The 'No to the EU' campaign Vol 2

[mybrainhurts]

FiF said:

Re protest ongoing, comedian and protester big cry baby Mark Thomas said the referendum campaign had not been fought "on a level playing field".

I really don't feel inclined to stick a red hot poker up anybody's arse, but I could make an exception with him.

[turbobloke]

FiF said:

Re protest ongoing, comedian and protester big cry baby Mark Thomas said the referendum campaign had not been fought "on a level playing field".

He has a point, the use of government machinery gave Remain a distinct advantage, as did their use of a greater number of sillier porkypies. Leave were at a disadvantage throughout...however, rerunning the campaign is hardly moving forward so we ought to leave these undemocratic howlers and sulkers to their fate outside the EU.

[don'tbesilly]

funkyrobot said:

don'tbesilly said:

Laurel Green said:

turbobloke said:

Today will see a bunch of people protesting against the result from a democratic process in favour of a dictatorship approach, no wonder they like the EU. It starts from Park Lane at 11am if any highly intelligent Londoners were unaware and want to join in.

Wasn't this protest planned for earlier in the week but changed because of the weather?

So now they can be bothered to get out of bed (couldn't be arsed on the 23rd) they're concerned about getting their hair wet!

Mind you if they hang around for a dry day, the new PM will be in place, Article 50 will have been invoked and the EU will be 5 countries smaller.

Roll on a sunny day

They really are a bunch of deluded, fking idiots.

Hang on though, aren't these the same people who seem to think it's the leavers who are the f*cking idiots

[handpaper]

Cobnapint said:

FiF said:

Re protest ongoing, comedian and protester big cry baby Mark Thomas said the referendum campaign had not been fought "on a level playing field".


Correct, it wasn't and errr, if it had been, would the result have ended as close as it? Probably not, so not sure what his point is.

I've just read it on Sky News, he's the tt who's actually organised it. My eyes nearly popped out.

Of all people - his whole career has been based on nothing but taking the piss out of big organisations and critcising the establishment - yet here he is wanting to stay in the EU.

EH...!?

He has a bit of a history as a protester :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRwsXnBQaEo

[Beati Dogu]

don'tbesilly said:

Hang on though, aren't these the same people who seem to think it's the leavers who are the f*cking idiots

Yes and they're also the same people who can't understand the difference between "Europe" a geographical region and the "European Union", a corrupt anti-democratic political construct. So don't expect too much.

[whoami]

mybrainhurts said:

FiF said:

Re protest ongoing, comedian and protester big cry baby Mark Thomas said the referendum campaign had not been fought "on a level playing field".

I really don't feel inclined to stick a red hot poker up anybody's arse, but I could make an exception with him.

The very definition of an ahole.

[dandarez]

Democracy. What a joke! The juveniles (of all ages) stamping up and down.
They doth protest too much, methinks.

I love some of the comments from those marching...

Mathilda Fell, 14, was marching with her parents. The budding human rights lawyer from London fears her dreams of studying at university in Belgium or Holland might be thwarted by an EU exit.

Young, full of ambition and utterly wet behind the ears. With a name like hers perhaps she has the power of telekinesis to change the result?

And who said all the older people voted leave?
Father Bill Baker, 59, and daughter Jess Baker, 22, from Islington carried their home-made a banner for the march 'I will always love EU.'
'I' not 'We' then?
Oh, and EU, not Europe then?

Thick as planks.
I wonder if they realise Bliar is on their side and loves 'them' too?

[Robertj21a]

dandarez said:

Thick as planks.
I wonder if they realise Bliar is on their side and loves 'them' too?

Surely not that lovely, cuddly, Mr Bliar who is so sure that somebody must want to listen to him ? He's probably Honorary Major Sulk nowadays.

[jmorgan]

When does the looting start?

[don4l]

Hugh Jarse said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=111&am...
This is pretty enjoyable with a Saturday morning coffee and biccies.

That's brilliant.

[Axionknight]

Robertj21a said:

Surely not that lovely, cuddly, Mr Bliar who is so sure that somebody must want to listen to him ? He's probably Honorary Major Sulk nowadays.

I'd be Mr Sulk too if just about everybody wanted to see me in a prison cell.

[mikebradford]

Hugh Jarse said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=111&am...
This is pretty enjoyable with a Saturday morning coffee and biccies.

I love the idea of a drunk brexit pub talk

In the midst of all the talk , that did make me smile

Edited by mikebradford on Saturday 2nd July 16:28

[romeogolf]

There's an awful lot of talk about not leaving the EU being undemocratic after the result of the referendum. I'm sorry, but that's incorrect.

We have a parliamentary democracy. We get direct input into who represents us. The referendum was an advisory referendum and the advice given to those people who represent us is that there is a near 50-50 split in opinion in this country. To leave the EU based on a 4% margin is arguably inadvisable .

The outcome of this should be to take a serious look at why people voted to leave and what can be done about those issues.

