FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Brexit Help Needed...
Brexit Help Needed...
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
 honestley i couldnt tell u as i neither a remainer or leaver | |||
"I’m trying to compile a list of reasons why people chose to vote Leave. I’ve asked lots and lots of Brexiters but none seem to be able to give me an answer - they tend to get frustrated and avoid the question. There seem to be quite a few Brexiters on here, so can any give me any for my list? Many thanks in advance." Very patronising and rude. | |||
" Very patronising and rude. " See what I mean? | |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
"ok convince me why we should stay in the eu dictatorship ...must be cause its doing so great aye...ps one look at the little rat face from france makes me want to leave...he cant even sort his own problems but tells the world how to solve theres...twat head" I doubt anyone who sees the EU as a dictatorship and the key players as rat faced twat heads will have the capacity to alter their world view. | |||
| |||
| |||
"For your information, please: 1. See the arguments offered by the leave campaign. 2. See the comments made by UKIP, Nigel Farage and Gérard Batten in the topic. 3. Listen to the callers in LBC radio. 4. Listen to Jacob Rees Mog. 5. Stop asking us to constantly explain our positions again and again. This has been covered to death for the past three years all over these forums, on TV, radio and online. We are sick of hearing about it. 6. I don't particularly care about your reasons to remain. You lost. Deal with it and honour a democratic vote which had the biggest mandate in the UKs history. In 2005 Labour ran the government and the country with 35.2% of the vote and 61.3% turnout, meaning only 22% of the electorate or 9.5 million people decided the direction of the country. Nobody challenged it. There weren't massive marches in the streets demanding a second vote despite Blair's unpopularity, and the result was respected and implemented immediately as we supposedly live in a Democracy. In 2016, 51.9% or 17.4 million people of 72.2% of the electorate voted to leave the EU. The remain campaign made it very clear during what we now call Project Fear that this was going to be a no deal brexit, with all the consequences that meant, yet people still voted for it. This is almost double the number who voted for Labour in 2005. Yet here we are, in 2019, almost three years later and the results of the vote have not been implemented. This really highlights the hypocrisy of the establishment and the fact that actually, we don't live in a democracy. You want a third referendum? Fine. I'm all for it. But implement the results of the first referendum first, then 40 years later, which is the time between the referendum to join the Common Market and the referendum to leave the European Union, then you can have a fourth referendum to see if we want to rejoin. Fair is fair. Honor Democracy and your fellow citizens and stop being a sore loser. Whatever happened to the British concept of fair play and losing gracefully? "  | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"For your information, please: 1. See the arguments offered by the leave campaign. 2. See the comments made by UKIP, Nigel Farage and Gérard Batten in the topic. 3. Listen to the callers in LBC radio. 4. Listen to Jacob Rees Mog. 5. Stop asking us to constantly explain our positions again and again. This has been covered to death for the past three years all over these forums, on TV, radio and online. We are sick of hearing about it. 6. I don't particularly care about your reasons to remain. You lost. Deal with it and honour a democratic vote which had the biggest mandate in the UKs history. In 2005 Labour ran the government and the country with 35.2% of the vote and 61.3% turnout, meaning only 22% of the electorate or 9.5 million people decided the direction of the country. Nobody challenged it. There weren't massive marches in the streets demanding a second vote despite Blair's unpopularity, and the result was respected and implemented immediately as we supposedly live in a Democracy. In 2016, 51.9% or 17.4 million people of 72.2% of the electorate voted to leave the EU. The remain campaign made it very clear during what we now call Project Fear that this was going to be a no deal brexit, with all the consequences that meant, yet people still voted for it. This is almost double the number who voted for Labour in 2005. Yet here we are, in 2019, almost three years later and the results of the vote have not been implemented. This really highlights the hypocrisy of the establishment and the fact that actually, we don't live in a democracy. You want a third referendum? Fine. I'm all for it. But implement the results of the first referendum first, then 40 years later, which is the time between the referendum to join the Common Market and the referendum to leave the European Union, then you can have a fourth referendum to see if we want to rejoin. Fair is fair. Honor Democracy and your fellow citizens and stop being a sore loser. Whatever happened to the British concept of fair play and losing gracefully? "I think that deserves afew more thumbs that just two. | |||
"Still waiting for any single reason that has not been thoroughly debunked. As for fair play, it has been proved that the leave campaign was tainted by dishonesty. Just hours after the referendum result was announced, Farage was joking about the big red bus being a lie! And so-called project fear? Every word has been proved to be real. The true reason why all the brexiteers are so dead set against another referendum is that they know there is absolutely no way that they could win under a fair campaign." And you think the remain campaign was fair? Eight (or was it nine?) million quid of government money (not declared as election expenses BTW.) spent on a pro remain flyer through every letter box in the country. Any candidate in a local or general election trying that stunt would have had his collar felt within days. The threat of an emergency budget immediately after a leave vote, which didn't happen. Cameron's threat of WW3. 
Add to that the whole of the project fear exercise which became more and more hysterical by the day.
After all of that shit from the remain campaign and all they can bang on about is one fucking slogan on a bus.
FFS. Grow up. | |||
"I’m trying to compile a list of reasons why people chose to vote Leave. I’ve asked lots and lots of Brexiters but none seem to be able to give me an answer - they tend to get frustrated and avoid the question. There seem to be quite a few Brexiters on here, so can any give me any for my list? Many thanks in advance." There's a good paper by the Centre for Social Investigation; "Reasons for voting leave or remain". That might be a good starting point for you. | |||
"1 To make our own laws and for the decisions of our courts to be final.This will save the tax payer a lot of money,not good for the legal profession lol. 2 No pressure to ever join the Euro or become part of a eurostate. 3.I do believe the EU is failing as there is so much beaurocracy that will paralyse its workings. 4 I am fully in favour of a free trade area and laws holding that together ie EFTA but nothing more,no European state,we are Britain. For me Norway 0.2 is ok but if the worst comes to the worsed would take no deal as we must get out dispite any short term cost,in five years we will unite knowing it to have been the right decision,this I do believe. " 1 We already do and the EU can't force us to pass into law anything we don't want to. 2. We aren't 3. Not sure how you have come to that belief as there is no evidence for it. But that's up to you. 4. Yes we are Britain but not the Britain with the combative inferiority complex you view us as. | |||
"For your information, please: 1. See the arguments offered by the leave campaign. 2. See the comments made by UKIP, Nigel Farage and Gérard Batten in the topic. 3. Listen to the callers in LBC radio. 4. Listen to Jacob Rees Mog. 5. Stop asking us to constantly explain our positions again and again. This has been covered to death for the past three years all over these forums, on TV, radio and online. We are sick of hearing about it. 6. I don't particularly care about your reasons to remain. You lost. Deal with it and honour a democratic vote which had the biggest mandate in the UKs history. In 2005 Labour ran the government and the country with 35.2% of the vote and 61.3% turnout, meaning only 22% of the electorate or 9.5 million people decided the direction of the country. Nobody challenged it. There weren't massive marches in the streets demanding a second vote despite Blair's unpopularity, and the result was respected and implemented immediately as we supposedly live in a Democracy. In 2016, 51.9% or 17.4 million people of 72.2% of the electorate voted to leave the EU. The remain campaign made it very clear during what we now call Project Fear that this was going to be a no deal brexit, with all the consequences that meant, yet people still voted for it. This is almost double the number who voted for Labour in 2005. Yet here we are, in 2019, almost three years later and the results of the vote have not been implemented. This really highlights the hypocrisy of the establishment and the fact that actually, we don't live in a democracy. You want a third referendum? Fine. I'm all for it. But implement the results of the first referendum first, then 40 years later, which is the time between the referendum to join the Common Market and the referendum to leave the European Union, then you can have a fourth referendum to see if we want to rejoin. Fair is fair. Honor Democracy and your fellow citizens and stop being a sore loser. Whatever happened to the British concept of fair play and losing gracefully? " 1. All the points raised by both leave campaigns have been disproven. 2. Not the best choice of examples as they have lost every open debate on the subject. 3. I do. The leavers spout Empassioned Belief. The remainers provide studies, knowledge and facts. 4. Again, not really the best champion of your cause due to his personal circumstances and beliefs. 5. Not until you come up with one actual reason that will improve our great country. 6. No. Never. We will never just sit back and except the brexiteer traitors to our country voluntarily and wilfully making it worse off. 7. Stuff having another referendum. Just cancel Brexit as it is costing us a fortune and is making us economically, socially and morally worse off. | |||
| |||
" Very patronising and rude. See what I mean?"  | |||
"Still waiting for any single reason that has not been thoroughly debunked. As for fair play, it has been proved that the leave campaign was tainted by dishonesty. Just hours after the referendum result was announced, Farage was joking about the big red bus being a lie! And so-called project fear? Every word has been proved to be real. The true reason why all the brexiteers are so dead set against another referendum is that they know there is absolutely no way that they could win under a fair campaign. And you think the remain campaign was fair? Eight (or was it nine?) million quid of government money (not declared as election expenses BTW.) spent on a pro remain flyer through every letter box in the country. Any candidate in a local or general election trying that stunt would have had his collar felt within days. The threat of an emergency budget immediately after a leave vote, which didn't happen. Cameron's threat of WW3.
Add to that the whole of the project fear exercise which became more and more hysterical by the day.
After all of that shit from the remain campaign and all they can bang on about is one fucking slogan on a bus.
FFS. Grow up."Yes the pamphlet distributed by the government was before Purdah, and therefore legal. The government, also has a duty to put its case to the nation, and it just happened to be remain! The point is, the pamphlet was legal, both leave campaigns, broke the law! Leave could have produced a pamphlet and distributed it too, they chose not to do so! | |||
| |||
"What is the point of staying in if the deal in part's means that the eu rule the uk, and Ireland given what i seen on the interview with Adam boulton. Pointing out that the uk and Ireland are at a domestic issue with each other and not another county. So the eu using the backstop for calatrol is what one said. We might as well start attaching string to the local mps for the eu to pull around. Treasa may will do anything to be part of the eu club and that includes selling the uk down the river teams and beyond.. If we leave far more money in time will be reguided back into our own economy and cut the redicluse amount of aid, for all the floods in other things I've never heard another country actually say that they are sending aid to the uk or any red cross from the uk helping as they do aboard un workers. " I have to say. This person is the stereotype when people In Ireland think leave voters are like. | |||
| |||
"Yeah! And leave won! Go figure...." Yes they did, and others, who have won under dubious circumstances eg athletes, have had their victories stripped! Hey, if you have to cheat to win, then so be it, that's probably why, they're scared of a second referendum? | |||
"For your information, please: 1. See the arguments offered by the leave campaign. 2. See the comments made by UKIP, Nigel Farage and Gérard Batten in the topic. 3. Listen to the callers in LBC radio. 4. Listen to Jacob Rees Mog. 5. Stop asking us to constantly explain our positions again and again. This has been covered to death for the past three years all over these forums, on TV, radio and online. We are sick of hearing about it. 6. I don't particularly care about your reasons to remain. You lost. Deal with it and honour a democratic vote which had the biggest mandate in the UKs history. In 2005 Labour ran the government and the country with 35.2% of the vote and 61.3% turnout, meaning only 22% of the electorate or 9.5 million people decided the direction of the country. Nobody challenged it. There weren't massive marches in the streets demanding a second vote despite Blair's unpopularity, and the result was respected and implemented immediately as we supposedly live in a Democracy. In 2016, 51.9% or 17.4 million people of 72.2% of the electorate voted to leave the EU. The remain campaign made it very clear during what we now call Project Fear that this was going to be a no deal brexit, with all the consequences that meant, yet people still voted for it. This is almost double the number who voted for Labour in 2005. Yet here we are, in 2019, almost three years later and the results of the vote have not been implemented. This really highlights the hypocrisy of the establishment and the fact that actually, we don't live in a democracy. You want a third referendum? Fine. I'm all for it. But implement the results of the first referendum first, then 40 years later, which is the time between the referendum to join the Common Market and the referendum to leave the European Union, then you can have a fourth referendum to see if we want to rejoin. Fair is fair. Honor Democracy and your fellow citizens and stop being a sore loser. Whatever happened to the British concept of fair play and losing gracefully? " | |||
"1 To make our own laws and for the decisions of our courts to be final.This will save the tax payer a lot of money,not good for the legal profession lol. 2 No pressure to ever join the Euro or become part of a eurostate. 3.I do believe the EU is failing as there is so much beaurocracy that will paralyse its workings. 4 I am fully in favour of a free trade area and laws holding that together ie EFTA but nothing more,no European state,we are Britain. For me Norway 0.2 is ok but if the worst comes to the worsed would take no deal as we must get out dispite any short term cost,in five years we will unite knowing it to have been the right decision,this I do believe. 1 We already do and the EU can't force us to pass into law anything we don't want to. 2. We aren't 3. Not sure how you have come to that belief as there is no evidence for it. But that's up to you. 4. Yes we are Britain but not the Britain with the combative inferiority complex you view us as." We disagree but that's ok | |||
"Still waiting for any single reason that has not been thoroughly debunked. As for fair play, it has been proved that the leave campaign was tainted by dishonesty. Just hours after the referendum result was announced, Farage was joking about the big red bus being a lie! And so-called project fear? Every word has been proved to be real. The true reason why all the brexiteers are so dead set against another referendum is that they know there is absolutely no way that they could win under a fair campaign. And you think the remain campaign was fair? Eight (or was it nine?) million quid of government money (not declared as election expenses BTW.) spent on a pro remain flyer through every letter box in the country. Any candidate in a local or general election trying that stunt would have had his collar felt within days. The threat of an emergency budget immediately after a leave vote, which didn't happen. Cameron's threat of WW3.
Add to that the whole of the project fear exercise which became more and more hysterical by the day.
After all of that shit from the remain campaign and all they can bang on about is one fucking slogan on a bus.
