Why? Could just be a standard statement.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Surely something to report if it’s so specific?
Also do we think 07:50 or 19:50?
Typical ambiguous EU!
hehA European government would probably be better than the shower of shite we currently have governing us.
It saysSurely something to report if it’s so specific?
Also do we think 07:50 or 19:50?
Typical ambiguous EU!
President of the European Council
Press statement by President Tusk
Friday, 8 December 2017 07:50 CET
If so do you think you would pay more or less tax?
UK and Germany are the only net contributors so their taxes would be needed to support the rest and a number are real basket cases.
You keep repeating it and it's still not true.
Except they aren't the only net contributors.
Come on chaps tell me who the others are?
I accept Ireland may be about to become one and the rest?
I accept Ireland may be about to become one and the rest?
Already had this stupid debate with another bullshitter in here.
2007 from the BBC News Channel EU Budget
You're a parody of yourself at this stage.
I assume if you trust the BBC News Channel EU whatever, you'll also trust a report from the House of Commons, or maybe you won't because it doesn't go along with your bullshit claim?
Even the anti-EU rag the Telegraph said the following countries are net contributors
Finland, Denmark, Austria, Luxembourg, Belgium, Sweden, Italy, Netherlands, France, UK, Germany
Ireland were last year too!
I wonder what it's like to live in an alternative universe, on the other hand, perhaps not.
Edit: I think Cyprus were too and a lot of others were borderline +/-
Last edited:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Say it with me one more time everyone: "Easiest negotiation in human history!"
My question was what out means? "Out means out" is a great sound bite but means nothing in practical terms unless you want to sever all ties completely. Who decides which ties are kept and which are severed, and can they still claim that their choices are a result of the referendum? I disagree with a bunch of your other points too but don't want to take this thread off topic.
Biggest Brexiteer con is how they've managed to, with staggering success, convince so many that the most undemocratic thing we could do is consult the people about what kind of Brexit they want.
Indeed. But we've really missed the opportunity to have that debate when "We must leave all institutions, but we can negotiate a better deal once we leave than the other party can" is the bottom-line policy of both the Tory and Labour party. The 'perfect' storm of a Remainer being in charge of a government who demands a hard Brexit and a Brexiteer being in charge of the opposition that wants to oppose it has fecked us, quite honestly.
It was only the near-irrelevant Lib Dems who were interested in having the debate about the referendum not telling us what kind of Brexit we want. May and Corbyn from day one have decided, for some reason, it definitely meant we all wanted out of SM and CU. feck knows how they reached that conclusion but they have. Much noise since has been people trying to pretend those two fundamentally identical policies are somehow different from each other.
I actually think this is clearer than people make out. People voted to take back control, to limit immigration. I think a vast majority of people who voted to leave did so on that basis. If we limit immigration we leave the SM & CU. So where's the need for the debate?
If the EU were giving us more options there'd be more to talk about. Obviously we can talk about whether we actually don't limit immigration and the whole thing becomes a huge waste of time - that's an option. Or we call it off. Or it's a hard brexit, which means we control our borders. But as time goes on I am increasingly convinced there is no debate to be had. We voted for a hard brexit.
If the EU were giving us more options there'd be more to talk about. Obviously we can talk about whether we actually don't limit immigration and the whole thing becomes a huge waste of time - that's an option. Or we call it off. Or it's a hard brexit, which means we control our borders. But as time goes on I am increasingly convinced there is no debate to be had. We voted for a hard brexit.
That's not completely true on everyone.
I know people who voted for the extra £35m for the NHS. I know a kid who voted for the first time on that premise and hasn't voted since as the outcome left him disillusioned with politics and politicians.
But the problem is what a hard Brexit entails and what people are willing to sacrifice in order to obtain it. Generally I'd argue the population want to limit immigration, but limiting immigration isn't something you can do (within the EU, certainly) without significant sacrifice. There's a lot everyone would like to see within society but the problem is that to get something, you generally have to give something up in return, whether it be economic stability, paying more taxes etc.
And this is where the problem arises in relation to the EU. Presumably people who want to limit immigration will be doing so because, in part, they believe it damages their own economic prospects by inflating the number of people competing for jobs. So, if post-Brexit we find ourselves suffering an economic downturn which costs jobs anyway, then what's the point? Similarly, are people who'd like a hard Brexit willing to risk security in Northern Ireland? Because it strikes me as incredibly, incredibly difficult to break-off freedom of movement with the EU when we've got the issue of the Irish border to deal with. Again - that was given little attention during the referendum itself because larger issues were sacrificed for vague ideas that were fantastical and lacking in clarification.
