Discussion:
Second Referendum
(too old to reply)
Omega
2018-09-17 08:19:08 UTC
Permalink
Upon a second Brexit referendum and an unequivocal Win for the
Brexiters, would the Remainers finally shut up?

With so much fear campaigning by the institutions, even foreign
Presidents and the rest of the Remainers at Ref 1 and poll after poll
engineered by treacherous people, showing the result as a win for the
Remainers, I know of some people including family members who didn't
'see' the point in voting Brexit last time as it was all done and
dusted! They wouldn't sit by and make that mistake again!

Daily we hear of Brexiters now sorry they voted Brexit and would now
vote Remain if given a chance? Heh? Within my wide circle of friends
and acquaintances, I know not a single person of that persuasion!

As I understand, there is no mechanism now to reverse Brexit as we are
on our way but the Remainers would be in for a hell of a shock if we
were allowed Ref 2 and won a further couple of million votes majority
for Brexit.

Rather painful event for the Remainers but I doubt they have thought
about it, still believing the evil propaganda pumped out day after day
by those wanting to feather their nests further!

The fake news will persevere as will the fake polls, the fake phone ins
and the fake everything these damn liars can muster but we are nearly there.

Brexit IS Brexit, the Remainers really must get used to it and stop
trying to drag us down. Use your energy now to make it work even better
and please stop fucking crying, we have a wonderful future!

omega
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-09-17 09:13:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Omega
Upon a second Brexit referendum and an unequivocal Win for the
Brexiters, would the Remainers finally shut up?
With so much fear campaigning by the institutions, even foreign
Presidents and the rest of the Remainers at Ref 1 and poll after poll
engineered by treacherous people, showing the result as a win for the
Remainers, I know of some people including family members who didn't
'see' the point in voting Brexit last time as it was all done and
dusted!  They wouldn't sit by and make that mistake again!
Daily we hear of Brexiters now sorry they voted Brexit and would now
vote Remain if given a chance?  Heh?  Within my wide circle of friends
and acquaintances, I know not a single person of that persuasion!
As I understand, there is no mechanism now to reverse Brexit as we are
on our way but the Remainers would be in for a hell of a shock if we
were allowed Ref 2 and won a further couple of million votes majority
for Brexit.
Rather painful event for the Remainers but I doubt they have thought
about it, still believing the evil propaganda pumped out day after day
by those wanting to feather their nests further!
The fake news will persevere as will the fake polls, the fake phone ins
and the fake everything these damn liars can muster but we are nearly there.
Brexit IS Brexit, the Remainers really must get used to it and stop
trying to drag us down.  Use your energy now to make it work even better
and please stop fucking crying, we have a wonderful future!
omega
I think it's a case of "if at first you don't succeed, try, try again."
An admirable, if sometimes annoying, trait. If the remainers get their
way this time, then I'd expect the leavers to keep trying, too. I don't
suppose this is something that will ever go away.
Chris Smith
2018-09-17 09:24:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I think it's a case of "if at first you don't succeed, try, try again."
An admirable, if sometimes annoying, trait.  If the remainers get their
way this time, then I'd expect the leavers to keep trying, too.  I don't
suppose this is something that will ever go away.
Hysteresis.

The trick would to be to ensure a sizeable majority want change. i.e 60%
or 66%.

However we are where we are. Another way of introducing a hysteresis
effect would be a second referendum.

The argument in favour of a second vote now is that the Brexit change
has not yet been made and a second vote is a relatively cheap way of
ensuring the public are sure about what they want to do.

After Brexit is fully established I would expect the same barriers and
extra votes before implementing a move back into the EU.
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-09-17 09:30:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Smith
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I think it's a case of "if at first you don't succeed, try, try
again." An admirable, if sometimes annoying, trait.  If the remainers
get their way this time, then I'd expect the leavers to keep trying,
too.  I don't suppose this is something that will ever go away.
Hysteresis.
The trick would to be to ensure a sizeable majority want change. i.e 60%
or 66%.
However we are where we are. Another way of introducing a hysteresis
effect would be a second referendum.
The argument in favour of a second vote now is that the Brexit change
has not yet been made and a second vote is a relatively cheap way of
ensuring the public are sure about what they want to do.
After Brexit is fully established I would expect the same barriers and
extra votes before implementing a move back into the EU.
I've always favoured a simple majority, but having seen how the public
can be swayed by a well-funded and orchestrated movement, I have to agree.
tim...
2018-09-17 11:44:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Smith
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I think it's a case of "if at first you don't succeed, try, try again."
An admirable, if sometimes annoying, trait. If the remainers get their
way this time, then I'd expect the leavers to keep trying, too. I don't
suppose this is something that will ever go away.
Hysteresis.
The trick would to be to ensure a sizeable majority want change. i.e 60%
or 66%.
However we are where we are. Another way of introducing a hysteresis
effect would be a second referendum.
The argument in favour of a second vote now is that the Brexit change has
not yet been made and a second vote is a relatively cheap way of ensuring
the public are sure about what they want to do.
After Brexit is fully established I would expect the same barriers and
extra votes before implementing a move back into the EU.
I've always favoured a simple majority, but having seen how the public can
be swayed by a well-funded and orchestrated movement, I have to agree.
ISTM that it was the well funded and orchestrated movement that lost. I
mean, Leavers didn't have millions spent on a biased Government leaflet and
organise half of the world's leaders imploring us to leave.

tim
BurfordTJustice
2018-09-17 12:07:16 UTC
Permalink
"tim..." <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:pno461$vd7$***@dont-email.me...
:
:
: "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com> wrote in message
: news:pnns7n$gjd$***@dont-email.me...
: > Chris Smith wrote:
: >> On 17/09/2018 10:13, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
: >>
: >>> I think it's a case of "if at first you don't succeed, try, try
again."
: >>> An admirable, if sometimes annoying, trait. If the remainers get
their
: >>> way this time, then I'd expect the leavers to keep trying, too. I
don't
: >>> suppose this is something that will ever go away.
: >>
: >> Hysteresis.
: >>
: >> The trick would to be to ensure a sizeable majority want change. i.e
60%
: >> or 66%.
: >>
: >> However we are where we are. Another way of introducing a hysteresis
: >> effect would be a second referendum.
: >>
: >> The argument in favour of a second vote now is that the Brexit change
has
: >> not yet been made and a second vote is a relatively cheap way of
ensuring
: >> the public are sure about what they want to do.
: >>
: >> After Brexit is fully established I would expect the same barriers and
: >> extra votes before implementing a move back into the EU.
: >>
: >
: > I've always favoured a simple majority, but having seen how the public
can
: > be swayed by a well-funded and orchestrated movement, I have to agree.
:
: ISTM that it was the well funded and orchestrated movement that lost. I
: mean, Leavers didn't have millions spent on a biased Government leaflet
and
: organise half of the world's leaders imploring us to leave.
:
: tim
:
:
:
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-09-17 12:25:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Chris Smith
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I think it's a case of "if at first you don't succeed, try, try
again." An admirable, if sometimes annoying, trait.  If the
remainers get their way this time, then I'd expect the leavers to
keep trying, too.  I don't suppose this is something that will ever
go away.
Hysteresis.
The trick would to be to ensure a sizeable majority want change. i.e
60% or 66%.
However we are where we are. Another way of introducing a hysteresis
effect would be a second referendum.
The argument in favour of a second vote now is that the Brexit change
has not yet been made and a second vote is a relatively cheap way of
ensuring the public are sure about what they want to do.
After Brexit is fully established I would expect the same barriers
and extra votes before implementing a move back into the EU.
I've always favoured a simple majority, but having seen how the public
can be swayed by a well-funded and orchestrated movement, I have to agree.
ISTM that it was the well funded and orchestrated movement that lost.  I
mean, Leavers didn't have millions spent on a biased Government leaflet
and organise half of the world's leaders imploring us to leave.
tim
I expect that without that well-funded and orchestrated movement, the
vote for leave would have been much larger. That we seem almost to be
on the point of a second referendum right now makes all the effort and
money seem like a good investment for them. Leavers made the mistake of
thinking they had won, and that was it. Possibly naive in the face of a
ruthless and determined establishment.
Incubus
2018-09-17 12:38:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Chris Smith
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I think it's a case of "if at first you don't succeed, try, try
again." An admirable, if sometimes annoying, trait.  If the
remainers get their way this time, then I'd expect the leavers to
keep trying, too.  I don't suppose this is something that will ever
go away.
Hysteresis.
The trick would to be to ensure a sizeable majority want change. i.e
60% or 66%.
However we are where we are. Another way of introducing a hysteresis
effect would be a second referendum.
The argument in favour of a second vote now is that the Brexit change
has not yet been made and a second vote is a relatively cheap way of
ensuring the public are sure about what they want to do.
After Brexit is fully established I would expect the same barriers
and extra votes before implementing a move back into the EU.
I've always favoured a simple majority, but having seen how the public
can be swayed by a well-funded and orchestrated movement, I have to agree.
ISTM that it was the well funded and orchestrated movement that lost.  I
mean, Leavers didn't have millions spent on a biased Government leaflet
and organise half of the world's leaders imploring us to leave.
tim
I expect that without that well-funded and orchestrated movement, the
vote for leave would have been much larger.
I suspect without the false flag killing of Jo Cox, the vote to leave had been
far larger still.
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
That we seem almost to be
on the point of a second referendum right now makes all the effort and
money seem like a good investment for them. Leavers made the mistake of
thinking they had won, and that was it. Possibly naive in the face of a
ruthless and determined establishment.
I don't think any Leaver could have failed to see this coming. The calls for a
further referendum happened immediately.
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
2018-09-17 12:44:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
I suspect without the false flag killing of Jo Cox, the vote to leave had
been far larger still.
LOL !

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
'If law school is so difficult to get through, how come there are so
many lawyers?'
(Calvin Trillin (1935 - ))
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-09-17 13:01:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Chris Smith
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I think it's a case of "if at first you don't succeed, try, try
again." An admirable, if sometimes annoying, trait.  If the
remainers get their way this time, then I'd expect the leavers to
keep trying, too.  I don't suppose this is something that will ever
go away.
Hysteresis.
The trick would to be to ensure a sizeable majority want change. i.e
60% or 66%.
However we are where we are. Another way of introducing a hysteresis
effect would be a second referendum.
The argument in favour of a second vote now is that the Brexit change
has not yet been made and a second vote is a relatively cheap way of
ensuring the public are sure about what they want to do.
After Brexit is fully established I would expect the same barriers
and extra votes before implementing a move back into the EU.
I've always favoured a simple majority, but having seen how the public
can be swayed by a well-funded and orchestrated movement, I have to agree.
ISTM that it was the well funded and orchestrated movement that lost.  I
mean, Leavers didn't have millions spent on a biased Government leaflet
and organise half of the world's leaders imploring us to leave.
tim
I expect that without that well-funded and orchestrated movement, the
vote for leave would have been much larger.
I suspect without the false flag killing of Jo Cox, the vote to leave had been
far larger still.
Not impossible, I suppose; but the trouble with these ideas is that
there are too many loose ends that might unravel in the future. Unless
you suspect someone working alone?
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
That we seem almost to be
on the point of a second referendum right now makes all the effort and
money seem like a good investment for them. Leavers made the mistake of
thinking they had won, and that was it. Possibly naive in the face of a
ruthless and determined establishment.
I don't think any Leaver could have failed to see this coming. The calls for a
further referendum happened immediately.
Incubus
2018-09-17 13:39:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Chris Smith
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I think it's a case of "if at first you don't succeed, try, try
again." An admirable, if sometimes annoying, trait.  If the
remainers get their way this time, then I'd expect the leavers to
keep trying, too.  I don't suppose this is something that will ever
go away.
Hysteresis.
The trick would to be to ensure a sizeable majority want change. i.e
60% or 66%.
However we are where we are. Another way of introducing a hysteresis
effect would be a second referendum.
The argument in favour of a second vote now is that the Brexit change
has not yet been made and a second vote is a relatively cheap way of
ensuring the public are sure about what they want to do.
After Brexit is fully established I would expect the same barriers
and extra votes before implementing a move back into the EU.
I've always favoured a simple majority, but having seen how the public
can be swayed by a well-funded and orchestrated movement, I have to agree.
ISTM that it was the well funded and orchestrated movement that lost.  I
mean, Leavers didn't have millions spent on a biased Government leaflet
and organise half of the world's leaders imploring us to leave.
tim
I expect that without that well-funded and orchestrated movement, the
vote for leave would have been much larger.
I suspect without the false flag killing of Jo Cox, the vote to leave had been
far larger still.
Not impossible, I suppose; but the trouble with these ideas is that
there are too many loose ends that might unravel in the future. Unless
you suspect someone working alone?
You only need one killer - someone who is unstable and on a watch list. The
trick is to push him over the edge.
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
2018-09-17 13:42:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
You only need one killer - someone who is unstable and on a watch list.
The trick is to push him over the edge.
'Over the edge'. Sounds like every one of the rightards on this group.