FFS. Grow up."There's far far more than just one fucking slogan on a bus and you well know it  | |||
"What is the point of staying in if the deal in part's means that the eu rule the uk, and Ireland given what i seen on the interview with Adam boulton. Pointing out that the uk and Ireland are at a domestic issue with each other and not another county. So the eu using the backstop for calatrol is what one said. We might as well start attaching string to the local mps for the eu to pull around. Treasa may will do anything to be part of the eu club and that includes selling the uk down the river teams and beyond.. If we leave far more money in time will be reguided back into our own economy and cut the redicluse amount of aid, for all the floods in other things I've never heard another country actually say that they are sending aid to the uk or any red cross from the uk helping as they do aboard un workers. " The strings that tie Northern Ireland with the Republic were woven very carefully. Unpick them at your peril. | |||
"For your information, please: 1. See the arguments offered by the leave campaign. 2. See the comments made by UKIP, Nigel Farage and Gérard Batten in the topic. 3. Listen to the callers in LBC radio. 4. Listen to Jacob Rees Mog. 5. Stop asking us to constantly explain our positions again and again. This has been covered to death for the past three years all over these forums, on TV, radio and online. We are sick of hearing about it. 6. I don't particularly care about your reasons to remain. You lost. Deal with it and honour a democratic vote which had the biggest mandate in the UKs history. In 2005 Labour ran the government and the country with 35.2% of the vote and 61.3% turnout, meaning only 22% of the electorate or 9.5 million people decided the direction of the country. Nobody challenged it. There weren't massive marches in the streets demanding a second vote despite Blair's unpopularity, and the result was respected and implemented immediately as we supposedly live in a Democracy. In 2016, 51.9% or 17.4 million people of 72.2% of the electorate voted to leave the EU. The remain campaign made it very clear during what we now call Project Fear that this was going to be a no deal brexit, with all the consequences that meant, yet people still voted for it. This is almost double the number who voted for Labour in 2005. Yet here we are, in 2019, almost three years later and the results of the vote have not been implemented. This really highlights the hypocrisy of the establishment and the fact that actually, we don't live in a democracy. You want a third referendum? Fine. I'm all for it. But implement the results of the first referendum first, then 40 years later, which is the time between the referendum to join the Common Market and the referendum to leave the European Union, then you can have a fourth referendum to see if we want to rejoin. Fair is fair. Honor Democracy and your fellow citizens and stop being a sore loser. Whatever happened to the British concept of fair play and losing gracefully? " There was NEVER a referendum to join the common market. Joining the common market was decided by a few hundred MPs....if just 57 of them had voted against joining, we would not have. | |||
"Yeah! And leave won! Go figure.... Yes they did, and others, who have won under dubious circumstances eg athletes, have had their victories stripped! Hey, if you have to cheat to win, then so be it, that's probably why, they're scared of a second referendum?" pmsl...the thought of Bo Jo and J R Mogg on steroids is funny. And are you calling the integrity of the British democratic voting system into question? Tut tut.... it's all above board and beyond question. Wheather it's X factor or Blue Peter | |||
"1 To make our own laws and for the decisions of our courts to be final.This will save the tax payer a lot of money,not good for the legal profession lol. 2 No pressure to ever join the Euro or become part of a eurostate. 3.I do believe the EU is failing as there is so much beaurocracy that will paralyse its workings. 4 I am fully in favour of a free trade area and laws holding that together ie EFTA but nothing more,no European state,we are Britain. For me Norway 0.2 is ok but if the worst comes to the worsed would take no deal as we must get out dispite any short term cost,in five years we will unite knowing it to have been the right decision,this I do believe. 1 We already do and the EU can't force us to pass into law anything we don't want to. 2. We aren't 3. Not sure how you have come to that belief as there is no evidence for it. But that's up to you. 4. Yes we are Britain but not the Britain with the combative inferiority complex you view us as." On your point 1..w We do not have a veto over all laws. Research it, look it up, and learn where we do and do not have a veto, and which areas of EU legislation is subject to QMV. There is also a difference between EU directives and regulations....look up the difference and learn something. | |||
"Yeah! And leave won! Go figure.... Yes they did, and others, who have won under dubious circumstances eg athletes, have had their victories stripped! Hey, if you have to cheat to win, then so be it, that's probably why, they're scared of a second referendum? pmsl...the thought of Bo Jo and J R Mogg on steroids is funny. And are you calling the integrity of the British democratic voting system into question? Tut tut.... it's all above board and beyond question. Wheather it's X factor or Blue Peter "Well if you haven't worked it out, then yes! The system only has integrity if the rules are adhered to, therefore, as both leave campaigns broke electoral law, then the integrity was lost! The fact that the referendum was advisory and not mandatory, and that the misdemeanor was discovered too late (times out) is the reason it hasn't been annulled! | |||
| |||
"1 To make our own laws and for the decisions of our courts to be final.This will save the tax payer a lot of money,not good for the legal profession lol. 2 No pressure to ever join the Euro or become part of a eurostate. 3.I do believe the EU is failing as there is so much beaurocracy that will paralyse its workings. 4 I am fully in favour of a free trade area and laws holding that together ie EFTA but nothing more,no European state,we are Britain. For me Norway 0.2 is ok but if the worst comes to the worsed would take no deal as we must get out dispite any short term cost,in five years we will unite knowing it to have been the right decision,this I do believe. 1 We already do and the EU can't force us to pass into law anything we don't want to. 2. We aren't 3. Not sure how you have come to that belief as there is no evidence for it. But that's up to you. 4. Yes we are Britain but not the Britain with the combative inferiority complex you view us as. On your point 1..w We do not have a veto over all laws. Research it, look it up, and learn where we do and do not have a veto, and which areas of EU legislation is subject to QMV. There is also a difference between EU directives and regulations....look up the difference and learn something." Quite right, however, if 3 other countries join our veto then its blocked! We have vetoes in important issues foreign policy, taxation etc so we can flex our muscles! | |||
" There was NEVER a referendum to join the common market. Joining the common market was decided by a few hundred MPs....if just 57 of them had voted against joining, we would not have. " The French kept Britain out for a decade, vetoing membership. They were concerned the British would wreck things. Reading some of the views in here, they were right. | |||
"1 To make our own laws and for the decisions of our courts to be final.This will save the tax payer a lot of money,not good for the legal profession lol. 2 No pressure to ever join the Euro or become part of a eurostate. 3.I do believe the EU is failing as there is so much beaurocracy that will paralyse its workings. 4 I am fully in favour of a free trade area and laws holding that together ie EFTA but nothing more,no European state,we are Britain. For me Norway 0.2 is ok but if the worst comes to the worsed would take no deal as we must get out dispite any short term cost,in five years we will unite knowing it to have been the right decision,this I do believe. 1 We already do and the EU can't force us to pass into law anything we don't want to. 2. We aren't 3. Not sure how you have come to that belief as there is no evidence for it. But that's up to you. 4. Yes we are Britain but not the Britain with the combative inferiority complex you view us as. On your point 1..w We do not have a veto over all laws. Research it, look it up, and learn where we do and do not have a veto, and which areas of EU legislation is subject to QMV. There is also a difference between EU directives and regulations....look up the difference and learn something. Quite right, however, if 3 other countries join our veto then its blocked! We have vetoes in important issues foreign policy, taxation etc so we can flex our muscles!" And 38% of the EU population to block in addition to 4 countries. And in January this year the EU announced an 'ongoing debate on QMV for taxation'. | |||
"Quite a long and detailed economic argument made by Waves and Mountains in this thread...https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/869921 which no one seemed to challenge." I fixed that for you | |||
"I’m trying to compile a list of reasons why people chose to vote Leave. I’ve asked lots and lots of Brexiters but none seem to be able to give me an answer - they tend to get frustrated and avoid the question. There seem to be quite a few Brexiters on here, so can any give me any for my list? Many thanks in advance. There's a good paper by the Centre for Social Investigation; "Reasons for voting leave or remain". That might be a good starting point for you." It is interesting but bear this in mind: "An important methodological caveat is that the data presented here concern people’s stated reasons for voting Leave or Remain, assessed more than 18 months after the referendum took place. It is therefore possible that they do not reflect the true reasons people voted the way they did. For example, they could be biased by the tendency for people to justify their decisions with post-hoc rationalisations. On the other hand, Figures 1 and 3 accord rather closely with the findings of previous surveys and opinion polls." | |||
"I’m trying to compile a list of reasons why people chose to vote Leave. I’ve asked lots and lots of Brexiters but none seem to be able to give me an answer - they tend to get frustrated and avoid the question. There seem to be quite a few Brexiters on here, so can any give me any for my list? Many thanks in advance. There's a good paper by the Centre for Social Investigation; "Reasons for voting leave or remain". That might be a good starting point for you. It is interesting but bear this in mind: "An important methodological caveat is that the data presented here concern people’s stated reasons for voting Leave or Remain, assessed more than 18 months after the referendum took place. It is therefore possible that they do not reflect the true reasons people voted the way they did. For example, they could be biased by the tendency for people to justify their decisions with post-hoc rationalisations. On the other hand, Figures 1 and 3 accord rather closely with the findings of previous surveys and opinion polls."" You mean.. figure 1 - "reasons why leave voters voted leave", and Figure 2 -"reasons why remain voters voted remain" Are close to the findings of previous surveys and polls? | |||
"1 To make our own laws and for the decisions of our courts to be final.This will save the tax payer a lot of money,not good for the legal profession lol. 2 No pressure to ever join the Euro or become part of a eurostate. 3.I do believe the EU is failing as there is so much beaurocracy that will paralyse its workings. 4 I am fully in favour of a free trade area and laws holding that together ie EFTA but nothing more,no European state,we are Britain. For me Norway 0.2 is ok but if the worst comes to the worsed would take no deal as we must get out dispite any short term cost,in five years we will unite knowing it to have been the right decision,this I do believe. 1 We already do and the EU can't force us to pass into law anything we don't want to. 2. We aren't 3. Not sure how you have come to that belief as there is no evidence for it. But that's up to you. 4. Yes we are Britain but not the Britain with the combative inferiority complex you view us as. On your point 1..w We do not have a veto over all laws. Research it, look it up, and learn where we do and do not have a veto, and which areas of EU legislation is subject to QMV. There is also a difference between EU directives and regulations....look up the difference and learn something. Quite right, however, if 3 other countries join our veto then its blocked! We have vetoes in important issues foreign policy, taxation etc so we can flex our muscles! And 38% of the EU population to block in addition to 4 countries. And in January this year the EU announced an 'ongoing debate on QMV for taxation'." But it doesn't mean it's going to pass into legislation! | |||
"I’m trying to compile a list of reasons why people chose to vote Leave. I’ve asked lots and lots of Brexiters but none seem to be able to give me an answer - they tend to get frustrated and avoid the question. There seem to be quite a few Brexiters on here, so can any give me any for my list? Many thanks in advance. There's a good paper by the Centre for Social Investigation; "Reasons for voting leave or remain". That might be a good starting point for you. It is interesting but bear this in mind: "An important methodological caveat is that the data presented here concern people’s stated reasons for voting Leave or Remain, assessed more than 18 months after the referendum took place. It is therefore possible that they do not reflect the true reasons people voted the way they did. For example, they could be biased by the tendency for people to justify their decisions with post-hoc rationalisations. On the other hand, Figures 1 and 3 accord rather closely with the findings of previous surveys and opinion polls." You mean.. figure 1 - "reasons why leave voters voted leave", and Figure 2 -"reasons why remain voters voted remain" Are close to the findings of previous surveys and polls?" The polling did not ask: "Did you vote to stop Muslim immigrants from Syria and Turkey?" The survey did not ask: "Did you vote for Brexit means Brexit?" The survey did not ask: "Did you vote for more 'sovreignty'?" It certainly didn't define which laws they objected to. ECJ OR ECHR? Why don't you pick five that you object to... | |||
"I’m trying to compile a list of reasons why people chose to vote Leave. I’ve asked lots and lots of Brexiters but none seem to be able to give me an answer - they tend to get frustrated and avoid the question. There seem to be quite a few Brexiters on here, so can any give me any for my list? Many thanks in advance. There's a good paper by the Centre for Social Investigation; "Reasons for voting leave or remain". That might be a good starting point for you. It is interesting but bear this in mind: "An important methodological caveat is that the data presented here concern people’s stated reasons for voting Leave or Remain, assessed more than 18 months after the referendum took place. It is therefore possible that they do not reflect the true reasons people voted the way they did. For example, they could be biased by the tendency for people to justify their decisions with post-hoc rationalisations. On the other hand, Figures 1 and 3 accord rather closely with the findings of previous surveys and opinion polls." You mean.. figure 1 - "reasons why leave voters voted leave", and Figure 2 -"reasons why remain voters voted remain" Are close to the findings of previous surveys and polls? The polling did not ask: "Did you vote to stop Muslim immigrants from Syria and Turkey?" The survey did not ask: "Did you vote for Brexit means Brexit?" The survey did not ask: "Did you vote for more 'sovreignty'?" It certainly didn't define which laws they objected to. ECJ OR ECHR? Why don't you pick five that you object to..." Neither did the polling ask "what do you think is meant by 'remain and reform'?" What do YOU think is meant by remain and reform? Don't you do know the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU? | |||
| |||
"I’m trying to compile a list of reasons why people chose to vote Leave. I’ve asked lots and lots of Brexiters but none seem to be able to give me an answer - they tend to get frustrated and avoid the question. There seem to be quite a few Brexiters on here, so can any give me any for my list? Many thanks in advance. There's a good paper by the Centre for Social Investigation; "Reasons for voting leave or remain". That might be a good starting point for you." Thanks for pointing this one out, in summary: 1. Control Immigration 2. Stop EU having any role in law making 3. Stop sending money to the EU So, we already know that we get more back from the EU than we pay - this was just BJ lies. The EU has very limited involvement in UK law making, many of the EU laws actually stem from the UK. So could this again have been scare mongering to appeal to Nationalism. With Immigration, again we had a blanket campaign of scaremongering from Leave about Turkey joining the EU, Syrian Refugees swarming into Britain creating a climate of fear. 3 years on, neither of these things have happened and one has to question the motives of the people running Leave. Again these reasons all seem to be emotional rather than real. I accept emotions are powerful causes of actions, but when you actually take a rationale look at the reasons they have no substance. So maybe Leavers can’t quantify why they think Leave is best? This is not a criticism, it is more of an insight. We are patently better off in the EU, none of the Brexit advantages exist, but we ‘take back control’. The problem with this last bit though, is that who takes back control? If nothing else has been shown in the last 3 years, surely the lack of ability of our Politicians stands out?! We are not in any way ready to take back control, we do not have any calibre of Leadership that could lead us anywhere - please do not suggest Farage and Batten are shining lights of leadership... | |||
"Still waiting for any single reason that has not been thoroughly debunked. As for fair play, it has been proved that the leave campaign was tainted by dishonesty. Just hours after the referendum result was announced, Farage was joking about the big red bus being a lie! And so-called project fear? Every word has been proved to be real. The true reason why all the brexiteers are so dead set against another referendum is that they know there is absolutely no way that they could win under a fair campaign. And you think the remain campaign was fair? Eight (or was it nine?) million quid of government money (not declared as election expenses BTW.) spent on a pro remain flyer through every letter box in the country. Any candidate in a local or general election trying that stunt would have had his collar felt within days. The threat of an emergency budget immediately after a leave vote, which didn't happen. Cameron's threat of WW3.
Add to that the whole of the project fear exercise which became more and more hysterical by the day.
After all of that shit from the remain campaign and all they can bang on about is one fucking slogan on a bus.
FFS. Grow up.
Yes the pamphlet distributed by the government was before Purdah, and therefore legal. The government, also has a duty to put its case to the nation, and it just happened to be remain!
The point is, the pamphlet was legal, both leave campaigns, broke the law! Leave could have produced a pamphlet and distributed it too, they chose not to do so!"I wouldn't say "chose not to do so" I would say, couldn't do so because they didn't have 8 or 9 million of taxpayers money to chuck at it. Cameron knew the purdah laws enough to know that as the "government" he could cheat his way around them before throwing his weight behind remain. An Honourable PM would have funded both sides of the argument or none. In short. A very low down despicable trick. | |||
"I’m trying to compile a list of reasons why people chose to vote Leave. I’ve asked lots and lots of Brexiters but none seem to be able to give me an answer - they tend to get frustrated and avoid the question. There seem to be quite a few Brexiters on here, so can any give me any for my list? Many thanks in advance. There's a good paper by the Centre for Social Investigation; "Reasons for voting leave or remain". That might be a good starting point for you. It is interesting but bear this in mind: "An important methodological caveat is that the data presented here concern people’s stated reasons for voting Leave or Remain, assessed more than 18 months after the referendum took place. It is therefore possible that they do not reflect the true reasons people voted the way they did. For example, they could be biased by the tendency for people to justify their decisions with post-hoc rationalisations. On the other hand, Figures 1 and 3 accord rather closely with the findings of previous surveys and opinion polls." You mean.. figure 1 - "reasons why leave voters voted leave", and Figure 2 -"reasons why remain voters voted remain" Are close to the findings of previous surveys and polls? The polling did not ask: "Did you vote to stop Muslim immigrants from Syria and Turkey?" The survey did not ask: "Did you vote for Brexit means Brexit?" The survey did not ask: "Did you vote for more 'sovreignty'?" It certainly didn't define which laws they objected to. ECJ OR ECHR? Why don't you pick five that you object to... Neither did the polling ask "what do you think is meant by 'remain and reform'?" What do YOU think is meant by remain and reform? Don't you do know the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU? " "Remain and reform" is not "a thing". The EU evolves continuously with 28 countries forming a consensus over many areas in exactly the same way as the UK is in a permanent state of "reform". That's the entire point of government and international organisations. I am very aware that the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU. However, many people demonstrate even now that they do not. That is why finding out what laws those polled object to is pertinent. I note that you can't name five which either means there aren't five that you can name or that it is the abstract principal that the only laws that British people should acknowledge are those that we create on our own. It implies that laws that we play a part in creating but not exclusively create are not of any benefit. Perhaps you have another position on this? | |||
"I’m trying to compile a list of reasons why people chose to vote Leave. I’ve asked lots and lots of Brexiters but none seem to be able to give me an answer - they tend to get frustrated and avoid the question. There seem to be quite a few Brexiters on here, so can any give me any for my list? Many thanks in advance. There's a good paper by the Centre for Social Investigation; "Reasons for voting leave or remain". That might be a good starting point for you. It is interesting but bear this in mind: "An important methodological caveat is that the data presented here concern people’s stated reasons for voting Leave or Remain, assessed more than 18 months after the referendum took place. It is therefore possible that they do not reflect the true reasons people voted the way they did. For example, they could be biased by the tendency for people to justify their decisions with post-hoc rationalisations. On the other hand, Figures 1 and 3 accord rather closely with the findings of previous surveys and opinion polls." You mean.. figure 1 - "reasons why leave voters voted leave", and Figure 2 -"reasons why remain voters voted remain" Are close to the findings of previous surveys and polls? The polling did not ask: "Did you vote to stop Muslim immigrants from Syria and Turkey?" The survey did not ask: "Did you vote for Brexit means Brexit?" The survey did not ask: "Did you vote for more 'sovreignty'?" It certainly didn't define which laws they objected to. ECJ OR ECHR? Why don't you pick five that you object to... Neither did the polling ask "what do you think is meant by 'remain and reform'?" What do YOU think is meant by remain and reform? Don't you do know the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU? "Remain and reform" is not "a thing". The EU evolves continuously with 28 countries forming a consensus over many areas in exactly the same way as the UK is in a permanent state of "reform". That's the entire point of government and international organisations. I am very aware that the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU. However, many people demonstrate even now that they do not. That is why finding out what laws those polled object to is pertinent. I note that you can't name five which either means there aren't five that you can name or that it is the abstract principal that the only laws that British people should acknowledge are those that we create on our own. It implies that laws that we play a part in creating but not exclusively create are not of any benefit. Perhaps you have another position on this?" So 'remain and reform' is not a thing, does not therefore exist, us in the imagination and a mere fantasy? And yet that 'remain and reform' is what the remain campaign was based upon! A remain unicorn! In the same way you say the EU evolves continuously, the UK outside of the EU will as well....maybe you're too myopic and blinkered to see that. How do you see the EU evolving in 20, 30, 40 years time? EU army? UK taking the Euro? EU wide tax system? EU wide health system? QMV on everything? EU wide education system? Pure majority voting on everything? What other reforms do you think there will be/ woukd you like? VAT Free movement of labour Child benefit going to children not living in the UK Diabetic Drivers directive CFP CAP Vacuum cleaners regs Impending regs on kettles etc Regs requiring new leads with every new appliance And if you think we make all of our own laws and have none forced upon us, and that all laws are only UK laws....try finding out the difference between EU directives and EU regulations. | |||
"Still waiting for any single reason that has not been thoroughly debunked. As for fair play, it has been proved that the leave campaign was tainted by dishonesty. Just hours after the referendum result was announced, Farage was joking about the big red bus being a lie! And so-called project fear? Every word has been proved to be real. The true reason why all the brexiteers are so dead set against another referendum is that they know there is absolutely no way that they could win under a fair campaign. And you think the remain campaign was fair? Eight (or was it nine?) million quid of government money (not declared as election expenses BTW.) spent on a pro remain flyer through every letter box in the country. Any candidate in a local or general election trying that stunt would have had his collar felt within days. The threat of an emergency budget immediately after a leave vote, which didn't happen. Cameron's threat of WW3.