It's been mentioned several times already that few people truly understand the implications of leaving, the benefits we draw from being in the EU, the true cost of the EU (and the cost of leaving) the accountability (or lack thereof) of MEPs, the path forward after leaving... There are far too many questions which need sensible answers rather than headline rhetoric, much of which has lead people to make a decision which will hurt them personally in the long-run (see Cornwall voting to leave then asking for funding guarantees). A very unfortunate side-effect of this rhetoric based on immigration is also the legitimisation of underlying racism and xenophobia. Few people would deny that this has always existed under the surface, but it's hard to ignore the fact that in response to the leave vote this has raised its voice and those spouting such small-minded hatred feel they have the right to do so in public.

I don't think the EU is perfect. I don't think Britain benefits the most out of being part of the EU and we certainly don't get overall "value for money" from it. But I do see the advantages of being a member, socially and economically, and until there is a coherent plan for how we should leave or what agreements we can negotiate, we should never have voted to do so.

It's also not fair to say that remaining is a "leftie" issue and leaving is purely bigotry. The two people I know best who wanted to leave are both Lib-Dem voters who consider the EU to be illiberal and I could never describe them as bigoted in the slightest. This talk of "bigots v lefties" really needs to stop. It helps nobody.

[Robertj21a]

romeogolf said:

There's an awful lot of talk about not leaving the EU being undemocratic after the result of the referendum. I'm sorry, but that's incorrect.

We have a parliamentary democracy. We get direct input into who represents us. The referendum was an advisory referendum and the advice given to those people who represent us is that there is a near 50-50 split in opinion in this country. To leave the EU based on a 4% margin is arguably inadvisable .

The outcome of this should be to take a serious look at why people voted to leave and what can be done about those issues.

It's been mentioned several times already that few people truly understand the implications of leaving, the benefits we draw from being in the EU, the true cost of the EU (and the cost of leaving) the accountability (or lack thereof) of MEPs, the path forward after leaving... There are far too many questions which need sensible answers rather than headline rhetoric, much of which has lead people to make a decision which will hurt them personally in the long-run (see Cornwall voting to leave then asking for funding guarantees). A very unfortunate side-effect of this rhetoric based on immigration is also the legitimisation of underlying racism and xenophobia. Few people would deny that this has always existed under the surface, but it's hard to ignore the fact that in response to the leave vote this has raised its voice and those spouting such small-minded hatred feel they have the right to do so in public.

I don't think the EU is perfect. I don't think Britain benefits the most out of being part of the EU and we certainly don't get overall "value for money" from it. But I do see the advantages of being a member, socially and economically, and until there is a coherent plan for how we should leave or what agreements we can negotiate, we should never have voted to do so.

It's also not fair to say that remaining is a "leftie" issue and leaving is purely bigotry. The two people I know best who wanted to leave are both Lib-Dem voters who consider the EU to be illiberal and I could never describe them as bigoted in the slightest. This talk of "bigots v lefties" really needs to stop. It helps nobody.

Call the referendum whatever you like. To most people it was their opportunity to be 'democratic'.

[alfie2244]

romeogolf said:

There's an awful lot of talk about not leaving the EU being undemocratic after the result of the referendum. I'm sorry, but that's incorrect.

We have a parliamentary democracy. We get direct input into who represents us. The referendum was an advisory referendum and the advice given to those people who represent us is that there is a near 50-50 split in opinion in this country. To leave the EU based on a 4% margin is arguably inadvisable .

The outcome of this should be to take a serious look at why people voted to leave and what can be done about those issues.

It's been mentioned several times already that few people truly understand the implications of leaving, the benefits we draw from being in the EU, the true cost of the EU (and the cost of leaving) the accountability (or lack thereof) of MEPs, the path forward after leaving... There are far too many questions which need sensible answers rather than headline rhetoric, much of which has lead people to make a decision which will hurt them personally in the long-run (see Cornwall voting to leave then asking for funding guarantees). A very unfortunate side-effect of this rhetoric based on immigration is also the legitimisation of underlying racism and xenophobia. Few people would deny that this has always existed under the surface, but it's hard to ignore the fact that in response to the leave vote this has raised its voice and those spouting such small-minded hatred feel they have the right to do so in public.

I don't think the EU is perfect. I don't think Britain benefits the most out of being part of the EU and we certainly don't get overall "value for money" from it. But I do see the advantages of being a member, socially and economically, and until there is a coherent plan for how we should leave or what agreements we can negotiate, we should never have voted to do so.

It's also not fair to say that remaining is a "leftie" issue and leaving is purely bigotry. The two people I know best who wanted to leave are both Lib-Dem voters who consider the EU to be illiberal and I could never describe them as bigoted in the slightest. This talk of "bigots v lefties" really needs to stop. It helps nobody.

It's been mentioned several times already that few people truly understand the implications of staying also but I don't suppose that supports your narrative.

[turbobloke]

Robertj21a said:

Call the referendum whatever you like. To most people it was their opportunity to be 'democratic'.

Correct, the excuses for not Brexiting are stacking up but they're empty. We've known since the year dot that in absolute terms, referenda aren't binding on a UK government. However with something on this scale, sold by the person who put the referendum in their manifesto as a chance for the people to decide, it was in effect 'the people decide' and the people have decided.