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
'Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect
for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice'
(Henry David Thoreau (1817 - 1862))
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>
Pamela
2018-09-17 19:23:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by tim...
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Chris Smith
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I think it's a case of "if at first you don't succeed, try,
try again." An admirable, if sometimes annoying, trait. 
If the remainers get their way this time, then I'd expect
the leavers to keep trying, too.  I don't suppose this is
something that will ever go away.
Hysteresis.
The trick would to be to ensure a sizeable majority want
change. i.e 60% or 66%.
However we are where we are. Another way of introducing a
hysteresis effect would be a second referendum.
The argument in favour of a second vote now is that the
Brexit change has not yet been made and a second vote is a
relatively cheap way of ensuring the public are sure about
what they want to do.
After Brexit is fully established I would expect the same
barriers and extra votes before implementing a move back
into the EU.
I've always favoured a simple majority, but having seen how
the public can be swayed by a well-funded and orchestrated
movement, I have to agree.
ISTM that it was the well funded and orchestrated movement
that lost.  I mean, Leavers didn't have millions spent on a
biased Government leaflet and organise half of the world's
leaders imploring us to leave.
tim
I expect that without that well-funded and orchestrated
movement, the vote for leave would have been much larger.
I suspect without the false flag killing of Jo Cox, the vote to
leave had been far larger still.
Not impossible, I suppose; but the trouble with these ideas is
that there are too many loose ends that might unravel in the
future. Unless you suspect someone working alone?
You only need one killer - someone who is unstable and on a watch
list. The trick is to push him over the edge.
Is that what you think is most likely to have happened with Jo Cox?
R. Mark Clayton
2018-09-17 18:04:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Chris Smith
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I think it's a case of "if at first you don't succeed, try, try
again." An admirable, if sometimes annoying, trait.  If the
remainers get their way this time, then I'd expect the leavers to
keep trying, too.  I don't suppose this is something that will ever
go away.
Hysteresis.
The trick would to be to ensure a sizeable majority want change. i.e
60% or 66%.
However we are where we are. Another way of introducing a hysteresis
effect would be a second referendum.
The argument in favour of a second vote now is that the Brexit change
has not yet been made and a second vote is a relatively cheap way of
ensuring the public are sure about what they want to do.
After Brexit is fully established I would expect the same barriers
and extra votes before implementing a move back into the EU.
I've always favoured a simple majority, but having seen how the public
can be swayed by a well-funded and orchestrated movement, I have to agree.
ISTM that it was the well funded and orchestrated movement that lost.  I
mean, Leavers didn't have millions spent on a biased Government leaflet
and organise half of the world's leaders imploring us to leave.
tim
I expect that without that well-funded and orchestrated movement, the
vote for leave would have been much larger.
I suspect without the false flag killing of Jo Cox, the vote to leave had been
far larger still.
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
That we seem almost to be
on the point of a second referendum right now makes all the effort and
money seem like a good investment for them. Leavers made the mistake of
thinking they had won, and that was it. Possibly naive in the face of a
ruthless and determined establishment.
I don't think any Leaver could have failed to see this coming. The calls for a
further referendum happened immediately.
Millions and millions signed a petition for it. Ironically one started by a Leaver who thought they would lose.
Norman Wells
2018-09-17 21:03:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Chris Smith
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I think it's a case of "if at first you don't succeed, try, try
again." An admirable, if sometimes annoying, trait.  If the
remainers get their way this time, then I'd expect the leavers to
keep trying, too.  I don't suppose this is something that will ever
go away.
Hysteresis.
The trick would to be to ensure a sizeable majority want change. i.e
60% or 66%.
However we are where we are. Another way of introducing a hysteresis
effect would be a second referendum.
The argument in favour of a second vote now is that the Brexit change
has not yet been made and a second vote is a relatively cheap way of
ensuring the public are sure about what they want to do.
After Brexit is fully established I would expect the same barriers
and extra votes before implementing a move back into the EU.
I've always favoured a simple majority, but having seen how the public
can be swayed by a well-funded and orchestrated movement, I have to agree.
ISTM that it was the well funded and orchestrated movement that lost.  I
mean, Leavers didn't have millions spent on a biased Government leaflet
and organise half of the world's leaders imploring us to leave.
tim
I expect that without that well-funded and orchestrated movement, the
vote for leave would have been much larger.
I suspect without the false flag killing of Jo Cox, the vote to leave had been
far larger still.
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
That we seem almost to be
on the point of a second referendum right now makes all the effort and
money seem like a good investment for them. Leavers made the mistake of
thinking they had won, and that was it. Possibly naive in the face of a
ruthless and determined establishment.
I don't think any Leaver could have failed to see this coming. The calls for a
further referendum happened immediately.
Millions and millions signed a petition for it. Ironically one started by a Leaver who thought they would lose.
More millions actually *voted* to leave, when they knew it mattered and
that there was a consequence. Which of course there isn't in signing a
petition.
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-09-17 12:41:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Chris Smith
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I think it's a case of "if at first you don't succeed, try, try
again." An admirable, if sometimes annoying, trait. If the
remainers get their way this time, then I'd expect the leavers to
keep trying, too. I don't suppose this is something that will ever
go away.
Hysteresis.
The trick would to be to ensure a sizeable majority want change. i.e
60% or 66%.
However we are where we are. Another way of introducing a hysteresis
effect would be a second referendum.
The argument in favour of a second vote now is that the Brexit change
has not yet been made and a second vote is a relatively cheap way of
ensuring the public are sure about what they want to do.
After Brexit is fully established I would expect the same barriers
and extra votes before implementing a move back into the EU.
I've always favoured a simple majority, but having seen how the public
can be swayed by a well-funded and orchestrated movement, I have to agree.
ISTM that it was the well funded and orchestrated movement that lost. I
mean, Leavers didn't have millions spent on a biased Government leaflet
and organise half of the world's leaders imploring us to leave.
tim
I expect that without that well-funded and orchestrated movement, the
vote for leave would have been much larger. That we seem almost to be
on the point of a second referendum right now makes all the effort and
money seem like a good investment for them. Leavers made the mistake of
thinking they had won, and that was it. Possibly naive in the face of a
ruthless and determined establishment.
However, if there is second referendum which reverses the Brexit result -
there will be a large minority who will never forget.

Hopefully, it will lead to an endemic hatred of the corrupt paedo
establishment and a campaign to do exactly the opposite of what they require.

A mass refusal to pay the BBC licence fee would be a good start.
Incubus
2018-09-17 12:46:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Chris Smith
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I think it's a case of "if at first you don't succeed, try, try
again." An admirable, if sometimes annoying, trait. If the
remainers get their way this time, then I'd expect the leavers to
keep trying, too. I don't suppose this is something that will ever
go away.
Hysteresis.
The trick would to be to ensure a sizeable majority want change. i.e
60% or 66%.
However we are where we are. Another way of introducing a hysteresis
effect would be a second referendum.
The argument in favour of a second vote now is that the Brexit change
has not yet been made and a second vote is a relatively cheap way of
ensuring the public are sure about what they want to do.
After Brexit is fully established I would expect the same barriers
and extra votes before implementing a move back into the EU.
I've always favoured a simple majority, but having seen how the public
can be swayed by a well-funded and orchestrated movement, I have to agree.
ISTM that it was the well funded and orchestrated movement that lost. I
mean, Leavers didn't have millions spent on a biased Government leaflet
and organise half of the world's leaders imploring us to leave.
tim
I expect that without that well-funded and orchestrated movement, the
vote for leave would have been much larger. That we seem almost to be
on the point of a second referendum right now makes all the effort and
money seem like a good investment for them. Leavers made the mistake of
thinking they had won, and that was it. Possibly naive in the face of a
ruthless and determined establishment.
However, if there is second referendum which reverses the Brexit result -
there will be a large minority who will never forget.
Hopefully, it will lead to an endemic hatred of the corrupt paedo
establishment and a campaign to do exactly the opposite of what they require.
A mass refusal to pay the BBC licence fee would be a good start.
A Remoaner on Quora came up with a new explanation for the Leave result - that
billionaires influenced us and convinced us we were under attack in order to
make us vote to leave because the EU is tackling tax havens. It didn't seemn
to have occurred to him that the majority of billionaires getting involved such
as Branson and Soros have been spending money trying to convince us to overturn
the result.
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
2018-09-17 12:49:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
A Remoaner on Quora came up with a new explanation for the Leave result -
that billionaires influenced us and convinced us we were under attack in
order to make us vote to leave because the EU is tackling tax havens. It
didn't seemn to have occurred to him that the majority of billionaires
getting involved such as Branson and Soros have been spending money
trying to convince us to overturn the result.
'The campaign to leave the European Union was mostly funded by five of
the UK’s richest businessmen, a new study has revealed...'
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-leave-eu-campaign-arron-banks-jeremy-hosking-five-uk-richest-businessmen-peter-hargreaves-a7699046.html>

Yeah, we know. Pinko, leftie rag... commie infiltrators ... reds under the
bed... fucking Khrushchev .... better dead than red .. honk if you hate
commies ... blah blah blah ...

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
'It is common knowledge that Fakestine is nothing but southern Syria'
(Ahmad Shuqairy, founder of PLO)
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>
Pamela
2018-09-17 19:27:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by tim...
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Chris Smith
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I think it's a case of "if at first you don't succeed,
try, try again." An admirable, if sometimes annoying,
trait. If the remainers get their way this time, then
I'd expect the leavers to keep trying, too. I don't
suppose this is something that will ever go away.
Hysteresis.
The trick would to be to ensure a sizeable majority want
change. i.e 60% or 66%.
However we are where we are. Another way of introducing a
hysteresis effect would be a second referendum.
The argument in favour of a second vote now is that the
Brexit change has not yet been made and a second vote is a
relatively cheap way of ensuring the public are sure about
what they want to do.
After Brexit is fully established I would expect the same
barriers and extra votes before implementing a move back
into the EU.
I've always favoured a simple majority, but having seen how
the public can be swayed by a well-funded and orchestrated
movement, I have to agree.
ISTM that it was the well funded and orchestrated movement
that lost. I mean, Leavers didn't have millions spent on a
biased Government leaflet and organise half of the world's
leaders imploring us to leave.
tim
I expect that without that well-funded and orchestrated
movement, the vote for leave would have been much larger. That
we seem almost to be on the point of a second referendum right
now makes all the effort and money seem like a good investment
for them. Leavers made the mistake of thinking they had won, and
that was it. Possibly naive in the face of a ruthless and
determined establishment.
However, if there is second referendum which reverses the Brexit
result - there will be a large minority who will never forget.
Hopefully, it will lead to an endemic hatred of the corrupt paedo
establishment and a campaign to do exactly the opposite of what they require.
A mass refusal to pay the BBC licence fee would be a good start.
A Remoaner on Quora came up with a new explanation for the Leave
result - that billionaires influenced us and convinced us we were
under attack in order to make us vote to leave because the EU is
tackling tax havens. It didn't seemn to have occurred to him that
the majority of billionaires getting involved such as Branson and
Soros have been spending money trying to convince us to overturn
the result.
Not forgetting Aaron Banks and Peter Hargreaves illegally over
funding Leave. Nor the electoral commission findings.
Yellow
2018-09-17 14:15:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Chris Smith
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I think it's a case of "if at first you don't succeed, try, try
again." An admirable, if sometimes annoying, trait.  If the
remainers get their way this time, then I'd expect the leavers to
keep trying, too.  I don't suppose this is something that will ever
go away.
Hysteresis.
The trick would to be to ensure a sizeable majority want change. i.e
60% or 66%.
However we are where we are. Another way of introducing a hysteresis
effect would be a second referendum.
The argument in favour of a second vote now is that the Brexit change
has not yet been made and a second vote is a relatively cheap way of
ensuring the public are sure about what they want to do.
After Brexit is fully established I would expect the same barriers
and extra votes before implementing a move back into the EU.
I've always favoured a simple majority, but having seen how the public
can be swayed by a well-funded and orchestrated movement, I have to agree.
ISTM that it was the well funded and orchestrated movement that lost.  I
mean, Leavers didn't have millions spent on a biased Government leaflet
and organise half of the world's leaders imploring us to leave.
tim
I expect that without that well-funded and orchestrated movement, the
vote for leave would have been much larger. That we seem almost to be
on the point of a second referendum right now makes all the effort and
money seem like a good investment for them. Leavers made the mistake of
thinking they had won, and that was it. Possibly naive in the face of a
ruthless and determined establishment.
I completely agree with you here - leavers went home, thinking it was a
job well done, while the remain campaign has continued and has even been
ramped up.

It was a huge mistake but that is hindsight I guess.
Pamela
2018-09-17 19:22:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Chris Smith
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I think it's a case of "if at first you don't succeed, try, try
again." An admirable, if sometimes annoying, trait. If the
remainers get their way this time, then I'd expect the leavers
to keep trying, too. I don't suppose this is something that
will ever go away.
Hysteresis.
The trick would to be to ensure a sizeable majority want change.
i.e 60% or 66%.
However we are where we are. Another way of introducing a
hysteresis effect would be a second referendum.
The argument in favour of a second vote now is that the Brexit
change has not yet been made and a second vote is a relatively
cheap way of ensuring the public are sure about what they want
to do.
After Brexit is fully established I would expect the same
barriers and extra votes before implementing a move back into
the EU.
I've always favoured a simple majority, but having seen how the
public can be swayed by a well-funded and orchestrated movement,
I have to agree.
ISTM that it was the well funded and orchestrated movement that
lost.
It was the illegally well funded and Russian assisted movement which
won.
Post by tim...
I mean, Leavers didn't have millions spent on a biased
Government leaflet and organise half of the world's leaders
imploring us to leave.
tim
Joe
2018-09-17 20:31:31 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 20:22:34 +0100
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
ISTM that it was the well funded and orchestrated movement that
lost.
It was the illegally well funded and Russian assisted movement which
won.
As I've posted before, nobody paid me to vote Leave, nor did I take
advice from anyone.

Some people find it hard to believe that some other people are capable
of making decisions without being told which choice to make. Indeed,
the whole franchise thing is worthless if a significant number of the
voters just do what they are told by other people. The entire point of
voting is that voters *must* decide for themselves who/what to vote for.
--
Joe
abelard
2018-09-17 21:11:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 20:22:34 +0100
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
ISTM that it was the well funded and orchestrated movement that
lost.
It was the illegally well funded and Russian assisted movement which
won.
As I've posted before, nobody paid me to vote Leave, nor did I take
advice from anyone.
Some people find it hard to believe that some other people are capable
of making decisions without being told which choice to make. Indeed,
the whole franchise thing is worthless if a significant number of the
voters just do what they are told by other people. The entire point of
voting is that voters *must* decide for themselves who/what to vote for.
it is far easier for idiots to convince themselves of some dark plot
than to adjust to facts such as:-

they lost
they were wrong
most people don't agree with them

refusing to believe reality is a core indicator of stupidity
--
www.abelard.org
Pamela
2018-09-18 13:03:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Joe
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 20:22:34 +0100
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
ISTM that it was the well funded and orchestrated movement
that lost.
It was the illegally well funded and Russian assisted movement
which won.
As I've posted before, nobody paid me to vote Leave, nor did I
take advice from anyone.
Some people find it hard to believe that some other people are
capable of making decisions without being told which choice to
make. Indeed, the whole franchise thing is worthless if a
significant number of the voters just do what they are told by
other people. The entire point of voting is that voters *must*
decide for themselves who/what to vote for.
it is far easier for idiots to convince themselves of some dark plot
than to adjust to facts such as:-
they lost
they were wrong
most people don't agree with them
refusing to believe reality is a core indicator of stupidity
Many Leavers are steadfast in their false beliefs. The referendum
was to leave the EU. It made no committment whatsoever about the
raft of add-on demands made by some Leavers.
tim...
2018-09-18 17:07:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by abelard
Post by Joe
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 20:22:34 +0100
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
ISTM that it was the well funded and orchestrated movement
that lost.
It was the illegally well funded and Russian assisted movement
which won.
As I've posted before, nobody paid me to vote Leave, nor did I
take advice from anyone.
Some people find it hard to believe that some other people are
capable of making decisions without being told which choice to
make. Indeed, the whole franchise thing is worthless if a
significant number of the voters just do what they are told by
other people. The entire point of voting is that voters *must*
decide for themselves who/what to vote for.
it is far easier for idiots to convince themselves of some dark plot
than to adjust to facts such as:-
they lost
they were wrong
most people don't agree with them
refusing to believe reality is a core indicator of stupidity
Many Leavers are steadfast in their false beliefs. The referendum
was to leave the EU. It made no committment whatsoever about the
raft of add-on demands made by some Leavers.
Oh don't be silly

of course people didn't just vote to leave the EU admin process but keep
everything else the same

They voted to lose the things that the EU impose upon us.

tim
Pamela
2018-09-18 17:34:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Pamela
Post by abelard
Post by Joe
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 20:22:34 +0100
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
ISTM that it was the well funded and orchestrated movement
that lost.
It was the illegally well funded and Russian assisted movement
which won.
As I've posted before, nobody paid me to vote Leave, nor did I
take advice from anyone.
Some people find it hard to believe that some other people are
capable of making decisions without being told which choice to
make. Indeed, the whole franchise thing is worthless if a
significant number of the voters just do what they are told by
other people. The entire point of voting is that voters *must*
decide for themselves who/what to vote for.
it is far easier for idiots to convince themselves of some dark plot
than to adjust to facts such as:-
they lost
they were wrong
most people don't agree with them
refusing to believe reality is a core indicator of stupidity
Many Leavers are steadfast in their false beliefs. The
referendum was to leave the EU. It made no committment
whatsoever about the raft of add-on demands made by some Leavers.
Oh don't be silly
of course people didn't just vote to leave the EU admin process
but keep everything else the same
They voted to lose the things that the EU impose upon us.
People can think whatever dreams they harbour in their heads at the
time of voting but that is not what they were actually voting for.
The wording is clear enough.
abelard
2018-09-18 17:51:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by abelard
Post by Joe
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 20:22:34 +0100
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
ISTM that it was the well funded and orchestrated movement
that lost.
It was the illegally well funded and Russian assisted movement
which won.
As I've posted before, nobody paid me to vote Leave, nor did I
take advice from anyone.
Some people find it hard to believe that some other people are
capable of making decisions without being told which choice to
make. Indeed, the whole franchise thing is worthless if a
significant number of the voters just do what they are told by
other people. The entire point of voting is that voters *must*
decide for themselves who/what to vote for.
it is far easier for idiots to convince themselves of some dark plot
than to adjust to facts such as:-
they lost
they were wrong
most people don't agree with them
refusing to believe reality is a core indicator of stupidity
Many Leavers are steadfast in their false beliefs. The referendum
was to leave the EU. It made no committment whatsoever about the
raft of add-on demands made by some Leavers.
why would i care as long as brexit means brexit
--
www.abelard.org
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
2018-09-18 07:51:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 20:22:34 +0100
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
ISTM that it was the well funded and orchestrated movement that lost.
It was the illegally well funded and Russian assisted movement which
won.
As I've posted before, nobody paid me to vote Leave, nor did I take
advice from anyone.
Of course no one paid you. You want the 'wog' out as much as the next Wogs
Out voter. No one _had_ to pay you. When there are ignorant racists like
you around, who needs to get out the wallet? All they have to do is speak
the code word: 'sovereignty'.
Post by Joe
Some people find it hard to believe that some other people are capable of
making decisions without being told which choice to make. Indeed, the
whole franchise thing is worthless if a significant number of the voters
just do what they are told by other people. The entire point of voting is
that voters *must* decide for themselves who/what to vote for.
Around 95% of the population of any country, are intellectually incapable
of understanding the ramifications of their choice.

