Brexit

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

User avatar
BugMeister
Posts: 13647
Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
x4

Re: Brexit

Post by BugMeister » Mon, 20. May 19, 16:46

How they get away with daylight robbery..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HDFegpX5gI

vote LibDem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_omxx6FSLY

- the UKIP lunatic is in the hall.. :doh:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSk27Qirsm4

- up the greens..!! :lol:
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! :D :thumb_up:

Bishop149
Posts: 7232
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 21:19
x3

Re: Brexit

Post by Bishop149 » Wed, 22. May 19, 14:01

This is a really quite stunning bit of film
https://twitter.com/BBCWalesNews/status ... 2445579264

One of the more Brexity of our MPs in a row with a random Brexit activist over who in fact is the more Brexity.

Its a rather neat demonstration of why there is no actual democratic mandate for Brexit: Because its abundantly clear that not all 17M people voted for the same thing.
Rather each voted for their own particular vision of what "Leave the EU" would mean and are now tearing chunks out of each other over the variations.
Another (better) vote is clearly the only way to resolve this.
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD

User avatar
Chips
Posts: 4873
Joined: Fri, 19. Mar 04, 19:46
x4

Re: Brexit

Post by Chips » Wed, 22. May 19, 19:35

Bishop149 wrote:
Wed, 22. May 19, 14:01
Another (better) vote is clearly the only way to resolve this.
What better vote? It was either A or B - you knew if B won it was to stay in the EU, you knew if A won it was to leave the EU. True, you may not know what "Leave" really entailed, but you knew it would be to leave the EU. Then it gets worked out.

But put it this way. Have a referendum....

a) Leave the EU on WTO deal
b) Norway/Swiss (whatever it is) option
c) Leave but retain customs deal
d)...
e)...
f)...
g)...
h) Remain in the EU but not subject to the EU courts
i) Remain in EU but being able to decline free movement
j) Remain in the EU

Now, many of those i've made up and some I've left blank to be filled in. What do you think the outcome of this type would be? How many people would actually get the result they want overall? If there were 38 options, and all received 1 million votes each, except (a) which received 38,000,001 - we should leave on WTO deal because that had the most votes, despite only 1,000,001 people voting for it, while 37,000,000 voted for alternatives?

What if cumulatively the leave vote options exceeded the remain options, but one remain option had more votes than any individual other leave/remain votes? Or the most individual votes were for a leave option, but the cumulative remain votes out weighted the cumulative leave votes by 10 to 1. Should we then leave (tis the winning option!).

How many actually have a foggiest clue what the "Norway option" is, or entails, and how it differs from what we have now? How many know what WTO even is let alone what it means? How many would know what "leave but remain in customs union" actually entails and the corresponding required payoffs (as in negotiations - give and take) to ensure that happens?

There's no such thing as "better options", it's not going to make people any clearer on what they're voting for - they've not got a bloody clue what any of it means and no matter how many options you stuff in, the majority (whenever there's more than 2 options) are NOT going to get "what they voted for". At least in the 2 option, the majority result wins out - and then it's up to the elected parliament to decide what shape that should take in the best interests of the nation.

The reason they aren't agreeing isn't due to "it's not good enough", there's plenty of MP's failing to represent their constituents voice... its party politics and Tory power shuffling.

The one thing that WON'T resolve this is a referendum with every individuals opinion represented, or even one with a Top 5. After all, the options won't have been negotiated and agreed with the EU to be acceptable options in advance!

Should point out - I don't have an idea for the solution (not an acceptable one), but there's no way in hell a second referendum on whether to stay or go is going to resolve it, even if you pack it with more options.

Bishop149
Posts: 7232
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 21:19
x3

Re: Brexit

Post by Bishop149 » Thu, 23. May 19, 12:04

Chips wrote:
Wed, 22. May 19, 19:35
What if cumulatively the leave vote options exceeded the remain options, but one remain option had more votes than any individual other leave/remain votes? Or the most individual votes were for a leave option, but the cumulative remain votes out weighted the cumulative leave votes by 10 to 1. Should we then leave (tis the winning option!).
This is essentially the situation we are already in, just without the resolution or clarity.
Cumulatively the Leave vote exceeded the Remain vote, but as is clear not every Leave vote was for the same vision of Leave
Chips wrote:
Wed, 22. May 19, 19:35
After all, the options won't have been negotiated and agreed with the EU to be acceptable options in advance!
Precisely.
I have various opinions about how the last three years should have been conducted in light of a democratic mandate of a mere 2% to enact the most fundamental constitutional change the country has seen since the Civil War.
But these opinions are entirely moot, our leaders chose a somewhat different path that has lead us to the mess we are in now.

