Here we go! | Page 121 | Vital Football

Here we go!

Pope John XXIII said:
First of all, I thought we had agreed to drop attack lines like you have opened with. It's either detente or it's not; I am not calling off the dogs unilaterally. Make your decision.

In this week if January, you don't talk about a "march to overturn a result" without it having a direct correlation to world events. Wriggle out of it all you like, those terms are extremely loaded right now and if that was not what you were thinking, you should have chosen your words far more carefully.

Remain was the status quo. There is no need for a confirmatory referendum when the decision is no change. The purpose of a confirmatory is to confirm the decision once the implications and specifics of the change are known.

Your wife got two chances to decide if she wanted to marry you; once when you asked her, and another at the altar. When I go to Tesco today, I have two chances to decide whether I want an item; when I put it in my basket and when I go to the till. If I pick an item off the shelf and decide to put it back, I don't need to think about it again at the till to I?

The reality of what brexit means was very different to what was said in 2016. It is an absolutely massive decision affecting millions of young people for decades to come. It feels appalling that such a decision was taken by just one vote, in one time and context, by one group of voters on behalf of millions of others. How can you not think it your duty to history to make sure this was right?

And besides, let's not pretend; the single reason why you and other leavers did not want a second referendum was because you were not at all confident you would win it. If polls showed 70% for brexit you would have been all in favour to put the issue to bed.

Just as Sturgeon is desperate for a Scottish referendum now and Johnson is desperate to avoid one; it is almost always the case that the people who know they are going to lose are the ones that don't want a referendum.

If in the future we have a referendum to rejoin the EU should we have two, with a confirmation referendum? Of course we should, because that would be a major change and people should get another chance to confirm the decision once they know the true implications.

But we won't have two, because the craven nature of senior brexit politicians has set the precedent.
Click to expand...

I have only attacked the point you made, not you. Any interpretation of a March to overturn a democratic vote in the UK has nothing to do with violence etc which is an interpretation put on what I wrote by you.

Yes, of course I didn't want a second vote because it might have been lost. Do we have a second general election if there is a march after the first ? Would we have had a second referendum if Remain had won ? We had to wait 40 years for this one,
 
Lienking said:
I have only attacked the point you made, not you. Any interpretation of a March to overturn a democratic vote in the UK has nothing to do with violence etc which is an interpretation put on what I wrote by you.

Yes, of course I didn't want a second vote because it might have been lost. Do we have a second general election if there is a march after the first ? Would we have had a second referendum if Remain had won ? We had to wait 40 years for this one,
Click to expand...

Hopefully we wont have to wait nearly as long for the next one.

As story after story comes out how we are subject to more red tape, more costs, difficulty in trading etc etc the question that has been asked endlessly is still there- for what? Where are the benefits?

I obviously need a trip to bernard castle cos for the life of me i cannot see a benefit to the uk from this
 
Lienking said:
I have only attacked the point you made, not you. Any interpretation of a March to overturn a democratic vote in the UK has nothing to do with violence etc which is an interpretation put on what I wrote by you.

Yes, of course I didn't want a second vote because it might have been lost. Do we have a second general election if there is a march after the first ? Would we have had a second referendum if Remain had won ? We had to wait 40 years for this one,
Click to expand...
I seem to remember the conservatives having a second election two years after the first because they wanted a better result.

And I seem to remember voting just over 2 years after that because, once again, the conservative prime minister wanted a better result mid parliament.

There is even some talk of an election being called this year, so the conservative can ride on a post vaccination popularity boost rather than face a 2024 election two years into economic depression and at the start of a potentially disastrous enquiry.

As I clearly stated, the status quo position needs no second referendum.

The point of a second referendum is go confirm that a major change is still what the public wanted when the actual implications of that change have become clear. There is no need for that with the status quo. I explained this point clearly in my last post and am disappointed that you have chosen to simply repeat a point I had already refuted, rather than tackle the refutation.

I would also point out that 2016 was a second referendum.
 
Pope John XXIII said:
Remain was the status quo. There is no need for a confirmatory referendum when the decision is no change. The purpose of a confirmatory is to confirm the decision once the implications and specifics of the change are known.



The reality of what brexit means was very different to what was said in 2016. It is an absolutely massive decision affecting millions of young people for decades to come. .
Click to expand...

The implications and specifics aren't known now. They certainly weren't known at the time of the call for a second referendum. The deal wasn't made until about four weeks ago. The second referendum was clearly just to stop it happening. You keep going on about young people. My kids both voted leave, as did their other halves and quite a lot of their 30 year old friends. Plenty of the forty year olds who I worked with at the time of the referendum voted leave.

Why does it affect us for "decades to come" ? Starmer could take us back in in 4 years. No problems with that if he has clearly put it to a democratic vote. At least by then we will know how it has worked out, rather than allowing two weeks to decide it hasn't worked, or as in most cases on here, deciding it hasn't worked before it's even happened.
 
