How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 6)
Discussion
Troubleatmill said:
Helicopter123 said:
Driving home tonight, Lord Hesaltine was on LBC making a very powerful case for a People’s Vote. He was pointing out that since the 2016 vote many older predominantly Brexit voters will have died, while many young enthusiastic remain voters have reached voting age. Surely they should have a voice?
Very interesting argument from a widely respected politician.
Do you have a gofundme page?Very interesting argument from a widely respected politician.
I think some of us would like to help out.
Helicopter123 said:
Driving home tonight, Lord Hesaltine was on LBC making a very powerful case for a People’s Vote. He was pointing out that since the 2016 vote many older predominantly Brexit voters will have died, while many young enthusiastic remain voters have reached voting age. Surely they should have a voice?
Very interesting argument from a widely respected politician.
Your skateboard has a radio?Very interesting argument from a widely respected politician.
Leicester Loyal said:
pistonheads2018 said:
Speak for yourself. It still fails to explain how things will be different under a second referendum.
Exactly, it'll be exactly the same again. As someone put earlier, we've had a vote to get the ref, a vote to leave the ref and a GE in which the two main parties both pledged to carry out the result of the ref in their manifesto.
4th time lucky with the next vote? I really do hope we leave behind as much of the EU as possible, it will be a glorious day.
It is really, really simple and shouldn't need explaining to normally functioning adults but...
1. We now know what the WA and likely final Deal will be. We did not 2 years ago. This information cannot be twisted or faked, it is what it is and so people can form an opinion about it. The actual facts are plain to see.
2. Many never understood what leaving the EU on WTO could actually mean in terms of 'short term pain', disruption, perceived benefits, rewards, etc. After 2 years of watching Team Leave vs Team Remain, they surely must have a better understanding of the risks to revisit their earlier vote and ratify or change it accordingly.
3. Leavers have been divided for 2 years as to what they actually want from Brexit. This is a fact. Now they can choose between the Deal on the table, WTO or, if neither of those
4. Many, both Leave and Remain, never fully understood how the EU actually works. Now some of those should, one would hope, along with a better understanding of their own Governments complicity in some of their grievances.
In short, even just points 1 and 3 above are very good reasons for a 2nd Referendum. It is utterly dribbling moronic to deny this and still persist in asking "what has changed". If you honestly cannot understand that there is important new information that is indisputable to ponder, then you do yourself no favours and lend credence to an unfortunate Leaver stereotype.
Naturally, it is up to Parliament to decide if the above is sufficient to call a 2nd Ref and that is all that should be debated; not silly questions as to what new information has developed over the last 2 years that could sway opinion, for it is bloody obvious it has!
As to the question of how things would be different, well given the above, the result could be the same but it could also be vastly different. Certainly the Polls that scare Leavers suggest as much and while some Polls have proven somewhat unreliable in the recent past, not all have been. The result of a 2nd Referendum could halt a travesty of Democracy; a Minority of Leavers hijacking the original Referendum to force WTO when that is not what many other Leavers or Remainers want and they make up the majority of the Electorate.
It would be a disgrace to Democracy for such to occur unless it was indisputable that a majority of the Electorate made clear leaving on WTO was acceptable. Crucially, the 2016 Referendum did not demonstrate this and you would be a liar to dispute that.
38911 said:
philv said:
Just curious as to how log has to go by or how much voter demographics have to change to make it reasonable to have another vote?
Well some time after the action of the previous vote has actually been implemented, would be a good start 
saaby93 said:
PH poll still stuck at 35% remain, 65% leave one way or another
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Does that mean most everyone in PH is over 70
Or just C2DE demographic?https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Does that mean most everyone in PH is over 70
It's probably stuck there because it's dropped off the front page and everyone who can be arsed to follow brexit stuff here has already voted once.
