Brexit Discussion Thread.

[Thracian]

Then Cameron should have exposed it for being the closed shop, undemocratic gravy train that some people believe it to be. To go with such piss poor reforms and not even get them made him and the UK look foolish and not the EU. If there were all these behind closed doors dealings undermining our position then it could have been exposed, but I think that Cameron didn't really know or understand what the people wanted and why. Some piffle about a handful of immigrants not getting benefits immediately didn't satisfy anyone.

 

 

Cameron had no chance of getting what he wanted and neither would you or anyone else. Cameron's mistake was calling the referendum in the first place in the seemingly certain belief that Remain would win. It was a massive miscalculation.   

[Dodgy Bob]

The criminal justice act allows for retrials where compelling new evidence comes to light, and rightly so. I hope none of you who staunchly believe in the validity of first time decisions regardless of how deceitful and untrue the basis of that decision was ever find yourself wrongly accused of a serious crime in a jurisdiction that doesn't offer you that protection. Imagine sitting on death row for something you were only convicted of because the prosecution lied, and then to be told you're a "bad loser" if you ask for a retrial, no matter how much evidence of the prosecution's lies you can present. Thankfully our legal system is much more sensible and mature than our political system.

[Thracian]

But this is the problem with his negotiating with the EU, he went with demands and offered nothing, just a threat to leave that he didn't believe would happen.

 

The whole benefits thing was a smokescreen anyway, EU immigrants claiming benefits is not the problem, but any concession on benefits would have appeased those that believed that immigrants were coming here and taking benefits. Any real cost for Eastern European would have been offset with other changes, or the costs would have been absorbed by the EU. Coming back with something that addressed the fears of the people rather than the "thin gruel" he came back with would have helped.

 

We both agree that Cameron did a piss poor job in negotiating any sort of real reforms, which is disappointing and if, as Languedoc Fox proposed, May wanted to go and negotiate real reform there is scope there to do it and a will from the people of Europe, if not the politicians, to reform the EU. Any serious attempts at reforming the EU from Cameron could have found a groundswell of support and a refusal from the EU to react on that would have pushed even more people to the leave side, here and on the continent, and made people feel more comfortable about leaving the EU. Cameron came with piss poor requests and they were given the treatment they deserved.

 

I can't accept your view of what the EU is because it wasn't properly challenged by Cameron nor Farage.

 

If May, with an actual mandate to leave, attempted to negotiate proper wide reaching sensible and universal reforms, not just pissy little concessions for the UK and the EU just refused then I would be happy to leave, if they seemed open to negotiations then I would be happy to have another referendum. My biggest frustration over this whole process is that the arrogance and short sightedness of Cameron and the majority of the Remain campaign has meant a massive opportunity was missed to challenge the EU and to address the fears of the nation which lead to a horrible campaign and an outcome that will most likely leave a lot of people disappointed and unhappy in the short, medium and long term.

 

 

I don't agree that Cameron did a piss poor job negotiating. How do you know how persuasive he was or not? In my experience Cameron can be an excellent speaker and I'd be willing to bet he stated his case admirably. But everyone knew he was running into a brick wall and that no-one would be listening with any great desire to concede anything.

[Webbo]

The criminal justice act allows for retrials where compelling new evidence comes to light, and rightly so. I hope none of you who staunchly believe in the validity of first time decisions regardless of how deceitful and untrue the basis of that decision was ever find yourself wrongly accused of a serious crime in a jurisdiction that doesn't offer you that protection. Imagine sitting on death row for something you were only convicted of because the prosecution lied, and then to be told you're a "bad loser" if you ask for a retrial. Thankfully our legal system is much more sensible and mature than our political system.

[Strokes]

The criminal justice act allows for retrials where compelling new evidence comes to light, and rightly so. I hope none of you who staunchly believe in the validity of first time decisions regardless of how deceitful and untrue the basis of that decision was ever find yourself wrongly accused of a serious crime in a jurisdiction that doesn't offer you that protection. Imagine sitting on death row for something you were only convicted of because the prosecution lied, and then to be told you're a "bad loser" if you ask for a retrial, no matter how much evidence of the prosecution's lies you can present. Thankfully our legal system is much more sensible and mature than our political system.