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
'...the BNP themselves are Leftists...'
('Incubus', formerly 'White Spirit', 14 September 2018)
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>
R. Mark Clayton
2018-09-18 11:29:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by Joe
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 20:22:34 +0100
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
ISTM that it was the well funded and orchestrated movement that lost.
It was the illegally well funded and Russian assisted movement which
won.
As I've posted before, nobody paid me to vote Leave, nor did I take
advice from anyone.
Of course no one paid you. You want the 'wog' out as much as the next Wogs
Out voter. No one _had_ to pay you. When there are ignorant racists like
you around, who needs to get out the wallet? All they have to do is speak
the code word: 'sovereignty'.
Post by Joe
Some people find it hard to believe that some other people are capable of
making decisions without being told which choice to make. Indeed, the
whole franchise thing is worthless if a significant number of the voters
just do what they are told by other people. The entire point of voting is
that voters *must* decide for themselves who/what to vote for.
Around 95% of the population of any country, are intellectually incapable
of understanding the ramifications of their choice.
It was around 50% based on the result and the 2011 census.

Actual surveys showed that the least educated voted about 2:1 to leave, whilst the most educated voted overwhelmingly to stay.
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Norman Wells
2018-09-18 16:49:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Around 95% of the population of any country, are intellectually incapable
of understanding the ramifications of their choice.
It was around 50% based on the result and the 2011 census.
Actual surveys showed that the least educated voted about 2:1 to leave, whilst the most educated voted overwhelmingly to stay.
Not that old canard again, surely?

We all voted. We voted to leave. We're not going to vote again. Leave
won, and the process of leaving is in train as a consequence. Any
footling post-match analysis is pointless and irrelevant.

Do try to come to terms with it.
R. Mark Clayton
2018-09-19 11:03:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Around 95% of the population of any country, are intellectually incapable
of understanding the ramifications of their choice.
It was around 50% based on the result and the 2011 census.
Actual surveys showed that the least educated voted about 2:1 to leave, whilst the most educated voted overwhelmingly to stay.
Not that old canard again, surely?
We all voted. We voted to leave. We're not going to vote again. Leave
won, and the process of leaving is in train as a consequence. Any
footling post-match analysis is pointless and irrelevant.
Do try to come to terms with it.
I was correcting the incorrect assertion that 95% were incapable of understanding the arguments.
tim...
2018-09-18 16:20:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Chris Smith
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I think it's a case of "if at first you don't succeed, try, try
again." An admirable, if sometimes annoying, trait. If the
remainers get their way this time, then I'd expect the leavers
to keep trying, too. I don't suppose this is something that
will ever go away.
Hysteresis.
The trick would to be to ensure a sizeable majority want change.
i.e 60% or 66%.
However we are where we are. Another way of introducing a
hysteresis effect would be a second referendum.
The argument in favour of a second vote now is that the Brexit
change has not yet been made and a second vote is a relatively
cheap way of ensuring the public are sure about what they want
to do.
After Brexit is fully established I would expect the same
barriers and extra votes before implementing a move back into
the EU.
I've always favoured a simple majority, but having seen how the
public can be swayed by a well-funded and orchestrated movement,
I have to agree.
ISTM that it was the well funded and orchestrated movement that
lost.
It was the illegally well funded and Russian assisted movement which
won.
as have been pointed out before

the idea that Russians meddling in Social media increased the Leave vote is
laughable (even if you can show that they actually meddled)

tim
Pamela
2018-09-18 16:33:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Chris Smith
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I think it's a case of "if at first you don't succeed, try,
try again." An admirable, if sometimes annoying, trait. If
the remainers get their way this time, then I'd expect the
leavers to keep trying, too. I don't suppose this is
something that will ever go away.
Hysteresis.
The trick would to be to ensure a sizeable majority want
change. i.e 60% or 66%.
However we are where we are. Another way of introducing a
hysteresis effect would be a second referendum.
The argument in favour of a second vote now is that the Brexit
change has not yet been made and a second vote is a relatively
cheap way of ensuring the public are sure about what they want
to do.
After Brexit is fully established I would expect the same
barriers and extra votes before implementing a move back into
the EU.
I've always favoured a simple majority, but having seen how the
public can be swayed by a well-funded and orchestrated
movement, I have to agree.
ISTM that it was the well funded and orchestrated movement that
lost.
It was the illegally well funded and Russian assisted movement
which won.
as have been pointed out before
the idea that Russians meddling in Social media increased the
Leave vote is laughable (even if you can show that they actually
meddled)
That's what Trump's supporters also said about Russian influence on the
presidential election.

In fact the Russians meddle in elections across Europe by targetting
impressionable voters on social media. Rand, 89up, Wired and others
have studied this in detail.

Shame on Brexiteers for going into denial pretending it didn't benefit
them.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/13/russia-has-invented-social-media-
blitzkrieg/
tim...
2018-09-19 13:00:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Chris Smith
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I think it's a case of "if at first you don't succeed, try,
try again." An admirable, if sometimes annoying, trait. If
the remainers get their way this time, then I'd expect the
leavers to keep trying, too. I don't suppose this is
something that will ever go away.
Hysteresis.
The trick would to be to ensure a sizeable majority want
change. i.e 60% or 66%.
However we are where we are. Another way of introducing a
hysteresis effect would be a second referendum.
The argument in favour of a second vote now is that the Brexit
change has not yet been made and a second vote is a relatively
cheap way of ensuring the public are sure about what they want
to do.
After Brexit is fully established I would expect the same
barriers and extra votes before implementing a move back into
the EU.
I've always favoured a simple majority, but having seen how the
public can be swayed by a well-funded and orchestrated
movement, I have to agree.
ISTM that it was the well funded and orchestrated movement that
lost.
It was the illegally well funded and Russian assisted movement
which won.
as have been pointed out before
the idea that Russians meddling in Social media increased the
Leave vote is laughable (even if you can show that they actually
meddled)
That's what Trump's supporters also said about Russian influence on the
presidential election.
but that's different because there is overlap between Trump supporters and
Social media users

the point about Brexit, is that the overlap between Leavers and Social media
users (and therefore capable of being influenced by Social media) is small

tim
Pamela
2018-09-19 14:20:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Chris Smith
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I think it's a case of "if at first you don't succeed, try,
try again." An admirable, if sometimes annoying, trait. If
the remainers get their way this time, then I'd expect the
leavers to keep trying, too. I don't suppose this is
something that will ever go away.
Hysteresis.
The trick would to be to ensure a sizeable majority want
change. i.e 60% or 66%.
However we are where we are. Another way of introducing a
hysteresis effect would be a second referendum.
The argument in favour of a second vote now is that the
Brexit change has not yet been made and a second vote is a
relatively cheap way of ensuring the public are sure about
what they want to do.
After Brexit is fully established I would expect the same
barriers and extra votes before implementing a move back
into the EU.
I've always favoured a simple majority, but having seen how
the public can be swayed by a well-funded and orchestrated
movement, I have to agree.
ISTM that it was the well funded and orchestrated movement
that lost.
It was the illegally well funded and Russian assisted movement
which won.
as have been pointed out before
the idea that Russians meddling in Social media increased the
Leave vote is laughable (even if you can show that they actually
meddled)
That's what Trump's supporters also said about Russian influence
on the presidential election.
but that's different because there is overlap between Trump
supporters and Social media users
the point about Brexit, is that the overlap between Leavers and
Social media users (and therefore capable of being influenced by
Social media) is small
tim
Huh? Surely you're not saying we use so little Facebook etc in this
country that it's potential influence is entirely negligble.

See here:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cambridge+analytica+brexit
tim...
2018-09-19 21:14:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Chris Smith
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I think it's a case of "if at first you don't succeed, try,
try again." An admirable, if sometimes annoying, trait. If
the remainers get their way this time, then I'd expect the
leavers to keep trying, too. I don't suppose this is
something that will ever go away.
Hysteresis.
The trick would to be to ensure a sizeable majority want
change. i.e 60% or 66%.
However we are where we are. Another way of introducing a
hysteresis effect would be a second referendum.
The argument in favour of a second vote now is that the
Brexit change has not yet been made and a second vote is a
relatively cheap way of ensuring the public are sure about
what they want to do.
After Brexit is fully established I would expect the same
barriers and extra votes before implementing a move back
into the EU.
I've always favoured a simple majority, but having seen how
the public can be swayed by a well-funded and orchestrated
movement, I have to agree.
ISTM that it was the well funded and orchestrated movement
that lost.
It was the illegally well funded and Russian assisted movement
which won.
as have been pointed out before
the idea that Russians meddling in Social media increased the
Leave vote is laughable (even if you can show that they actually
meddled)
That's what Trump's supporters also said about Russian influence
on the presidential election.
but that's different because there is overlap between Trump
supporters and Social media users
the point about Brexit, is that the overlap between Leavers and
Social media users (and therefore capable of being influenced by
Social media) is small
tim
Huh? Surely you're not saying we use so little Facebook etc in this
country that it's potential influence is entirely negligble.
amongst the demographic that voted leave

yes

tim
Pamela
2018-09-19 22:41:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Chris Smith
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I think it's a case of "if at first you don't succeed,
try, try again." An admirable, if sometimes annoying,
trait. If the remainers get their way this time, then
I'd expect the leavers to keep trying, too. I don't
suppose this is something that will ever go away.
Hysteresis.
The trick would to be to ensure a sizeable majority want
change. i.e 60% or 66%.
However we are where we are. Another way of introducing a
hysteresis effect would be a second referendum.
The argument in favour of a second vote now is that the
Brexit change has not yet been made and a second vote is a
relatively cheap way of ensuring the public are sure about
what they want to do.
After Brexit is fully established I would expect the same
barriers and extra votes before implementing a move back
into the EU.
I've always favoured a simple majority, but having seen how
the public can be swayed by a well-funded and orchestrated
movement, I have to agree.
ISTM that it was the well funded and orchestrated movement
that lost.
It was the illegally well funded and Russian assisted
movement which won.
as have been pointed out before
the idea that Russians meddling in Social media increased the
Leave vote is laughable (even if you can show that they
actually meddled)
That's what Trump's supporters also said about Russian
influence on the presidential election.
but that's different because there is overlap between Trump
supporters and Social media users
the point about Brexit, is that the overlap between Leavers and
Social media users (and therefore capable of being influenced by
Social media) is small
tim
Huh? Surely you're not saying we use so little Facebook etc in
this country that it's potential influence is entirely negligble.
amongst the demographic that voted leave
yes
tim
What data do you have about Facebook use by Leavers?
Joe
2018-09-20 08:13:54 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 23:41:53 +0100
Post by Pamela
What data do you have about Facebook use by Leavers?
Empirical. Nobody I know uses it for *anything* *at* *all* other than
group/family messaging.

I know a bit about people, but even I can't get my head around people
who use it for *news*. The newspapers are quite selective in what they
publish, but that pales into insignificance beside social media.
--
Joe
Yellow
2018-09-20 12:00:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 23:41:53 +0100
Post by Pamela
What data do you have about Facebook use by Leavers?
Empirical. Nobody I know uses it for *anything* *at* *all* other than
group/family messaging.
I know a bit about people, but even I can't get my head around people
who use it for *news*. The newspapers are quite selective in what they
publish, but that pales into insignificance beside social media.
I have a Facebook account that I just use for logging in to a few games
and for when I want to look at other Facebook sites, advertising for
example or about our local community.

And I have *never* seen any advertising or 'news'.

So how is is this 'news' served up? Anyone know?
Incubus
2018-09-20 12:02:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by Joe
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 23:41:53 +0100
Post by Pamela
What data do you have about Facebook use by Leavers?
Empirical. Nobody I know uses it for *anything* *at* *all* other than
group/family messaging.
I know a bit about people, but even I can't get my head around people
who use it for *news*. The newspapers are quite selective in what they
publish, but that pales into insignificance beside social media.
I have a Facebook account that I just use for logging in to a few games
and for when I want to look at other Facebook sites, advertising for
example or about our local community.
And I have *never* seen any advertising or 'news'.
So how is is this 'news' served up? Anyone know?
The only 'news' I received from the Leave campaign was after I liked the two
main pages.

