duckhunter]

According to the Liberal Undemocrats and others the single market was never discussed during the campaign. People didn't know they were voting to come out.

 

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

I wonder what the Remain campaign said about a second vote, or parliament having a say.

 

[Wes Tender]

My dear Les, it's going to take a lot more than inserting two smilies in your post to convince anyone on here that you are not the humourless extremist that you appear to be. As for the significance, or otherwise, of the Maastricht treaty it is abundantly clear that this development certainly excited Daily Mail readers and the 'bastard' wing of the Tory party inordinately. This point is freely conceded. Whether less fanatical types are quite as obsessed about that old treaty in this day and age is rather debatable.

Again, even you should be bright enough to comprehend that all significant amendments to EU treaty arrangements have been agreed to in council by this nation's democratically elected leadership and then subsequently approved of by both houses of Parliament in the normal constitutional manner. Do you not understand this basic truth?

 

The record shows that it was you who decided to raise the 1975 referendum yesterday in order to try and compare it with this year's vote. Methinks those who seek to draw simplistic analogies had better make their artwork as truthful as possible don't you agree? But all you can say in reply to criticism is that you are aware of the facts - so that is 'aware' of but decided to overlook anyway is it? I will be charitable here and depict your tactics as not an outright lie, but rather another example of you just being 'economical with the truth' then. I must congratulate you in making such a determined attempt to 'corner the market' in sophistry - well done.

I suspect that your voting history may not be quite as interesting to others as it is to you. But confusion is bound to occur old bean when people offer inconsistent accounts of their record and then try to excuse their behaviour as mere 'tactical voting'. My advice to you is that you try to stick to one version of the truth in future as this might lessen the chances of confusion.

 

Finally, would you please explain how you can 'not give a damn' about whether I happen to believe your unlikely claim to be concerned about the fate of the younger generation, while electing to raise the subject with me what must be half a dozen times now. Yes we all know that you like to have things both ways on here, but this really makes no sense at all. Despite your claims to indifference I'm thinking that my scepticism irritates you greatly - in which case my day hasn't been entirely wasted.

 

What a load of waffling drivel. Why don't you try and debate the post, instead of cobbling together these pathetic platitudes and petty insults? It is obviously a waste of time refuting your points when you just twist what I say, or draw conclusions on what you think I meant. If what you assume to be my irritation makes your day, go and have a quiet w*nk. It might take you mind away from all of this angst you must be feeling.

 

P.S. I await your response to Saint86's post. Nice to see a bit of optimism about our future prospects, once free of the EU straitjacket

[OldNick]

My dear Les, it's going to take a lot more than inserting two smilies in your post to convince anyone on here that you are not the humourless extremist that you appear to be.

 

As for the significance, or otherwise, of the Maastricht treaty it is abundantly clear that this development certainly excited Daily Mail readers and the 'bastard' wing of the Tory party inordinately. This point is freely conceded. Whether less fanatical types are quite as obsessed as you are about that old treaty is a rather debatable point. By the way, there have been a number of Parliamentary Acts published with similar titles, but it seems clear enough when read in context that I was referring to the 1993 European Communities (Amendment) Act which does indeed relate to the (1992) Maastricht Treaty and not the (2007) Treaty of Lisbon as you claim - do try to keep up. Again, even you should be bright enough to comprehend that all significant amendments to EU treaty arrangements have been agreed to in council by this nation's democratically elected leadership and then subsequently approved of by both houses of Parliament in the normal constitutional manner. Do you not understand this basic truth?

 

The record shows that it was you who decided to raise the 1975 referendum yesterday in order to try and compare it with this year's vote. Methinks those who seek to draw simplistic analogies had better make their artwork as truthful as possible don't you agree? But all you can say in reply to criticism is that you are aware of the facts - so that is 'aware' of but decided to overlook anyway is it? I will be charitable here and depict your tactics as not an outright lie, but rather another example of you just being 'economical with the truth' then. I must congratulate you in making such a determined attempt to 'corner the market' in sophistry - well done.

I suspect that your voting history may not be quite as interesting to others as it is to you. But confusion is bound to occur old bean when people offer inconsistent accounts of their record and then try to excuse their behaviour as mere 'tactical voting'. My advice to you is that you try to stick to one version of the truth in future as this might lessen the chances of confusion.

 

Finally, would you please explain how you can 'not give a damn' about whether I happen to believe your unlikely claim to be concerned about the fate of the younger generation, while electing to raise the subject with me what must be half a dozen times now. Yes we all know that you like to have things both ways on here, but this really makes no sense at all. Despite your claims to indifference I'm thinking that my scepticism irritates you greatly - in which case my day hasn't been entirely wasted.

Charlie on a totally different subject, why have you Sir Hugh Dowding as your avatar?

[Johnny Bognor]

It seems most people in Europe disapprove of the EU's economic policy...

 

[Mystic Force]

Most people disapprove of any economic system that doesn't result in them being fabulously wealthy