Are you having a breakdown?

[Thracian]

The criminal justice act allows for retrials where compelling new evidence comes to light, and rightly so. I hope none of you who staunchly believe in the validity of first time decisions regardless of how deceitful and untrue the basis of that decision was ever find yourself wrongly accused of a serious crime in a jurisdiction that doesn't offer you that protection. Imagine sitting on death row for something you were only convicted of because the prosecution lied, and then to be told you're a "bad loser" if you ask for a retrial, no matter how much evidence of the prosecution's lies you can present. Thankfully our legal system is much more sensible and mature than our political system.

 

If that's supposed to be an argument for a second referendum it's a poor one. How far do you want to go back with change Dodgy Bob? Can we start with Tony Blair? 

[Dodgy Bob]

What kind of a response is that? You're not in the Guardian comments section now Webbo.

Do you agree with the criminal justice act allowing retrials where new evidence comes to light?

[Webbo]

What kind of a response is that? You're not in the Guardian comments section now Webbo.

Do you agree with the criminal justice act allowing retrials where new evidence comes to light?

You're seriously comparing a trial to an election?

[Dodgy Bob]

Are you having a breakdown?

Again, what?

Same question to you, do you agree with retrials?

[Strokes]

08457 90 90 90

That's the Samaritans number moose, just in case.

[Dodgy Bob]

You're seriously comparing a trial to an election?

I sure am.

And your answer?

[Dodgy Bob]

If that's supposed to be an argument for a second referendum it's a poor one. How far do you want to go back with change Dodgy Bob? Can we start with Tony Blair?

We had a chance to change our minds on Tony Blair and didnt.

[Strokes]

Prayformoose

[Dodgy Bob]

Prayformoose

Why are you finding the question so hard to answer?

[Strokes]

Why are you finding the question so hard to answer?

Because it's stupid and not comparable. You realise you are comparing a second referendum with a court process for retrials, right?

[Webbo]

I sure am.

And your answer?

We had a referendum in 1975 on joining the Common Market and we were told no sovereignty would be lost. By your argument we can have an appeal and dismiss that result?

 

Come on Moose you're getting desperate now. You used to be fun. All this whining is unbecoming.

[Dodgy Bob]

Because it's stupid and not comparable. You realise you are comparing a second referendum with a court process for retrials, right?

Yes I do realise that.

I'll give you one more chance to answer the question then I'll get to my closing remarks.

[purpleronnie]

Are all you "Remainers" such bad losers? The referendum was simple and unambiguous. Remain lost by 1.2 million votes. Not by a few hundred or even thousands but by 1.2 million from an exceptionally good turnout. In terms of areas, Remain lost by a proverbial distance.

 

All the things you mention were referred to in the public arena along with far worse and often indefensible scaremongering on top. If Remain had won, none of their supporters would be pressing for a second referendum to reflect on a possible "mistake".

 

What have you got to reflect on? We haven't left the EU yet so can how the referendum result possibly be seen to be wrong?

 

I've seen lots of positives expressed that never seem to appear in the BBC coverage.

 

I can't even remember seeing them mention Switzerland's formally ending their application to join the EU on hearing of Britain coming out. Or mention of Iceland's suggestion of a trading get-together involving Norway as well.

 

And where's the mention of the optimistic manufacturing outlook I mentioned which is published today in one of the nationals?

 

Or the big bail-out Italy might be needing any time now?.

 

I don't labour these things because I recognise there'll be downsides too. But I do know this. The EU is a house of cards which is deaf in both ears.

 

I'm happy for the UK to continue being a friend of Europe.

 

But not as some on-the-nod lackey playing lip service to the likes of Juncker; not as a nation which has been fast selling its soul to the EU obsession with federalism; not as a nation which has to put EU incomers ahead of those from Commonwealth countries or people we might need or prefer at the time.