Ordinarily, the advertisements I receive when I am on FB are from Amazon, Ebay
and, for some reason, brewers.
tim...
2018-09-20 09:08:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Chris Smith
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I think it's a case of "if at first you don't succeed,
try, try again." An admirable, if sometimes annoying,
trait. If the remainers get their way this time, then
I'd expect the leavers to keep trying, too. I don't
suppose this is something that will ever go away.
Hysteresis.
The trick would to be to ensure a sizeable majority want
change. i.e 60% or 66%.
However we are where we are. Another way of introducing a
hysteresis effect would be a second referendum.
The argument in favour of a second vote now is that the
Brexit change has not yet been made and a second vote is a
relatively cheap way of ensuring the public are sure about
what they want to do.
After Brexit is fully established I would expect the same
barriers and extra votes before implementing a move back
into the EU.
I've always favoured a simple majority, but having seen how
the public can be swayed by a well-funded and orchestrated
movement, I have to agree.
ISTM that it was the well funded and orchestrated movement
that lost.
It was the illegally well funded and Russian assisted
movement which won.
as have been pointed out before
the idea that Russians meddling in Social media increased the
Leave vote is laughable (even if you can show that they
actually meddled)
That's what Trump's supporters also said about Russian
influence on the presidential election.
but that's different because there is overlap between Trump
supporters and Social media users
the point about Brexit, is that the overlap between Leavers and
Social media users (and therefore capable of being influenced by
Social media) is small
tim
Huh? Surely you're not saying we use so little Facebook etc in
this country that it's potential influence is entirely negligble.
amongst the demographic that voted leave
yes
tim
What data do you have about Facebook use by Leavers?
well as you have stated previously that it's the non-posters job to go and
look up that data

go and look it up

tim
R. Mark Clayton
2018-09-19 22:36:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Chris Smith
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I think it's a case of "if at first you don't succeed, try,
try again." An admirable, if sometimes annoying, trait. If
the remainers get their way this time, then I'd expect the
leavers to keep trying, too. I don't suppose this is
something that will ever go away.
Hysteresis.
The trick would to be to ensure a sizeable majority want
change. i.e 60% or 66%.
However we are where we are. Another way of introducing a
hysteresis effect would be a second referendum.
The argument in favour of a second vote now is that the Brexit
change has not yet been made and a second vote is a relatively
cheap way of ensuring the public are sure about what they want
to do.
After Brexit is fully established I would expect the same
barriers and extra votes before implementing a move back into
the EU.
I've always favoured a simple majority, but having seen how the
public can be swayed by a well-funded and orchestrated
movement, I have to agree.
ISTM that it was the well funded and orchestrated movement that
lost.
It was the illegally well funded and Russian assisted movement
which won.
as have been pointed out before
the idea that Russians meddling in Social media increased the
Leave vote is laughable (even if you can show that they actually
meddled)
That's what Trump's supporters also said about Russian influence on the
presidential election.
but that's different because there is overlap between Trump supporters and
Social media users
the point about Brexit, is that the overlap between Leavers and Social media
users (and therefore capable of being influenced by Social media) is small
tim
I tend to agree. Leave voters were more influenced by dreamt up numbers on the side of a bus and photos of dark skinned refugees queuing up.
Yellow
2018-09-18 17:01:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Chris Smith
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I think it's a case of "if at first you don't succeed, try, try
again." An admirable, if sometimes annoying, trait. If the
remainers get their way this time, then I'd expect the leavers
to keep trying, too. I don't suppose this is something that
will ever go away.
Hysteresis.
The trick would to be to ensure a sizeable majority want change.
i.e 60% or 66%.
However we are where we are. Another way of introducing a
hysteresis effect would be a second referendum.
The argument in favour of a second vote now is that the Brexit
change has not yet been made and a second vote is a relatively
cheap way of ensuring the public are sure about what they want
to do.
After Brexit is fully established I would expect the same
barriers and extra votes before implementing a move back into
the EU.
I've always favoured a simple majority, but having seen how the
public can be swayed by a well-funded and orchestrated movement,
I have to agree.
ISTM that it was the well funded and orchestrated movement that
lost.
It was the illegally well funded and Russian assisted movement which
won.
as have been pointed out before
the idea that Russians meddling in Social media increased the Leave vote is
laughable (even if you can show that they actually meddled)
And given social media is mainly a younger person's game, why did this
"meddling" not make any noticeable difference in the voting choices of
people who use it?
BurfordTJustice
2018-09-17 12:06:56 UTC
Permalink
"Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com> wrote in message news:pnns7n$gjd$***@dont-email.me...
: Chris Smith wrote:
: > On 17/09/2018 10:13, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
: >
: >> I think it's a case of "if at first you don't succeed, try, try
: >> again." An admirable, if sometimes annoying, trait. If the remainers
: >> get their way this time, then I'd expect the leavers to keep trying,
: >> too. I don't suppose this is something that will ever go away.
: >
: > Hysteresis.
: >
: > The trick would to be to ensure a sizeable majority want change. i.e 60%
: > or 66%.
: >
: > However we are where we are. Another way of introducing a hysteresis
: > effect would be a second referendum.
: >
: > The argument in favour of a second vote now is that the Brexit change
: > has not yet been made and a second vote is a relatively cheap way of
: > ensuring the public are sure about what they want to do.
: >
: > After Brexit is fully established I would expect the same barriers and
: > extra votes before implementing a move back into the EU.
: >
:
: I've always favoured a simple majority, but having seen how the public
: can be swayed by a well-funded and orchestrated movement, I have to agree.
BurfordTJustice
2018-09-17 12:06:40 UTC
Permalink
"Chris Smith" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:pnnrsa$ean$***@dont-email.me...
: On 17/09/2018 10:13, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
:
: > I think it's a case of "if at first you don't succeed, try, try again."
: > An admirable, if sometimes annoying, trait. If the remainers get their
: > way this time, then I'd expect the leavers to keep trying, too. I don't
: > suppose this is something that will ever go away.
:
: Hysteresis.
:
: The trick would to be to ensure a sizeable majority want change. i.e 60%
: or 66%.
:
: However we are where we are. Another way of introducing a hysteresis
: effect would be a second referendum.
:
: The argument in favour of a second vote now is that the Brexit change
: has not yet been made and a second vote is a relatively cheap way of
: ensuring the public are sure about what they want to do.
:
: After Brexit is fully established I would expect the same barriers and
: extra votes before implementing a move back into the EU.
:
BurfordTJustice
2018-09-17 12:06:20 UTC
Permalink
"Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com> wrote in message news:pnnr7l$am7$***@dont-email.me...
: Omega wrote:
: > Upon a second Brexit referendum and an unequivocal Win for the
: > Brexiters, would the Remainers finally shut up?
: >
: > With so much fear campaigning by the institutions, even foreign
: > Presidents and the rest of the Remainers at Ref 1 and poll after poll
: > engineered by treacherous people, showing the result as a win for the
: > Remainers, I know of some people including family members who didn't
: > 'see' the point in voting Brexit last time as it was all done and
: > dusted! They wouldn't sit by and make that mistake again!
: >
: > Daily we hear of Brexiters now sorry they voted Brexit and would now
: > vote Remain if given a chance? Heh? Within my wide circle of friends
: > and acquaintances, I know not a single person of that persuasion!
: >
: > As I understand, there is no mechanism now to reverse Brexit as we are
: > on our way but the Remainers would be in for a hell of a shock if we
: > were allowed Ref 2 and won a further couple of million votes majority
: > for Brexit.
: >
: > Rather painful event for the Remainers but I doubt they have thought
: > about it, still believing the evil propaganda pumped out day after day
: > by those wanting to feather their nests further!
: >
: > The fake news will persevere as will the fake polls, the fake phone ins
: > and the fake everything these damn liars can muster but we are nearly
: > there.
: >
: > Brexit IS Brexit, the Remainers really must get used to it and stop
: > trying to drag us down. Use your energy now to make it work even better
: > and please stop fucking crying, we have a wonderful future!
: >
: > omega
: >
:
: I think it's a case of "if at first you don't succeed, try, try again."
: An admirable, if sometimes annoying, trait. If the remainers get their
: way this time, then I'd expect the leavers to keep trying, too. I don't
: suppose this is something that will ever go away.
Davey
2018-09-17 09:32:00 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 09:19:08 +0100
Post by Omega
Daily we hear of Brexiters now sorry they voted Brexit and would now
vote Remain if given a chance? Heh? Within my wide circle of
friends and acquaintances, I know not a single person of that
persuasion!
How true. If anything, they are more determined, now that Brussels has
shown itself to be so unbending.
--
Davey.
BurfordTJustice
2018-09-17 12:07:29 UTC
Permalink
"Davey" <***@example.invalid> wrote in message news:pnnsag$bts$***@dont-email.me...
: On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 09:19:08 +0100
: Omega <***@last.com> wrote:
:
: > Daily we hear of Brexiters now sorry they voted Brexit and would now
: > vote Remain if given a chance? Heh? Within my wide circle of
: > friends and acquaintances, I know not a single person of that
: > persuasion!
:
: How true. If anything, they are more determined, now that Brussels has
: shown itself to be so unbending.
:
: --
: Davey.
tim...
2018-09-17 09:38:12 UTC
Permalink
Upon a second Brexit referendum and an unequivocal Win for the Brexiters,
would the Remainers finally shut up?
What I find so hard to understand is the bollocks spouted by remoaners as on
(was it) NN last night.

He said that we should take a time out from negotiation so that we could fit
in a vote on the final deal before living. But he wanted that timeout to
start NOW when we don't know the result of the negotiations.

It's a complete nonsense they are asking for (but that's because what they
are really asking for is to stay in and they see this as the last throw of
the dice for achieving it).

Oh and can I just rant about the arch Remoaner-in-chief, one Mr Cable, who
said in his interview by Marr on Sunday that the Chequers deal was "a really
hard Brexit".

Um excuse me. It's the softest softest of softest Brexits that we could
get, short of completely staying in the SM, which for most of us wouldn't
count as leaving at all

tim
abelard
2018-09-17 09:43:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Upon a second Brexit referendum and an unequivocal Win for the Brexiters,
would the Remainers finally shut up?
What I find so hard to understand is the bollocks spouted by remoaners as on
(was it) NN last night.
He said that we should take a time out from negotiation so that we could fit
in a vote on the final deal before living.
what about after we're dedd?
Post by tim...
But he wanted that timeout to
start NOW when we don't know the result of the negotiations.
It's a complete nonsense they are asking for (but that's because what they
are really asking for is to stay in and they see this as the last throw of
the dice for achieving it).
Oh and can I just rant about the arch Remoaner-in-chief, one Mr Cable, who
said in his interview by Marr on Sunday that the Chequers deal was "a really
hard Brexit".
Um excuse me. It's the softest softest of softest Brexits that we could
get, short of completely staying in the SM, which for most of us wouldn't
count as leaving at all
tim
--
www.abelard.org
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
2018-09-17 09:44:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Omega
Upon a second Brexit referendum and an unequivocal Win for the
Brexiters, would the Remainers finally shut up?
What I find so hard to understand is the bollocks spouted by remoaners as
on (was it) NN last night.
A second referendum without legislation to criminalise lying in a general
election or referendum campaign, wouldn't really serve any purpose.

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
'Trade relations with the EU could be sorted out in an afternoon over a
cup of tea'
(Gerard Batten (1951 - ))
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-09-17 09:54:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by tim...
Post by Omega
Upon a second Brexit referendum and an unequivocal Win for the
Brexiters, would the Remainers finally shut up?
What I find so hard to understand is the bollocks spouted by remoaners as
on (was it) NN last night.
A second referendum without legislation to criminalise lying in a general
election or referendum campaign, wouldn't really serve any purpose.
Y.
If anyone else lied as much as our political classes do, they themselves
would be all over them, I'm sure. But isn't it they who make the laws
in the first place? I can't see them subjecting themselves to the same
sort of scrutiny. In fact, I think they go into politics to insulate
themselves from it.
BurfordTJustice
2018-09-17 12:07:45 UTC
Permalink
"tim..." <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:pnnspr$jpn$***@dont-email.me...
:
:
: "Omega" <***@last.com> wrote in message news:pnno1r$ncj$***@dont-email.me...
: > Upon a second Brexit referendum and an unequivocal Win for the
Brexiters,
: > would the Remainers finally shut up?
:
: What I find so hard to understand is the bollocks spouted by remoaners as
on
: (was it) NN last night.
:
: He said that we should take a time out from negotiation so that we could
fit
: in a vote on the final deal before living. But he wanted that timeout to
: start NOW when we don't know the result of the negotiations.
:
: It's a complete nonsense they are asking for (but that's because what they
: are really asking for is to stay in and they see this as the last throw of
: the dice for achieving it).
:
: Oh and can I just rant about the arch Remoaner-in-chief, one Mr Cable, who
: said in his interview by Marr on Sunday that the Chequers deal was "a
really
: hard Brexit".
:
: Um excuse me. It's the softest softest of softest Brexits that we could
: get, short of completely staying in the SM, which for most of us wouldn't
: count as leaving at all
:
: tim
:
:
:
:
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
2018-09-17 09:43:15 UTC
Permalink
Daily we hear of Brexiters now sorry they voted Brexit and would now vote
Remain if given a chance? Heh? Within my wide circle of friends and
acquaintances, I know not a single person of that persuasion!
I don't personally know any nazis.

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
'Those who welcome death have only tried it from the ears up'
(Wilson Mizner (1876 - 1933))
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>
abelard
2018-09-17 09:53:07 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 10:43:15 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Daily we hear of Brexiters now sorry they voted Brexit and would now vote
Remain if given a chance? Heh? Within my wide circle of friends and
acquaintances, I know not a single person of that persuasion!
I don't personally know any nazis.
so why do you claim that every poster who calls you a dork is a nazi?
...while promoting socialism at every moment?

are you like uncle joe, all for socialism in one country now it is
obvious won't work well anywhere?

or are you trying to bring down on us innocents, the apocalypse?

sane people wonder and worry about such things
--
www.abelard.org
tim...
2018-09-17 09:42:10 UTC
Permalink
Upon a second Brexit referendum and an unequivocal Win for the Brexiters,
would the Remainers finally shut up?
With so much fear campaigning by the institutions, even foreign Presidents
and the rest of the Remainers at Ref 1 and poll after poll engineered by
treacherous people, showing the result as a win for the Remainers, I know
of some people including family members who didn't 'see' the point in
voting Brexit last time as it was all done and dusted! They wouldn't sit
by and make that mistake again!
Daily we hear of Brexiters now sorry they voted Brexit and would now vote
Remain if given a chance? Heh? Within my wide circle of friends and
acquaintances, I know not a single person of that persuasion!
As I understand, there is no mechanism now to reverse Brexit as we are on
our way but the Remainers would be in for a hell of a shock if we were
allowed Ref 2 and won a further couple of million votes majority for
Brexit.
Rather painful event for the Remainers but I doubt they have thought about
it, still believing the evil propaganda pumped out day after day by those
wanting to feather their nests further!
The fake news will persevere as will the fake polls, the fake phone ins
and the fake everything these damn liars can muster but we are nearly there.
Brexit IS Brexit, the Remainers really must get used to it and stop trying
to drag us down. Use your energy now to make it work even better
It's too late for that now

We needed that position when the EU upped the ante on the Irish border
problem. If we had stood up and slapped that down at the time we could have
thwarted it before it gained traction, but oh no, the Remoaners saw this as
another chance of getting to staying in and ran with it

tim
Ian Jackson
2018-09-17 10:24:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Omega
Upon a second Brexit referendum and an unequivocal Win for the
Brexiters, would the Remainers finally shut up?
I think we'd have to - especially if there was a proper majority (like
60/40). But in the event of that happening, I think I'd finally lose all
faith in the sanity of most UK citizens (already severely tested by what
I've heard during my last two years of listening to the many LBC
phone-ins) - and I'd probably decide to hibernate for the rest of my
days.
Post by Omega
Daily we hear of Brexiters now sorry they voted Brexit and would now
vote Remain if given a chance? Heh? Within my wide circle of friends
and acquaintances, I know not a single person of that persuasion!
I have to admit that I have the same experience. Even though my friends
and acquaintances might agree that, in retrospect, Brexit isn't such a
good idea, few will admit they didn't really know this - in fact, some
obviously don't want to know about the complications and the downsides.
Some even see the present pantomime as being like a TV soap opera or
drama series (Bodyguard?), and not something that will affect us much in
real life. In practice, to avoid hurting feelings (or simply boring
them) I find it's better not to raise Brexit too often in discussions.
--
Ian
Nightjar
2018-09-17 11:06:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Omega
Upon a second Brexit referendum and an unequivocal Win for the
Brexiters, would the Remainers finally shut up?
If there were another referendum and it had the same result, it would
show that leaving really is the will of slightly more than half the
voters. However, the follow up question has to be, if it went the other
way would the Brexiteers shut up?