Whilst there are indeed umpteen different ways we could "Leave the EU" these too are moot because (as you point out) they have not be negotiated with the EU and we as a country we simply can not afford another 2-10 years of Brexit paralysis to thrash them all out to the point of reaching an agreement that the public could meaningfully vote upon.
IMO a second referendum should therefore contain two, possibly three options
1) Leave the EU as per the negotiated withdrawal agreement.
2) Remain in the EU.

3) Leave the EU on WTO terms - This one is questionable, I have seen it quite sensibly argued that to present THAT option to the public would be both incredibly reckless and an affront to the very purpose of public service, to protect the public from harm and serve their interests.
Chips wrote:
Wed, 22. May 19, 19:35
Should point out - I don't have an idea for the solution (not an acceptable one), but there's no way in hell a second referendum on whether to stay or go is going to resolve it, even if you pack it with more options.
On this we agree, there likely IS no solution short of a time machine to prevent the whole sorry mess starting the first place.
However, it is clear that the driving force behind all of this was a specific mandate from the public and it is likely that another such mandate is the only force that can possibly change anything at this point.
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD

User avatar
Chips
Posts: 4873
Joined: Fri, 19. Mar 04, 19:46
x4

Re: Brexit

Post by Chips » Thu, 23. May 19, 19:15

Cumulatively the Leave vote exceeded the Remain vote, but as is clear not every Leave vote was for the same vision of Leave
but they did vote to leave...
IMO a second referendum should therefore contain two, possibly three options
1) Leave the EU as per the negotiated withdrawal agreement.
2) Remain in the EU.

3) Leave the EU on WTO terms - This one is questionable, I have seen it quite sensibly argued that to present THAT option to the public would be both incredibly reckless and an affront to the very purpose of public service, to protect the public from harm and serve their interests.
That's not a referendum on what leave should look like - that's trying to engineer a remain. It should be:

1) Leave the EU as per the negotiated withdrawal agreement.
2) Leave the EU on WTO terms.

In reality the error was triggering Article 51 before really sitting down and working out what leave *should* look like, and what's up to negotiation and what isn't (and not led by ministers necessarily either). That way they could have started on Day 1 with "here's what we think". But it was slapstick as no-one honestly thought it'd happen. Indeed, that should have been done before it was even called for a referendum. But the reality is it'd have had zero resemblance to what the EU would accept. The reason is simply that the EU isn't just negotiating to get a great deal, they're negotiating to prevent others doing the same... but we all knew that.

We'd likely still be in this situation regardless of what the referendum asked (no matter the work beforehand, questions asked, or anything else). I don't for one second believe we'd be in a better place - the politicians on all sides of the house have shown that as there is a negotiated agreement in place, it is our own MP's that haven't got a clue what they want, forgetting who they represent.
Apparently the deal is worse than hard brexit... best get on with it then. Truthfully, our MP's have spectacularly failed us.

It's going to be a hard Brexit. Time for the famed "stiff upper lip" and get on with it.

(but I'd be happy if it were mysteriously cancelled)

pjknibbs
Posts: 41359
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x4

Re: Brexit

Post by pjknibbs » Fri, 24. May 19, 08:21

Chips wrote:
Thu, 23. May 19, 19:15
In reality the error was triggering Article 51 before really sitting down and working out what leave *should* look like, and what's up to negotiation and what isn't (and not led by ministers necessarily either).
I thought the main error was allowing David Davis to do approximately three-fifths of naff all for two years while he was Brexit secretary and thus having to cram all the negotiations *he* should have been doing into six months at the end?