Add to that the whole of the project fear exercise which became more and more hysterical by the day.
After all of that shit from the remain campaign and all they can bang on about is one fucking slogan on a bus.
FFS. Grow up.
Yes the pamphlet distributed by the government was before Purdah, and therefore legal. The government, also has a duty to put its case to the nation, and it just happened to be remain!
The point is, the pamphlet was legal, both leave campaigns, broke the law! Leave could have produced a pamphlet and distributed it too, they chose not to do so!
I wouldn't say "chose not to do so" I would say, couldn't do so because they didn't have 8 or 9 million of taxpayers money to chuck at it.
Cameron knew the purdah laws enough to know that as the "government" he could cheat his way around them before throwing his weight behind remain.
An Honourable PM would have funded both sides of the argument or none.
In short. A very low down despicable trick."False the government is only required to support the government position, not to give both sides of the argument! That's the system like it or lump it. Had the government been in favour of leaving it would have made the case for leaving! | |||
"I’m trying to compile a list of reasons why people chose to vote Leave. I’ve asked lots and lots of Brexiters but none seem to be able to give me an answer - they tend to get frustrated and avoid the question. There seem to be quite a few Brexiters on here, so can any give me any for my list? Many thanks in advance. There's a good paper by the Centre for Social Investigation; "Reasons for voting leave or remain". That might be a good starting point for you. It is interesting but bear this in mind: "An important methodological caveat is that the data presented here concern people’s stated reasons for voting Leave or Remain, assessed more than 18 months after the referendum took place. It is therefore possible that they do not reflect the true reasons people voted the way they did. For example, they could be biased by the tendency for people to justify their decisions with post-hoc rationalisations. On the other hand, Figures 1 and 3 accord rather closely with the findings of previous surveys and opinion polls." You mean.. figure 1 - "reasons why leave voters voted leave", and Figure 2 -"reasons why remain voters voted remain" Are close to the findings of previous surveys and polls? The polling did not ask: "Did you vote to stop Muslim immigrants from Syria and Turkey?" The survey did not ask: "Did you vote for Brexit means Brexit?" The survey did not ask: "Did you vote for more 'sovreignty'?" It certainly didn't define which laws they objected to. ECJ OR ECHR? Why don't you pick five that you object to... Neither did the polling ask "what do you think is meant by 'remain and reform'?" What do YOU think is meant by remain and reform? Don't you do know the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU? "Remain and reform" is not "a thing". The EU evolves continuously with 28 countries forming a consensus over many areas in exactly the same way as the UK is in a permanent state of "reform". That's the entire point of government and international organisations. I am very aware that the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU. However, many people demonstrate even now that they do not. That is why finding out what laws those polled object to is pertinent. I note that you can't name five which either means there aren't five that you can name or that it is the abstract principal that the only laws that British people should acknowledge are those that we create on our own. It implies that laws that we play a part in creating but not exclusively create are not of any benefit. Perhaps you have another position on this? So 'remain and reform' is not a thing, does not therefore exist, us in the imagination and a mere fantasy? And yet that 'remain and reform' is what the remain campaign was based upon! A remain unicorn! In the same way you say the EU evolves continuously, the UK outside of the EU will as well....maybe you're too myopic and blinkered to see that. How do you see the EU evolving in 20, 30, 40 years time? EU army? UK taking the Euro? EU wide tax system? EU wide health system? QMV on everything? EU wide education system? Pure majority voting on everything? What other reforms do you think there will be/ woukd you like? VAT Free movement of labour Child benefit going to children not living in the UK Diabetic Drivers directive CFP CAP Vacuum cleaners regs Impending regs on kettles etc Regs requiring new leads with every new appliance And if you think we make all of our own laws and have none forced upon us, and that all laws are only UK laws....try finding out the difference between EU directives and EU regulations." No. Remain is the status quo with the same opportunity to make changes to laws, regulations and governing structures as exist now. Try to change what we don't like and retain what we do like. No different to voting in a new government in the UK. I don't know how the EU will change over the next 40 years anymore than you or I know how the UK will. I'm fine with the minimum VAT level. You believe that our government is being prevented from doing something that it desperately wants to in lowering VAT rates? We don't actually impose the movement restrictions that we could have on the accession of the Eastern European states that we could have did we? We chose not to. We also do not enforce the regulations that we could now do we? Because we choose not to. Child benefit: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/election-2017-40061921 "Reducing the amount of child benefit that EU nationals could claim for children living outside the UK was one of David Cameron's key demands of fellow EU leaders in the run-up to last year's Brexit referendum. He secured an agreement to reduce the weekly total they could claim, to better reflect the cost of living in each country - the British argument was that child benefit was far more generous than many foreign nationals could receive in their own country." An example of reform
The diabetic drivers directive:
From Diabetes UK "The European Commission has responded by advising that the driving ban for people experiencing recurrent severe hypoglycaemia when asleep, be lifted. They will ask the DVLA to make the necessary legislative changes by 1 January 2018."
An example of change
I don't know what part of the CFP you object to. Is it the bit about UK fishermen exercising their right to sell their licenses to foreign companies?
I don't know which part of CAP you object to. Is it to subsidise farmers so that they can run viable businesses and retain the ability and knowledge of how to grow food? James Dyson is the UKs biggest farmer...
...and on the subject of vacuum cleaners:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-41119355
"Sales of vacuum cleaners producing more noise and heat than suction are restricted under EU rules from today.
Vacuum cleaners using more than 900 watts and emitting more than 80 decibels will be banned when stocks run out.
Some anti-EU campaigners say homes won't be properly cleaned if people have to buy lower wattage machines.
But energy experts say the best low-power appliances clean just as well as high-wattage machines.
They say some manufacturers deliberately increased the amount of electricity their appliances use because shoppers equate high-wattage with high performance."
Kettle power. Can't see anything about leads. Fullfact: "At best this is a stretch. It's not a ban: the EU is considering regulation which would limit the amount of energy appliances such as kettles and hairdryers use. A study into the proposals has been drafted, but no legislation has been brought forward yet."
Some people seem to think climate change might be a bit important
All terribly oppressive. Talk about first world problems  | |||
"ok convince me why we should stay in the eu dictatorship ...must be cause its doing so great aye...ps one look at the little rat face from france makes me want to leave...he cant even sort his own problems but tells the world how to solve theres...twat head I doubt anyone who sees the EU as a dictatorship and the key players as rat faced twat heads will have the capacity to alter their world view. " | |||
"I’m trying to compile a list of reasons why people chose to vote Leave. I’ve asked lots and lots of Brexiters but none seem to be able to give me an answer - they tend to get frustrated and avoid the question. There seem to be quite a few Brexiters on here, so can any give me any for my list? Many thanks in advance. There's a good paper by the Centre for Social Investigation; "Reasons for voting leave or remain". That might be a good starting point for you. It is interesting but bear this in mind: "An important methodological caveat is that the data presented here concern people’s stated reasons for voting Leave or Remain, assessed more than 18 months after the referendum took place. It is therefore possible that they do not reflect the true reasons people voted the way they did. For example, they could be biased by the tendency for people to justify their decisions with post-hoc rationalisations. On the other hand, Figures 1 and 3 accord rather closely with the findings of previous surveys and opinion polls." You mean.. figure 1 - "reasons why leave voters voted leave", and Figure 2 -"reasons why remain voters voted remain" Are close to the findings of previous surveys and polls? The polling did not ask: "Did you vote to stop Muslim immigrants from Syria and Turkey?" The survey did not ask: "Did you vote for Brexit means Brexit?" The survey did not ask: "Did you vote for more 'sovreignty'?" It certainly didn't define which laws they objected to. ECJ OR ECHR? Why don't you pick five that you object to... Neither did the polling ask "what do you think is meant by 'remain and reform'?" What do YOU think is meant by remain and reform? Don't you do know the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU? "Remain and reform" is not "a thing". The EU evolves continuously with 28 countries forming a consensus over many areas in exactly the same way as the UK is in a permanent state of "reform". That's the entire point of government and international organisations. I am very aware that the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU. However, many people demonstrate even now that they do not. That is why finding out what laws those polled object to is pertinent. I note that you can't name five which either means there aren't five that you can name or that it is the abstract principal that the only laws that British people should acknowledge are those that we create on our own. It implies that laws that we play a part in creating but not exclusively create are not of any benefit. Perhaps you have another position on this? So 'remain and reform' is not a thing, does not therefore exist, us in the imagination and a mere fantasy? And yet that 'remain and reform' is what the remain campaign was based upon! A remain unicorn! In the same way you say the EU evolves continuously, the UK outside of the EU will as well....maybe you're too myopic and blinkered to see that. How do you see the EU evolving in 20, 30, 40 years time? EU army? UK taking the Euro? EU wide tax system? EU wide health system? QMV on everything? EU wide education system? Pure majority voting on everything? What other reforms do you think there will be/ woukd you like? VAT Free movement of labour Child benefit going to children not living in the UK Diabetic Drivers directive CFP CAP Vacuum cleaners regs Impending regs on kettles etc Regs requiring new leads with every new appliance And if you think we make all of our own laws and have none forced upon us, and that all laws are only UK laws....try finding out the difference between EU directives and EU regulations. No. Remain is the status quo with the same opportunity to make changes to laws, regulations and governing structures as exist now. Try to change what we don't like and retain what we do like. No different to voting in a new government in the UK. I don't know how the EU will change over the next 40 years anymore than you or I know how the UK will. I'm fine with the minimum VAT level. You believe that our government is being prevented from doing something that it desperately wants to in lowering VAT rates? We don't actually impose the movement restrictions that we could have on the accession of the Eastern European states that we could have did we? We chose not to. We also do not enforce the regulations that we could now do we? Because we choose not to. Child benefit: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/election-2017-40061921 "Reducing the amount of child benefit that EU nationals could claim for children living outside the UK was one of David Cameron's key demands of fellow EU leaders in the run-up to last year's Brexit referendum. He secured an agreement to reduce the weekly total they could claim, to better reflect the cost of living in each country - the British argument was that child benefit was far more generous than many foreign nationals could receive in their own country." An example of reform
The diabetic drivers directive:
From Diabetes UK "The European Commission has responded by advising that the driving ban for people experiencing recurrent severe hypoglycaemia when asleep, be lifted. They will ask the DVLA to make the necessary legislative changes by 1 January 2018."
An example of change
I don't know what part of the CFP you object to. Is it the bit about UK fishermen exercising their right to sell their licenses to foreign companies?
I don't know which part of CAP you object to. Is it to subsidise farmers so that they can run viable businesses and retain the ability and knowledge of how to grow food? James Dyson is the UKs biggest farmer...
...and on the subject of vacuum cleaners:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-41119355
"Sales of vacuum cleaners producing more noise and heat than suction are restricted under EU rules from today.
Vacuum cleaners using more than 900 watts and emitting more than 80 decibels will be banned when stocks run out.
Some anti-EU campaigners say homes won't be properly cleaned if people have to buy lower wattage machines.
But energy experts say the best low-power appliances clean just as well as high-wattage machines.
They say some manufacturers deliberately increased the amount of electricity their appliances use because shoppers equate high-wattage with high performance."
Kettle power. Can't see anything about leads. Fullfact: "At best this is a stretch. It's not a ban: the EU is considering regulation which would limit the amount of energy appliances such as kettles and hairdryers use. A study into the proposals has been drafted, but no legislation has been brought forward yet."
Some people seem to think climate change might be a bit important
All terribly oppressive. Talk about first world problems "So you think that a kettle with a lower wattage will use less energy to boil the same amount of water? Wow! You were ok with the 'tampon' tax? If the EU had not changed it, after nearly 3 years of lobbying, you would have been ok with the level it was at? You want to stay in the EU, even though we could eventually have to accept the euro, an eu army, further expansion, loss of our rebate, reduced vetos, EU wide health system, EU wide tax system.... Oh, and Cameron wanted to stop child benefit payments to children abroad.....the EU TOLD him he couldn't do that. | |||
| |||
"For your information, please: 1. See the arguments offered by the leave campaign. 2. See the comments made by UKIP, Nigel Farage and Gérard Batten in the topic. 3. Listen to the callers in LBC radio. 4. Listen to Jacob Rees Mog. 5. Stop asking us to constantly explain our positions again and again. This has been covered to death for the past three years all over these forums, on TV, radio and online. We are sick of hearing about it. 6. I don't particularly care about your reasons to remain. You lost. Deal with it and honour a democratic vote which had the biggest mandate in the UKs history. In 2005 Labour ran the government and the country with 35.2% of the vote and 61.3% turnout, meaning only 22% of the electorate or 9.5 million people decided the direction of the country. Nobody challenged it. There weren't massive marches in the streets demanding a second vote despite Blair's unpopularity, and the result was respected and implemented immediately as we supposedly live in a Democracy. In 2016, 51.9% or 17.4 million people of 72.2% of the electorate voted to leave the EU. The remain campaign made it very clear during what we now call Project Fear that this was going to be a no deal brexit, with all the consequences that meant, yet people still voted for it. This is almost double the number who voted for Labour in 2005. Yet here we are, in 2019, almost three years later and the results of the vote have not been implemented. This really highlights the hypocrisy of the establishment and the fact that actually, we don't live in a democracy. You want a third referendum? Fine. I'm all for it. But implement the results of the first referendum first, then 40 years later, which is the time between the referendum to join the Common Market and the referendum to leave the European Union, then you can have a fourth referendum to see if we want to rejoin. Fair is fair. Honor Democracy and your fellow citizens and stop being a sore loser. Whatever happened to the British concept of fair play and losing gracefully? " 72.2% of the electorate did not vote to leave. Also it's been proven the Leave campaign broke electoral law. | |||
" You want to stay in the EU, even though we could eventually have to accept the euro, an eu army, further expansion, loss of our rebate, reduced vetos, EU wide health system, EU wide tax system.... " Ha, "leave project fear" there in full flow | |||
"For your information, please: 1. See the arguments offered by the leave campaign. 2. See the comments made by UKIP, Nigel Farage and Gérard Batten in the topic. 3. Listen to the callers in LBC radio. 4. Listen to Jacob Rees Mog. 5. Stop asking us to constantly explain our positions again and again. This has been covered to death for the past three years all over these forums, on TV, radio and online. We are sick of hearing about it. 6. I don't particularly care about your reasons to remain. You lost. Deal with it and honour a democratic vote which had the biggest mandate in the UKs history. In 2005 Labour ran the government and the country with 35.2% of the vote and 61.3% turnout, meaning only 22% of the electorate or 9.5 million people decided the direction of the country. Nobody challenged it. There weren't massive marches in the streets demanding a second vote despite Blair's unpopularity, and the result was respected and implemented immediately as we supposedly live in a Democracy. In 2016, 51.9% or 17.4 million people of 72.2% of the electorate voted to leave the EU. The remain campaign made it very clear during what we now call Project Fear that this was going to be a no deal brexit, with all the consequences that meant, yet people still voted for it. This is almost double the number who voted for Labour in 2005. Yet here we are, in 2019, almost three years later and the results of the vote have not been implemented. This really highlights the hypocrisy of the establishment and the fact that actually, we don't live in a democracy. You want a third referendum? Fine. I'm all for it. But implement the results of the first referendum first, then 40 years later, which is the time between the referendum to join the Common Market and the referendum to leave the European Union, then you can have a fourth referendum to see if we want to rejoin. Fair is fair. Honor Democracy and your fellow citizens and stop being a sore loser. Whatever happened to the British concept of fair play and losing gracefully? 72.2% of the electorate did not vote to leave. Also it's been proven the Leave campaign broke electoral law." Even less of the electorate voted to remain! | |||
"For your information, please: 1. See the arguments offered by the leave campaign. 2. See the comments made by UKIP, Nigel Farage and Gérard Batten in the topic. 3. Listen to the callers in LBC radio. 4. Listen to Jacob Rees Mog. 5. Stop asking us to constantly explain our positions again and again. This has been covered to death for the past three years all over these forums, on TV, radio and online. We are sick of hearing about it. 6. I don't particularly care about your reasons to remain. You lost. Deal with it and honour a democratic vote which had the biggest mandate in the UKs history. In 2005 Labour ran the government and the country with 35.2% of the vote and 61.3% turnout, meaning only 22% of the electorate or 9.5 million people decided the direction of the country. Nobody challenged it. There weren't massive marches in the streets demanding a second vote despite Blair's unpopularity, and the result was respected and implemented immediately as we supposedly live in a Democracy. In 2016, 51.9% or 17.4 million people of 72.2% of the electorate voted to leave the EU. The remain campaign made it very clear during what we now call Project Fear that this was going to be a no deal brexit, with all the consequences that meant, yet people still voted for it. This is almost double the number who voted for Labour in 2005. Yet here we are, in 2019, almost three years later and the results of the vote have not been implemented. This really highlights the hypocrisy of the establishment and the fact that actually, we don't live in a democracy. You want a third referendum? Fine. I'm all for it. But implement the results of the first referendum first, then 40 years later, which is the time between the referendum to join the Common Market and the referendum to leave the European Union, then you can have a fourth referendum to see if we want to rejoin. Fair is fair. Honor Democracy and your fellow citizens and stop being a sore loser. Whatever happened to the British concept of fair play and losing gracefully? 72.2% of the electorate did not vote to leave. Also it's been proven the Leave campaign broke electoral law. Even less of the electorate voted to remain! "Most of the electorate did not vote to leave & many leavers are changing their minds. The only reason leavers object to a 2nd referendum is they will lose! | |||
"For your information, please: 1. See the arguments offered by the leave campaign. 2. See the comments made by UKIP, Nigel Farage and Gérard Batten in the topic. 3. Listen to the callers in LBC radio. 4. Listen to Jacob Rees Mog. 5. Stop asking us to constantly explain our positions again and again. This has been covered to death for the past three years all over these forums, on TV, radio and online. We are sick of hearing about it. 6. I don't particularly care about your reasons to remain. You lost. Deal with it and honour a democratic vote which had the biggest mandate in the UKs history. In 2005 Labour ran the government and the country with 35.2% of the vote and 61.3% turnout, meaning only 22% of the electorate or 9.5 million people decided the direction of the country. Nobody challenged it. There weren't massive marches in the streets demanding a second vote despite Blair's unpopularity, and the result was respected and implemented immediately as we supposedly live in a Democracy. In 2016, 51.9% or 17.4 million people of 72.2% of the electorate voted to leave the EU. The remain campaign made it very clear during what we now call Project Fear that this was going to be a no deal brexit, with all the consequences that meant, yet people still voted for it. This is almost double the number who voted for Labour in 2005. Yet here we are, in 2019, almost three years later and the results of the vote have not been implemented. This really highlights the hypocrisy of the establishment and the fact that actually, we don't live in a democracy. You want a third referendum? Fine. I'm all for it. But implement the results of the first referendum first, then 40 years later, which is the time between the referendum to join the Common Market and the referendum to leave the European Union, then you can have a fourth referendum to see if we want to rejoin. Fair is fair. Honor Democracy and your fellow citizens and stop being a sore loser. Whatever happened to the British concept of fair play and losing gracefully? 72.2% of the electorate did not vote to leave. Also it's been proven the Leave campaign broke electoral law. Even less of the electorate voted to remain!