...
Post by Omega
Daily we hear of Brexiters now sorry they voted Brexit and would now
vote Remain if given a chance?  Heh?  Within my wide circle of friends
and acquaintances, I know not a single person of that persuasion!
That, of course, is a fairly small sample space and we tend to associate
with people who agree with us. The polls take a much larger sample space
and they suggest that the ratio is now about 48% stay and 44% leave.
Post by Omega
As I understand, there is no mechanism now to reverse Brexit as we are
on our way...
That is far from clear. Article 50 is silent on the matter, so it is up
to the EU as to whether or not to accept a withdrawal of our
notification. It would probably be challenged in the ECJ, but that
couldn't happen until after the fact.
Post by Omega
but the Remainers would be in for a hell of a shock if we
were allowed Ref 2 and won a further couple of million votes majority
for Brexit...
Similarly for the Brexiteers if it happened the other way around, which
seems likely now that people have had a chance to discover that Brexit
is not the easy path that the Leave campaign suggested.
--
--

Colin Bignell
tim...
2018-09-17 11:48:12 UTC
Permalink
Upon a second Brexit referendum and an unequivocal Win for the Brexiters,
would the Remainers finally shut up?
If there were another referendum and it had the same result, it would show
that leaving really is the will of slightly more than half the voters.
However, the follow up question has to be, if it went the other way would
the Brexiteers shut up?
If the vote was a fair one

but having the deal we are offered being biased by the EU *knowing* that if
they give is a bad deal we will vote on it (which is what the "people's
vote" campaigners want") I cannot regard as fair

tim
Nightjar
2018-09-18 08:06:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Nightjar
Post by Omega
Upon a second Brexit referendum and an unequivocal Win for the
Brexiters, would the Remainers finally shut up?
If there were another referendum and it had the same result, it would
show that leaving really is the will of slightly more than half the
voters. However, the follow up question has to be, if it went the
other way would the Brexiteers shut up?
If the vote was a fair one
but having the deal we are offered being biased by the EU *knowing* that
if they give is a bad deal we will vote on it (which is what the
"people's vote" campaigners want")  I cannot regard as fair
Why not be honest and admit that, however the referendum were held, you
would find some reason to reject its result unless it were the one you
desired?
--
--

Colin Bignell
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
2018-09-18 08:25:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nightjar
Post by tim...
Post by Nightjar
Post by Omega
Upon a second Brexit referendum and an unequivocal Win for the
Brexiters, would the Remainers finally shut up?
If there were another referendum and it had the same result, it would
show that leaving really is the will of slightly more than half the
voters. However, the follow up question has to be, if it went the other
way would the Brexiteers shut up?
If the vote was a fair one
but having the deal we are offered being biased by the EU *knowing* that
if they give is a bad deal we will vote on it (which is what the
"people's vote" campaigners want")  I cannot regard as fair
Why not be honest and admit that, however the referendum were held, you
would find some reason to reject its result unless it were the one you
desired?
This claim is often used as a 'stick' with which to beat the Remain voters,
but this is yet another manifestation of the idiotic belief that all points
of view are 'equal'. So Nigel Lawson - who has never done any scientific
study in his life - gets to 'dispute' climate change on the BBC, just
because well, we need to 'balance'. The nutjobs who think that the moon
landings took place in an abandoned warehouse in the Nevada Desert, get
interviewed on television, and their crackpot views treated with the same
'respect' as are those of the physicists and mathematicians whose genius
sent a manned vessel a quarter of a million miles into space. The retards
who think that a former US President was born in Nigeria, get to stand on
the street with a microphone against their retarded gob and tell everyone
how there is 'proof' that a birth certificate was 'forged'.

In many ways, this is what's wrong with the world. Wogs Out voters think
that their point of view should have 'weight', when that point of view is
stupid, ignorant and bigoted. When the Wogs Out brigade are essentially
lying bastards who bleat that the law caught up with them. Why aren't the
police out there catching 'real criminals'? The idiots who don't really
care that Wogs Out will be _utterly_ disastrous for the economic and social
fabric of Britain, because whatever happens, 'Britain is full' and they
need to get those fucking foreigners to go back home.

The stupid think that they have the right to express an opinion and -
crucially - for that view to be listened to. The first part is true. You
can think, say and feel whatever you want. But you don't have a right to
an audience, and you shouldn't have a right to destroy others' lives and
livelihood just because you don't like black people.

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
'Television has made dictatorship impossible, but democracy unbearable'
(Shimon Perez (1923 - ))
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>
abelard
2018-09-18 09:00:32 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 09:25:45 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by Nightjar
Post by tim...
Post by Nightjar
Post by Omega
Upon a second Brexit referendum and an unequivocal Win for the
Brexiters, would the Remainers finally shut up?
If there were another referendum and it had the same result, it would
show that leaving really is the will of slightly more than half the
voters. However, the follow up question has to be, if it went the other
way would the Brexiteers shut up?
If the vote was a fair one
but having the deal we are offered being biased by the EU *knowing* that
if they give is a bad deal we will vote on it (which is what the
"people's vote" campaigners want")  I cannot regard as fair
Why not be honest and admit that, however the referendum were held, you
would find some reason to reject its result unless it were the one you
desired?
This claim is often used as a 'stick' with which to beat the Remain voters,
but this is yet another manifestation of the idiotic belief that all points
of view are 'equal'. So Nigel Lawson - who has never done any scientific
study in his life - gets to 'dispute' climate change on the BBC, just
because well, we need to 'balance'. The nutjobs who think that the moon
landings took place in an abandoned warehouse in the Nevada Desert, get
interviewed on television, and their crackpot views treated with the same
'respect' as are those of the physicists and mathematicians whose genius
sent a manned vessel a quarter of a million miles into space. The retards
who think that a former US President was born in Nigeria, get to stand on
the street with a microphone against their retarded gob and tell everyone
how there is 'proof' that a birth certificate was 'forged'.
In many ways, this is what's wrong with the world. Wogs Out voters think
that their point of view should have 'weight', when that point of view is
stupid, ignorant and bigoted. When the Wogs Out brigade are essentially
lying bastards who bleat that the law caught up with them. Why aren't the
police out there catching 'real criminals'? The idiots who don't really
care that Wogs Out will be _utterly_ disastrous for the economic and social
fabric of Britain, because whatever happens, 'Britain is full' and they
need to get those fucking foreigners to go back home.
from your biases i take you are presenting as a 'wog'

but you're allowed to tell us...exactly how many 'wogs' do you want
in britain and where do you intend to house them?

there are 1.2 billion africans...do they count as 'wogs' in your
arena? or is it the rather more indians you're after? perhaps that
will head of the 'disaster for the economic and social fabric
of britain'

come on...stop hiding your bushel and give the fine people
of britain a number...or haven't you yet arrived at numbers on
your math degree at the open uni?
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
The stupid think that they have the right to express an opinion and -
crucially - for that view to be listened to. The first part is true. You
can think, say and feel whatever you want. But you don't have a right to
an audience, and you shouldn't have a right to destroy others' lives and
livelihood just because you don't like black people.
and just how did the moon landings get into your raving??
--
www.abelard.org
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
2018-09-18 11:55:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 09:25:45 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
This claim is often used as a 'stick' with which to beat the Remain
voters, but this is yet another manifestation of the idiotic belief that
all points of view are 'equal'. So Nigel Lawson - who has never done any
scientific study in his life - gets to 'dispute' climate change on the
BBC, just because well, we need to 'balance'. The nutjobs who think
that the moon landings took place in an abandoned warehouse in the Nevada
Desert, get interviewed on television, and their crackpot views treated
with the same 'respect' as are those of the physicists and mathematicians
whose genius sent a manned vessel a quarter of a million miles into
space. The retards who think that a former US President was born in
Nigeria, get to stand on the street with a microphone against their
retarded gob and tell everyone how there is 'proof' that a birth
certificate was 'forged'.
In many ways, this is what's wrong with the world. Wogs Out voters think
that their point of view should have 'weight', when that point of view is
stupid, ignorant and bigoted. When the Wogs Out brigade are essentially
lying bastards who bleat that the law caught up with them. Why aren't
the police out there catching 'real criminals'? The idiots who don't
really care that Wogs Out will be _utterly_ disastrous for the economic
and social fabric of Britain, because whatever happens, 'Britain is full'
and they need to get those fucking foreigners to go back home.
from your biases i take you are presenting as a 'wog'
In much the same way as you're 'presenting' as a former Navy seal.

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
'I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know
how bad I am'
(Joseph Baretti (1719 - 1789))
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>
abelard
2018-09-18 11:58:42 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 12:55:04 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by abelard
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 09:25:45 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
This claim is often used as a 'stick' with which to beat the Remain
voters, but this is yet another manifestation of the idiotic belief that
all points of view are 'equal'. So Nigel Lawson - who has never done any
scientific study in his life - gets to 'dispute' climate change on the
BBC, just because well, we need to 'balance'. The nutjobs who think
that the moon landings took place in an abandoned warehouse in the Nevada
Desert, get interviewed on television, and their crackpot views treated
with the same 'respect' as are those of the physicists and mathematicians
whose genius sent a manned vessel a quarter of a million miles into
space. The retards who think that a former US President was born in
Nigeria, get to stand on the street with a microphone against their
retarded gob and tell everyone how there is 'proof' that a birth
certificate was 'forged'.
In many ways, this is what's wrong with the world. Wogs Out voters think
that their point of view should have 'weight', when that point of view is
stupid, ignorant and bigoted. When the Wogs Out brigade are essentially
lying bastards who bleat that the law caught up with them. Why aren't
the police out there catching 'real criminals'? The idiots who don't
really care that Wogs Out will be _utterly_ disastrous for the economic
and social fabric of Britain, because whatever happens, 'Britain is full'
and they need to get those fucking foreigners to go back home.
from your biases i take you are presenting as a 'wog'
In much the same way as you're 'presenting' as a former Navy seal.
does any poster not realise that you're serial liar?

does any poster take you seriously?

you badly need insight mister pork pie
--
www.abelard.org
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
2018-09-18 12:00:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 12:55:04 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by abelard
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 09:25:45 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
This claim is often used as a 'stick' with which to beat the Remain
voters, but this is yet another manifestation of the idiotic belief that
all points of view are 'equal'. So Nigel Lawson - who has never done any
scientific study in his life - gets to 'dispute' climate change on the
BBC, just because well, we need to 'balance'. The nutjobs who think
that the moon landings took place in an abandoned warehouse in the Nevada
Desert, get interviewed on television, and their crackpot views treated
with the same 'respect' as are those of the physicists and mathematicians
whose genius sent a manned vessel a quarter of a million miles into
space. The retards who think that a former US President was born in
Nigeria, get to stand on the street with a microphone against their
retarded gob and tell everyone how there is 'proof' that a birth
certificate was 'forged'.
In many ways, this is what's wrong with the world. Wogs Out voters think
that their point of view should have 'weight', when that point of view is
stupid, ignorant and bigoted. When the Wogs Out brigade are essentially
lying bastards who bleat that the law caught up with them. Why aren't
the police out there catching 'real criminals'? The idiots who don't
really care that Wogs Out will be _utterly_ disastrous for the economic
and social fabric of Britain, because whatever happens, 'Britain is full'
and they need to get those fucking foreigners to go back home.
from your biases i take you are presenting as a 'wog'
In much the same way as you're 'presenting' as a former Navy seal.
does any poster not realise that you're serial liar?
Don't worry: everyone here (even the rightards who actually 'agree' with
you) know that you are a serial liar.
Post by abelard
does any poster take you seriously?
<http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html>
Post by abelard
you badly need insight mister pork pie
You badly need shooting.

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
'If Algeria introduced a draft resolution in the UN, declaring
that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would
pass by a vote of 164 to 13, with 26 abstentions'
(Abba Eban (1915-2000))
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>
abelard
2018-09-18 12:07:16 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 13:00:52 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by abelard
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 12:55:04 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by abelard
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 09:25:45 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
This claim is often used as a 'stick' with which to beat the Remain
voters, but this is yet another manifestation of the idiotic belief that
all points of view are 'equal'. So Nigel Lawson - who has never done any
scientific study in his life - gets to 'dispute' climate change on the
BBC, just because well, we need to 'balance'. The nutjobs who think
that the moon landings took place in an abandoned warehouse in the Nevada
Desert, get interviewed on television, and their crackpot views treated
with the same 'respect' as are those of the physicists and mathematicians
whose genius sent a manned vessel a quarter of a million miles into
space. The retards who think that a former US President was born in
Nigeria, get to stand on the street with a microphone against their
retarded gob and tell everyone how there is 'proof' that a birth
certificate was 'forged'.
In many ways, this is what's wrong with the world. Wogs Out voters think
that their point of view should have 'weight', when that point of view is
stupid, ignorant and bigoted. When the Wogs Out brigade are essentially
lying bastards who bleat that the law caught up with them. Why aren't
the police out there catching 'real criminals'? The idiots who don't
really care that Wogs Out will be _utterly_ disastrous for the economic
and social fabric of Britain, because whatever happens, 'Britain is full'
and they need to get those fucking foreigners to go back home.
from your biases i take you are presenting as a 'wog'
In much the same way as you're 'presenting' as a former Navy seal.
does any poster not realise that you're serial liar?
Don't worry: everyone here (even the rightards who actually 'agree' with
you) know that you are a serial liar.
Post by abelard
does any poster take you seriously?
<http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html>
Post by abelard
you badly need insight mister pork pie
You badly need shooting.
no need to advertise that you're a socialist/mad/thick

i see no poster that doesn't already know that
--
www.abelard.org
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
2018-09-18 12:18:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 13:00:52 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by abelard
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 12:55:04 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by abelard
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 09:25:45 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
This claim is often used as a 'stick' with which to beat the Remain
voters, but this is yet another manifestation of the idiotic belief that
all points of view are 'equal'. So Nigel Lawson - who has never done any
scientific study in his life - gets to 'dispute' climate change on the
BBC, just because well, we need to 'balance'. The nutjobs who think
that the moon landings took place in an abandoned warehouse in the Nevada
Desert, get interviewed on television, and their crackpot views treated
with the same 'respect' as are those of the physicists and mathematicians
whose genius sent a manned vessel a quarter of a million miles into
space. The retards who think that a former US President was born in
Nigeria, get to stand on the street with a microphone against their
retarded gob and tell everyone how there is 'proof' that a birth
certificate was 'forged'.
In many ways, this is what's wrong with the world. Wogs Out voters think
that their point of view should have 'weight', when that point of view is
stupid, ignorant and bigoted. When the Wogs Out brigade are essentially
lying bastards who bleat that the law caught up with them. Why aren't
the police out there catching 'real criminals'? The idiots who don't
really care that Wogs Out will be _utterly_ disastrous for the economic
and social fabric of Britain, because whatever happens, 'Britain is full'
and they need to get those fucking foreigners to go back home.
from your biases i take you are presenting as a 'wog'
In much the same way as you're 'presenting' as a former Navy seal.
does any poster not realise that you're serial liar?
Don't worry: everyone here (even the rightards who actually 'agree' with
you) know that you are a serial liar.
Post by abelard
does any poster take you seriously?
<http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html>
Post by abelard
you badly need insight mister pork pie
You badly need shooting.
no need to advertise that you're a socialist/mad/thick
i see no poster that doesn't already know that
<http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html>

