Brexit and all that shite .... | Page 147 | Vital Football

Brexit and all that shite ....

moonay

Vital Football Hero
You're missing the point Jock. The ERG stopped it going through.......even though Johnson voted for it.

A second vote, with all options on the table is so obvious, it's painful.
 

jocklatic

Vital Squad Member
You're missing the point Jock. The ERG stopped it going through.......even though Johnson voted for it.

A second vote, with all options on the table is so obvious, it's painful.
Nah not missing the point - u say you'd have accepted May's deal but like I say it's so very easy to say you'll accept something when in reality you know it is NEVER going to happen regardless who stopped it going thru. As u already knew it was voted down by the biggest majority ever. Painfully clinging onto any hope of a second vote which I might add would be curtains for democracy & voting as a whole. IMO a 2nd vote would most likely be followed up by a campaign to boycott it or get all tied up in legal shenanigans.
 
Nah not missing the point - u say you'd have accepted May's deal but like I say it's so very easy to say you'll accept something when in reality you know it is NEVER going to happen regardless who stopped it going thru. As u already knew it was voted down by the biggest majority ever. Painfully clinging onto any hope of a second vote which I might add would be curtains for democracy & voting as a whole. IMO a 2nd vote would most likely be followed up by a campaign to boycott it or get all tied up in legal shenanigans.
I agree with you on this, Jock. If a second referendum were to materialise, with the inclusion of a 'remain option', it would run the risk of completely ignoring the wishes of the majority of the population, as expressed in the initial vote. This would be a disaster for the democratic system of voting.
 

moonay

Vital Football Hero
Jock.....Mays deal was voted down 3 times.... the margin got smaller each time. I didn't want the deal, but my point is it was (on the final time) not passed because of those with an ulterior motive. You still haven't commented on the points raised in the clip.

Will, "the majority of the population"? Really? Don't get fooled by henski's link to the Telegraph's bollocks.

"The majority of the population" did not vote to leave in the initial referendum. It was won by a small majority, with millions of people not voting at all.
 
Jock.....Mays deal was voted down 3 times.... the margin got smaller each time. I didn't want the deal, but my point is it was (on the final time) not passed because of those with an ulterior motive. You still haven't commented on the points raised in the clip.

Will, "the majority of the population"? Really? Don't get fooled by henski's link to the Telegraph's bollocks.

"The majority of the population" did not vote to leave in the initial referendum. It was won by a small majority, with millions of people not voting at all.
Points raised in the clip....what the shouty rhetoric clip of project fear. The only point I thot he had right was that we were told it wud be a seamless trade & would be oh so easy...but guess your liking it cos it panders to ur 2nd vote bollocks.

'Won by a small majority....clutching straws again. If that's ur theory then our 1-0 City win wasn't really a win cos they had tons of chances, more possession n most city fans will agree......potty analogy but if I keep peddling it enough like u do it may well get listened to.

As I've said nobody knows wot the hell is going to happen especially those charged with leading the country n their so called opposition party!!!
 

moonay

Vital Football Hero
The clip - albeit from a satirist/comedian - raises an absolutely bang on point. "Leave" was never a definitive statement. Not really sure why you don't accept that.

The point re the majority was to clarify Will's statement......... but goes some way to showing why it might be wrong to deliver an extreme outcome. To try and equate it to a football result is nonsensical.

All the MPs have had numerous opportunities to change their mind. Many have. Some more than once. That's how a democracy works.

Surely, the fact that (as you say) no-one knows what's going on gives you some cause for concern Jock.

We're no longer in Project Fear territory...... things are now real. We might end up OK.... but we're being told that we should show that wartime spirit!

And all for a blue passport....... that isn't even made in the UK (which itself may cease to exist in the near future!).

Wonderful.
 
The clip - albeit from a satirist/comedian - raises an absolutely bang on point. "Leave" was never a definitive statement. Not really sure why you don't accept that.

The point re the majority was to clarify Will's statement......... but goes some way to showing why it might be wrong to deliver an extreme outcome. To try and equate it to a football result is nonsensical.

All the MPs have had numerous opportunities to change their mind. Many have. Some more than once. That's how a democracy works.

Surely, the fact that (as you say) no-one knows what's going on gives you some cause for concern Jock.

We're no longer in Project Fear territory...... things are now real. We might end up OK.... but we're being told that we should show that wartime spirit!

And all for a blue passport....... that isn't even made in the UK (which itself may cease to exist in the near future!).

Wonderful.
'Bang on point'.....as I say cos it panders to ur way.

'Wrong to deliver an extreme outcome'.....why, because leave won??