Last edited:
Lienking said:
The implications and specifics aren't known now. They certainly weren't known at the time of the call for a second referendum. The deal wasn't made until about four weeks ago. The second referendum was clearly just to stop it happening. You keep going on about young people. My kids both voted leave, as did their other halves and quite a lot of their 30 year old friends. PLenty of the forty year old who I worked with at the time of the referendum voted leave.

Why does it affect us for "decades to come" ? Starmer could take us back in in 4 years. No problems with that if he has clearly put it to a democratic vote.
Click to expand...
That's not the point though is it? We don't want to hokey pokey our way around the EU.

And in reality, the chances of us being accepted back into the EU in the foreseeable future are vanishingly small. Not to cast any aspertions about your life expectancy, but if I were you I wouldn't worry about seeing this result changed in your lifetime and I wouldn't bank on seeing it in mine.

Yes, I wanted a different result.

But you are missing the context of the moment. The argument was over no deal. The Tory party had been captured by the ERG (many of whose members are now using the same tactics as an anti lockdown group within the TP). It was clear the way the politics was moving. Baker and co had convinced millions of voters that no deal was what they knew they were voting for (2016 polls disprove that conclusively).

No deal seemed most likely, and the reality is that no one voted for that; neither no deal, nor hard brexit (which we got) was explicitly on the ballot and it certainly wasn't what was promised by those now in power back in 2016.

So the call was for a referendum on no deal Vs remain, or Mrs May's deal Vs remain.

There were even calls for a referendum on Mrs May's deal Vs no deal. I personally wouldn't have voted on that one, but it would still have been a preferable outcome to just leaving it to Mr Johnson and his attention to detail
 
Pope John XXIII said:
And in reality, the chances of us being accepted back into the EU in the foreseeable future are vanishingly small. Not to cast any aspertions about your life expectancy, but if I were you I wouldn't worry about seeing this result changed in your lifetime and I wouldn't bank on seeing it in mine.

Yes, I wanted a different result.

But you are missing the context of the moment. The argument was over no deal. The Tory party had been captured by the ERG (many of whose members are now using the same tactics as an anti lockdown group within the TP). It was clear the way the politics was moving. Baker and co had convinced millions of voters that no deal was what they knew they were voting for (2016 polls disprove that conclusively).

No deal seemed most likely, and the reality is that no one voted for that; neither no deal, nor hard brexit (which we got) was explicitly on the ballot and it certainly wasn't what was promised by those now in power back in 2016.

So the call was for a referendum on no deal Vs remain, or Mrs May's deal Vs remain.

There were even calls for a referendum on Mrs May's deal Vs no deal. I personally wouldn't have voted on that one, but it would still have been a preferable outcome to just leaving it to Mr Johnson and his attention to detail
Click to expand...

I won't keep saying it, but Remain lost in the first referendum. Any vote after that should not then have a Remain option. Deal v No deal would be a valid vote. I don't disagree with your opinion on his governments attention to detail. The border should have been between Ireland and N Ireland, where Ireland and the EU would have been forced to make decisions too . Looks like we are stuck with a bad decision on that, unless Boris can come up with something, or we wait four years for N Ireland to vote on the longer term plans.
 
Lienking said:
The implications and specifics aren't known now. They certainly weren't known at the time of the call for a second referendum. The deal wasn't made until about four weeks ago. The second referendum was clearly just to stop it happening. You keep going on about young people. My kids both voted leave, as did their other halves and quite a lot of their 30 year old friends. Plenty of the forty year olds who I worked with at the time of the referendum voted leave.

Why does it affect us for "decades to come" ? Starmer could take us back in in 4 years. No problems with that if he has clearly put it to a democratic vote. At least by then we will know how it has worked out, rather than allowing two weeks to decide it hasn't worked, or as in most cases on here, deciding it hasn't worked before it's even happened.
Click to expand...

So finally you acknowledge this is an experiment. That actually you didnt know the outcome but gambled/hoped/expect a good outcome.

Not like remainers didnt know this already.
 
Lienking said:
I won't keep saying it, but Remain lost in the first referendum. Any vote after that should not then have a Remain option. Deal v No deal would be a valid vote. I don't disagree with your opinion on his governments attention to detail. The border should have been between Ireland and N Ireland, where Ireland and the EU would have been forced to make decisions too . Looks like we are stuck with a bad decision on that, unless Boris can come up with something, or we wait four years for N Ireland to vote on the longer term plans.
Click to expand...

Thats a fairly glib response to the people facing empty shelves because of a sovereignty that doesnt exist. Comment and attitude like that might drive one to contemplate acts of terror again.
 
Lienking said:
Is this as opposed to inventing something that could happen, moan about it for four years, pan the government for allowing the thing to happen which hasn't happened , hold a march to try to overturn a democratic vote etc
Click to expand...