There are plenty of EU-compiant immigration controls that are available to us already which we don't use. Most of them were ignored by Home Secretary Theresa May.
Also immigration will not reduce by leaving the EU and this has already been admitted by the Leave campaign. We'll just be swapping Poles and Dutch for Indians and Africans. I'm sure your average leave voters on the street will be delighted.
Also immigration will not reduce by leaving the EU and this has already been admitted by the Leave campaign. We'll just be swapping Poles and Dutch for Indians and Africans. I'm sure your average leave voters on the street will be delighted.
Thanks to the media people are born in this country with a passionate opposition to a litany of EU legislation that they can't name and mightn't even exist.
I agree with what you're saying, people were lied to, it isn't going to solve people's problems as they think it will and all the rest of it. And the poster above saying people voted for different reasons - also true. But ultimately people heard the case to leave and the case to remain and they made a choice and overwhelmingly they say it's about control and the leave campaign was clearly about control. So, again, what's to debate that we haven't already debated? Lying politicians will lie again if we debate it again. You want to argue we should never have asked the question in the first place, I wholeheartedly agree. But we did ask. And we got the answer.
I don't know, I could go off on any number of tangents. But my point is I think it's fairly clear - it seems clear to me - what people voted for, and it's equal clear what we have to do to deliver it.
If we decide the public makes shit choices and should be saved from their own folly that's another debate.
I don't know, I could go off on any number of tangents. But my point is I think it's fairly clear - it seems clear to me - what people voted for, and it's equal clear what we have to do to deliver it.
If we decide the public makes shit choices and should be saved from their own folly that's another debate.
Boaty McBoatface.
Theres a couple of new ones as well. A couple of farming vehicles they asked people to name, now called Itsy Bitsy Teeny Weeny Yellow Clearing Up Machiney and David Ploughie.
I thought we were talking about democracy making bad decisions here...
Yeah it does undermine that argument doesn't it. Maybe hard brexit would be OK after all.
David Ploughie sounds like the sort of Brexiter you'd see interviewed on an ITV News voxpop, angrily shouting how we just need to leave the EU now and not bother with any of that negotiating bollocks.
I'm sorry but if anything, that's democracy at its finest.
Roughly the equivalent of wetting your finger to feel which way the wind is blowing to estimate the impact of global warming.
Brexit was appealing because it seemed to have the right wrapping for everybody. Those who wanted control were told that Brexit will make it happen. Those who wanted control/hated the UK being a net contributer but still had sights on the economy were told that the UK is such a great nation that it will be allowed to cherry pick a deal if it wanted to because the EU needs the UK more then the EU needed the UK (the italian prosecco/German cars rule). Meanwhile those who hated the EU were told that the whole institution will soon be destroyed without the UK support and guidance while those who worried about Europe's welfare were told that the UK will make sure that it will keep on supporting Europe through thick and thin (ie the we're leaving the EU but not Europe nonsense). Experts were silenced to submission as facts looked dull and weak as opposed to posturing and this imperialistic nonsense.
No one had ever promised this Brexit (ie economy getting a massive hit, UK citizens losing rights in Europe, the Service industry/banks moving outside the UK in droves, the pound getting a serious hit etc)
I'm not sure that's true. This is exactly what the Remain campaign said all along.
So, a rigorous, disciplined and scientific approach ?
And it was qualified as scaremongering, a substantial part of the population thought that it was a lie. IIRC even Le Pen used it as an example of "fake news".
It still is qualified as scaremongering, little has changed in that regard
People didn't believe it but they were still told.
I'm playing Devils Advocate really, I absolutely do think there should be a vote on the final deal. One where there is an option to cancel Brexit altogether. Would a 3 way referendum be possible? Yes to the deal, leave with no deal or don't leave. That really should be the choice.
All I'm saying is that this claim people make that nobody was told what brexit really meant isn't really true. It's not what Brexiteers were saying but it was still being said.
I've come to the conclusion that living in a democracy means you have to accept we can also make poor choices. We voted to leave (I didn't) and the consequence we will simply have to live with until we asked whether we have changed our mind.
I can't see that ever happening. You're basically giving the 48% the same option as before and then the 52% would have to split between two options. I mean it'd be great because Remain would win by a landslide but it'd never go down.