'To equate to a football result is nonsensical'......no difference to u harping on about leave didn't win by a big majority therefore allowing a re vote.

'No longer in project fear territory' .....aye right, still ongoing on both sides ( Tues night news - HRT medicine probs, reasons given but end statement - due to Brexit).

'All for a blue passport'.....really, you really think that.

'Which may cease to exist'...u got an ear to the ground in the foreign office!!!!

'That isn't even made in the UK'..... another problem caused by Brexit no doubt...
 

moonay

Vital Football Hero
Let's leave it there for the time being, eh Jock.

We can both look forward to Johnson and his boss (Cummings) doing the exact opposite of what they campaigned for, (getting control back into our Parliament) by their stop at nothing approach to getting us away from these forrins.

Oh, and what was it Johnson said?....... "Fuck Business"!
🤔
 
Let's leave it there for the time being, eh Jock.

We can both look forward to Johnson and his boss (Cummings) doing the exact opposite of what they campaigned for, (getting control back into our Parliament) by their stop at nothing approach to getting us away from these forrins.

Oh, and what was it Johnson said?....... "Fuck Business"!
🤔
Was expecting a big long reply from yourself to which I was going to say let's agree to disagree so fair play u beat me to it.
I can only say we must expect the unexpected from Bojo, he'll no doubt put his foot in it somewhere along the line. Meanwhile the opposition are like rabbits in the headlights....wtf
 
Will, "the majority of the population"? Really? Don't get fooled by henski's link to the Telegraph's bollocks.

"The majority of the population" did not vote to leave in the initial referendum. It was won by a small majority, with millions of people not voting at all.
You're right in saying that the majority of the population didn't vote to leave. What I should've said was that the majority of the electorate voted to leave. Still though, I don't think that changes my point. Decisions are made in a democracy based on the wishes of those that vote, rather than the wishes of the population at large, aren't they? In 2016, it was confirmed that the majority of the electorate wanted to leave the European Union. Whether the vote was won by a small or large majority is irrelevant to the fact that, ultimately, a democratic decision was taken to leave the EU. Therefore, including a 'remain' option in a hypothetical second referendum would run the risk of disregarding the idea of democracy, and completely ignoring the wishes of the majority, as expressed in the initial vote. This would have the consequence of undermining the democratic system of voting in this country, and encouraging anarchy and disobedience.

I also noticed in the post above that you stated "it might be wrong to deliver an extreme outcome". Yet surely it is less wrong, and more democratic, to deliver an extreme version of something that the majority of voters wished for, than to provide an opportunity for an outcome which this same majority voted specifically against, in the form of a 'remain' option?

To clarify, most of the above just my opinion. I know very little about politics, but the above is just my understanding of the situation based on the knowledge I have of the basic principles of democracy in society. I hope it makes at least a little bit of sense!
 
Last edited:

moonay

Vital Football Hero
That's right Will. You should have wrote "electorate"........ but you didn't. ;)

Now, do you think that all those voting leave had the same idea of what "leave" meant? I don't know. Maybe they did, but I doubt it. I'm fairly certain that some were expecting to go with some kind of deal. That's what was being touted.

Without going over the same old stuff yet again, (ha !) it'e eminently possible that some who voted to leave only did so expecting a deal............. offered no deal, they'd rather stay. Of course, I may be completely wrong.

What I don't understand is the unwillingness to include remain as an option in a proportional vote.
- 3 options, 2 votes........ 1st and second choice.
If the vote to leave was/is so strong, what is there to worry about? At worst, it would be a vote to leave with a deal.......... unless of course, folk have changed their minds (like MPs) .......and the electorate itself has changed (deaths, new voters) in the last few years.

Democracy doesn't stay still Will. It's not a one off snapshot, full stop.
 
Moonay...ur like a dog with a bone - leave it alone. You'll be old n grey before ur time ( wot u already are 😉)

As I said......ooops nearly went into leave mode there.

P.S. If ur still up for a debate I'm sure ud hold ur own in speaker's corner down int smoke / Hyde park
 

moonay

Vital Football Hero
Moonay...ur like a dog with a bone - leave it alone. You'll be old n grey before ur time ( wot u already are 😉 .....
I was merely being polite Jock, responding to Will. Don't need to worry about being old and grey ........ got a t-shirt for that !


........
P.S. If ur still up for a debate I'm sure ud hold ur own in speaker's corner down int smoke / Hyde park
The one thing I really miss about work is the chance to have a ruddy good argument wi' someone. The pub's OK, but it's fun on here too.