I considered restarting the poll after the ECJ judgement and yesterday's fiasco, but realised this would cause riots and be considered undemocratic. I didn't want to end up on the front page of PH with an "Enema of the people" caption.
mx5nut said:
Helicopter123 said:
Driving home tonight, Lord Hesaltine was on LBC making a very powerful case for a People’s Vote. He was pointing out that since the 2016 vote many older predominantly Brexit voters will have died
Warning: Easily offended people are about to get offended.
Coolbanana said:
'sigh'
It is really, really simple and shouldn't need explaining to normally functioning adults but...
1. We now know what the WA and likely final Deal will be. We did not 2 years ago. This information cannot be twisted or faked, it is what it is and so people can form an opinion about it. The actual facts are plain to see.
2. Many never understood what leaving the EU on WTO could actually mean in terms of 'short term pain', disruption, perceived benefits, rewards, etc. After 2 years of watching Team Leave vs Team Remain, they surely must have a better understanding of the risks to revisit their earlier vote and ratify or change it accordingly.
3. Leavers have been divided for 2 years as to what they actually want from Brexit. This is a fact. Now they can choose between the Deal on the table, WTO or, if neither of those
4. Many, both Leave and Remain, never fully understood how the EU actually works. Now some of those should, one would hope, along with a better understanding of their own Governments complicity in some of their grievances.
In short, even just points 1 and 3 above are very good reasons for a 2nd Referendum. It is utterly dribbling moronic to deny this and still persist in asking "what has changed". If you honestly cannot understand that there is important new information that is indisputable to ponder, then you do yourself no favours and lend credence to an unfortunate Leaver stereotype.
Naturally, it is up to Parliament to decide if the above is sufficient to call a 2nd Ref and that is all that should be debated; not silly questions as to what new information has developed over the last 2 years that could sway opinion, for it is bloody obvious it has!
As to the question of how things would be different, well given the above, the result could be the same but it could also be vastly different. Certainly the Polls that scare Leavers suggest as much and while some Polls have proven somewhat unreliable in the recent past, not all have been. The result of a 2nd Referendum could halt a travesty of Democracy; a Minority of Leavers hijacking the original Referendum to force WTO when that is not what many other Leavers or Remainers want and they make up the majority of the Electorate.
It would be a disgrace to Democracy for such to occur unless it was indisputable that a majority of the Electorate made clear leaving on WTO was acceptable. Crucially, the 2016 Referendum did not demonstrate this and you would be a liar to dispute that.
You don’t quite understand how a democratic referendum works, do you? The choice was a binary option : “stay” or “leave”. I don’t recall the voting form giving an option to pick and choose the specific details as to how those options would be implemented.It is really, really simple and shouldn't need explaining to normally functioning adults but...
1. We now know what the WA and likely final Deal will be. We did not 2 years ago. This information cannot be twisted or faked, it is what it is and so people can form an opinion about it. The actual facts are plain to see.
2. Many never understood what leaving the EU on WTO could actually mean in terms of 'short term pain', disruption, perceived benefits, rewards, etc. After 2 years of watching Team Leave vs Team Remain, they surely must have a better understanding of the risks to revisit their earlier vote and ratify or change it accordingly.
3. Leavers have been divided for 2 years as to what they actually want from Brexit. This is a fact. Now they can choose between the Deal on the table, WTO or, if neither of those
4. Many, both Leave and Remain, never fully understood how the EU actually works. Now some of those should, one would hope, along with a better understanding of their own Governments complicity in some of their grievances.
In short, even just points 1 and 3 above are very good reasons for a 2nd Referendum. It is utterly dribbling moronic to deny this and still persist in asking "what has changed". If you honestly cannot understand that there is important new information that is indisputable to ponder, then you do yourself no favours and lend credence to an unfortunate Leaver stereotype.
Naturally, it is up to Parliament to decide if the above is sufficient to call a 2nd Ref and that is all that should be debated; not silly questions as to what new information has developed over the last 2 years that could sway opinion, for it is bloody obvious it has!