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
'I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully'
(George W. Bush)
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>
abelard
2018-09-18 12:21:34 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 13:18:26 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by abelard
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 13:00:52 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by abelard
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 12:55:04 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by abelard
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 09:25:45 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
This claim is often used as a 'stick' with which to beat the Remain
voters, but this is yet another manifestation of the idiotic belief that
all points of view are 'equal'. So Nigel Lawson - who has never done any
scientific study in his life - gets to 'dispute' climate change on the
BBC, just because well, we need to 'balance'. The nutjobs who think
that the moon landings took place in an abandoned warehouse in the Nevada
Desert, get interviewed on television, and their crackpot views treated
with the same 'respect' as are those of the physicists and mathematicians
whose genius sent a manned vessel a quarter of a million miles into
space. The retards who think that a former US President was born in
Nigeria, get to stand on the street with a microphone against their
retarded gob and tell everyone how there is 'proof' that a birth
certificate was 'forged'.
In many ways, this is what's wrong with the world. Wogs Out voters think
that their point of view should have 'weight', when that point of view is
stupid, ignorant and bigoted. When the Wogs Out brigade are essentially
lying bastards who bleat that the law caught up with them. Why aren't
the police out there catching 'real criminals'? The idiots who don't
really care that Wogs Out will be _utterly_ disastrous for the economic
and social fabric of Britain, because whatever happens, 'Britain is full'
and they need to get those fucking foreigners to go back home.
from your biases i take you are presenting as a 'wog'
In much the same way as you're 'presenting' as a former Navy seal.
does any poster not realise that you're serial liar?
Don't worry: everyone here (even the rightards who actually 'agree' with
you) know that you are a serial liar.
Post by abelard
does any poster take you seriously?
<http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html>
Post by abelard
you badly need insight mister pork pie
You badly need shooting.
no need to advertise that you're a socialist/mad/thick
i see no poster that doesn't already know that
<http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html>
that site is of no relevance to socialists like you

your delusion that you're the only fellow in step would sit
better with newton than the office sweeper however
deluded you are
--
www.abelard.org
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
2018-09-18 12:22:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 13:18:26 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by abelard
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 13:00:52 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by abelard
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 12:55:04 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by abelard
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 09:25:45 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
This claim is often used as a 'stick' with which to beat the Remain
voters, but this is yet another manifestation of the idiotic belief that
all points of view are 'equal'. So Nigel Lawson - who has never done any
scientific study in his life - gets to 'dispute' climate change on the
BBC, just because well, we need to 'balance'. The nutjobs who think
that the moon landings took place in an abandoned warehouse in the Nevada
Desert, get interviewed on television, and their crackpot views treated
with the same 'respect' as are those of the physicists and mathematicians
whose genius sent a manned vessel a quarter of a million miles into
space. The retards who think that a former US President was born in
Nigeria, get to stand on the street with a microphone against their
retarded gob and tell everyone how there is 'proof' that a birth
certificate was 'forged'.
In many ways, this is what's wrong with the world. Wogs Out voters think
that their point of view should have 'weight', when that point of view is
stupid, ignorant and bigoted. When the Wogs Out brigade are essentially
lying bastards who bleat that the law caught up with them. Why aren't
the police out there catching 'real criminals'? The idiots who don't
really care that Wogs Out will be _utterly_ disastrous for the economic
and social fabric of Britain, because whatever happens, 'Britain is full'
and they need to get those fucking foreigners to go back home.
from your biases i take you are presenting as a 'wog'
In much the same way as you're 'presenting' as a former Navy seal.
does any poster not realise that you're serial liar?
Don't worry: everyone here (even the rightards who actually 'agree' with
you) know that you are a serial liar.
Post by abelard
does any poster take you seriously?
<http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html>
Post by abelard
you badly need insight mister pork pie
You badly need shooting.
no need to advertise that you're a socialist/mad/thick
i see no poster that doesn't already know that
<http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html>
that site is of no relevance to socialists like you
your delusion that you're the only fellow in step would sit
better with newton than the office sweeper however
deluded you are
Still none ...

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
'In Jewish history, there are no coincidences'
(Elie Wiesel (1928 - ))
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>
Joe
2018-09-18 08:38:06 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 09:06:42 +0100
Post by Nightjar
Why not be honest and admit that, however the referendum were held,
you would find some reason to reject its result unless it were the
one you desired?
That's hypothetical, but we know for a fact that it's how Remainers
behave.
--
Joe
BurfordTJustice
2018-09-17 12:06:06 UTC
Permalink
why bother as usual the government will do as it pleases and the people
are only required to accept and STFU!




"Omega" <***@last.com> wrote in message news:pnno1r$ncj$***@dont-email.me...
: Upon a second Brexit referendum and an unequivocal Win for the
: Brexiters, would the Remainers finally shut up?
:
: With so much fear campaigning by the institutions, even foreign
: Presidents and the rest of the Remainers at Ref 1 and poll after poll
: engineered by treacherous people, showing the result as a win for the
: Remainers, I know of some people including family members who didn't
: 'see' the point in voting Brexit last time as it was all done and
: dusted! They wouldn't sit by and make that mistake again!
:
: Daily we hear of Brexiters now sorry they voted Brexit and would now
: vote Remain if given a chance? Heh? Within my wide circle of friends
: and acquaintances, I know not a single person of that persuasion!
:
: As I understand, there is no mechanism now to reverse Brexit as we are
: on our way but the Remainers would be in for a hell of a shock if we
: were allowed Ref 2 and won a further couple of million votes majority
: for Brexit.
:
: Rather painful event for the Remainers but I doubt they have thought
: about it, still believing the evil propaganda pumped out day after day
: by those wanting to feather their nests further!
:
: The fake news will persevere as will the fake polls, the fake phone ins
: and the fake everything these damn liars can muster but we are nearly
there.
:
: Brexit IS Brexit, the Remainers really must get used to it and stop
: trying to drag us down. Use your energy now to make it work even better
: and please stop fucking crying, we have a wonderful future!
:
: omega
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Yellow
2018-09-17 14:12:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Omega
Upon a second Brexit referendum and an unequivocal Win for the
Brexiters, would the Remainers finally shut up?
With so much fear campaigning by the institutions, even foreign
Presidents and the rest of the Remainers at Ref 1 and poll after poll
engineered by treacherous people, showing the result as a win for the
Remainers, I know of some people including family members who didn't
'see' the point in voting Brexit last time as it was all done and
dusted! They wouldn't sit by and make that mistake again!
Daily we hear of Brexiters now sorry they voted Brexit and would now
vote Remain if given a chance? Heh? Within my wide circle of friends
and acquaintances, I know not a single person of that persuasion!
As I understand, there is no mechanism now to reverse Brexit as we are
on our way but the Remainers would be in for a hell of a shock if we
were allowed Ref 2 and won a further couple of million votes majority
for Brexit.
Rather painful event for the Remainers but I doubt they have thought
about it, still believing the evil propaganda pumped out day after day
by those wanting to feather their nests further!
The fake news will persevere as will the fake polls, the fake phone ins
and the fake everything these damn liars can muster but we are nearly there.
Brexit IS Brexit, the Remainers really must get used to it and stop
trying to drag us down. Use your energy now to make it work even better
and please stop fucking crying, we have a wonderful future!
omega
I was just watching PoliticsLive and one of the commentators referred to
this as a referendum on the referendum. :-)
The Todal
2018-09-17 14:43:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by Omega
Upon a second Brexit referendum and an unequivocal Win for the
Brexiters, would the Remainers finally shut up?
With so much fear campaigning by the institutions, even foreign
Presidents and the rest of the Remainers at Ref 1 and poll after poll
engineered by treacherous people, showing the result as a win for the
Remainers, I know of some people including family members who didn't
'see' the point in voting Brexit last time as it was all done and
dusted! They wouldn't sit by and make that mistake again!
Daily we hear of Brexiters now sorry they voted Brexit and would now
vote Remain if given a chance? Heh? Within my wide circle of friends
and acquaintances, I know not a single person of that persuasion!
As I understand, there is no mechanism now to reverse Brexit as we are
on our way but the Remainers would be in for a hell of a shock if we
were allowed Ref 2 and won a further couple of million votes majority
for Brexit.
Rather painful event for the Remainers but I doubt they have thought
about it, still believing the evil propaganda pumped out day after day
by those wanting to feather their nests further!
The fake news will persevere as will the fake polls, the fake phone ins
and the fake everything these damn liars can muster but we are nearly there.
Brexit IS Brexit, the Remainers really must get used to it and stop
trying to drag us down. Use your energy now to make it work even better
and please stop fucking crying, we have a wonderful future!
omega
I was just watching PoliticsLive and one of the commentators referred to
this as a referendum on the referendum. :-)
I don't think any politician worthy of respect is asking for a second
referendum.

The idiot and megalomaniac Sadiq Khan is perhaps the latest unworthy
politician to call for some sort of second referendum. He wants people
to have the opportunity to say that a no-deal Brexit would be
acceptable. Although he's sure that a no-deal Brexit would be
disastrous, and most people would agree with that, why does he imagine
that the British people would reject a no-deal Brexit? Is he so sure
that his powers of persuasion could swing it the way he wants?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/15/people-vote-brexit-sadiq-khan

"So, after a lot of careful consideration, I’ve decided the people must
get a final say. This means a public vote on any deal or a vote on a
no-deal, alongside the option of staying in the EU.

As mayor, I wouldn’t be doing my job standing up for Londoners if I
didn’t say now that it’s time to think again about how we take this
crucial decision."
Norman Wells
2018-09-17 15:18:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
I don't think any politician worthy of respect is asking for a second
referendum.
The idiot and megalomaniac Sadiq Khan is perhaps the latest unworthy
politician to call for some sort of second referendum. He wants people
to have the opportunity to say that a no-deal Brexit would be
acceptable. Although he's sure that a no-deal Brexit would be
disastrous, and most people would agree with that, why does he imagine
that the British people would reject a no-deal Brexit? Is he so sure
that his powers of persuasion could swing it the way he wants?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/15/people-vote-brexit-sadiq-khan
"So, after a lot of careful consideration, I’ve decided the people must
get a final say. This means a public vote on any deal or a vote on a
no-deal, alongside the option of staying in the EU.
As mayor, I wouldn’t be doing my job standing up for Londoners if I
didn’t say now that it’s time to think again about how we take this
crucial decision."
Good for him. Someone should take him aside, though, and tell him that
the decision has already been taken. There isn't another one on the table.

It's great when he says "The unfortunate reality is that Theresa May has
failed to negotiate a Brexit position with her own party".

The unfortunate reality is that he has failed to negotiate a Brexit
position with his, which does not agree with him. Corbyn and Labour are
opposed to any second referendum in case he hadn't noticed.

Hypocrisy rules.
pensive hamster
2018-09-17 18:07:19 UTC
Permalink
On Monday, 17 September 2018 16:18:32 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
[...]
Corbyn and Labour are opposed to any second referendum
They are at present, but the party conference season will soon be
underway.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/08/unions-poll-massive-backing-second-eu-brexit-referendum
8 Sep 2018
'Bombshell poll reveals heavy union backing for second Brexit vote'

'... The poll found that members of Unite, the country’s biggest union,
and Labour’s largest financial backer, now support a referendum on
the final Brexit deal by 59% to 33% and support staying in the EU by
61% to 35%. GMB’s members support putting the issue back to the
people by 56% to 33% and its members want the UK to stay in the
EU by 55% to 37%.

'Unison members back another referendum by 66% to 22% and would
opt to stay in the EU by 61% to 35%.

'Union members think standards of living will deteriorate as a result of
Brexit by a margin of around four to one (Unite members by 55% to 11%,
Unison members by 61% to 16%, and GMB members by 49% to 11%).

'They also believe Brexit will worsen, not improve, job opportunities
(Unite members by 57% to 16%, Unison members by 52% to 27%,
and GMB members by 43% to 18%).

'Despite claims that workers are overwhelmingly against immigration,
members of all three unions want to prioritise trade over controlling
immigration (Unison members by 68% to 22%, Unite members by
65% to 27%, and GMB members by 58% to 32%).'

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/za0jlllfsz/180905_Unison%20publish.pdf
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/zr7v0xtbbl/180905_GMB%20publish.pdf
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/gv8pa368st/180905_Unite%20publish.pdf
false economy
2018-09-17 23:43:30 UTC
Permalink
Corbyn and Labour are opposed to any second referendum
Labour’s Brexit spokesman has said a second referendum should be “on the
table” if parliament is not prepared to accept the final divorce deal
that Theresa May negotiates with Brussels. - 23rd August
Norman Wells
2018-09-18 07:56:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by false economy
Corbyn and Labour are opposed to any second referendum
Labour’s Brexit spokesman has said a second referendum should be “on the
table” if parliament is not prepared to accept the final divorce deal
that Theresa May negotiates with Brussels. - 23rd August
"When asked again specifically about a second referendum, Starmer said:
“We are not calling for it""

Nor is it Labour's policy.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/23/new-brexit-referendum-should-remain-on-the-table-says-labour
Pamela
2018-09-17 19:31:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Yellow
Post by Omega
Upon a second Brexit referendum and an unequivocal Win for the
Brexiters, would the Remainers finally shut up?
With so much fear campaigning by the institutions, even foreign
Presidents and the rest of the Remainers at Ref 1 and poll after
poll engineered by treacherous people, showing the result as a
win for the Remainers, I know of some people including family
members who didn't 'see' the point in voting Brexit last time as
it was all done and dusted! They wouldn't sit by and make that
mistake again!
Daily we hear of Brexiters now sorry they voted Brexit and would
now vote Remain if given a chance? Heh? Within my wide circle
of friends and acquaintances, I know not a single person of that
persuasion!
As I understand, there is no mechanism now to reverse Brexit as
we are on our way but the Remainers would be in for a hell of a
shock if we were allowed Ref 2 and won a further couple of
million votes majority for Brexit.
Rather painful event for the Remainers but I doubt they have
thought about it, still believing the evil propaganda pumped out
day after day by those wanting to feather their nests further!
The fake news will persevere as will the fake polls, the fake
phone ins and the fake everything these damn liars can muster
but we are nearly there.
Brexit IS Brexit, the Remainers really must get used to it and
stop trying to drag us down. Use your energy now to make it
work even better and please stop fucking crying, we have a
wonderful future!
omega
I was just watching PoliticsLive and one of the commentators
referred to this as a referendum on the referendum. :-)
I don't think any politician worthy of respect is asking for a
second referendum.
The idiot and megalomaniac Sadiq Khan is perhaps the latest
unworthy politician to call for some sort of second referendum. He
wants people to have the opportunity to say that a no-deal Brexit
would be acceptable. Although he's sure that a no-deal Brexit
would be disastrous, and most people would agree with that, why
does he imagine that the British people would reject a no-deal
Brexit? Is he so sure that his powers of persuasion could swing it
the way he wants?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/15/
people-vote-brexit-sadiq-khan
"So, after a lot of careful consideration, I’ve decided the people
must get a final say. This means a public vote on any deal or a
vote on a no-deal, alongside the option of staying in the EU.
As mayor, I wouldn’t be doing my job standing up for Londoners if
I didn’t say now that it’s time to think again about how we take
this crucial decision."
What is too often misunderstood is that the second referendum is on
the terms of Brexit and not a re-run of the first referendum.
Considering the division in the country over Brexit, it seems like a
very sensible idea.

If Theresa May proceeds with her version of Brexit, Rees-Mogg and
his hardline malconents will be moaning for decades unless a
referendum shows there was no majority for their ultrahard form of
Brexit.
Norman Wells
2018-09-17 21:12:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
What is too often misunderstood is that the second referendum is on
the terms of Brexit and not a re-run of the first referendum.
No, of course it isn't, dear.