User avatar
Chips
Posts: 4873
Joined: Fri, 19. Mar 04, 19:46
x4

Re: Brexit

Post by Chips » Fri, 24. May 19, 11:39

pjknibbs wrote:
Fri, 24. May 19, 08:21
Chips wrote:
Thu, 23. May 19, 19:15
In reality the error was triggering Article 51 before really sitting down and working out what leave *should* look like, and what's up to negotiation and what isn't (and not led by ministers necessarily either).
I thought the main error was allowing David Davis to do approximately three-fifths of naff all for two years while he was Brexit secretary and thus having to cram all the negotiations *he* should have been doing into six months at the end?
It is only my opinion, but if you start thinking "what should this look like" at the point of starting the 2 year period, you aren't going to have 2 years to actually negotiate. You're going to have 2 years minus the time taken to think "what do we want". If you neglect to consider their responses in advance and adapt or account for those accordingly then you find that out along the way - meaning you have even less time as it goes back and forth.

As time tightens while that goes on, the one starting in a dominant position grows stronger as you'll need to get something over the line. Since we don't want a hard brexit, that means EU has the strength.

So I do think the mistake was to not have it all considered and planned in advance before article 50, or even before the bloomin referendum. The idiots in charge of various aspects didn't help - e.g. everyone being able to run their mouth off about what it would mean and what we would "get", but don't forget the likes of Davis head up civil servants - he isn't literally the single person doing the leg work for Brexit. Just like TM isn't the person running the minutiae of the country either. But other idiots making promises that weren't theirs to make was bloody awful as well. Weak leadership, there should have been many a ministerial slapping throughout (and a fair few firings).

TM has been incredibly weak in that she hasn't got a grip on the party for fear of them. Kind of how Cameron got us into this mess in the same manner. The one thing Corbyn does well is have his own brand of Labour who go straight for the ones who try to undermine him (his own posse of supporters) - and the contrast between him being shaky at the start but seemingly in control of his party now (through fear of reprisals and lost roles potentially?) vs the Tory way, where TM seemed okay-ish at the start but has increasingly become powerless and worthless. Corbyn's cronies bully that party into submission, TM is bullied by everyone in hers.

But those are only my opinions, I've certainly not seen half of the politics to even claim it's a reasonable or sound opinion to make :D

Bishop149
Posts: 7232
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 21:19
x3

Re: Brexit

Post by Bishop149 » Fri, 24. May 19, 11:57

Chips wrote:
Thu, 23. May 19, 19:15
but they did vote to leave...
It is not entirely clear however WHAT they voted to Leave.
It obviously wasn't the EU, the withdrawal agreement does that, as do umpteen of the other options. . . . and those are all dismissed by a significant (or at least vocal) minority as a "betrayal".
In the absence of even the basic understanding of a mere three words "Leave the EU", I really see no option but to try again. . . . although I take the point that if we add more words we may not actually enhance understanding.
Chips wrote:
Thu, 23. May 19, 19:15
That's not a referendum on what leave should look like - that's trying to engineer a remain. It should be:
Right, so presenting what you know is likely the most popular option is "engineering" is it?
What exactly would you call NOT presenting it.
If the actual version of Brexit on offer has less of a mandate than the original Remain option had then to pursue it is anti-democratic, this is obvious.
As is not giving either Leave or Remain voters the opportunity to clearly express a change of opinion if they've had one since 2016.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it also represents a big F*** You to the Leave voters who do not support the actual final version.
Can you imagine: "You voted for A but you are in fact getting C . . . . Why? Because you voted for A of course! History will record that THIS is what you voted for."
This is perhaps worst aspect of this whole Brexit mess, 17.4M people are being told what they voted for AFTER they voted for it.
It's a utter perversion of democracy and reason enough IMO to declare the whole thing void.
Chips wrote:
Thu, 23. May 19, 19:15
Indeed, that should have been done before it was even called for a referendum. But the reality is it'd have had zero resemblance to what the EU would accept. The reason is simply that the EU isn't just negotiating to get a great deal, they're negotiating to prevent others doing the same... but we all knew that.
Agreed, what "Leave" would look like should have formed the very basis of the referendum campaign, remember the Scottish independence referendum? All that pouring over the detail presenting in that substantial SNP document outlining their plans for independence? We had nothing like that, all we got was unconstrained speculation from both sides. . . . milk and honey on one, doom and gloom on the other.
The way it WAS done was perhaps the stupidest of all the available options, but we're stuck with it now.
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD

User avatar
Chips
Posts: 4873
Joined: Fri, 19. Mar 04, 19:46
x4

Re: Brexit

Post by Chips » Fri, 24. May 19, 12:21

Your idea of perverting democracy seems strange to me. You're defining reasons why a vote isn't "valid" based on the outcome. Would the same be said if it were remain that won? Would you entertain the idea of how remain should look? Should we vote again?