As to the question of how things would be different, well given the above, the result could be the same but it could also be vastly different. Certainly the Polls that scare Leavers suggest as much and while some Polls have proven somewhat unreliable in the recent past, not all have been. The result of a 2nd Referendum could halt a travesty of Democracy; a Minority of Leavers hijacking the original Referendum to force WTO when that is not what many other Leavers or Remainers want and they make up the majority of the Electorate.
It would be a disgrace to Democracy for such to occur unless it was indisputable that a majority of the Electorate made clear leaving on WTO was acceptable. Crucially, the 2016 Referendum did not demonstrate this and you would be a liar to dispute that.
The country is already a laughing stock around the world..... let’s not add ‘cowardice’ to that list.
Coolbanana said:
'sigh'
It is really, really simple and shouldn't need explaining to normally functioning adults but...
1. We now know what the WA and likely final Deal will be. We did not 2 years ago. This information cannot be twisted or faked, it is what it is and so people can form an opinion about it. The actual facts are plain to see.
2. Many never understood what leaving the EU on WTO could actually mean in terms of 'short term pain', disruption, perceived benefits, rewards, etc. After 2 years of watching Team Leave vs Team Remain, they surely must have a better understanding of the risks to revisit their earlier vote and ratify or change it accordingly.
3. Leavers have been divided for 2 years as to what they actually want from Brexit. This is a fact. Now they can choose between the Deal on the table, WTO or, if neither of those
4. Many, both Leave and Remain, never fully understood how the EU actually works. Now some of those should, one would hope, along with a better understanding of their own Governments complicity in some of their grievances.
In short, even just points 1 and 3 above are very good reasons for a 2nd Referendum. It is utterly dribbling moronic to deny this and still persist in asking "what has changed". If you honestly cannot understand that there is important new information that is indisputable to ponder, then you do yourself no favours and lend credence to an unfortunate Leaver stereotype.
Naturally, it is up to Parliament to decide if the above is sufficient to call a 2nd Ref and that is all that should be debated; not silly questions as to what new information has developed over the last 2 years that could sway opinion, for it is bloody obvious it has!
As to the question of how things would be different, well given the above, the result could be the same but it could also be vastly different. Certainly the Polls that scare Leavers suggest as much and while some Polls have proven somewhat unreliable in the recent past, not all have been. The result of a 2nd Referendum could halt a travesty of Democracy; a Minority of Leavers hijacking the original Referendum to force WTO when that is not what many other Leavers or Remainers want and they make up the majority of the Electorate.
It would be a disgrace to Democracy for such to occur unless it was indisputable that a majority of the Electorate made clear leaving on WTO was acceptable. Crucially, the 2016 Referendum did not demonstrate this and you would be a liar to dispute that.
Thank you for taking the time to compose your very accurate and informative post. It really does put to bed any arguments regarding why there should be a People's Vote.It is really, really simple and shouldn't need explaining to normally functioning adults but...
1. We now know what the WA and likely final Deal will be. We did not 2 years ago. This information cannot be twisted or faked, it is what it is and so people can form an opinion about it. The actual facts are plain to see.
2. Many never understood what leaving the EU on WTO could actually mean in terms of 'short term pain', disruption, perceived benefits, rewards, etc. After 2 years of watching Team Leave vs Team Remain, they surely must have a better understanding of the risks to revisit their earlier vote and ratify or change it accordingly.
3. Leavers have been divided for 2 years as to what they actually want from Brexit. This is a fact. Now they can choose between the Deal on the table, WTO or, if neither of those
4. Many, both Leave and Remain, never fully understood how the EU actually works. Now some of those should, one would hope, along with a better understanding of their own Governments complicity in some of their grievances.
In short, even just points 1 and 3 above are very good reasons for a 2nd Referendum. It is utterly dribbling moronic to deny this and still persist in asking "what has changed". If you honestly cannot understand that there is important new information that is indisputable to ponder, then you do yourself no favours and lend credence to an unfortunate Leaver stereotype.