:cheers:
 
That's right Will. You should have wrote "electorate"........ but you didn't. ;)
Okay okay, Mr Perfect! ;)

Now, do you think that all those voting leave had the same idea of what "leave" meant? I don't know. Maybe they did, but I doubt it. I'm fairly certain that some were expecting to go with some kind of deal. That's what was being touted.

Without going over the same old stuff yet again, (ha !) it'e eminently possible that some who voted to leave only did so expecting a deal............. offered no deal, they'd rather stay. Of course, I may be completely wrong.
I agree that within the segment of the electorate that voted leave, there would have been a plethora of different and wide-ranging ideas about what Brexit would entail. That is exactly why I am in favour of a second referendum, but only if it is used as a means of clarification for those who voted leave. If the issue is merely that the leavers weren't aware of what they were voting for, then why not just use the second referendum as a device to clarify exactly what is meant by 'Brexit', and thereby ensure that the wishes of the majority who voted in 2016 are met, but in a way that most would prefer?

What I don't understand is the unwillingness to include remain as an option in a proportional vote.
- 3 options, 2 votes........ 1st and second choice.
If the vote to leave was/is so strong, what is there to worry about?
I don't think that the vote to leave was 'strong' at all. I accept that 52% to 48% is a relatively small margin of victory. My point in the above post was more that the margin by which 'leave' won is irrelevant, because my understanding of a democratic system is one in which the majority rules, regardless of how small or large that majority may be. The "unwillingness" and "worry" regarding the potential inclusion of a 'remain' option in the second referendum stems from the fact that, if such an option were to be included, it is by no means outside the realms of possibility that it would win, and Brexit would consequently have to be overturned. This would trivialise democracy completely, because it would mean that the wishes of the majority in 2016 were completely ignored and unimplemented. Not to mention the fact that it would encourage anarchy and disobedience through sending the message that, if you complain sufficiently about a decision you don't agree with, eventually you may have the power to reverse it, even if it was decided in a democratic fashion. Then there are the "legal shenanigans" that Jock mentioned in an earlier post, as well as the inevitable backlash from 'leave' voters, and the civil unrest that this could instigate. In my opinion, the inclusion of 'remain' in a second referendum would have the potential to be catastrophic to the welfare of this country, in a variety of different ways.

At worst, it would be a vote to leave with a deal.......... unless of course, folk have changed their minds (like MPs) .......and the electorate itself has changed (deaths, new voters) in the last few years.

Democracy doesn't stay still Will. It's not a one off snapshot, full stop.
I agree entirely with your assertion that democracy doesn't "stay still". It goes without saying that people change their minds, and change them back again, with frequency. I would have no issue with the materialisation of a second referendum, with the inclusion of a 'remain' option, but only several years down the line, when the results of the initial referendum have been implemented, the wishes of the majority of the electorate have been acted upon and enforced, and when there has been a sufficient amount of time to witness the effects that the implementation of these wishes has had on the country. However, I believe that to call for a second referendum with the inclusion of a 'remain' option, before the results of a referendum in which the majority voted specifically against this option have been implemented, is undemocratic, and thereby damaging to the ideal of democracy in this country.
 
Last edited:

moonay

Vital Football Hero
Some absolutely valid points there Will, and we could continue going back and forth on some of them (but as we've done most of them before, I won't ;)).

One point I will pick up though is the following

I don't think that the vote to leave was 'strong' at all. I accept that 52% to 48% is a relatively small margin of victory. My point in the above post was more that the margin by which 'leave' won is irrelevant, because my understanding of a democratic system is one in which the majority rules, regardless of how small or large that majority may be.

I agree that "leave won", but not with "no deal" it didn't. That's why it shouldn't be forced through. That's why folk should be asked to clarify their original decision. Still democratic.

Let's face it, even Brexiteers originally proposed for a 2 stage vote - one for a decision, and a second on how we leave.

By the way, if remain weren't an option on a second vote, then the result would almost certainly be to leave with a deal. After all, that's what Remainers would (obviously) vote for.

Where does that leave Johnson's drive to crash out? ...........against the wishes of (probably) most people.
 
Some absolutely valid points there Will, and we could continue going back and forth on some of them (but as we've done most of them before, I won't ;)).

One point I will pick up though is the following

I don't think that the vote to leave was 'strong' at all. I accept that 52% to 48% is a relatively small margin of victory. My point in the above post was more that the margin by which 'leave' won is irrelevant, because my understanding of a democratic system is one in which the majority rules, regardless of how small or large that majority may be.

I agree that "leave won", but not with "no deal" it didn't. That's why it shouldn't be forced through. That's why folk should be asked to clarify their original decision. Still democratic.