Most of the electorate did not vote to leave & many leavers are changing their minds. The only reason leavers object to a 2nd referendum is they will lose! "As I just said even more of the electorate did not vote to remain! Only the votes cast count in the result and I personally know no one who has changed their mind | |||
"For your information, please: 1. See the arguments offered by the leave campaign. 2. See the comments made by UKIP, Nigel Farage and Gérard Batten in the topic. 3. Listen to the callers in LBC radio. 4. Listen to Jacob Rees Mog. 5. Stop asking us to constantly explain our positions again and again. This has been covered to death for the past three years all over these forums, on TV, radio and online. We are sick of hearing about it. 6. I don't particularly care about your reasons to remain. You lost. Deal with it and honour a democratic vote which had the biggest mandate in the UKs history. In 2005 Labour ran the government and the country with 35.2% of the vote and 61.3% turnout, meaning only 22% of the electorate or 9.5 million people decided the direction of the country. Nobody challenged it. There weren't massive marches in the streets demanding a second vote despite Blair's unpopularity, and the result was respected and implemented immediately as we supposedly live in a Democracy. In 2016, 51.9% or 17.4 million people of 72.2% of the electorate voted to leave the EU. The remain campaign made it very clear during what we now call Project Fear that this was going to be a no deal brexit, with all the consequences that meant, yet people still voted for it. This is almost double the number who voted for Labour in 2005. Yet here we are, in 2019, almost three years later and the results of the vote have not been implemented. This really highlights the hypocrisy of the establishment and the fact that actually, we don't live in a democracy. You want a third referendum? Fine. I'm all for it. But implement the results of the first referendum first, then 40 years later, which is the time between the referendum to join the Common Market and the referendum to leave the European Union, then you can have a fourth referendum to see if we want to rejoin. Fair is fair. Honor Democracy and your fellow citizens and stop being a sore loser. Whatever happened to the British concept of fair play and losing gracefully? 72.2% of the electorate did not vote to leave. Also it's been proven the Leave campaign broke electoral law. Even less of the electorate voted to remain!
Most of the electorate did not vote to leave & many leavers are changing their minds. The only reason leavers object to a 2nd referendum is they will lose!
As I just said even more of the electorate did not vote to remain! Only the votes cast count in the result and I personally know no one who has changed their mind "As you well know not voting usually suggests retain the status quo, that is why most people in this country are scratching their heads about what is happening. Relatively few actively voted to change things. I am sure we would all have been happier if the margin was greater, especially as the leave campaign undeniably cheated and lied - did it make a difference, of course it did. | |||
"For your information, please: 1. See the arguments offered by the leave campaign. 2. See the comments made by UKIP, Nigel Farage and Gérard Batten in the topic. 3. Listen to the callers in LBC radio. 4. Listen to Jacob Rees Mog. 5. Stop asking us to constantly explain our positions again and again. This has been covered to death for the past three years all over these forums, on TV, radio and online. We are sick of hearing about it. 6. I don't particularly care about your reasons to remain. You lost. Deal with it and honour a democratic vote which had the biggest mandate in the UKs history. In 2005 Labour ran the government and the country with 35.2% of the vote and 61.3% turnout, meaning only 22% of the electorate or 9.5 million people decided the direction of the country. Nobody challenged it. There weren't massive marches in the streets demanding a second vote despite Blair's unpopularity, and the result was respected and implemented immediately as we supposedly live in a Democracy. In 2016, 51.9% or 17.4 million people of 72.2% of the electorate voted to leave the EU. The remain campaign made it very clear during what we now call Project Fear that this was going to be a no deal brexit, with all the consequences that meant, yet people still voted for it. This is almost double the number who voted for Labour in 2005. Yet here we are, in 2019, almost three years later and the results of the vote have not been implemented. This really highlights the hypocrisy of the establishment and the fact that actually, we don't live in a democracy. You want a third referendum? Fine. I'm all for it. But implement the results of the first referendum first, then 40 years later, which is the time between the referendum to join the Common Market and the referendum to leave the European Union, then you can have a fourth referendum to see if we want to rejoin. Fair is fair. Honor Democracy and your fellow citizens and stop being a sore loser. Whatever happened to the British concept of fair play and losing gracefully? 72.2% of the electorate did not vote to leave. Also it's been proven the Leave campaign broke electoral law. Even less of the electorate voted to remain!
Most of the electorate did not vote to leave & many leavers are changing their minds. The only reason leavers object to a 2nd referendum is they will lose!
As I just said even more of the electorate did not vote to remain! Only the votes cast count in the result and I personally know no one who has changed their mind
As you well know not voting usually suggests retain the status quo, that is why most people in this country are scratching their heads about what is happening. Relatively few actively voted to change things. I am sure we would all have been happier if the margin was greater, especially as the leave campaign undeniably cheated and lied - did it make a difference, of course it did."I know no such thing, I would say it means you aren't bothered either way! You can continue to waste your time trying to dress the numbers to suit your arguments but whichever way you do it remain always comes out as the loser. | |||
"For your information, please: 1. See the arguments offered by the leave campaign. 2. See the comments made by UKIP, Nigel Farage and Gérard Batten in the topic. 3. Listen to the callers in LBC radio. 4. Listen to Jacob Rees Mog. 5. Stop asking us to constantly explain our positions again and again. This has been covered to death for the past three years all over these forums, on TV, radio and online. We are sick of hearing about it. 6. I don't particularly care about your reasons to remain. You lost. Deal with it and honour a democratic vote which had the biggest mandate in the UKs history. In 2005 Labour ran the government and the country with 35.2% of the vote and 61.3% turnout, meaning only 22% of the electorate or 9.5 million people decided the direction of the country. Nobody challenged it. There weren't massive marches in the streets demanding a second vote despite Blair's unpopularity, and the result was respected and implemented immediately as we supposedly live in a Democracy. In 2016, 51.9% or 17.4 million people of 72.2% of the electorate voted to leave the EU. The remain campaign made it very clear during what we now call Project Fear that this was going to be a no deal brexit, with all the consequences that meant, yet people still voted for it. This is almost double the number who voted for Labour in 2005. Yet here we are, in 2019, almost three years later and the results of the vote have not been implemented. This really highlights the hypocrisy of the establishment and the fact that actually, we don't live in a democracy. You want a third referendum? Fine. I'm all for it. But implement the results of the first referendum first, then 40 years later, which is the time between the referendum to join the Common Market and the referendum to leave the European Union, then you can have a fourth referendum to see if we want to rejoin. Fair is fair. Honor Democracy and your fellow citizens and stop being a sore loser. Whatever happened to the British concept of fair play and losing gracefully? 72.2% of the electorate did not vote to leave. Also it's been proven the Leave campaign broke electoral law. Even less of the electorate voted to remain!
Most of the electorate did not vote to leave & many leavers are changing their minds. The only reason leavers object to a 2nd referendum is they will lose!
As I just said even more of the electorate did not vote to remain! Only the votes cast count in the result and I personally know no one who has changed their mind
As you well know not voting usually suggests retain the status quo, that is why most people in this country are scratching their heads about what is happening. Relatively few actively voted to change things. I am sure we would all have been happier if the margin was greater, especially as the leave campaign undeniably cheated and lied - did it make a difference, of course it did.
I know no such thing, I would say it means you aren't bothered either way!
You can continue to waste your time trying to dress the numbers to suit your arguments but whichever way you do it remain always comes out as the loser. "Leave didn’t lie or cheat then? | |||
"For your information, please: 1. See the arguments offered by the leave campaign. 2. See the comments made by UKIP, Nigel Farage and Gérard Batten in the topic. 3. Listen to the callers in LBC radio. 4. Listen to Jacob Rees Mog. 5. Stop asking us to constantly explain our positions again and again. This has been covered to death for the past three years all over these forums, on TV, radio and online. We are sick of hearing about it. 6. I don't particularly care about your reasons to remain. You lost. Deal with it and honour a democratic vote which had the biggest mandate in the UKs history. In 2005 Labour ran the government and the country with 35.2% of the vote and 61.3% turnout, meaning only 22% of the electorate or 9.5 million people decided the direction of the country. Nobody challenged it. There weren't massive marches in the streets demanding a second vote despite Blair's unpopularity, and the result was respected and implemented immediately as we supposedly live in a Democracy. In 2016, 51.9% or 17.4 million people of 72.2% of the electorate voted to leave the EU. The remain campaign made it very clear during what we now call Project Fear that this was going to be a no deal brexit, with all the consequences that meant, yet people still voted for it. This is almost double the number who voted for Labour in 2005. Yet here we are, in 2019, almost three years later and the results of the vote have not been implemented. This really highlights the hypocrisy of the establishment and the fact that actually, we don't live in a democracy. You want a third referendum? Fine. I'm all for it. But implement the results of the first referendum first, then 40 years later, which is the time between the referendum to join the Common Market and the referendum to leave the European Union, then you can have a fourth referendum to see if we want to rejoin. Fair is fair. Honor Democracy and your fellow citizens and stop being a sore loser. Whatever happened to the British concept of fair play and losing gracefully? 72.2% of the electorate did not vote to leave. Also it's been proven the Leave campaign broke electoral law. Even less of the electorate voted to remain!
Most of the electorate did not vote to leave & many leavers are changing their minds. The only reason leavers object to a 2nd referendum is they will lose!
As I just said even more of the electorate did not vote to remain! Only the votes cast count in the result and I personally know no one who has changed their mind
As you well know not voting usually suggests retain the status quo, that is why most people in this country are scratching their heads about what is happening. Relatively few actively voted to change things. I am sure we would all have been happier if the margin was greater, especially as the leave campaign undeniably cheated and lied - did it make a difference, of course it did.
I know no such thing, I would say it means you aren't bothered either way!
You can continue to waste your time trying to dress the numbers to suit your arguments but whichever way you do it remain always comes out as the loser.
Leave didn’t lie or cheat then? "No making things up at all? Not one little bit? | |||
"I’m trying to compile a list of reasons why people chose to vote Leave. I’ve asked lots and lots of Brexiters but none seem to be able to give me an answer - they tend to get frustrated and avoid the question. There seem to be quite a few Brexiters on here, so can any give me any for my list? Many thanks in advance. There's a good paper by the Centre for Social Investigation; "Reasons for voting leave or remain". That might be a good starting point for you. It is interesting but bear this in mind: "An important methodological caveat is that the data presented here concern people’s stated reasons for voting Leave or Remain, assessed more than 18 months after the referendum took place. It is therefore possible that they do not reflect the true reasons people voted the way they did. For example, they could be biased by the tendency for people to justify their decisions with post-hoc rationalisations. On the other hand, Figures 1 and 3 accord rather closely with the findings of previous surveys and opinion polls." You mean.. figure 1 - "reasons why leave voters voted leave", and Figure 2 -"reasons why remain voters voted remain" Are close to the findings of previous surveys and polls? The polling did not ask: "Did you vote to stop Muslim immigrants from Syria and Turkey?" The survey did not ask: "Did you vote for Brexit means Brexit?" The survey did not ask: "Did you vote for more 'sovreignty'?" It certainly didn't define which laws they objected to. ECJ OR ECHR? Why don't you pick five that you object to... Neither did the polling ask "what do you think is meant by 'remain and reform'?" What do YOU think is meant by remain and reform? Don't you do know the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU? "Remain and reform" is not "a thing". The EU evolves continuously with 28 countries forming a consensus over many areas in exactly the same way as the UK is in a permanent state of "reform". That's the entire point of government and international organisations. I am very aware that the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU. However, many people demonstrate even now that they do not. That is why finding out what laws those polled object to is pertinent. I note that you can't name five which either means there aren't five that you can name or that it is the abstract principal that the only laws that British people should acknowledge are those that we create on our own. It implies that laws that we play a part in creating but not exclusively create are not of any benefit. Perhaps you have another position on this? So 'remain and reform' is not a thing, does not therefore exist, us in the imagination and a mere fantasy? And yet that 'remain and reform' is what the remain campaign was based upon! A remain unicorn! In the same way you say the EU evolves continuously, the UK outside of the EU will as well....maybe you're too myopic and blinkered to see that. How do you see the EU evolving in 20, 30, 40 years time? EU army? UK taking the Euro? EU wide tax system? EU wide health system? QMV on everything? EU wide education system? Pure majority voting on everything? What other reforms do you think there will be/ woukd you like? VAT Free movement of labour Child benefit going to children not living in the UK Diabetic Drivers directive CFP CAP Vacuum cleaners regs Impending regs on kettles etc Regs requiring new leads with every new appliance And if you think we make all of our own laws and have none forced upon us, and that all laws are only UK laws....try finding out the difference between EU directives and EU regulations. No. Remain is the status quo with the same opportunity to make changes to laws, regulations and governing structures as exist now. Try to change what we don't like and retain what we do like. No different to voting in a new government in the UK. I don't know how the EU will change over the next 40 years anymore than you or I know how the UK will. I'm fine with the minimum VAT level. You believe that our government is being prevented from doing something that it desperately wants to in lowering VAT rates? We don't actually impose the movement restrictions that we could have on the accession of the Eastern European states that we could have did we? We chose not to. We also do not enforce the regulations that we could now do we? Because we choose not to. Child benefit: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/election-2017-40061921 "Reducing the amount of child benefit that EU nationals could claim for children living outside the UK was one of David Cameron's key demands of fellow EU leaders in the run-up to last year's Brexit referendum. He secured an agreement to reduce the weekly total they could claim, to better reflect the cost of living in each country - the British argument was that child benefit was far more generous than many foreign nationals could receive in their own country." An example of reform
The diabetic drivers directive:
From Diabetes UK "The European Commission has responded by advising that the driving ban for people experiencing recurrent severe hypoglycaemia when asleep, be lifted. They will ask the DVLA to make the necessary legislative changes by 1 January 2018."