Naturally, it is up to Parliament to decide if the above is sufficient to call a 2nd Ref and that is all that should be debated; not silly questions as to what new information has developed over the last 2 years that could sway opinion, for it is bloody obvious it has!
As to the question of how things would be different, well given the above, the result could be the same but it could also be vastly different. Certainly the Polls that scare Leavers suggest as much and while some Polls have proven somewhat unreliable in the recent past, not all have been. The result of a 2nd Referendum could halt a travesty of Democracy; a Minority of Leavers hijacking the original Referendum to force WTO when that is not what many other Leavers or Remainers want and they make up the majority of the Electorate.
It would be a disgrace to Democracy for such to occur unless it was indisputable that a majority of the Electorate made clear leaving on WTO was acceptable. Crucially, the 2016 Referendum did not demonstrate this and you would be a liar to dispute that.
Piha said:
Thank you for taking the time to compose your very accurate and informative post. It really does put to bed any arguments regarding why there should be a People's Vote.
As explained by someone else previously, this is opinion not fact. Other opinions are available, some which are much less arrogantly presented.Edited by pistonheads2018 on Tuesday 11th December 08:46
kurt535 said:
pistonheads2018 said:
Max_Torque said:
Investigate? You realise that the majority of the population struggle to tie their own shoelaces right?
Speak for yourself. It still fails to explain how things will be different under a second referendum.Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 10th December 22:13
Max_Torque said:
I respectfully suggest that you may be missing the point of his assertion, which is really that the 2.5 years since the original vote is long enough to have changed the voter demographic. By how much is a different question. Roughly 600,000 people die each year, so 2.5 years is 1.5 million. No one is suggesting that all the dead old people voted leave, but there is clear evidence from voter surveys that many did. So, that could form a statistically significant proportion of voters, given the relatively narrow margins in the original vote.
The other point is that our system of voting makes no seperation between young and old, when descisions of this magnitude do have a very different effect on the young and old. Someone who is 65 today, retired, probably on a reasonably final salary pension, who owns their own house is likely to be affected in a very different way from someone 18 today, who was 15.5 in June 16, and who has their entire life and earning potential ahead of them.
If the system should consider those weightings is a different matter, but it certainly is sufficient to suggest young and old people do and would vote for different reasons in any vote on their future.......
Funny how no one was making these arguments before the first vote isn't it? I don't recall a single person on either side saying we will need another one in a few years as the demographics might change. But of course by this logic we must have another referendum 2022, 2025, 2028 and so on since demographics will always change. Also interesting how the age group who would have spent their entire working lives in the EEC/EU and have several younger generations of family felt we'd be better off leaving.The other point is that our system of voting makes no seperation between young and old, when descisions of this magnitude do have a very different effect on the young and old. Someone who is 65 today, retired, probably on a reasonably final salary pension, who owns their own house is likely to be affected in a very different way from someone 18 today, who was 15.5 in June 16, and who has their entire life and earning potential ahead of them.
If the system should consider those weightings is a different matter, but it certainly is sufficient to suggest young and old people do and would vote for different reasons in any vote on their future.......
38911 said:
Coolbanana said:
'sigh'
It is really, really simple and shouldn't need explaining to normally functioning adults but...
1. We now know what the WA and likely final Deal will be. We did not 2 years ago. This information cannot be twisted or faked, it is what it is and so people can form an opinion about it. The actual facts are plain to see.
2. Many never understood what leaving the EU on WTO could actually mean in terms of 'short term pain', disruption, perceived benefits, rewards, etc. After 2 years of watching Team Leave vs Team Remain, they surely must have a better understanding of the risks to revisit their earlier vote and ratify or change it accordingly.
3. Leavers have been divided for 2 years as to what they actually want from Brexit. This is a fact. Now they can choose between the Deal on the table, WTO or, if neither of those
4. Many, both Leave and Remain, never fully understood how the EU actually works. Now some of those should, one would hope, along with a better understanding of their own Governments complicity in some of their grievances.