1) Remain, but do away with national laws and have European courts only while still retaining national governments.
2) Remain, but do away with national forces and create a singular European army.
3) Remain, but give up our rebate.
4) Remain, but contribute even more money to the European coffers to help the less wealthy nations advance quicker and stamp out corruption.
5) Remain, but centralise all Government and legislation within Brussels, doing away with national Governments and having one single European entity ruling.
6) Remain, but do away with all national borders and passports - issue singular European passport.
7) Remain, adopt the Euro.
8 ) Remain, but rescind freedom of movement for residence without more formal checks (based around having a job/income etc).
9) Remain, but prevent freedom of movement from being used for wage exploitation by ensuring NMW parity across the EU.
10) Leave the EU.

If not, why not?

You say it's clear people didn't know what they were voting for when voting leave, therefore they should be given a say on what it should look like, right? At least, I think that's your justification for why another referendum is needed? It sounds like you consider "people have changed their mind" to be a reason. Hmm.
Is a second referendum on what leave means actually about "What leave means" if it includes a remain option? If it doesn't include a remain option, that respects the first vote, while asking for clarification - which is something you want? That wouldn't be perverting democracy would it?

Or MUST it have a remain option (and just one). Why is that not perverting democracy? Indeed, what do you really mean when saying "perverting democracy". In what way? How?

Did we ever have repeat referendums around what being in the EU should mean while they add more legislation and closer integration? The people never had a say on that... why does it suddenly matter people have a say now over how we leave it?

"Perverting democracy" seems (to me) to be a phrase to try and justify personal desires for an outcome. Are you wanting to define what leave looks like because you voted leave?

The people voted to leave. If we then want 56M people to agree what the actual leave should be like, we should do away with Government as it's redundant. What's the point of electing people to represent us if we then make the decisions anyway. Have 10 votes a day to decide all matters political. Instead, they did ask us for a massive decision, we responded, and THEY are then going "but, erm, I, err" - they're not representing the will of the people of that vote. That's the point of Government - they ask us (just as they do with Party politics and general elections) who should then run the country making the decisions. True, they lay out very very broad terms as to what they'll do (and then promptly not do them :D ), but we decide which party runs the country and they then decide what that actually means decision wise. Same for referendum (imo). They asked an outcome, we gave, they were elected to implement...

And after typing all that, I have to say - that's my opinion on why a second referendum (unless it's just flavours of leave without a remain option) isn't a good idea. I don't think i can contribute anything else to a discussion as to whether there should or shouldn't be a second referendum or not and I doubt my opinion will change. Why? Because I'm a remainer... always have been, always will be, and whenever I say that people cannot believe that I would for one second rule out remain options. "If you're a remainer surely you'd support a second referendum with a remain option". Why? Because my opinion is the correct one? The people voting the other way are "wrong", or "dumb", or "didn't know what they wanted". I have to correct them, right? I have to show them...

The reality is, if I believe in what I've said, then I can't add a remain option to a ballot. It'd contradict how I view politics as working and undermine the entire point of elections and referendums. Couldn't create a more divisive action to undermine people's belief in politics and the importance of elections if we tried... than by having another referendum to get "the right answer that *I* think is best for everyone else, regardless of what they think". What's next, ensure only "the right type of person" votes? Or maybe "you didn't get it right last time, so you're not allowed to vote this time..."

Brexit is a mess because we have a borderline hung parliament, the majority is not a majority in reality. Furthermore, Brexit isn't a party political aligned opinion - members of any political party support one or the other view. If there had been a clear majority Government, there'd likely be no mess and therefore no arguments about "people didn't know what they voted for, so clearly this isn't a valid thing".