An example of change
I don't know what part of the CFP you object to. Is it the bit about UK fishermen exercising their right to sell their licenses to foreign companies?
I don't know which part of CAP you object to. Is it to subsidise farmers so that they can run viable businesses and retain the ability and knowledge of how to grow food? James Dyson is the UKs biggest farmer...
...and on the subject of vacuum cleaners:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-41119355
"Sales of vacuum cleaners producing more noise and heat than suction are restricted under EU rules from today.
Vacuum cleaners using more than 900 watts and emitting more than 80 decibels will be banned when stocks run out.
Some anti-EU campaigners say homes won't be properly cleaned if people have to buy lower wattage machines.
But energy experts say the best low-power appliances clean just as well as high-wattage machines.
They say some manufacturers deliberately increased the amount of electricity their appliances use because shoppers equate high-wattage with high performance."
Kettle power. Can't see anything about leads. Fullfact: "At best this is a stretch. It's not a ban: the EU is considering regulation which would limit the amount of energy appliances such as kettles and hairdryers use. A study into the proposals has been drafted, but no legislation has been brought forward yet."
Some people seem to think climate change might be a bit important
All terribly oppressive. Talk about first world problems
So you think that a kettle with a lower wattage will use less energy to boil the same amount of water? Wow!
You were ok with the 'tampon' tax? If the EU had not changed it, after nearly 3 years of lobbying, you would have been ok with the level it was at?
You want to stay in the EU, even though we could eventually have to accept the euro, an eu army, further expansion, loss of our rebate, reduced vetos, EU wide health system, EU wide tax system....
Oh, and Cameron wanted to stop child benefit payments to children abroad.....the EU TOLD him he couldn't do that."
If it functions more efficiently then yes, you would need a lower power input to achieve the same result. Physics not your thing eh?
I'm pleased that the tampon tax is being removed and it's a shame that it's taken so long to remove. However, it's one of those things that requires unanimity to change. You wouldn't want a tax increase imposed on us? Interesting that we no one was interested in lowering the VAT until recently though. Have you been campaigning for it? Have you been making as many posts on that subject as Brexit?
We will not eventually have to join the Euro, contribute to an EU army, expand further,reduce vetos, have an EU health system or tax system because we have a veto on all of those things.
That's one hell of a list of Dail Mail porky pies. Is that really where you are on this? This makes it worth turning things upside down for?
The EU told him that if someone is paying their taxes they should receive the same benefits as anyone else but could adjust the payment to reflect costs where the child lives. Clearly unacceptable. | |||
"For your information, please: 1. See the arguments offered by the leave campaign. 2. See the comments made by UKIP, Nigel Farage and Gérard Batten in the topic. 3. Listen to the callers in LBC radio. 4. Listen to Jacob Rees Mog. 5. Stop asking us to constantly explain our positions again and again. This has been covered to death for the past three years all over these forums, on TV, radio and online. We are sick of hearing about it. 6. I don't particularly care about your reasons to remain. You lost. Deal with it and honour a democratic vote which had the biggest mandate in the UKs history. In 2005 Labour ran the government and the country with 35.2% of the vote and 61.3% turnout, meaning only 22% of the electorate or 9.5 million people decided the direction of the country. Nobody challenged it. There weren't massive marches in the streets demanding a second vote despite Blair's unpopularity, and the result was respected and implemented immediately as we supposedly live in a Democracy. In 2016, 51.9% or 17.4 million people of 72.2% of the electorate voted to leave the EU. The remain campaign made it very clear during what we now call Project Fear that this was going to be a no deal brexit, with all the consequences that meant, yet people still voted for it. This is almost double the number who voted for Labour in 2005. Yet here we are, in 2019, almost three years later and the results of the vote have not been implemented. This really highlights the hypocrisy of the establishment and the fact that actually, we don't live in a democracy. You want a third referendum? Fine. I'm all for it. But implement the results of the first referendum first, then 40 years later, which is the time between the referendum to join the Common Market and the referendum to leave the European Union, then you can have a fourth referendum to see if we want to rejoin. Fair is fair. Honor Democracy and your fellow citizens and stop being a sore loser. Whatever happened to the British concept of fair play and losing gracefully? 72.2% of the electorate did not vote to leave. Also it's been proven the Leave campaign broke electoral law. Even less of the electorate voted to remain!
Most of the electorate did not vote to leave & many leavers are changing their minds. The only reason leavers object to a 2nd referendum is they will lose!
As I just said even more of the electorate did not vote to remain! Only the votes cast count in the result and I personally know no one who has changed their mind
As you well know not voting usually suggests retain the status quo, that is why most people in this country are scratching their heads about what is happening. Relatively few actively voted to change things. I am sure we would all have been happier if the margin was greater, especially as the leave campaign undeniably cheated and lied - did it make a difference, of course it did.
I know no such thing, I would say it means you aren't bothered either way!
You can continue to waste your time trying to dress the numbers to suit your arguments but whichever way you do it remain always comes out as the loser.
Leave didn’t lie or cheat then?
No making things up at all? Not one little bit? "Both sides made stuff up, what happened to the emergency budget that would be required the day after voting for leave, all the job losses etc, etc. The government funded a leaflet in favour of remain to be delivered to all households costing taxpayers £9million, that was hardly fair was it especially as it was not included in campaign expenses.There were no "saints" in the campaign both sides wanted to win, unfortunately one side thought they were certain to win, how wrong could they be! | |||
"I’m trying to compile a list of reasons why people chose to vote Leave. I’ve asked lots and lots of Brexiters but none seem to be able to give me an answer - they tend to get frustrated and avoid the question. There seem to be quite a few Brexiters on here, so can any give me any for my list? Many thanks in advance. There's a good paper by the Centre for Social Investigation; "Reasons for voting leave or remain". That might be a good starting point for you. It is interesting but bear this in mind: "An important methodological caveat is that the data presented here concern people’s stated reasons for voting Leave or Remain, assessed more than 18 months after the referendum took place. It is therefore possible that they do not reflect the true reasons people voted the way they did. For example, they could be biased by the tendency for people to justify their decisions with post-hoc rationalisations. On the other hand, Figures 1 and 3 accord rather closely with the findings of previous surveys and opinion polls." You mean.. figure 1 - "reasons why leave voters voted leave", and Figure 2 -"reasons why remain voters voted remain" Are close to the findings of previous surveys and polls? The polling did not ask: "Did you vote to stop Muslim immigrants from Syria and Turkey?" The survey did not ask: "Did you vote for Brexit means Brexit?" The survey did not ask: "Did you vote for more 'sovreignty'?" It certainly didn't define which laws they objected to. ECJ OR ECHR? Why don't you pick five that you object to... Neither did the polling ask "what do you think is meant by 'remain and reform'?" What do YOU think is meant by remain and reform? Don't you do know the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU? "Remain and reform" is not "a thing". The EU evolves continuously with 28 countries forming a consensus over many areas in exactly the same way as the UK is in a permanent state of "reform". That's the entire point of government and international organisations. I am very aware that the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU. However, many people demonstrate even now that they do not. That is why finding out what laws those polled object to is pertinent. I note that you can't name five which either means there aren't five that you can name or that it is the abstract principal that the only laws that British people should acknowledge are those that we create on our own. It implies that laws that we play a part in creating but not exclusively create are not of any benefit. Perhaps you have another position on this? So 'remain and reform' is not a thing, does not therefore exist, us in the imagination and a mere fantasy? And yet that 'remain and reform' is what the remain campaign was based upon! A remain unicorn! In the same way you say the EU evolves continuously, the UK outside of the EU will as well....maybe you're too myopic and blinkered to see that. How do you see the EU evolving in 20, 30, 40 years time? EU army? UK taking the Euro? EU wide tax system? EU wide health system? QMV on everything? EU wide education system? Pure majority voting on everything? What other reforms do you think there will be/ woukd you like? VAT Free movement of labour Child benefit going to children not living in the UK Diabetic Drivers directive CFP CAP Vacuum cleaners regs Impending regs on kettles etc Regs requiring new leads with every new appliance And if you think we make all of our own laws and have none forced upon us, and that all laws are only UK laws....try finding out the difference between EU directives and EU regulations. No. Remain is the status quo with the same opportunity to make changes to laws, regulations and governing structures as exist now. Try to change what we don't like and retain what we do like. No different to voting in a new government in the UK. I don't know how the EU will change over the next 40 years anymore than you or I know how the UK will. I'm fine with the minimum VAT level. You believe that our government is being prevented from doing something that it desperately wants to in lowering VAT rates? We don't actually impose the movement restrictions that we could have on the accession of the Eastern European states that we could have did we? We chose not to. We also do not enforce the regulations that we could now do we? Because we choose not to. Child benefit: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/election-2017-40061921 "Reducing the amount of child benefit that EU nationals could claim for children living outside the UK was one of David Cameron's key demands of fellow EU leaders in the run-up to last year's Brexit referendum. He secured an agreement to reduce the weekly total they could claim, to better reflect the cost of living in each country - the British argument was that child benefit was far more generous than many foreign nationals could receive in their own country." An example of reform
The diabetic drivers directive:
From Diabetes UK "The European Commission has responded by advising that the driving ban for people experiencing recurrent severe hypoglycaemia when asleep, be lifted. They will ask the DVLA to make the necessary legislative changes by 1 January 2018."
An example of change
I don't know what part of the CFP you object to. Is it the bit about UK fishermen exercising their right to sell their licenses to foreign companies?
I don't know which part of CAP you object to. Is it to subsidise farmers so that they can run viable businesses and retain the ability and knowledge of how to grow food? James Dyson is the UKs biggest farmer...
...and on the subject of vacuum cleaners:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-41119355
"Sales of vacuum cleaners producing more noise and heat than suction are restricted under EU rules from today.
Vacuum cleaners using more than 900 watts and emitting more than 80 decibels will be banned when stocks run out.
Some anti-EU campaigners say homes won't be properly cleaned if people have to buy lower wattage machines.
But energy experts say the best low-power appliances clean just as well as high-wattage machines.
They say some manufacturers deliberately increased the amount of electricity their appliances use because shoppers equate high-wattage with high performance."
Kettle power. Can't see anything about leads. Fullfact: "At best this is a stretch. It's not a ban: the EU is considering regulation which would limit the amount of energy appliances such as kettles and hairdryers use. A study into the proposals has been drafted, but no legislation has been brought forward yet."
Some people seem to think climate change might be a bit important
All terribly oppressive. Talk about first world problems
So you think that a kettle with a lower wattage will use less energy to boil the same amount of water? Wow!
You were ok with the 'tampon' tax? If the EU had not changed it, after nearly 3 years of lobbying, you would have been ok with the level it was at?
You want to stay in the EU, even though we could eventually have to accept the euro, an eu army, further expansion, loss of our rebate, reduced vetos, EU wide health system, EU wide tax system....
Oh, and Cameron wanted to stop child benefit payments to children abroad.....the EU TOLD him he couldn't do that.
If it functions more efficiently then yes, you would need a lower power input to achieve the same result. Physics not your thing eh?
I'm pleased that the tampon tax is being removed and it's a shame that it's taken so long to remove. However, it's one of those things that requires unanimity to change. You wouldn't want a tax increase imposed on us? Interesting that we no one was interested in lowering the VAT until recently though. Have you been campaigning for it? Have you been making as many posts on that subject as Brexit?
We will not eventually have to join the Euro, contribute to an EU army, expand further,reduce vetos, have an EU health system or tax system because we have a veto on all of those things.
That's one hell of a list of Dail Mail porky pies. Is that really where you are on this? This makes it worth turning things upside down for?
The EU told him that if someone is paying their taxes they should receive the same benefits as anyone else but could adjust the payment to reflect costs where the child lives. Clearly unacceptable."Boiling water will always take the same amount of energy. TO BOIL a given quantity of water from a given temperature will require the same amount of energy whatever the power consumption of the element. Inefficiency in the form of energy losses will arise from heating the container, which has absolutely nothing to do with the element itself. Half the power rating of the element, double the length of the time required to boil the water, using the same amount of energy. No I wouldn't want a tax increase imposed on us, but neither would I want to be stopped from making a tax decrease, or have to get the unanimous permission of 27 other countries to make that tax decrease. "We will not eventually have to join the Euro, contribute to an EU army, expand further,reduce vetos, have an EU health system or tax system because we have a veto on all of those things." Funny how you can say that with such conviction, as a couple of posts earlier you said; "I don't know how the EU will change over the next 40 years...." | |||
"I’m trying to compile a list of reasons why people chose to vote Leave. I’ve asked lots and lots of Brexiters but none seem to be able to give me an answer - they tend to get frustrated and avoid the question. There seem to be quite a few Brexiters on here, so can any give me any for my list? Many thanks in advance. There's a good paper by the Centre for Social Investigation; "Reasons for voting leave or remain". That might be a good starting point for you. It is interesting but bear this in mind: "An important methodological caveat is that the data presented here concern people’s stated reasons for voting Leave or Remain, assessed more than 18 months after the referendum took place. It is therefore possible that they do not reflect the true reasons people voted the way they did. For example, they could be biased by the tendency for people to justify their decisions with post-hoc rationalisations. On the other hand, Figures 1 and 3 accord rather closely with the findings of previous surveys and opinion polls." You mean.. figure 1 - "reasons why leave voters voted leave", and Figure 2 -"reasons why remain voters voted remain" Are close to the findings of previous surveys and polls? The polling did not ask: "Did you vote to stop Muslim immigrants from Syria and Turkey?" The survey did not ask: "Did you vote for Brexit means Brexit?" The survey did not ask: "Did you vote for more 'sovreignty'?" It certainly didn't define which laws they objected to. ECJ OR ECHR? Why don't you pick five that you object to... Neither did the polling ask "what do you think is meant by 'remain and reform'?" What do YOU think is meant by remain and reform? Don't you do know the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU? "Remain and reform" is not "a thing". The EU evolves continuously with 28 countries forming a consensus over many areas in exactly the same way as the UK is in a permanent state of "reform". That's the entire point of government and international organisations. I am very aware that the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU. However, many people demonstrate even now that they do not. That is why finding out what laws those polled object to is pertinent. I note that you can't name five which either means there aren't five that you can name or that it is the abstract principal that the only laws that British people should acknowledge are those that we create on our own. It implies that laws that we play a part in creating but not exclusively create are not of any benefit. Perhaps you have another position on this? So 'remain and reform' is not a thing, does not therefore exist, us in the imagination and a mere fantasy? And yet that 'remain and reform' is what the remain campaign was based upon! A remain unicorn! In the same way you say the EU evolves continuously, the UK outside of the EU will as well....maybe you're too myopic and blinkered to see that. How do you see the EU evolving in 20, 30, 40 years time? EU army? UK taking the Euro? EU wide tax system? EU wide health system? QMV on everything? EU wide education system? Pure majority voting on everything? What other reforms do you think there will be/ woukd you like? VAT Free movement of labour Child benefit going to children not living in the UK Diabetic Drivers directive CFP CAP Vacuum cleaners regs Impending regs on kettles etc Regs requiring new leads with every new appliance And if you think we make all of our own laws and have none forced upon us, and that all laws are only UK laws....try finding out the difference between EU directives and EU regulations. No. Remain is the status quo with the same opportunity to make changes to laws, regulations and governing structures as exist now. Try to change what we don't like and retain what we do like. No different to voting in a new government in the UK. I don't know how the EU will change over the next 40 years anymore than you or I know how the UK will. I'm fine with the minimum VAT level. You believe that our government is being prevented from doing something that it desperately wants to in lowering VAT rates? We don't actually impose the movement restrictions that we could have on the accession of the Eastern European states that we could have did we? We chose not to. We also do not enforce the regulations that we could now do we? Because we choose not to. Child benefit: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/election-2017-40061921 "Reducing the amount of child benefit that EU nationals could claim for children living outside the UK was one of David Cameron's key demands of fellow EU leaders in the run-up to last year's Brexit referendum. He secured an agreement to reduce the weekly total they could claim, to better reflect the cost of living in each country - the British argument was that child benefit was far more generous than many foreign nationals could receive in their own country." An example of reform
The diabetic drivers directive:
From Diabetes UK "The European Commission has responded by advising that the driving ban for people experiencing recurrent severe hypoglycaemia when asleep, be lifted. They will ask the DVLA to make the necessary legislative changes by 1 January 2018."
An example of change
I don't know what part of the CFP you object to. Is it the bit about UK fishermen exercising their right to sell their licenses to foreign companies?