Curiously there was no concern from the LibDems that their precious FPTP referendum wouldn't have been binding. Nor was there any remote hint this time that the EU referendum outcome wouldn't be honoured and at least now the main two candidates to succeed CMD are making it clear that they are continuing towards A50.

If Theresa keeps the maymentum up and wins, here's hoping she gives Gove a cross-gov't role with the authority to hose down the civil servant stables just as he did at Education where lefty leakers and wannabe blockers, senior people who had been appointed by Blair were moved on nicely and efficiently.

[turbobloke]

romeogolf said:

It's also not fair to say that remaining is a "leftie" issue...

Quite right it's not left. Or right. Positioning on the EU issue was a cross-party matter.

However I don't think that's wnat people are suggesting, as it's obvious.

I'll bet you a virtual shilling that those whining, carping, sulking and generally revolting after the outcome are mostly those of the tolerant left within Remainia.

Just going on past experience (GE 2015) is enough for me to risk virtual funds on the matter

[don4l]

boxxob said:

romeogolf said:

There's an awful lot of talk about not leaving the EU being undemocratic after the result of the referendum. I'm sorry, but that's incorrect.

We have a parliamentary democracy. We get direct input into who represents us. The referendum was an advisory referendum and the advice given to those people who represent us is that there is a near 50-50 split in opinion in this country. To leave the EU based on a 4% margin is arguably inadvisable .

The outcome of this should be to take a serious look at why people voted to leave and what can be done about those issues.

It's been mentioned several times already that few people truly understand the implications of leaving, the benefits we draw from being in the EU, the true cost of the EU (and the cost of leaving) the accountability (or lack thereof) of MEPs, the path forward after leaving... There are far too many questions which need sensible answers rather than headline rhetoric, much of which has lead people to make a decision which will hurt them personally in the long-run (see Cornwall voting to leave then asking for funding guarantees). A very unfortunate side-effect of this rhetoric based on immigration is also the legitimisation of underlying racism and xenophobia. Few people would deny that this has always existed under the surface, but it's hard to ignore the fact that in response to the leave vote this has raised its voice and those spouting such small-minded hatred feel they have the right to do so in public.

I don't think the EU is perfect. I don't think Britain benefits the most out of being part of the EU and we certainly don't get overall "value for money" from it. But I do see the advantages of being a member, socially and economically, and until there is a coherent plan for how we should leave or what agreements we can negotiate, we should never have voted to do so.

It's also not fair to say that remaining is a "leftie" issue and leaving is purely bigotry. The two people I know best who wanted to leave are both Lib-Dem voters who consider the EU to be illiberal and I could never describe them as bigoted in the slightest. This talk of "bigots v lefties" really needs to stop. It helps nobody.

You seem to be presuming that a large proportion of those voting Remain understand what they were voting for.

So if we voted 52-48 in favour of remain but parliament decided to leave anyway, then what would you say?

I'm looking forward to romeo's answer.

I would suggest that it would be inadvisable to remain in the EU when a majority of people want to leave.


To suggest that we don't understand the implications of leaving is silly.


The WTO is ready and willing to accept us back. So the bottom line is that we trade under WTO rules.

I would suggest that the Remainers did not understand the implications of staying in. Certainly, most of you seem unable to understand the phrase "ever closer union". Some of you understood what the phrase meant, but you believed that Dave had negotiated an exemption for us. This was utter nonsense.

The only way that we could have escaped "ever closer union" would have been a commitment that no future Directives would apply to us. Dave did not get that commitment, or anything like it. Each Directive creates a set of rules that are applied across all member states, and brings one step closer to the final "union"

The sooner that the losers stop sulking, the sooner we can move on.

We should be discussing more important matters, like do we actually want a trade deal with the EU, and if so, why?

If we do have a deal, should it be balanced? The Germans export £20Bn of cars to us p/a. We only export £10Bn of cars to them. On that basis, it would seem reasonable that we only apply 5% (instead of the WTO 10%) to their cars if they agreed to apply no tariffs to our cars.

Some of you will laugh at this idea. However, put yourself in Merkel's position. One in five cars made in Germany is currently sold into Britain.

Hundreds of thousands of German jobs would be at risk if we applied 10% onto their cars. BMW won't be too bothered. They would simply switch production to the UK to avoid the increased tariffs. Daimler/Mercedes also have some facilities here, but they would need to make more significant investment to maintain their sales here. I'm not sure if Volkswagen and Audi would find it easy.


So, folks, let's move on. We need to put Britain's future first.

Stop sulking.

[AJS-]

I met one of these A1 educated and aware Remainers the other day. He was concerned that the stock market had cost the government billions and tue GDP was down against the dollar.

Thickos on both sides. Majorities count.

[romeogolf]

boxxob said:

You seem to be presuming that a large proportion of those voting Remain understand what they were voting for.

So if we voted 52-48 in favour of remain but parliament decided to leave anyway, then what would you say?

The difference is that 'to leave' is to make a change. Remaining is 'as it always was'. We cannot be neither in nor out.

Were the vote in favour of remain my response would be the same: Clearly half the country are not satisfied with the EU as it stands and we need change. The threshold should always have been a wider margin. A near 50-50 split as it has been is not conclusive in either direction.