Do tell us though what the next action would be following a rejection of
the terms. It wouldn't mean just dropping the whole idea and remaining
in the EU because that would be a re-run of the first referendum which
you say it isn't.

So, you presumably mean re-negotiation of the terms. Can you please
tell us therefore how the referendum will inform the government what
terms the people have found unacceptable, and what re-negotiation of
them they would find acceptable?

If you can't, and if it won't, what's its point?
Post by Pamela
Considering the division in the country over Brexit, it seems like a
very sensible idea.
No, it's a very silly idea for the abover reasons. It will get us no
further forward.
Post by Pamela
If Theresa May proceeds with her version of Brexit, Rees-Mogg and
his hardline malconents will be moaning for decades unless a
referendum shows there was no majority for their ultrahard form of
Brexit.
But no-one agrees with the Chequers proposal either here or in the EU,
and regardless of how they voted in the referendum.
Pamela
2018-09-18 13:00:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
What is too often misunderstood is that the second referendum is
on the terms of Brexit and not a re-run of the first referendum.
No, of course it isn't, dear.
Of course it is, sleepy Norman. It's the second referendum I want and
it's the one many people are proposing.
Norman Wells
2018-09-18 16:53:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
What is too often misunderstood is that the second referendum is
on the terms of Brexit and not a re-run of the first referendum.
No, of course it isn't, dear.
Of course it is, sleepy Norman. It's the second referendum I want and
it's the one many people are proposing.
Why don't you then address the critical point rather than just snip it?

So, we have a referendum on the terms, and we reject them. What then?

How will the government have been instructed by the people how to
proceed? What should it re-negotiate, and to achieve what?
Pamela
2018-09-18 17:33:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
What is too often misunderstood is that the second referendum
is on the terms of Brexit and not a re-run of the first
referendum.
No, of course it isn't, dear.
Of course it is, sleepy Norman. It's the second referendum I
want and it's the one many people are proposing.
Why don't you then address the critical point rather than just
snip it?
So, we have a referendum on the terms, and we reject them. What then?
If the will of the electorate is not to implement it then we don't
proceed. Or would you insist we implement what the people don't want?
Post by Norman Wells
How will the government have been instructed by the people how to
proceed? What should it re-negotiate, and to achieve what?
Where there's a will there's a way. That's Politics 101. Stop
moaning.
Norman Wells
2018-09-18 17:58:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
What is too often misunderstood is that the second referendum
is on the terms of Brexit and not a re-run of the first
referendum.
No, of course it isn't, dear.
Of course it is, sleepy Norman. It's the second referendum I
want and it's the one many people are proposing.
Why don't you then address the critical point rather than just snip it?
So, we have a referendum on the terms, and we reject them. What then?
If the will of the electorate is not to implement it then we don't
proceed. Or would you insist we implement what the people don't want?
If you mean we don't proceed with Brexit, why did you say earlier "the
second referendum is on the terms of Brexit and not a re-run of the
first referendum". What on earth is the difference?
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
How will the government have been instructed by the people how to
proceed? What should it re-negotiate, and to achieve what?
Where there's a will there's a way. That's Politics 101. Stop
moaning.
No, there's no 'way', nor any expressed will from which a way might be
deduced. The public will merely have rejected the terms. Why do you
take that as meaning we 'don't proceed', whatever that means, rather
than 'we re-negotiate what's unacceptable'?
Pamela
2018-09-18 18:55:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
What is too often misunderstood is that the second referendum
is on the terms of Brexit and not a re-run of the first
referendum.
No, of course it isn't, dear.
Of course it is, sleepy Norman. It's the second referendum I
want and it's the one many people are proposing.
Why don't you then address the critical point rather than just snip it?
So, we have a referendum on the terms, and we reject them. What then?
If the will of the electorate is not to implement it then we
don't proceed. Or would you insist we implement what the people
don't want?
If you mean we don't proceed with Brexit, why did you say earlier
"the second referendum is on the terms of Brexit and not a re-run
of the first referendum". What on earth is the difference?
I didn't say we don't proceed with Brexit, as you state. I said we
don't proceed to exit on those terms. Why can't you understand simple
English?
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
How will the government have been instructed by the people how
to proceed? What should it re-negotiate, and to achieve what?
Where there's a will there's a way. That's Politics 101. Stop
moaning.
No, there's no 'way', nor any expressed will from which a way
might be deduced. The public will merely have rejected the terms.
Why do you take that as meaning we 'don't proceed', whatever that
means, rather than 'we re-negotiate what's unacceptable'?
Is it your contention that if the British public vote in a second
referendum not to implement a particular deal that it should
nevertheless be implemented?
Norman Wells
2018-09-18 21:21:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
What is too often misunderstood is that the second referendum
is on the terms of Brexit and not a re-run of the first
referendum.
No, of course it isn't, dear.
Of course it is, sleepy Norman. It's the second referendum I
want and it's the one many people are proposing.
Why don't you then address the critical point rather than just snip it?
So, we have a referendum on the terms, and we reject them. What then?
If the will of the electorate is not to implement it then we
don't proceed. Or would you insist we implement what the people
don't want?
If you mean we don't proceed with Brexit, why did you say earlier
"the second referendum is on the terms of Brexit and not a re-run
of the first referendum". What on earth is the difference?
I didn't say we don't proceed with Brexit, as you state. I said we
don't proceed to exit on those terms. Why can't you understand simple
English?
Because you seem incapable of writing clearly and leave your intended
meaning ambiguous.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
How will the government have been instructed by the people how
to proceed? What should it re-negotiate, and to achieve what?
Where there's a will there's a way. That's Politics 101. Stop
moaning.
No, there's no 'way', nor any expressed will from which a way
might be deduced. The public will merely have rejected the terms.
Why do you take that as meaning we 'don't proceed', whatever that
means, rather than 'we re-negotiate what's unacceptable'?
Is it your contention that if the British public vote in a second
referendum not to implement a particular deal that it should
nevertheless be implemented?
Now answer the questions I asked. If there is a referendum decision
rejecting the terms, how will the government have been instructed by the
people how to proceed? If it is not to abandon Brexit, it must surely
re-negotiate. What should it re-negotiate, and to achieve what? How
will the referendum have said?
Pamela
2018-09-19 16:40:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
What is too often misunderstood is that the second
referendum is on the terms of Brexit and not a re-run of
the first referendum.
No, of course it isn't, dear.
Of course it is, sleepy Norman. It's the second referendum I
want and it's the one many people are proposing.
Why don't you then address the critical point rather than just snip it?
So, we have a referendum on the terms, and we reject them.
What then?
If the will of the electorate is not to implement it then we
don't proceed. Or would you insist we implement what the
people don't want?
If you mean we don't proceed with Brexit, why did you say
earlier "the second referendum is on the terms of Brexit and not
a re-run of the first referendum". What on earth is the
difference?
I didn't say we don't proceed with Brexit, as you state. I said
we don't proceed to exit on those terms. Why can't you
understand simple English?
Because you seem incapable of writing clearly and leave your
intended meaning ambiguous.
What I wrote was perfectly clear. You lack comprehension and jumped
to an incorrect conclusion.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
How will the government have been instructed by the people how
to proceed? What should it re-negotiate, and to achieve what?
Where there's a will there's a way. That's Politics 101. Stop
moaning.
No, there's no 'way', nor any expressed will from which a way
might be deduced. The public will merely have rejected the
terms. Why do you take that as meaning we 'don't proceed',
whatever that means, rather than 'we re-negotiate what's
unacceptable'?
Is it your contention that if the British public vote in a second
referendum not to implement a particular deal that it should
nevertheless be implemented?
Now answer the questions I asked. If there is a referendum
decision rejecting the terms, how will the government have been
instructed by the people how to proceed? If it is not to abandon
Brexit, it must surely re-negotiate. What should it re-negotiate,
and to achieve what? How will the referendum have said?
If the deal is not suitable then it should be renegotiated until it
is acceptable to the British public. Or are you saying it should be
passed even if a mojority of the pubic disagrees with it?

If doing that takes longer than the current deadline then far better
to show some flexibility and get it right than to rush to meet a
rigid deadline but fail to implement what the British public wants.
Norman Wells
2018-09-19 17:59:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Is it your contention that if the British public vote in a second
referendum not to implement a particular deal that it should
nevertheless be implemented?
Now answer the questions I asked. If there is a referendum
decision rejecting the terms, how will the government have been
instructed by the people how to proceed? If it is not to abandon
Brexit, it must surely re-negotiate. What should it re-negotiate,
and to achieve what? How will the referendum have said?
If the deal is not suitable then it should be renegotiated until it
is acceptable to the British public.
The question was which terms specifically should it re-negotiate and to
achieve what? How will the referendum have said? How will the
government know what aspects need to be re-negotiated to be acceptable
to the British public?
Post by Pamela
Or are you saying it should be
passed even if a mojority of the pubic disagrees with it?
I'm saying it's pointless having a vote that just says we're not
satisfied, unless it also says what specifically we dislike. And no
referendum can possibly do that.
Post by Pamela
If doing that takes longer than the current deadline then far better
to show some flexibility and get it right than to rush to meet a
rigid deadline but fail to implement what the British public wants.
The government would have no lead on what direction to follow. It
doesn't even know if the EU, which will say it has already negotiated a
deal that it's happy with, will be prepared to play ball and
re-negotiate anything. It doesn't have to.

A referendum on the terms that might leave us in the above unresolvable
quagmire is therefore a ludicrous suggestion.
Pamela
2018-09-19 18:15:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Is it your contention that if the British public vote in a
second referendum not to implement a particular deal that it
should nevertheless be implemented?
Now answer the questions I asked. If there is a referendum
decision rejecting the terms, how will the government have been
instructed by the people how to proceed? If it is not to
abandon Brexit, it must surely re-negotiate. What should it
re-negotiate, and to achieve what? How will the referendum have
said?
If the deal is not suitable then it should be renegotiated until
it is acceptable to the British public.
The question was which terms specifically should it re-negotiate
and to achieve what? How will the referendum have said? How will
the government know what aspects need to be re-negotiated to be
acceptable to the British public?
You can't vote item by item. The items are largely interdependent.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Or are you saying it should be
passed even if a mojority of the pubic disagrees with it?
I'm saying it's pointless having a vote that just says we're not
satisfied, unless it also says what specifically we dislike. And
no referendum can possibly do that.
Several packages could be proposed and the British public asked to
say which they prefer.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
If doing that takes longer than the current deadline then far
better to show some flexibility and get it right than to rush to
meet a rigid deadline but fail to implement what the British
public wants.
The government would have no lead on what direction to follow. It
doesn't even know if the EU, which will say it has already
negotiated a deal that it's happy with, will be prepared to play
ball and re-negotiate anything. It doesn't have to.
A referendum on the terms that might leave us in the above
unresolvable quagmire is therefore a ludicrous suggestion.
The UK has already got a transition period and this could be further
extended to include more negotiations if the EU is willing to grant
it.
Norman Wells
2018-09-19 20:31:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Is it your contention that if the British public vote in a
second referendum not to implement a particular deal that it
should nevertheless be implemented?
Now answer the questions I asked. If there is a referendum
decision rejecting the terms, how will the government have been
instructed by the people how to proceed? If it is not to
abandon Brexit, it must surely re-negotiate. What should it
re-negotiate, and to achieve what? How will the referendum have
said?
If the deal is not suitable then it should be renegotiated until
it is acceptable to the British public.
The question was which terms specifically should it re-negotiate
and to achieve what? How will the referendum have said? How will
the government know what aspects need to be re-negotiated to be
acceptable to the British public?
You can't vote item by item. The items are largely interdependent.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Or are you saying it should be
passed even if a mojority of the pubic disagrees with it?
I'm saying it's pointless having a vote that just says we're not
satisfied, unless it also says what specifically we dislike. And
no referendum can possibly do that.
Several packages could be proposed and the British public asked to
say which they prefer.
If you think that is remotely practicable, you're living in cloud-cuckoo
land.

Besides, it would somewhat depend on what, if anything at all, would be
acceptable to the EU.

No point in putting a package to a public vote if it can't be delivered,
is there? And the EU isn't going to negotiate 'several' packages just
in case one of them might be acceptable to us.

So, that's a complete non-starter.

Yolu really haven't thopught this through, have you?
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
If doing that takes longer than the current deadline then far
better to show some flexibility and get it right than to rush to
meet a rigid deadline but fail to implement what the British
public wants.
The government would have no lead on what direction to follow. It
doesn't even know if the EU, which will say it has already
negotiated a deal that it's happy with, will be prepared to play
ball and re-negotiate anything. It doesn't have to.
A referendum on the terms that might leave us in the above
unresolvable quagmire is therefore a ludicrous suggestion.
The UK has already got a transition period and this could be further
extended to include more negotiations if the EU is willing to grant
it.
No, we haven't 'got a transition period'. It's one of those pesky
provisional agreements, like the 'divorce settlement' that depend on
there being an overall agreement.

If there is no overall agreement done and dusted by March next year
then, unless the other 27 EU countries decide unanimously that the
Article 50 period for negotiation can be extended, we crash out with no
extension whatsoever. The 'transition period' will only come into
effect if there is an overall agreement concluded by next March, and it
will be a period not for further negotiation but simply for full
implementation of what has been agreed.

Best to get that clear in your head.
Pamela
2018-09-19 22:41:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Is it your contention that if the British public vote in a
second referendum not to implement a particular deal that it
should nevertheless be implemented?
Now answer the questions I asked. If there is a referendum
decision rejecting the terms, how will the government have
been instructed by the people how to proceed? If it is not to
abandon Brexit, it must surely re-negotiate. What should it
re-negotiate, and to achieve what? How will the referendum
have said?
If the deal is not suitable then it should be renegotiated
until it is acceptable to the British public.
The question was which terms specifically should it re-negotiate
and to achieve what? How will the referendum have said? How
will the government know what aspects need to be re-negotiated
to be acceptable to the British public?
You can't vote item by item. The items are largely
interdependent.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Or are you saying it should be
passed even if a mojority of the pubic disagrees with it?
I'm saying it's pointless having a vote that just says we're not
satisfied, unless it also says what specifically we dislike.
And no referendum can possibly do that.
Several packages could be proposed and the British public asked
to say which they prefer.
If you think that is remotely practicable, you're living in
cloud-cuckoo land.
Besides, it would somewhat depend on what, if anything at all,
would be acceptable to the EU.
No point in putting a package to a public vote if it can't be
delivered, is there? And the EU isn't going to negotiate
'several' packages just in case one of them might be acceptable to
us.
So, that's a complete non-starter.
Yolu really haven't thopught this through, have you?
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
If doing that takes longer than the current deadline then far
better to show some flexibility and get it right than to rush
to meet a rigid deadline but fail to implement what the British
public wants.
The government would have no lead on what direction to follow.
It doesn't even know if the EU, which will say it has already
negotiated a deal that it's happy with, will be prepared to play
ball and re-negotiate anything. It doesn't have to.
A referendum on the terms that might leave us in the above
unresolvable quagmire is therefore a ludicrous suggestion.
The UK has already got a transition period and this could be
further extended to include more negotiations if the EU is
willing to grant it.
No, we haven't 'got a transition period'. It's one of those pesky
provisional agreements, like the 'divorce settlement' that depend
on there being an overall agreement.
If there is no overall agreement done and dusted by March next
year then, unless the other 27 EU countries decide unanimously
that the Article 50 period for negotiation can be extended, we
crash out with no extension whatsoever. The 'transition period'
will only come into effect if there is an overall agreement
concluded by next March, and it will be a period not for further
negotiation but simply for full implementation of what has been
agreed.
Best to get that clear in your head.
You are far too rigid in your thinking and also seem to beleive
everything said by a politician will turn out as suggested. That is
naive. Politics is the art of the possible.