I don't know which part of CAP you object to. Is it to subsidise farmers so that they can run viable businesses and retain the ability and knowledge of how to grow food? James Dyson is the UKs biggest farmer...
...and on the subject of vacuum cleaners:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-41119355
"Sales of vacuum cleaners producing more noise and heat than suction are restricted under EU rules from today.
Vacuum cleaners using more than 900 watts and emitting more than 80 decibels will be banned when stocks run out.
Some anti-EU campaigners say homes won't be properly cleaned if people have to buy lower wattage machines.
But energy experts say the best low-power appliances clean just as well as high-wattage machines.
They say some manufacturers deliberately increased the amount of electricity their appliances use because shoppers equate high-wattage with high performance."
Kettle power. Can't see anything about leads. Fullfact: "At best this is a stretch. It's not a ban: the EU is considering regulation which would limit the amount of energy appliances such as kettles and hairdryers use. A study into the proposals has been drafted, but no legislation has been brought forward yet."
Some people seem to think climate change might be a bit important
All terribly oppressive. Talk about first world problems
So you think that a kettle with a lower wattage will use less energy to boil the same amount of water? Wow!
You were ok with the 'tampon' tax? If the EU had not changed it, after nearly 3 years of lobbying, you would have been ok with the level it was at?
You want to stay in the EU, even though we could eventually have to accept the euro, an eu army, further expansion, loss of our rebate, reduced vetos, EU wide health system, EU wide tax system....
Oh, and Cameron wanted to stop child benefit payments to children abroad.....the EU TOLD him he couldn't do that.
If it functions more efficiently then yes, you would need a lower power input to achieve the same result. Physics not your thing eh?
I'm pleased that the tampon tax is being removed and it's a shame that it's taken so long to remove. However, it's one of those things that requires unanimity to change. You wouldn't want a tax increase imposed on us? Interesting that we no one was interested in lowering the VAT until recently though. Have you been campaigning for it? Have you been making as many posts on that subject as Brexit?
We will not eventually have to join the Euro, contribute to an EU army, expand further,reduce vetos, have an EU health system or tax system because we have a veto on all of those things.
That's one hell of a list of Dail Mail porky pies. Is that really where you are on this? This makes it worth turning things upside down for?
The EU told him that if someone is paying their taxes they should receive the same benefits as anyone else but could adjust the payment to reflect costs where the child lives. Clearly unacceptable.
Boiling water will always take the same amount of energy. TO BOIL a given quantity of water from a given temperature will require the same amount of energy whatever the power consumption of the element. Inefficiency in the form of energy losses will arise from heating the container, which has absolutely nothing to do with the element itself. Half the power rating of the element, double the length of the time required to boil the water, using the same amount of energy.
No I wouldn't want a tax increase imposed on us, but neither would I want to be stopped from making a tax decrease, or have to get the unanimous permission of 27 other countries to make that tax decrease.
"We will not eventually have to join the Euro, contribute to an EU army, expand further,reduce vetos, have an EU health system or tax system because we have a veto on all of those things."
Funny how you can say that with such conviction, as a couple of posts earlier you said;
"I don't know how the EU will change over the next 40 years...."
"Standard VAT rate is 15% in the EU, the UK have chosen to have a 20% standard rate! 2019 European Union VAT rates. The EU sets the broad VAT rules through European VAT Directives, and has set the minimum standard VAT rate at 15%. The 28 member states are otherwise free to set their standard VAT rates. The EU also permits a maximum of two reduced rates, the lowest of which must be 5% or above. | |||
"For your information, please: 1. See the arguments offered by the leave campaign. 2. See the comments made by UKIP, Nigel Farage and Gérard Batten in the topic. 3. Listen to the callers in LBC radio. 4. Listen to Jacob Rees Mog. 5. Stop asking us to constantly explain our positions again and again. This has been covered to death for the past three years all over these forums, on TV, radio and online. We are sick of hearing about it. 6. I don't particularly care about your reasons to remain. You lost. Deal with it and honour a democratic vote which had the biggest mandate in the UKs history. In 2005 Labour ran the government and the country with 35.2% of the vote and 61.3% turnout, meaning only 22% of the electorate or 9.5 million people decided the direction of the country. Nobody challenged it. There weren't massive marches in the streets demanding a second vote despite Blair's unpopularity, and the result was respected and implemented immediately as we supposedly live in a Democracy. In 2016, 51.9% or 17.4 million people of 72.2% of the electorate voted to leave the EU. The remain campaign made it very clear during what we now call Project Fear that this was going to be a no deal brexit, with all the consequences that meant, yet people still voted for it. This is almost double the number who voted for Labour in 2005. Yet here we are, in 2019, almost three years later and the results of the vote have not been implemented. This really highlights the hypocrisy of the establishment and the fact that actually, we don't live in a democracy. You want a third referendum? Fine. I'm all for it. But implement the results of the first referendum first, then 40 years later, which is the time between the referendum to join the Common Market and the referendum to leave the European Union, then you can have a fourth referendum to see if we want to rejoin. Fair is fair. Honor Democracy and your fellow citizens and stop being a sore loser. Whatever happened to the British concept of fair play and losing gracefully? 72.2% of the electorate did not vote to leave. Also it's been proven the Leave campaign broke electoral law. Even less of the electorate voted to remain!
Most of the electorate did not vote to leave & many leavers are changing their minds. The only reason leavers object to a 2nd referendum is they will lose!
As I just said even more of the electorate did not vote to remain! Only the votes cast count in the result and I personally know no one who has changed their mind
As you well know not voting usually suggests retain the status quo, that is why most people in this country are scratching their heads about what is happening. Relatively few actively voted to change things. I am sure we would all have been happier if the margin was greater, especially as the leave campaign undeniably cheated and lied - did it make a difference, of course it did.
I know no such thing, I would say it means you aren't bothered either way!
You can continue to waste your time trying to dress the numbers to suit your arguments but whichever way you do it remain always comes out as the loser.
Leave didn’t lie or cheat then?
No making things up at all? Not one little bit?
Both sides made stuff up, what happened to the emergency budget that would be required the day after voting for leave, all the job losses etc, etc. The government funded a leaflet in favour of remain to be delivered to all households costing taxpayers £9million, that was hardly fair was it especially as it was not included in campaign expenses.There were no "saints" in the campaign both sides wanted to win, unfortunately one side thought they were certain to win, how wrong could they be! "You have missed my point. Remain warned of the consequences of Brexit, which have been occurring - we have seen the pound fall dramatically, we have seen job losses, we have seen huge sums of capital leave London for other European countries, we have seen many organisations move their hq’s abroad, we have seen massive impact on our carindustry, we have seen the BoE and the Government support the economy heavily, we have seen huge amounts of money wasted in Brexit preparations (without knowing what to prepare for!) What we have also seen is that the Brexit bus was a lie, we have seen that ‘we hold all the cards’ was a lie, Turkey didn’t and is not going to join the EU, the Trade deals have turned out to be impossible to agree, WTO is not an answer as we end up in a worse place than we are now, Unicorns and pots of gold haven’t been appearing. Nothing in the Brexit argument holds water. It is time Brexiteers took a long look at what they were sold and re consider. Also please stop your Leadership supporting thugs and violence  | |||
| |||
" There's a good paper by the Centre for Social Investigation; "Reasons for voting leave or remain". That might be a good starting point for you. It is interesting but bear this in mind: "An important methodological caveat is that the data presented here concern people’s stated reasons for voting Leave or Remain, assessed more than 18 months after the referendum took place. It is therefore possible that they do not reflect the true reasons people voted the way they did. For example, they could be biased by the tendency for people to justify their decisions with post-hoc rationalisations. On the other hand, Figures 1 and 3 accord rather closely with the findings of previous surveys and opinion polls." You mean.. figure 1 - "reasons why leave voters voted leave", and Figure 2 -"reasons why remain voters voted remain" Are close to the findings of previous surveys and polls? The polling did not ask: "Did you vote to stop Muslim immigrants from Syria and Turkey?" The survey did not ask: "Did you vote for Brexit means Brexit?" The survey did not ask: "Did you vote for more 'sovreignty'?" It certainly didn't define which laws they objected to. ECJ OR ECHR? Why don't you pick five that you object to... Neither did the polling ask "what do you think is meant by 'remain and reform'?" What do YOU think is meant by remain and reform? Don't you do know the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU? "Remain and reform" is not "a thing". The EU evolves continuously with 28 countries forming a consensus over many areas in exactly the same way as the UK is in a permanent state of "reform". That's the entire point of government and international organisations. I am very aware that the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU. However, many people demonstrate even now that they do not. That is why finding out what laws those polled object to is pertinent. I note that you can't name five which either means there aren't five that you can name or that it is the abstract principal that the only laws that British people should acknowledge are those that we create on our own. It implies that laws that we play a part in creating but not exclusively create are not of any benefit. Perhaps you have another position on this? So 'remain and reform' is not a thing, does not therefore exist, us in the imagination and a mere fantasy? And yet that 'remain and reform' is what the remain campaign was based upon! A remain unicorn! In the same way you say the EU evolves continuously, the UK outside of the EU will as well....maybe you're too myopic and blinkered to see that. How do you see the EU evolving in 20, 30, 40 years time? EU army? UK taking the Euro? EU wide tax system? EU wide health system? QMV on everything? EU wide education system? Pure majority voting on everything? What other reforms do you think there will be/ woukd you like? VAT Free movement of labour Child benefit going to children not living in the UK Diabetic Drivers directive CFP CAP Vacuum cleaners regs Impending regs on kettles etc Regs requiring new leads with every new appliance And if you think we make all of our own laws and have none forced upon us, and that all laws are only UK laws....try finding out the difference between EU directives and EU regulations. No. Remain is the status quo with the same opportunity to make changes to laws, regulations and governing structures as exist now. Try to change what we don't like and retain what we do like. No different to voting in a new government in the UK. I don't know how the EU will change over the next 40 years anymore than you or I know how the UK will. I'm fine with the minimum VAT level. You believe that our government is being prevented from doing something that it desperately wants to in lowering VAT rates? We don't actually impose the movement restrictions that we could have on the accession of the Eastern European states that we could have did we? We chose not to. We also do not enforce the regulations that we could now do we? Because we choose not to. Child benefit: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/election-2017-40061921 "Reducing the amount of child benefit that EU nationals could claim for children living outside the UK was one of David Cameron's key demands of fellow EU leaders in the run-up to last year's Brexit referendum. He secured an agreement to reduce the weekly total they could claim, to better reflect the cost of living in each country - the British argument was that child benefit was far more generous than many foreign nationals could receive in their own country." An example of reform
The diabetic drivers directive:
From Diabetes UK "The European Commission has responded by advising that the driving ban for people experiencing recurrent severe hypoglycaemia when asleep, be lifted. They will ask the DVLA to make the necessary legislative changes by 1 January 2018."
An example of change
I don't know what part of the CFP you object to. Is it the bit about UK fishermen exercising their right to sell their licenses to foreign companies?
I don't know which part of CAP you object to. Is it to subsidise farmers so that they can run viable businesses and retain the ability and knowledge of how to grow food? James Dyson is the UKs biggest farmer...
...and on the subject of vacuum cleaners:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-41119355
"Sales of vacuum cleaners producing more noise and heat than suction are restricted under EU rules from today.
Vacuum cleaners using more than 900 watts and emitting more than 80 decibels will be banned when stocks run out.
Some anti-EU campaigners say homes won't be properly cleaned if people have to buy lower wattage machines.
But energy experts say the best low-power appliances clean just as well as high-wattage machines.
They say some manufacturers deliberately increased the amount of electricity their appliances use because shoppers equate high-wattage with high performance."
Kettle power. Can't see anything about leads. Fullfact: "At best this is a stretch. It's not a ban: the EU is considering regulation which would limit the amount of energy appliances such as kettles and hairdryers use. A study into the proposals has been drafted, but no legislation has been brought forward yet."
Some people seem to think climate change might be a bit important
All terribly oppressive. Talk about first world problems
So you think that a kettle with a lower wattage will use less energy to boil the same amount of water? Wow!
You were ok with the 'tampon' tax? If the EU had not changed it, after nearly 3 years of lobbying, you would have been ok with the level it was at?
You want to stay in the EU, even though we could eventually have to accept the euro, an eu army, further expansion, loss of our rebate, reduced vetos, EU wide health system, EU wide tax system....
Oh, and Cameron wanted to stop child benefit payments to children abroad.....the EU TOLD him he couldn't do that.
If it functions more efficiently then yes, you would need a lower power input to achieve the same result. Physics not your thing eh?
I'm pleased that the tampon tax is being removed and it's a shame that it's taken so long to remove. However, it's one of those things that requires unanimity to change. You wouldn't want a tax increase imposed on us? Interesting that we no one was interested in lowering the VAT until recently though. Have you been campaigning for it? Have you been making as many posts on that subject as Brexit?
We will not eventually have to join the Euro, contribute to an EU army, expand further,reduce vetos, have an EU health system or tax system because we have a veto on all of those things.
That's one hell of a list of Dail Mail porky pies. Is that really where you are on this? This makes it worth turning things upside down for?
The EU told him that if someone is paying their taxes they should receive the same benefits as anyone else but could adjust the payment to reflect costs where the child lives. Clearly unacceptable.
Boiling water will always take the same amount of energy. TO BOIL a given quantity of water from a given temperature will require the same amount of energy whatever the power consumption of the element. Inefficiency in the form of energy losses will arise from heating the container, which has absolutely nothing to do with the element itself. Half the power rating of the element, double the length of the time required to boil the water, using the same amount of energy.
No I wouldn't want a tax increase imposed on us, but neither would I want to be stopped from making a tax decrease, or have to get the unanimous permission of 27 other countries to make that tax decrease.
"We will not eventually have to join the Euro, contribute to an EU army, expand further,reduce vetos, have an EU health system or tax system because we have a veto on all of those things."
Funny how you can say that with such conviction, as a couple of posts earlier you said;
"I don't know how the EU will change over the next 40 years...."
"Physics definitely not your thing then. The power rating is the amount of energy drawn by the kettle per second. This is not the same as the amount of energy used to heat the water. A more efficient heating element and electrical package will transfer more of the energy from the mains directly into the water on order to heat it. In your, odd, example if less energy was used to heat the container you could reduce the power rating and hear the water in the same time. A modern LED light bulb can produce as much light (measured in lumens) as an old incandescent bulb at a much lower power rating. This is why the power rating is not a smart measure for anything. We haven't been stopped, but we have been delayed. That is the nature of consensus rather than "being strong". We have introduced all sorts of legislation over the years because the press demanded that we did and we ignored proper review. Hunting, pit bulls, ASBOS. Again, we have been in no hurry to reduce VAT on tampons since 1940. All of a sudden it is of vital importance to you personally to introduce a reduction immediately. We do not "have" to do anything if we have a veto. We can do any of the things that you mentioned if we choose to. Our decision. Not compelled. You can distinguish the difference right? Well done rolling and sliding to smaller and narrower points to try to get a micro victory though. Centaur would be proud | |||
| |||
"For your information, please: 1. See the arguments offered by the leave campaign. 2. See the comments made by UKIP, Nigel Farage and Gérard Batten in the topic. 3. Listen to the callers in LBC radio. 4. Listen to Jacob Rees Mog. 5. Stop asking us to constantly explain our positions again and again. This has been covered to death for the past three years all over these forums, on TV, radio and online. We are sick of hearing about it. 6. I don't particularly care about your reasons to remain. You lost. Deal with it and honour a democratic vote which had the biggest mandate in the UKs history. In 2005 Labour ran the government and the country with 35.2% of the vote and 61.3% turnout, meaning only 22% of the electorate or 9.5 million people decided the direction of the country. Nobody challenged it. There weren't massive marches in the streets demanding a second vote despite Blair's unpopularity, and the result was respected and implemented immediately as we supposedly live in a Democracy. In 2016, 51.9% or 17.4 million people of 72.2% of the electorate voted to leave the EU. The remain campaign made it very clear during what we now call Project Fear that this was going to be a no deal brexit, with all the consequences that meant, yet people still voted for it. This is almost double the number who voted for Labour in 2005. Yet here we are, in 2019, almost three years later and the results of the vote have not been implemented. This really highlights the hypocrisy of the establishment and the fact that actually, we don't live in a democracy. You want a third referendum? Fine. I'm all for it. But implement the results of the first referendum first, then 40 years later, which is the time between the referendum to join the Common Market and the referendum to leave the European Union, then you can have a fourth referendum to see if we want to rejoin. Fair is fair. Honor Democracy and your fellow citizens and stop being a sore loser. Whatever happened to the British concept of fair play and losing gracefully? 72.2% of the electorate did not vote to leave. Also it's been proven the Leave campaign broke electoral law. Even less of the electorate voted to remain!
Most of the electorate did not vote to leave & many leavers are changing their minds. The only reason leavers object to a 2nd referendum is they will lose!