Bishop149
Posts: 7232
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 21:19
x3

Re: Brexit

Post by Bishop149 » Fri, 24. May 19, 13:26

Chips wrote:
Fri, 24. May 19, 12:21
Would you entertain the idea of how remain should look? Should we vote again?
If not, why not?
One extremely simple reason. . . we are in the EU.
The terms of our membership (that would be the Remain option) could not be clearer (or at least are all written down in black and white) for those that care to go look.
As a member of the EU we would already have a say on any of the proposed changes you suggest, via multiple mechanisms.
We might of course be outvoted, but that's democracy for you*.
We already agreed and established that voting on the basis of pure unsubstantiated speculation was an utter folly (the one we currently live in in fact) and yet you now propose many further such options.
Chips wrote:
Fri, 24. May 19, 12:21
You say it's clear people didn't know what they were voting for when voting leave, therefore they should be given a say on what it should look like, right? At least, I think that's your justification for why another referendum is needed?
Is a second referendum on what leave means actually about "What leave means" if it includes a remain option? If it doesn't include a remain option, that respects the first vote, while asking for clarification - which is something you want? That wouldn't be perverting democracy would it?
This is indeed the logic.
Ok fine, lets do it your way and see where that might lead shall we?
We present two Leave options A and B. . . . A polls 8 million and B polls 10 million, turnout is 38%.
What exactly are we to make of that?
B clearly wins but 10M is a lot less than 16M which was the Remain vote 3 years ago, so it has less of a mandate.
But is it fair to make that comparison? Is the Remain vote of 3 years ago irrelevant? Well if it is then it stand to reason so is the Leave vote of three years ago is also irrelevant . . . . . in which case why are we're even doing this?
But hang on, 8M+10M = 18M! . . . . That's more than the Leave vote last time (17M), where have those extra Leave votes come from? Have people changed their mind? Have different people voted this time? Can we therefore assume the Remain vote has dropped? Of course we can't because of all of the above.
But wait a minute. . . . turnout was just over half last times!! WTF are we to make of that?

So in conclusion: Even if we leave aside the most important democratic issue of the smaller mandate it's pretty clear that without the calibration point of Remain as a option in a 2nd vote the results would do NOTHING to resolve the issue, in fact as I believe this little exercise demonstrates it has the potential to make it rather worse.
Chips wrote:
Fri, 24. May 19, 12:21
Did we ever have repeat referendums around what being in the EU should mean while they add more legislation and closer integration? The people never had a say on that... why does it suddenly matter people have a say now over how we leave it?
No, we did not have repeat referendums on this for two excellent reasons:
1) "Ever greater Union" was a (arguably THE) key phrase during the 1975 referendum campaign, it not like it was magically added afterwards.
2) In a repeat of my earlier point WE ARE IN THE EU!!! We get the opportunity to directly vote upon how it continues to develop every 5 years. In addition to this our (elected) national governments are in a near continuous process of consultation and negotiation with the EU and furthermore form one of the three wings of EU governance (The council of ministers, which incidentally is where the "undemocratic" accusation could most legitimately be aimed but, strangely, rarely is :roll:).
The fact that the British public feel disengaged with Europe is, frankly, their own damn fault (or, arguably, that of our media. But then whose at fault for accepting their BS? :roll:).

*I find it endlessly amusing that this is the core of most peoples objections to the EU.
- "The EU is undemocratic!!"
- "Why?"
- "Because what I (the UK) vote for doesn't always win!!"
- "Riiiiiiiight, are you sure it isn't YOU that's undemocratic"
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD

A5PECT
Posts: 6078
Joined: Sun, 3. Sep 06, 02:31
x4

Re: Brexit

Post by A5PECT » Fri, 24. May 19, 15:45

It's happened. May's out.

...and of course he has to chime in.
Admitting you have a problem is the first step in figuring out how to make it worse.

pjknibbs
Posts: 41359
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x4

Re: Brexit

Post by pjknibbs » Fri, 24. May 19, 17:01

A5PECT wrote:
Fri, 24. May 19, 15:45
It's happened. May's out.

...and of course he has to chime in.
Yeah. Blessed relief or massive disappointment for her, you reckon? As for the tweet...does anybody really care what that cowardly pig-botherer has to say?

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16569
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: Brexit

Post by fiksal » Fri, 24. May 19, 17:59

Thought I would ask, so what's next?