Endlessly poring over throwaway phrases or minutiae is not going to
inform you what will actually happen.

Balancing the interests of the EU and the wishes of the British public
will be done. It may not meet every single person's dreams but that's
realpolitik for you.

Far better to consult the British public than not, especially as Brexit
is being undertaken entirely in their name.
abelard
2018-09-19 23:45:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Far better to consult the British public than not, especially as Brexit
is being undertaken entirely in their name.
been there
done that
--
www.abelard.org
Norman Wells
2018-09-20 07:54:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
The UK has already got a transition period and this could be
further extended to include more negotiations if the EU is
willing to grant it.
No, we haven't 'got a transition period'. It's one of those pesky
provisional agreements, like the 'divorce settlement' that depend
on there being an overall agreement.
If there is no overall agreement done and dusted by March next
year then, unless the other 27 EU countries decide unanimously
that the Article 50 period for negotiation can be extended, we
crash out with no extension whatsoever. The 'transition period'
will only come into effect if there is an overall agreement
concluded by next March, and it will be a period not for further
negotiation but simply for full implementation of what has been
agreed.
Best to get that clear in your head.
You are far too rigid in your thinking and also seem to beleive
everything said by a politician will turn out as suggested. That is
naive. Politics is the art of the possible.
But it's not what has been said by a politician, it's what's actually
laid down immutably in Article 50 itself of the Lisbon Treaty.

Perhaps you should read it sometime:

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html
Post by Pamela
Endlessly poring over throwaway phrases or minutiae is not going to
inform you what will actually happen.
No, it's what's in the Treaty that will. And it will inform you too if
only you bothered to read it.
Farmer Giles
2018-09-20 08:01:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Is it your contention that if the British public vote in a
second referendum not to implement a particular deal that it
should nevertheless be implemented?
Now answer the questions I asked. If there is a referendum
decision rejecting the terms, how will the government have
been instructed by the people how to proceed? If it is not to
abandon Brexit, it must surely re-negotiate. What should it
re-negotiate, and to achieve what? How will the referendum
have said?
If the deal is not suitable then it should be renegotiated
until it is acceptable to the British public.
The question was which terms specifically should it re-negotiate
and to achieve what? How will the referendum have said? How
will the government know what aspects need to be re-negotiated
to be acceptable to the British public?
You can't vote item by item. The items are largely
interdependent.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Or are you saying it should be
passed even if a mojority of the pubic disagrees with it?
I'm saying it's pointless having a vote that just says we're not
satisfied, unless it also says what specifically we dislike.
And no referendum can possibly do that.
Several packages could be proposed and the British public asked
to say which they prefer.
If you think that is remotely practicable, you're living in
cloud-cuckoo land.
Besides, it would somewhat depend on what, if anything at all,
would be acceptable to the EU.
No point in putting a package to a public vote if it can't be
delivered, is there? And the EU isn't going to negotiate
'several' packages just in case one of them might be acceptable to
us.
So, that's a complete non-starter.
Yolu really haven't thopught this through, have you?
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
If doing that takes longer than the current deadline then far
better to show some flexibility and get it right than to rush
to meet a rigid deadline but fail to implement what the British
public wants.
The government would have no lead on what direction to follow.
It doesn't even know if the EU, which will say it has already
negotiated a deal that it's happy with, will be prepared to play
ball and re-negotiate anything. It doesn't have to.
A referendum on the terms that might leave us in the above
unresolvable quagmire is therefore a ludicrous suggestion.
The UK has already got a transition period and this could be
further extended to include more negotiations if the EU is
willing to grant it.
No, we haven't 'got a transition period'. It's one of those pesky
provisional agreements, like the 'divorce settlement' that depend
on there being an overall agreement.
If there is no overall agreement done and dusted by March next
year then, unless the other 27 EU countries decide unanimously
that the Article 50 period for negotiation can be extended, we
crash out with no extension whatsoever. The 'transition period'
will only come into effect if there is an overall agreement
concluded by next March, and it will be a period not for further
negotiation but simply for full implementation of what has been
agreed.
Best to get that clear in your head.
You are far too rigid in your thinking and also seem to beleive
everything said by a politician will turn out as suggested. That is
naive. Politics is the art of the possible.
Endlessly poring over throwaway phrases or minutiae is not going to
inform you what will actually happen.
Balancing the interests of the EU and the wishes of the British public
will be done. It may not meet every single person's dreams but that's
realpolitik for you.
Far better to consult the British public than not, especially as Brexit
is being undertaken entirely in their name.
They were, and the majority said we want out. What's your problem with that?
Pamela
2018-09-20 12:34:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Is it your contention that if the British public vote in a
second referendum not to implement a particular deal that
it should nevertheless be implemented?
Now answer the questions I asked. If there is a referendum
decision rejecting the terms, how will the government have
been instructed by the people how to proceed? If it is not
to abandon Brexit, it must surely re-negotiate. What should
it re-negotiate, and to achieve what? How will the
referendum have said?
If the deal is not suitable then it should be renegotiated
until it is acceptable to the British public.
The question was which terms specifically should it
re-negotiate and to achieve what? How will the referendum
have said? How will the government know what aspects need to
be re-negotiated to be acceptable to the British public?
You can't vote item by item. The items are largely
interdependent.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Or are you saying it should be
passed even if a mojority of the pubic disagrees with it?
I'm saying it's pointless having a vote that just says we're
not satisfied, unless it also says what specifically we
dislike. And no referendum can possibly do that.
Several packages could be proposed and the British public asked
to say which they prefer.
If you think that is remotely practicable, you're living in
cloud-cuckoo land.
Besides, it would somewhat depend on what, if anything at all,
would be acceptable to the EU.
No point in putting a package to a public vote if it can't be
delivered, is there? And the EU isn't going to negotiate
'several' packages just in case one of them might be acceptable
to us.
So, that's a complete non-starter.
Yolu really haven't thopught this through, have you?
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
If doing that takes longer than the current deadline then far
better to show some flexibility and get it right than to rush
to meet a rigid deadline but fail to implement what the
British public wants.
The government would have no lead on what direction to follow.
It doesn't even know if the EU, which will say it has already
negotiated a deal that it's happy with, will be prepared to
play ball and re-negotiate anything. It doesn't have to.
A referendum on the terms that might leave us in the above
unresolvable quagmire is therefore a ludicrous suggestion.
The UK has already got a transition period and this could be
further extended to include more negotiations if the EU is
willing to grant it.
No, we haven't 'got a transition period'. It's one of those
pesky provisional agreements, like the 'divorce settlement' that
depend on there being an overall agreement.
If there is no overall agreement done and dusted by March next
year then, unless the other 27 EU countries decide unanimously
that the Article 50 period for negotiation can be extended, we
crash out with no extension whatsoever. The 'transition period'
will only come into effect if there is an overall agreement
concluded by next March, and it will be a period not for further
negotiation but simply for full implementation of what has been
agreed.
Best to get that clear in your head.
You are far too rigid in your thinking and also seem to beleive
everything said by a politician will turn out as suggested. That
is naive. Politics is the art of the possible.
Endlessly poring over throwaway phrases or minutiae is not going
to inform you what will actually happen.
Balancing the interests of the EU and the wishes of the British
public will be done. It may not meet every single person's
dreams but that's realpolitik for you.
Far better to consult the British public than not, especially as
Brexit is being undertaken entirely in their name.
They were, and the majority said we want out. What's your problem with that?
The referendum I refer to is to ask the British public if the exit
terms agreed are acceptable to them.
abelard
2018-09-20 12:38:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
The referendum I refer to is to ask the British public if the exit
terms agreed are acceptable to them.
and if they say no?

brexit means brexit...so we leave without an 'agreement'
--
www.abelard.org
Pamela
2018-09-20 12:54:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
The referendum I refer to is to ask the British public if the exit
terms agreed are acceptable to them.
and if they say no?
brexit means brexit...so we leave without an 'agreement'
We can delay exit and use the time to strike an agreement acceptable to
the majority of the British people.

The current exit date is only political posturing.
abelard
2018-09-20 13:32:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
The referendum I refer to is to ask the British public if the exit
terms agreed are acceptable to them.
and if they say no?
brexit means brexit...so we leave without an 'agreement'
We can delay exit and use the time to strike an agreement acceptable to
the majority of the British people.
The current exit date is only political posturing.
and if neither side wants 'an agreement?

ie both 'sides' are 'negotiating' in bad faith?
--
www.abelard.org
Farmer Giles
2018-09-20 13:06:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Is it your contention that if the British public vote in a
second referendum not to implement a particular deal that
it should nevertheless be implemented?
Now answer the questions I asked. If there is a referendum
decision rejecting the terms, how will the government have
been instructed by the people how to proceed? If it is not
to abandon Brexit, it must surely re-negotiate. What should
it re-negotiate, and to achieve what? How will the
referendum have said?
If the deal is not suitable then it should be renegotiated
until it is acceptable to the British public.
The question was which terms specifically should it
re-negotiate and to achieve what? How will the referendum
have said? How will the government know what aspects need to
be re-negotiated to be acceptable to the British public?
You can't vote item by item. The items are largely
interdependent.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Or are you saying it should be
passed even if a mojority of the pubic disagrees with it?
I'm saying it's pointless having a vote that just says we're
not satisfied, unless it also says what specifically we
dislike. And no referendum can possibly do that.
Several packages could be proposed and the British public asked
to say which they prefer.
If you think that is remotely practicable, you're living in
cloud-cuckoo land.
Besides, it would somewhat depend on what, if anything at all,
would be acceptable to the EU.
No point in putting a package to a public vote if it can't be
delivered, is there? And the EU isn't going to negotiate
'several' packages just in case one of them might be acceptable
to us.
So, that's a complete non-starter.
Yolu really haven't thopught this through, have you?
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
If doing that takes longer than the current deadline then far
better to show some flexibility and get it right than to rush
to meet a rigid deadline but fail to implement what the
British public wants.
The government would have no lead on what direction to follow.
It doesn't even know if the EU, which will say it has already
negotiated a deal that it's happy with, will be prepared to
play ball and re-negotiate anything. It doesn't have to.
A referendum on the terms that might leave us in the above
unresolvable quagmire is therefore a ludicrous suggestion.
The UK has already got a transition period and this could be
further extended to include more negotiations if the EU is
willing to grant it.
No, we haven't 'got a transition period'. It's one of those
pesky provisional agreements, like the 'divorce settlement' that
depend on there being an overall agreement.
If there is no overall agreement done and dusted by March next
year then, unless the other 27 EU countries decide unanimously
that the Article 50 period for negotiation can be extended, we
crash out with no extension whatsoever. The 'transition period'
will only come into effect if there is an overall agreement
concluded by next March, and it will be a period not for further
negotiation but simply for full implementation of what has been
agreed.
Best to get that clear in your head.
You are far too rigid in your thinking and also seem to beleive
everything said by a politician will turn out as suggested. That
is naive. Politics is the art of the possible.
Endlessly poring over throwaway phrases or minutiae is not going
to inform you what will actually happen.
Balancing the interests of the EU and the wishes of the British
public will be done. It may not meet every single person's
dreams but that's realpolitik for you.
Far better to consult the British public than not, especially as
Brexit is being undertaken entirely in their name.
They were, and the majority said we want out. What's your problem with that?
The referendum I refer to is to ask the British public if the exit
terms agreed are acceptable to them.
So, the British public are given a vote on the terms. Let's presume that
they don't accept them. What do you do then - present a second lot of
'terms' and ask them to vote again?

Sounds like a recipe for a neverendum.
Pamela
2018-09-20 13:13:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Is it your contention that if the British public vote in
a second referendum not to implement a particular deal
that it should nevertheless be implemented?
Now answer the questions I asked. If there is a
referendum decision rejecting the terms, how will the
government have been instructed by the people how to
proceed? If it is not to abandon Brexit, it must surely
re-negotiate. What should it re-negotiate, and to achieve
what? How will the referendum have said?
If the deal is not suitable then it should be renegotiated
until it is acceptable to the British public.
The question was which terms specifically should it
re-negotiate and to achieve what? How will the referendum
have said? How will the government know what aspects need
to be re-negotiated to be acceptable to the British public?
You can't vote item by item. The items are largely
interdependent.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Or are you saying it should be
passed even if a mojority of the pubic disagrees with it?
I'm saying it's pointless having a vote that just says we're
not satisfied, unless it also says what specifically we
dislike. And no referendum can possibly do that.
Several packages could be proposed and the British public
asked to say which they prefer.
If you think that is remotely practicable, you're living in
cloud-cuckoo land.
Besides, it would somewhat depend on what, if anything at all,
would be acceptable to the EU.
No point in putting a package to a public vote if it can't be
delivered, is there? And the EU isn't going to negotiate
'several' packages just in case one of them might be
acceptable to us.
So, that's a complete non-starter.
Yolu really haven't thopught this through, have you?
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
If doing that takes longer than the current deadline then
far better to show some flexibility and get it right than
to rush to meet a rigid deadline but fail to implement what
the British public wants.
The government would have no lead on what direction to
follow. It doesn't even know if the EU, which will say it
has already negotiated a deal that it's happy with, will be
prepared to play ball and re-negotiate anything. It doesn't
have to.
A referendum on the terms that might leave us in the above
unresolvable quagmire is therefore a ludicrous suggestion.
The UK has already got a transition period and this could be
further extended to include more negotiations if the EU is
willing to grant it.
No, we haven't 'got a transition period'. It's one of those
pesky provisional agreements, like the 'divorce settlement'
that depend on there being an overall agreement.
If there is no overall agreement done and dusted by March next
year then, unless the other 27 EU countries decide unanimously
that the Article 50 period for negotiation can be extended, we
crash out with no extension whatsoever. The 'transition
period' will only come into effect if there is an overall
agreement concluded by next March, and it will be a period not
for further negotiation but simply for full implementation of
what has been agreed.
Best to get that clear in your head.
You are far too rigid in your thinking and also seem to beleive
everything said by a politician will turn out as suggested.
That is naive. Politics is the art of the possible.
Endlessly poring over throwaway phrases or minutiae is not
going to inform you what will actually happen.
Balancing the interests of the EU and the wishes of the British
public will be done. It may not meet every single person's
dreams but that's realpolitik for you.
Far better to consult the British public than not, especially
as Brexit is being undertaken entirely in their name.
They were, and the majority said we want out. What's your
problem with that?
The referendum I refer to is to ask the British public if the
exit terms agreed are acceptable to them.
So, the British public are given a vote on the terms. Let's
presume that they don't accept them. What do you do then - present
a second lot of 'terms' and ask them to vote again?
Sounds like a recipe for a neverendum.
If there is no majority acceptance of the terms of Brexit then the
UK is in for very many decades of damaging internecine political
strife.

A majority vote in a referendum on the terms of Brexit is the best
outcome. If the terms have to be proposed and voted on several times
then that's fine. What's the big rush. Get it right or get it
fast.
Vidcapper
2018-09-17 15:41:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Omega
Upon a second Brexit referendum and an unequivocal Win for the
Brexiters, would the Remainers finally shut up?
I doubt it, they'll never stop bitching!
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Loading...