As I just said even more of the electorate did not vote to remain! Only the votes cast count in the result and I personally know no one who has changed their mind
As you well know not voting usually suggests retain the status quo, that is why most people in this country are scratching their heads about what is happening. Relatively few actively voted to change things. I am sure we would all have been happier if the margin was greater, especially as the leave campaign undeniably cheated and lied - did it make a difference, of course it did.
I know no such thing, I would say it means you aren't bothered either way!
You can continue to waste your time trying to dress the numbers to suit your arguments but whichever way you do it remain always comes out as the loser. "The losers are the population at large, as it appears clear that people were subject to an illegal leave campaign, and that its illegal activities were to gain benefits for a tiny minority of people. Whichever way people voted, if the majority were duped, for the gains of a very wealthy minority, that's not positive for democracy or general wellbeing. | |||
| |||
"ok convince me why we should stay in the eu dictatorship ...must be cause its doing so great aye...ps one look at the little rat face from france makes me want to leave...he cant even sort his own problems but tells the world how to solve theres...twat head" For me personally I will be forever grateful to the EU dictatorship for its mandates that applied huge pressure on the UK's government to identify who is was and likewise decriminalize parts of my life. As an aside I am also somewhat scared by the voting record of many of the 'once Tory' lead brexiteers who had reason to think they should vote against the bills that allowed me to have sex prior to being 21, allowed me to legally partner with a man if I choose or in recent times marry. X | |||
" There's a good paper by the Centre for Social Investigation; "Reasons for voting leave or remain". That might be a good starting point for you. It is interesting but bear this in mind: "An important methodological caveat is that the data presented here concern people’s stated reasons for voting Leave or Remain, assessed more than 18 months after the referendum took place. It is therefore possible that they do not reflect the true reasons people voted the way they did. For example, they could be biased by the tendency for people to justify their decisions with post-hoc rationalisations. On the other hand, Figures 1 and 3 accord rather closely with the findings of previous surveys and opinion polls." You mean.. figure 1 - "reasons why leave voters voted leave", and Figure 2 -"reasons why remain voters voted remain" Are close to the findings of previous surveys and polls? The polling did not ask: "Did you vote to stop Muslim immigrants from Syria and Turkey?" The survey did not ask: "Did you vote for Brexit means Brexit?" The survey did not ask: "Did you vote for more 'sovreignty'?" It certainly didn't define which laws they objected to. ECJ OR ECHR? Why don't you pick five that you object to... Neither did the polling ask "what do you think is meant by 'remain and reform'?" What do YOU think is meant by remain and reform? Don't you do know the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU? "Remain and reform" is not "a thing". The EU evolves continuously with 28 countries forming a consensus over many areas in exactly the same way as the UK is in a permanent state of "reform". That's the entire point of government and international organisations. I am very aware that the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU. However, many people demonstrate even now that they do not. That is why finding out what laws those polled object to is pertinent. I note that you can't name five which either means there aren't five that you can name or that it is the abstract principal that the only laws that British people should acknowledge are those that we create on our own. It implies that laws that we play a part in creating but not exclusively create are not of any benefit. Perhaps you have another position on this? So 'remain and reform' is not a thing, does not therefore exist, us in the imagination and a mere fantasy? And yet that 'remain and reform' is what the remain campaign was based upon! A remain unicorn! In the same way you say the EU evolves continuously, the UK outside of the EU will as well....maybe you're too myopic and blinkered to see that. How do you see the EU evolving in 20, 30, 40 years time? EU army? UK taking the Euro? EU wide tax system? EU wide health system? QMV on everything? EU wide education system? Pure majority voting on everything? What other reforms do you think there will be/ woukd you like? VAT Free movement of labour Child benefit going to children not living in the UK Diabetic Drivers directive CFP CAP Vacuum cleaners regs Impending regs on kettles etc Regs requiring new leads with every new appliance And if you think we make all of our own laws and have none forced upon us, and that all laws are only UK laws....try finding out the difference between EU directives and EU regulations. No. Remain is the status quo with the same opportunity to make changes to laws, regulations and governing structures as exist now. Try to change what we don't like and retain what we do like. No different to voting in a new government in the UK. I don't know how the EU will change over the next 40 years anymore than you or I know how the UK will. I'm fine with the minimum VAT level. You believe that our government is being prevented from doing something that it desperately wants to in lowering VAT rates? We don't actually impose the movement restrictions that we could have on the accession of the Eastern European states that we could have did we? We chose not to. We also do not enforce the regulations that we could now do we? Because we choose not to. Child benefit: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/election-2017-40061921 "Reducing the amount of child benefit that EU nationals could claim for children living outside the UK was one of David Cameron's key demands of fellow EU leaders in the run-up to last year's Brexit referendum. He secured an agreement to reduce the weekly total they could claim, to better reflect the cost of living in each country - the British argument was that child benefit was far more generous than many foreign nationals could receive in their own country." An example of reform
The diabetic drivers directive:
From Diabetes UK "The European Commission has responded by advising that the driving ban for people experiencing recurrent severe hypoglycaemia when asleep, be lifted. They will ask the DVLA to make the necessary legislative changes by 1 January 2018."
An example of change
I don't know what part of the CFP you object to. Is it the bit about UK fishermen exercising their right to sell their licenses to foreign companies?
I don't know which part of CAP you object to. Is it to subsidise farmers so that they can run viable businesses and retain the ability and knowledge of how to grow food? James Dyson is the UKs biggest farmer...
...and on the subject of vacuum cleaners:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-41119355
"Sales of vacuum cleaners producing more noise and heat than suction are restricted under EU rules from today.
Vacuum cleaners using more than 900 watts and emitting more than 80 decibels will be banned when stocks run out.
Some anti-EU campaigners say homes won't be properly cleaned if people have to buy lower wattage machines.
But energy experts say the best low-power appliances clean just as well as high-wattage machines.
They say some manufacturers deliberately increased the amount of electricity their appliances use because shoppers equate high-wattage with high performance."
Kettle power. Can't see anything about leads. Fullfact: "At best this is a stretch. It's not a ban: the EU is considering regulation which would limit the amount of energy appliances such as kettles and hairdryers use. A study into the proposals has been drafted, but no legislation has been brought forward yet."
Some people seem to think climate change might be a bit important
All terribly oppressive. Talk about first world problems
So you think that a kettle with a lower wattage will use less energy to boil the same amount of water? Wow!
You were ok with the 'tampon' tax? If the EU had not changed it, after nearly 3 years of lobbying, you would have been ok with the level it was at?
You want to stay in the EU, even though we could eventually have to accept the euro, an eu army, further expansion, loss of our rebate, reduced vetos, EU wide health system, EU wide tax system....
Oh, and Cameron wanted to stop child benefit payments to children abroad.....the EU TOLD him he couldn't do that.
If it functions more efficiently then yes, you would need a lower power input to achieve the same result. Physics not your thing eh?
I'm pleased that the tampon tax is being removed and it's a shame that it's taken so long to remove. However, it's one of those things that requires unanimity to change. You wouldn't want a tax increase imposed on us? Interesting that we no one was interested in lowering the VAT until recently though. Have you been campaigning for it? Have you been making as many posts on that subject as Brexit?
We will not eventually have to join the Euro, contribute to an EU army, expand further,reduce vetos, have an EU health system or tax system because we have a veto on all of those things.
That's one hell of a list of Dail Mail porky pies. Is that really where you are on this? This makes it worth turning things upside down for?
The EU told him that if someone is paying their taxes they should receive the same benefits as anyone else but could adjust the payment to reflect costs where the child lives. Clearly unacceptable.
Boiling water will always take the same amount of energy. TO BOIL a given quantity of water from a given temperature will require the same amount of energy whatever the power consumption of the element. Inefficiency in the form of energy losses will arise from heating the container, which has absolutely nothing to do with the element itself. Half the power rating of the element, double the length of the time required to boil the water, using the same amount of energy.
No I wouldn't want a tax increase imposed on us, but neither would I want to be stopped from making a tax decrease, or have to get the unanimous permission of 27 other countries to make that tax decrease.
"We will not eventually have to join the Euro, contribute to an EU army, expand further,reduce vetos, have an EU health system or tax system because we have a veto on all of those things."
Funny how you can say that with such conviction, as a couple of posts earlier you said;
"I don't know how the EU will change over the next 40 years...."
Physics definitely not your thing then.
The power rating is the amount of energy drawn by the kettle per second. This is not the same as the amount of energy used to heat the water. A more efficient heating element and electrical package will transfer more of the energy from the mains directly into the water on order to heat it. In your, odd, example if less energy was used to heat the container you could reduce the power rating and hear the water in the same time.
A modern LED light bulb can produce as much light (measured in lumens) as an old incandescent bulb at a much lower power rating.
This is why the power rating is not a smart measure for anything.
We haven't been stopped, but we have been delayed. That is the nature of consensus rather than "being strong". We have introduced all sorts of legislation over the years because the press demanded that we did and we ignored proper review. Hunting, pit bulls, ASBOS.
Again, we have been in no hurry to reduce VAT on tampons since 1940. All of a sudden it is of vital importance to you personally to introduce a reduction immediately.
We do not "have" to do anything if we have a veto. We can do any of the things that you mentioned if we choose to. Our decision. Not compelled. You can distinguish the difference right?
Well done rolling and sliding to smaller and narrower points to try to get a micro victory though. Centaur would be proud "Learn a bit about VAT...and when it was introduced in the UK. (hint, it was a bit later than 1940) Also learn that, contrary to your opinion that VAT will never be reduced...it has been reduced for various reasons 6 times since its introduction. The last standard rate reduction was in 2008, when it was reduced to 15%, as low as EU rules would allow us, even though Alistair Darling has since stated that he would have reduced it further if EU laws had permitted. Maybe you don't understand that taxation, in all its forms, is a key tool in a government's ability to control a country's economy. As for 'rolling and sliding to smaller and narrower points'?...Never heard of 'the devil's in the detail'? You've not yet come up with a coherent answer to your contradictory statements of how you can be certain that.. "We will not eventually have to join the Euro, contribute to an EU army, expand further,reduce vetos, have an EU health system or tax system because we have a veto on all of those things", Whilst at the same time not knowing "how the EU will change over the next 40 years...." then.... | |||
| |||
| |||
" There's a good paper by the Centre for Social Investigation; "Reasons for voting leave or remain". That might be a good starting point for you. It is interesting but bear this in mind: "An important methodological caveat is that the data presented here concern people’s stated reasons for voting Leave or Remain, assessed more than 18 months after the referendum took place. It is therefore possible that they do not reflect the true reasons people voted the way they did. For example, they could be biased by the tendency for people to justify their decisions with post-hoc rationalisations. On the other hand, Figures 1 and 3 accord rather closely with the findings of previous surveys and opinion polls." You mean.. figure 1 - "reasons why leave voters voted leave", and Figure 2 -"reasons why remain voters voted remain" Are close to the findings of previous surveys and polls? The polling did not ask: "Did you vote to stop Muslim immigrants from Syria and Turkey?" The survey did not ask: "Did you vote for Brexit means Brexit?" The survey did not ask: "Did you vote for more 'sovreignty'?" It certainly didn't define which laws they objected to. ECJ OR ECHR? Why don't you pick five that you object to... Neither did the polling ask "what do you think is meant by 'remain and reform'?" What do YOU think is meant by remain and reform? Don't you do know the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU? "Remain and reform" is not "a thing". The EU evolves continuously with 28 countries forming a consensus over many areas in exactly the same way as the UK is in a permanent state of "reform". That's the entire point of government and international organisations. I am very aware that the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU. However, many people demonstrate even now that they do not. That is why finding out what laws those polled object to is pertinent. I note that you can't name five which either means there aren't five that you can name or that it is the abstract principal that the only laws that British people should acknowledge are those that we create on our own. It implies that laws that we play a part in creating but not exclusively create are not of any benefit. Perhaps you have another position on this? So 'remain and reform' is not a thing, does not therefore exist, us in the imagination and a mere fantasy? And yet that 'remain and reform' is what the remain campaign was based upon! A remain unicorn! In the same way you say the EU evolves continuously, the UK outside of the EU will as well....maybe you're too myopic and blinkered to see that. How do you see the EU evolving in 20, 30, 40 years time? EU army? UK taking the Euro? EU wide tax system? EU wide health system? QMV on everything? EU wide education system? Pure majority voting on everything? What other reforms do you think there will be/ woukd you like? VAT Free movement of labour Child benefit going to children not living in the UK Diabetic Drivers directive CFP CAP Vacuum cleaners regs Impending regs on kettles etc Regs requiring new leads with every new appliance And if you think we make all of our own laws and have none forced upon us, and that all laws are only UK laws....try finding out the difference between EU directives and EU regulations. No. Remain is the status quo with the same opportunity to make changes to laws, regulations and governing structures as exist now. Try to change what we don't like and retain what we do like. No different to voting in a new government in the UK. I don't know how the EU will change over the next 40 years anymore than you or I know how the UK will. I'm fine with the minimum VAT level. You believe that our government is being prevented from doing something that it desperately wants to in lowering VAT rates? We don't actually impose the movement restrictions that we could have on the accession of the Eastern European states that we could have did we? We chose not to. We also do not enforce the regulations that we could now do we? Because we choose not to. Child benefit: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/election-2017-40061921 "Reducing the amount of child benefit that EU nationals could claim for children living outside the UK was one of David Cameron's key demands of fellow EU leaders in the run-up to last year's Brexit referendum. He secured an agreement to reduce the weekly total they could claim, to better reflect the cost of living in each country - the British argument was that child benefit was far more generous than many foreign nationals could receive in their own country." An example of reform
The diabetic drivers directive:
From Diabetes UK "The European Commission has responded by advising that the driving ban for people experiencing recurrent severe hypoglycaemia when asleep, be lifted. They will ask the DVLA to make the necessary legislative changes by 1 January 2018."
An example of change
I don't know what part of the CFP you object to. Is it the bit about UK fishermen exercising their right to sell their licenses to foreign companies?
I don't know which part of CAP you object to. Is it to subsidise farmers so that they can run viable businesses and retain the ability and knowledge of how to grow food? James Dyson is the UKs biggest farmer...
...and on the subject of vacuum cleaners:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-41119355
"Sales of vacuum cleaners producing more noise and heat than suction are restricted under EU rules from today.
Vacuum cleaners using more than 900 watts and emitting more than 80 decibels will be banned when stocks run out.
Some anti-EU campaigners say homes won't be properly cleaned if people have to buy lower wattage machines.
But energy experts say the best low-power appliances clean just as well as high-wattage machines.
They say some manufacturers deliberately increased the amount of electricity their appliances use because shoppers equate high-wattage with high performance."
Kettle power. Can't see anything about leads. Fullfact: "At best this is a stretch. It's not a ban: the EU is considering regulation which would limit the amount of energy appliances such as kettles and hairdryers use. A study into the proposals has been drafted, but no legislation has been brought forward yet."
Some people seem to think climate change might be a bit important
All terribly oppressive. Talk about first world problems
So you think that a kettle with a lower wattage will use less energy to boil the same amount of water? Wow!
You were ok with the 'tampon' tax? If the EU had not changed it, after nearly 3 years of lobbying, you would have been ok with the level it was at?
You want to stay in the EU, even though we could eventually have to accept the euro, an eu army, further expansion, loss of our rebate, reduced vetos, EU wide health system, EU wide tax system....
Oh, and Cameron wanted to stop child benefit payments to children abroad.....the EU TOLD him he couldn't do that.
If it functions more efficiently then yes, you would need a lower power input to achieve the same result. Physics not your thing eh?
I'm pleased that the tampon tax is being removed and it's a shame that it's taken so long to remove. However, it's one of those things that requires unanimity to change. You wouldn't want a tax increase imposed on us? Interesting that we no one was interested in lowering the VAT until recently though. Have you been campaigning for it? Have you been making as many posts on that subject as Brexit?
We will not eventually have to join the Euro, contribute to an EU army, expand further,reduce vetos, have an EU health system or tax system because we have a veto on all of those things.
That's one hell of a list of Dail Mail porky pies. Is that really where you are on this? This makes it worth turning things upside down for?
The EU told him that if someone is paying their taxes they should receive the same benefits as anyone else but could adjust the payment to reflect costs where the child lives. Clearly unacceptable.
Boiling water will always take the same amount of energy. TO BOIL a given quantity of water from a given temperature will require the same amount of energy whatever the power consumption of the element. Inefficiency in the form of energy losses will arise from heating the container, which has absolutely nothing to do with the element itself. Half the power rating of the element, double the length of the time required to boil the water, using the same amount of energy.
No I wouldn't want a tax increase imposed on us, but neither would I want to be stopped from making a tax decrease, or have to get the unanimous permission of 27 other countries to make that tax decrease.
"We will not eventually have to join the Euro, contribute to an EU army, expand further,reduce vetos, have an EU health system or tax system because we have a veto on all of those things."