Let's face it, even Brexiteers originally proposed for a 2 stage vote - one for a decision, and a second on how we leave.

By the way, if remain weren't an option on a second vote, then the result would almost certainly be to leave with a deal. After all, that's what Remainers would (obviously) vote for.

Where does that leave Johnson's drive to crash out? ...........against the wishes of (probably) most people.
I agree that 'no deal' didn't win. That's why I'm in favour of a second vote, but only to clarify how we are leaving. When you start including 'remain', which the majority of the electorate specifically voted against in the initial referendum, that is when the vote becomes threatening to democracy, from my point of view. I take your point that had some of the 2016 'leavers' known that we'd have a 'no deal' situation on our hands, they may have voted differently. But that is precisely why these people should have the option, in the form of a second referendum, to express precisely the way in which they would like to leave the European Union. The majority have already decided they want to leave; now it should be a question of how we will leave, rather than whether we will leave at all. Otherwise, like I said before, you are just ignoring the majority and disregarding democracy. I just don't see the need of including 'remain' in this referendum.

Anyway, I've genuinely enjoyed discussing this and I think you are proving in this conversation that it is possible to disagree with somebody on a divisive and contentious issue, but still refrain from insulting them personally.
 
I agree with you on this, Jock. If a second referendum were to materialise, with the inclusion of a 'remain option', it would run the risk of completely ignoring the wishes of the majority of the population, as expressed in the initial vote. This would be a disaster for the democratic system of voting.
Not the majority of the population:
A lazy phrase
The 52% was the majority of those who voted
It was about 30% that voted leave of the total potential vote

Hope your not reading politics at uni 😁
 
Last edited:
:contract::contract:
I was merely being polite Jock, responding to Will. Don't need to worry about being old and grey ........ got a t-shirt for that !




The one thing I really miss about work is the chance to have a ruddy good argument wi' someone. The pub's OK, but it's fun on here too.

:cheers:
I was only jesting mr old n grumpy....any road arguments at work are generally around shop floor politics / workloads.......n bit like wen we were young we thot the summers were always scrotching hot every day your absence from arguments at work may be clouded in the mists of time lol
 
Some absolutely valid points there Will, and we could continue going back and forth on some of them (but as we've done most of them before, I won't ;)).

One point I will pick up though is the following

I don't think that the vote to leave was 'strong' at all. I accept that 52% to 48% is a relatively small margin of victory. My point in the above post was more that the margin by which 'leave' won is irrelevant, because my understanding of a democratic system is one in which the majority rules, regardless of how small or large that majority may be.

I agree that "leave won", but not with "no deal" it didn't. That's why it shouldn't be forced through. That's why folk should be asked to clarify their original decision. Still democratic.

Let's face it, even Brexiteers originally proposed for a 2 stage vote - one for a decision, and a second on how we leave.

By the way, if remain weren't an option on a second vote, then the result would almost certainly be to leave with a deal. After all, that's what Remainers would (obviously) vote for.

Where does that leave Johnson's drive to crash out? ...........against the wishes of (probably) most people.
I love you Moonay, always on the money. I don't bother messaging here anymore it winds me up too much and ends in vitriolic responses from both sides (Sometimes I relapse though). You have a much better way of getting the point across, I will just continue to like all your posts like a stalker tho ;)
 
You're right in saying that the majority of the population didn't vote to leave. What I should've said was that the majority of the electorate voted to leave. Still though, I don't think that changes my point. Decisions are made in a democracy based on the wishes of those that vote, rather than the wishes of the population at large, aren't they? In 2016, it was confirmed that the majority of the electorate wanted to leave the European Union. Whether the vote was won by a small or large majority is irrelevant to the fact that, ultimately, a democratic decision was taken to leave the EU. Therefore, including a 'remain' option in a hypothetical second referendum would run the risk of disregarding the idea of democracy, and completely ignoring the wishes of the majority, as expressed in the initial vote. This would have the consequence of undermining the democratic system of voting in this country, and encouraging anarchy and disobedience.

I also noticed in the post above that you stated "it might be wrong to deliver an extreme outcome". Yet surely it is less wrong, and more democratic, to deliver an extreme version of something that the majority of voters wished for, than to provide an opportunity for an outcome which this same majority voted specifically against, in the form of a 'remain' option?

To clarify, most of the above just my opinion. I know very little about politics, but the above is just my understanding of the situation based on the knowledge I have of the basic principles of democracy in society. I hope it makes at least a little bit of sense!
To leave without a deal is not in the interest of the country