Or still just guesses?
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

Bishop149
Posts: 7232
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 21:19
x3

Re: Brexit

Post by Bishop149 » Fri, 24. May 19, 18:36

fiksal wrote:
Fri, 24. May 19, 17:59
Thought I would ask, so what's next?

Or still just guesses?
Smart money is probably on BoJo, God help us all.
But we have a veritable smorgasbord of walking examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect to chose from:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48395611

I saw a tweet today which I think is spot on: "By being willing to take the job, they demonstrate an utter lack of the strategic intelligence required for it."
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD

User avatar
Chips
Posts: 4873
Joined: Fri, 19. Mar 04, 19:46
x4

Re: Brexit

Post by Chips » Fri, 24. May 19, 21:07

Bishop149 wrote:
Fri, 24. May 19, 13:26
Chips wrote:
Fri, 24. May 19, 12:21
Would you entertain the idea of how remain should look? Should we vote again?
If not, why not?
One extremely simple reason. . . we are in the EU.
The terms of our membership (that would be the Remain option) could not be clearer (or at least are all written down in black and white) for those that care to go look.
As a member of the EU we would already have a say on any of the proposed changes you suggest, via multiple mechanisms.
Right.

And we've had our say on European membership, and it voted out. But now you want a say in how that's defined. You've got one, you've elected officials into Parliament. So you've got/had your say already - by the General Election and elected representatives. Just like we have our say in Europe already as you point out above by the exact same mechanism.

Funny you see this one way, but not the reverse...

User avatar
BugMeister
Posts: 13647
Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
x4

Re: Brexit

Post by BugMeister » Fri, 24. May 19, 21:53

"And we've had our say on European membership, and it voted out. But now you want a say in how that's defined. You've got one, you've elected officials into Parliament. So you've got/had your say already - by the General Election and elected representatives. Just like we have our say in Europe already as you point out above by the exact same mechanism.

Funny you see this one way, but not the reverse..."


- not really, unless you call running around the countryside in a bus with A MASSIVE LIE plastered over the side of it..
- do you seriously think the electorate were kept informed of the facts..??!!

- HOLY SCHMOLEY..!!
- I mean like, REALLY..???!!!
:gruebel:
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! :D :thumb_up:

greypanther
Posts: 7307
Joined: Wed, 24. Nov 10, 20:54
x3ap

Re: Brexit

Post by greypanther » Fri, 24. May 19, 23:37

Chips wrote:
Fri, 24. May 19, 21:07
Right.

And we've had our say on European membership, and it voted out. But now you want a say in how that's defined. You've got one, you've elected officials into Parliament. So you've got/had your say already - by the General Election and elected representatives. Just like we have our say in Europe already as you point out above by the exact same mechanism.

Funny you see this one way, but not the reverse...
Very, very well said. :thumb_up: :thumb_up: :thumb_up:
Pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth

Golden_Gonads
Posts: 2628
Joined: Fri, 13. Feb 04, 20:21
x3tc

Re: Brexit

Post by Golden_Gonads » Sat, 25. May 19, 23:37

BugMeister wrote:
Fri, 24. May 19, 21:53
- do you seriously think the electorate were kept informed of the facts..??!!
As I keep saying: No. Because there were no facts. It's unexplored territory. Both sides told lie after lie.

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16569
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: Brexit

Post by fiksal » Sun, 26. May 19, 06:36

Speaking of facts... So I have another silly question perhaps.

Now, I assume, people have and know facts. They know possible outcomes of Brexit, as well as what it means to be in EU, - is the current mood (of the majority) still to leave?

Bishop149 wrote:
Fri, 24. May 19, 18:36
fiksal wrote:
Fri, 24. May 19, 17:59
Thought I would ask, so what's next?

Or still just guesses?
Smart money is probably on BoJo, God help us all.
Looking from over the pond, that Boris guy doesnt look very promising
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

pjknibbs
Posts: 41359
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x4

Re: Brexit

Post by pjknibbs » Sun, 26. May 19, 09:11

Golden_Gonads wrote:
Sat, 25. May 19, 23:37
As I keep saying: No. Because there were no facts. It's unexplored territory. Both sides told lie after lie.
How was staying in the EU "unexplored territory"? We pretty much knew the consequences of that side of things. Leaving was the big unknown.

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic English”