 

Not as a nation which can't say we've got enough incomers for now or "we only have 2000 spaces this year and will make our choice according to our needs and our wishes."  

 

I've always valued our sovereignty and independence and would never willingly have surrendered any of it, let alone through the shameful deceits (over war and levels of immigration) of someone who many believe should be in court answering some very serious questions.               

 

Even with the vote for Conservative PM they're trying to avoid having a genuine Brexiteer steering the ship and some have shown they'll go to all sorts of shady lengths to do that.

 

Yet still the bias continues with May getting the big push from the media and Leadsom being reduced to fewer column inches and lesser-impact images, at least in the pages I read.

 

Consequences?  What consequences? Cameron was quitting anyway. Johnson found himself snookered and Gove fell victim to his own stupidity, treachery and dirty tricks. Big deal.

 

And what are these desperate "consequences" of Brexit you talk of?

 

And how do they make the slightest difference to the wishes of the UK people  in a democratic referendum? Democracy wasn't just about giving people a voice, but a vote and all sorts of voices night by night on television from both sides.

 

The democratic process was massive. 

Many including myself don't believe referendums on issues like this are democratic. 

 

Here's a referendum not given to the public for a democratic reason but for Cameron to gain more votes for his party not the public good so it's flawed from its outset.

 

I hoped the public would have a grasp of the consequences of a brexit or remain vote but how many would have the first clue, even the leaders of each campaign didn't know.

 

Numerous people have used the referendum as a protest vote against Cameron not primarily to leave the EU.

 

When your asked to answer simply yes or no on a complicated policy question, there is no option for a compromise that elected officals often seek out.

[Dodgy Bob]

We had a referendum in 1975 on joining the Common Market and we were told no sovereignty would be lost. By your argument we can have an appeal and dismiss that result?

Come on Moose you're getting desperate now. You used to be fun. All this whining is unbecoming.

We did effectively dismiss that result with the latest referendum.

I'm not whining, it's a very dry question that I'm asking.

[Strokes]

We did effectively dismiss that result with the latest referendum.

I'm not whining, it's a very dry question that I'm asking.

If in 36 years the EU is still a thing, then maybe you can dismiss this result.

[Thracian]

We had a chance to change our minds on Tony Blair and didnt.

 

But surely it's not too late if you know there's been a mistake.....besides I want a second chance. And maybe a third if that's what it takes. And what about Gordon Brown selling all that gold for peanuts ...."I.....................want our money back! Over £12 a tiny gram now!      

[Dodgy Bob]

Since nobody will answer the question I'll assume you all conceptually agree that revisiting highly consequential decisions when new evidence and truths come to light is the right thing to do.

I won't insult anybody's intelligence by explaining how that stance could apply to the referendum.

[Strokes]

Since nobody will answer the question I'll assume you all conceptually agree that revisiting highly consequential decisions when new evidence and truths come to light is the right thing to do.

I won't insult anybody's intelligence by explaining how that stance could apply to the referendum.

Nah go on, insult my intelligence please.

[Webbo]

Since nobody will answer the question I'll assume you all conceptually agree that revisiting highly consequential decisions when new evidence and truths come to light is the right thing to do.

I won't insult anybody's intelligence by explaining how that stance could apply to the referendum.

I'm sure you've given this a lot of thought and you've convinced yourself you've got a killer argument but it's just a silly comparison. I'd drop it if I was you because no one cares.

[Dodgy Bob]

Nah go on, insult my intelligence please.

Seriously? OK. A criminal trial offers two sides an opportunity to present a case to a group of ordinary people. Those people then arrive at a decision based on the cases they've been presented. The referendum offered two sides an opportunity to present a case to a group of ordinary people. Those people then arrived at a decision based on the cases they were presented.

If, later, it turns out that the case presented by either side in the criminal trial was incomplete, and that new evidence is avaliable, everybody agrees that the decision should be revisited. Now, after the referendum, if it turns out that the case presented by either side was incomplete, or that new evidence is available, why do we no longer agree that the decision should be revisited?