Funny how you can say that with such conviction, as a couple of posts earlier you said;
"I don't know how the EU will change over the next 40 years...."
Physics definitely not your thing then.
The power rating is the amount of energy drawn by the kettle per second. This is not the same as the amount of energy used to heat the water. A more efficient heating element and electrical package will transfer more of the energy from the mains directly into the water on order to heat it. In your, odd, example if less energy was used to heat the container you could reduce the power rating and hear the water in the same time.
A modern LED light bulb can produce as much light (measured in lumens) as an old incandescent bulb at a much lower power rating.
This is why the power rating is not a smart measure for anything.
We haven't been stopped, but we have been delayed. That is the nature of consensus rather than "being strong". We have introduced all sorts of legislation over the years because the press demanded that we did and we ignored proper review. Hunting, pit bulls, ASBOS.
Again, we have been in no hurry to reduce VAT on tampons since 1940. All of a sudden it is of vital importance to you personally to introduce a reduction immediately.
We do not "have" to do anything if we have a veto. We can do any of the things that you mentioned if we choose to. Our decision. Not compelled. You can distinguish the difference right?
Well done rolling and sliding to smaller and narrower points to try to get a micro victory though. Centaur would be proud
Learn a bit about VAT...and when it was introduced in the UK. (hint, it was a bit later than 1940)
Also learn that, contrary to your opinion that VAT will never be reduced...it has been reduced for various reasons 6 times since its introduction. The last standard rate reduction was in 2008, when it was reduced to 15%, as low as EU rules would allow us, even though Alistair Darling has since stated that he would have reduced it further if EU laws had permitted. Maybe you don't understand that taxation, in all its forms, is a key tool in a government's ability to control a country's economy.
As for 'rolling and sliding to smaller and narrower points'?...Never heard of 'the devil's in the detail'?
You've not yet come up with a coherent answer to your contradictory statements of how you can be certain that..
"We will not eventually have to join the Euro, contribute to an EU army, expand further,reduce vetos, have an EU health system or tax system because we have a veto on all of those things", Whilst at the same time not knowing "how the EU will change over the next 40 years...." then...."Really? Purchase tax was what and introduced when? I didn't say anything whatsoever about VAT never being reduced. The discussion was about tampons. Something that you are crusading about although I doubt have ever written to your MP or signed a petition about. Perhaps he could have reduced VAT temporarily to less than 15%. Did he ask? We started off discussing what? How many points did you raise and not pursue when I had replied. How many rounds of irrelevant detail have we now gone to so that you can try to "win" one point multiple steps away from where we started? I have come up with a perfectly coherent answer. Look up the word "veto". If we have a veto then we can choose or not to do any of the things you keep describing. None of it can be forced on us. I cannot really answer you any other way. Bored now. If you feel that you have won then we'll done | |||
"For your information, please: 1. See the arguments offered by the leave campaign. 2. See the comments made by UKIP, Nigel Farage and Gérard Batten in the topic. 3. Listen to the callers in LBC radio. 4. Listen to Jacob Rees Mog. 5. Stop asking us to constantly explain our positions again and again. This has been covered to death for the past three years all over these forums, on TV, radio and online. We are sick of hearing about it. 6. I don't particularly care about your reasons to remain. You lost. Deal with it and honour a democratic vote which had the biggest mandate in the UKs history. In 2005 Labour ran the government and the country with 35.2% of the vote and 61.3% turnout, meaning only 22% of the electorate or 9.5 million people decided the direction of the country. Nobody challenged it. There weren't massive marches in the streets demanding a second vote despite Blair's unpopularity, and the result was respected and implemented immediately as we supposedly live in a Democracy. In 2016, 51.9% or 17.4 million people of 72.2% of the electorate voted to leave the EU. The remain campaign made it very clear during what we now call Project Fear that this was going to be a no deal brexit, with all the consequences that meant, yet people still voted for it. This is almost double the number who voted for Labour in 2005. Yet here we are, in 2019, almost three years later and the results of the vote have not been implemented. This really highlights the hypocrisy of the establishment and the fact that actually, we don't live in a democracy. You want a third referendum? Fine. I'm all for it. But implement the results of the first referendum first, then 40 years later, which is the time between the referendum to join the Common Market and the referendum to leave the European Union, then you can have a fourth referendum to see if we want to rejoin. Fair is fair. Honor Democracy and your fellow citizens and stop being a sore loser. Whatever happened to the British concept of fair play and losing gracefully? 72.2% of the electorate did not vote to leave. Also it's been proven the Leave campaign broke electoral law. Even less of the electorate voted to remain!
Most of the electorate did not vote to leave & many leavers are changing their minds. The only reason leavers object to a 2nd referendum is they will lose!
As I just said even more of the electorate did not vote to remain! Only the votes cast count in the result and I personally know no one who has changed their mind
As you well know not voting usually suggests retain the status quo, that is why most people in this country are scratching their heads about what is happening. Relatively few actively voted to change things. I am sure we would all have been happier if the margin was greater, especially as the leave campaign undeniably cheated and lied - did it make a difference, of course it did.
I know no such thing, I would say it means you aren't bothered either way!
You can continue to waste your time trying to dress the numbers to suit your arguments but whichever way you do it remain always comes out as the loser.
Leave didn’t lie or cheat then?
No making things up at all? Not one little bit?
Both sides made stuff up, what happened to the emergency budget that would be required the day after voting for leave, all the job losses etc, etc. The government funded a leaflet in favour of remain to be delivered to all households costing taxpayers £9million, that was hardly fair was it especially as it was not included in campaign expenses.There were no "saints" in the campaign both sides wanted to win, unfortunately one side thought they were certain to win, how wrong could they be!
You have missed my point. Remain warned of the consequences of Brexit, which have been occurring - we have seen the pound fall dramatically, we have seen job losses, we have seen huge sums of capital leave London for other European countries, we have seen many organisations move their hq’s abroad, we have seen massive impact on our carindustry, we have seen the BoE and the Government support the economy heavily, we have seen huge amounts of money wasted in Brexit preparations (without knowing what to prepare for!)
What we have also seen is that the Brexit bus was a lie, we have seen that ‘we hold all the cards’ was a lie, Turkey didn’t and is not going to join the EU, the Trade deals have turned out to be impossible to agree, WTO is not an answer as we end up in a worse place than we are now, Unicorns and pots of gold haven’t been appearing.
Nothing in the Brexit argument holds water. It is time Brexiteers took a long look at what they were sold and re consider.
Also please stop your Leadership supporting thugs and violence "My leadership supporting thugs and violence? I am my own man I haven't got any leadership so cut the drama! | |||
"For your information, please: 1. See the arguments offered by the leave campaign. 2. See the comments made by UKIP, Nigel Farage and Gérard Batten in the topic. 3. Listen to the callers in LBC radio. 4. Listen to Jacob Rees Mog. 5. Stop asking us to constantly explain our positions again and again. This has been covered to death for the past three years all over these forums, on TV, radio and online. We are sick of hearing about it. 6. I don't particularly care about your reasons to remain. You lost. Deal with it and honour a democratic vote which had the biggest mandate in the UKs history. In 2005 Labour ran the government and the country with 35.2% of the vote and 61.3% turnout, meaning only 22% of the electorate or 9.5 million people decided the direction of the country. Nobody challenged it. There weren't massive marches in the streets demanding a second vote despite Blair's unpopularity, and the result was respected and implemented immediately as we supposedly live in a Democracy. In 2016, 51.9% or 17.4 million people of 72.2% of the electorate voted to leave the EU. The remain campaign made it very clear during what we now call Project Fear that this was going to be a no deal brexit, with all the consequences that meant, yet people still voted for it. This is almost double the number who voted for Labour in 2005. Yet here we are, in 2019, almost three years later and the results of the vote have not been implemented. This really highlights the hypocrisy of the establishment and the fact that actually, we don't live in a democracy. You want a third referendum? Fine. I'm all for it. But implement the results of the first referendum first, then 40 years later, which is the time between the referendum to join the Common Market and the referendum to leave the European Union, then you can have a fourth referendum to see if we want to rejoin. Fair is fair. Honor Democracy and your fellow citizens and stop being a sore loser. Whatever happened to the British concept of fair play and losing gracefully? 72.2% of the electorate did not vote to leave. Also it's been proven the Leave campaign broke electoral law. Even less of the electorate voted to remain!
Most of the electorate did not vote to leave & many leavers are changing their minds. The only reason leavers object to a 2nd referendum is they will lose!
As I just said even more of the electorate did not vote to remain! Only the votes cast count in the result and I personally know no one who has changed their mind
As you well know not voting usually suggests retain the status quo, that is why most people in this country are scratching their heads about what is happening. Relatively few actively voted to change things. I am sure we would all have been happier if the margin was greater, especially as the leave campaign undeniably cheated and lied - did it make a difference, of course it did.
I know no such thing, I would say it means you aren't bothered either way!
You can continue to waste your time trying to dress the numbers to suit your arguments but whichever way you do it remain always comes out as the loser.
Leave didn’t lie or cheat then?
No making things up at all? Not one little bit?
Both sides made stuff up, what happened to the emergency budget that would be required the day after voting for leave, all the job losses etc, etc. The government funded a leaflet in favour of remain to be delivered to all households costing taxpayers £9million, that was hardly fair was it especially as it was not included in campaign expenses.There were no "saints" in the campaign both sides wanted to win, unfortunately one side thought they were certain to win, how wrong could they be!
You have missed my point. Remain warned of the consequences of Brexit, which have been occurring - we have seen the pound fall dramatically, we have seen job losses, we have seen huge sums of capital leave London for other European countries, we have seen many organisations move their hq’s abroad, we have seen massive impact on our carindustry, we have seen the BoE and the Government support the economy heavily, we have seen huge amounts of money wasted in Brexit preparations (without knowing what to prepare for!)
What we have also seen is that the Brexit bus was a lie, we have seen that ‘we hold all the cards’ was a lie, Turkey didn’t and is not going to join the EU, the Trade deals have turned out to be impossible to agree, WTO is not an answer as we end up in a worse place than we are now, Unicorns and pots of gold haven’t been appearing.
Nothing in the Brexit argument holds water. It is time Brexiteers took a long look at what they were sold and re consider.
Also please stop your Leadership supporting thugs and violence
My leadership supporting thugs and violence? I am my own man I haven't got any leadership so cut the drama!"...indeed, no leadership just followers. The people who portray leadership of Brexit and Leave - UKIP, Brexit Party, ERG, BJ all fit in this space. By all means call them out, but don’t be surprised when the rest of us associate you as a group. They are the people who will gain the most power and the way they defend, condone & promote extremism should be stopped. | |||
"For your information, please: 1. See the arguments offered by the leave campaign. 2. See the comments made by UKIP, Nigel Farage and Gérard Batten in the topic. 3. Listen to the callers in LBC radio. 4. Listen to Jacob Rees Mog. 5. Stop asking us to constantly explain our positions again and again. This has been covered to death for the past three years all over these forums, on TV, radio and online. We are sick of hearing about it. 6. I don't particularly care about your reasons to remain. You lost. Deal with it and honour a democratic vote which had the biggest mandate in the UKs history. In 2005 Labour ran the government and the country with 35.2% of the vote and 61.3% turnout, meaning only 22% of the electorate or 9.5 million people decided the direction of the country. Nobody challenged it. There weren't massive marches in the streets demanding a second vote despite Blair's unpopularity, and the result was respected and implemented immediately as we supposedly live in a Democracy. In 2016, 51.9% or 17.4 million people of 72.2% of the electorate voted to leave the EU. The remain campaign made it very clear during what we now call Project Fear that this was going to be a no deal brexit, with all the consequences that meant, yet people still voted for it. This is almost double the number who voted for Labour in 2005. Yet here we are, in 2019, almost three years later and the results of the vote have not been implemented. This really highlights the hypocrisy of the establishment and the fact that actually, we don't live in a democracy. You want a third referendum? Fine. I'm all for it. But implement the results of the first referendum first, then 40 years later, which is the time between the referendum to join the Common Market and the referendum to leave the European Union, then you can have a fourth referendum to see if we want to rejoin. Fair is fair. Honor Democracy and your fellow citizens and stop being a sore loser. Whatever happened to the British concept of fair play and losing gracefully? 72.2% of the electorate did not vote to leave. Also it's been proven the Leave campaign broke electoral law. Even less of the electorate voted to remain!
Most of the electorate did not vote to leave & many leavers are changing their minds. The only reason leavers object to a 2nd referendum is they will lose!
As I just said even more of the electorate did not vote to remain! Only the votes cast count in the result and I personally know no one who has changed their mind
As you well know not voting usually suggests retain the status quo, that is why most people in this country are scratching their heads about what is happening. Relatively few actively voted to change things. I am sure we would all have been happier if the margin was greater, especially as the leave campaign undeniably cheated and lied - did it make a difference, of course it did.
I know no such thing, I would say it means you aren't bothered either way!
You can continue to waste your time trying to dress the numbers to suit your arguments but whichever way you do it remain always comes out as the loser.
Leave didn’t lie or cheat then?
No making things up at all? Not one little bit?
Both sides made stuff up, what happened to the emergency budget that would be required the day after voting for leave, all the job losses etc, etc. The government funded a leaflet in favour of remain to be delivered to all households costing taxpayers £9million, that was hardly fair was it especially as it was not included in campaign expenses.There were no "saints" in the campaign both sides wanted to win, unfortunately one side thought they were certain to win, how wrong could they be!
You have missed my point. Remain warned of the consequences of Brexit, which have been occurring - we have seen the pound fall dramatically, we have seen job losses, we have seen huge sums of capital leave London for other European countries, we have seen many organisations move their hq’s abroad, we have seen massive impact on our carindustry, we have seen the BoE and the Government support the economy heavily, we have seen huge amounts of money wasted in Brexit preparations (without knowing what to prepare for!)
What we have also seen is that the Brexit bus was a lie, we have seen that ‘we hold all the cards’ was a lie, Turkey didn’t and is not going to join the EU, the Trade deals have turned out to be impossible to agree, WTO is not an answer as we end up in a worse place than we are now, Unicorns and pots of gold haven’t been appearing.
Nothing in the Brexit argument holds water. It is time Brexiteers took a long look at what they were sold and re consider.
Also please stop your Leadership supporting thugs and violence
My leadership supporting thugs and violence? I am my own man I haven't got any leadership so cut the drama!
...indeed, no leadership just followers. The people who portray leadership of Brexit and Leave - UKIP, Brexit Party, ERG, BJ all fit in this space. By all means call them out, but don’t be surprised when the rest of us associate you as a group. They are the people who will gain the most power and the way they defend, condone & promote extremism should be stopped."Shall I take you as one of Tony Blair's puppets, if there was a good reason to leave it was when Tony said we should stay! | |||
| |||
"It would be better if you condemned extremists, fascists, rascists and misogynists - with regard to Blair, guilty voted for him as he did a lot of good things, but I’ve voted Tory, Liberal and Green when it made sense as well. I am not rigid in my views, society changes and my vote does also. What doesn’t change are my morals, ethics and principles." I don't know any! | |||
| |||
| |||
"https://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-how-leave-eu-faked-migrant-footage" Wouldn't surprise me. | |||
| |||
"https://bylinetimes.com/2019/04/16/farage-should-fix-himself-brexit-party-boss-busted/" Interesting read, I commend it to all Leavers... | |||
| |||
"https://bylinetimes.com/2019/04/16/farage-should-fix-himself-brexit-party-boss-busted/ Interesting read, I commend it to all Leavers... "If only we could read! Lol | |||
"https://bylinetimes.com/2019/04/16/farage-should-fix-himself-brexit-party-boss-busted/ Interesting read, I commend it to all Leavers...
If only we could read! Lol "I'm guessing it doesn't paint a good picture of Farage then | |||
"https://bylinetimes.com/2019/04/16/farage-should-fix-himself-brexit-party-boss-busted/ Interesting read, I commend it to all Leavers...
If only we could read! Lol "That much was obvious, my concern is your ability to put a cross in a box without actually understanding the impact of it | |||
"https://bylinetimes.com/2019/04/16/farage-should-fix-himself-brexit-party-boss-busted/ Interesting read, I commend it to all Leavers...
If only we could read! Lol
That much was obvious, my concern is your ability to put a cross in a box without actually understanding the impact of it "If only I had been as intelligent as you I could think up 101 ways to make 16.2million more than 17.4million, you should have been an accountant! Lol | |||
"https://bylinetimes.com/2019/04/16/farage-should-fix-himself-brexit-party-boss-busted/ Interesting read, I commend it to all Leavers...
If only we could read! Lol
That much was obvious, my concern is your ability to put a cross in a box without actually understanding the impact of it
If only I had been as intelligent as you I could think up 101 ways to make 16.2million more than 17.4million, you should have been an accountant! Lol "Your thoughts on the negative impact would be more interesting. We all know Leave lied & cheated to victory (not you personally, but the orchestraters), so what happens next? We patently do not have a working Parliament - you won, so what do we have to look forward to? | |||