Let’s think of the things that you told us couldn’thappen over those 4 years.

1) Irish Border
2) Chaos at the ports.
3) Stacking of lorries on the M20
4) Massive impact on exporters
Lienking said:
I won't keep saying it, but Remain lost in the first referendum. Any vote after that should not then have a Remain option. Deal v No deal would be a valid vote. I don't disagree with your opinion on his governments attention to detail. The border should have been between Ireland and N Ireland, where Ireland and the EU would have been forced to make decisions too . Looks like we are stuck with a bad decision on that, unless Boris can come up with something, or we wait four years for N Ireland to vote on the longer term plans.
Click to expand...

So finally you accept that a border between Ireland and Northern Ireland was a necessity if the U.K. didn’t have a Custom Union with the EU.

It also seems as though it wasn’t just up to the EU as you kept insisting it would/should be. I will accept I didn’t expect it to be in the middle of the UK, but there you go.

I’m sure someone can confirm or deny this, but I suspect that the U.K. is the only country in the world with a Custom Border in the middle of its Sovereign Nation!!
 
Feco said:
Let’s think of the things that you told us couldn’thappen over those 4 years.

1) Irish Border
2) Chaos at the ports.
3) Stacking of lorries on the M20
4) Massive impact on exporters


So finally you accept that a border between Ireland and Northern Ireland was a necessity if the U.K. didn’t have a Custom Union with the EU.

It also seems as though it wasn’t just up to the EU as you kept insisting it would/should be. I will accept I didn’t expect it to be in the middle of the UK, but there you go.

I’m sure someone can confirm or deny this, but I suspect that the U.K. is the only country in the world with a Custom Border in the middle of its Sovereign Nation!!
Click to expand...

I don't ever remember saying there would be no problems. I do feel sorry for people having problems, but we are 16 days into this. Already said I believe the border in the sea was a mistake. What happened to the planes not flying, food shortages etc ?

The main thing with this is we are in charge of our own affairs. If the Tories mess it up, we can vote Labour next time and see if they do any better.
 
Pope John XXIII said:
That's not the point though is it? We don't want to hokey pokey our way around the EU.

And in reality, the chances of us being accepted back into the EU in the foreseeable future are vanishingly small. Not to cast any aspertions about your life expectancy, but if I were you I wouldn't worry about seeing this result changed in your lifetime and I wouldn't bank on seeing it in mine.

Yes, I wanted a different result.

But you are missing the context of the moment. The argument was over no deal. The Tory party had been captured by the ERG (many of whose members are now using the same tactics as an anti lockdown group within the TP). It was clear the way the politics was moving. Baker and co had convinced millions of voters that no deal was what they knew they were voting for (2016 polls disprove that conclusively).

No deal seemed most likely, and the reality is that no one voted for that; neither no deal, nor hard brexit (which we got) was explicitly on the ballot and it certainly wasn't what was promised by those now in power back in 2016.

So the call was for a referendum on no deal Vs remain, or Mrs May's deal Vs remain.

There were even calls for a referendum on Mrs May's deal Vs no deal. I personally wouldn't have voted on that one, but it would still have been a preferable outcome to just leaving it to Mr Johnson and his attention to detail
Click to expand...

We have No Deal by the back door, the only difference between that and what we have is we tariff agreement.
Even there, it’s a very mute point for UK exporters to the EU, Country of Origin status means that many of us will pay tariffs.

The more of this agreement that comes to light the more it seems as though the U.K. has had its pants pulled well and truly down.
 
Feco said:
So finally you accept that a border between Ireland and Northern Ireland was a necessity if the U.K. didn’t have a Custom Union with the EU.
Click to expand...

I don't accept it was a necessity, but a proper border would have been 50 % Ireland/EU fault . Should UK policy really be made on the back of the fear of terrorism ? As a sovereign nation we should be entitled to do what we want, not give in to terrorists.

In an Ireland/N Ireland border the onus would have been as much on them to accept a technological solution, as I believe Sweden and Norway have. With the sea border, the EU will simply try and prolong it as long as possible. Looks like that's 4 years minimum.
 
Lienking said:
I don't ever remember saying there would be no problems. I do feel sorry for people having problems, but we are 16 days into this. Already said I believe the border in the sea was a mistake. What happened to the planes not flying, food shortages etc ?

The main thing with this is we are in charge of our own affairs. If the Tories mess it up, we can vote Labour next time and see if they do any better.
Click to expand...
You did say that the U.K. wouldn’t need a border with the Republic of Ireland, that would be the EU’s issue.

Planes flying? The UK is still flying under a framework agreement under an EU license, something that has to be renewed periodically. The U.K. certainly hasn’t taken back control of that.

Food Shortages....ask Northern Ireland.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.