In short, even just points 1 and 3 above are very good reasons for a 2nd Referendum. It is utterly dribbling moronic to deny this and still persist in asking "what has changed". If you honestly cannot understand that there is important new information that is indisputable to ponder, then you do yourself no favours and lend credence to an unfortunate Leaver stereotype.
Naturally, it is up to Parliament to decide if the above is sufficient to call a 2nd Ref and that is all that should be debated; not silly questions as to what new information has developed over the last 2 years that could sway opinion, for it is bloody obvious it has!
As to the question of how things would be different, well given the above, the result could be the same but it could also be vastly different. Certainly the Polls that scare Leavers suggest as much and while some Polls have proven somewhat unreliable in the recent past, not all have been. The result of a 2nd Referendum could halt a travesty of Democracy; a Minority of Leavers hijacking the original Referendum to force WTO when that is not what many other Leavers or Remainers want and they make up the majority of the Electorate.
It would be a disgrace to Democracy for such to occur unless it was indisputable that a majority of the Electorate made clear leaving on WTO was acceptable. Crucially, the 2016 Referendum did not demonstrate this and you would be a liar to dispute that.
You don’t quite understand how a democratic referendum works, do you? The choice was a binary option : “stay” or “leave”. I don’t recall the voting form giving an option to pick and choose the specific details as to how those options would be implemented.It is really, really simple and shouldn't need explaining to normally functioning adults but...
1. We now know what the WA and likely final Deal will be. We did not 2 years ago. This information cannot be twisted or faked, it is what it is and so people can form an opinion about it. The actual facts are plain to see.
2. Many never understood what leaving the EU on WTO could actually mean in terms of 'short term pain', disruption, perceived benefits, rewards, etc. After 2 years of watching Team Leave vs Team Remain, they surely must have a better understanding of the risks to revisit their earlier vote and ratify or change it accordingly.
3. Leavers have been divided for 2 years as to what they actually want from Brexit. This is a fact. Now they can choose between the Deal on the table, WTO or, if neither of those
4. Many, both Leave and Remain, never fully understood how the EU actually works. Now some of those should, one would hope, along with a better understanding of their own Governments complicity in some of their grievances.
In short, even just points 1 and 3 above are very good reasons for a 2nd Referendum. It is utterly dribbling moronic to deny this and still persist in asking "what has changed". If you honestly cannot understand that there is important new information that is indisputable to ponder, then you do yourself no favours and lend credence to an unfortunate Leaver stereotype.
Naturally, it is up to Parliament to decide if the above is sufficient to call a 2nd Ref and that is all that should be debated; not silly questions as to what new information has developed over the last 2 years that could sway opinion, for it is bloody obvious it has!
As to the question of how things would be different, well given the above, the result could be the same but it could also be vastly different. Certainly the Polls that scare Leavers suggest as much and while some Polls have proven somewhat unreliable in the recent past, not all have been. The result of a 2nd Referendum could halt a travesty of Democracy; a Minority of Leavers hijacking the original Referendum to force WTO when that is not what many other Leavers or Remainers want and they make up the majority of the Electorate.
It would be a disgrace to Democracy for such to occur unless it was indisputable that a majority of the Electorate made clear leaving on WTO was acceptable. Crucially, the 2016 Referendum did not demonstrate this and you would be a liar to dispute that.
The country is already a laughing stock around the world..... let’s not add ‘cowardice’ to that list.
Laughing at us for punching ourselves in the face.
Laughing at us for using a binary question to decide on a complex set of possible outcomes.
Much of the world already judges us as morons. We can at least demonstrate an ability to learn and adapt. A second referendum would do that.
Ploughing on regardless and ignoring reality simply compounds our stupidity.
toppstuff said:
The world is already laughing at us.
Laughing at us for punching ourselves in the face.
Laughing at us for using a binary question to decide on a complex set of possible outcomes.
Much of the world already judges us as morons. We can at least demonstrate an ability to learn and adapt. A second referendum would do that.
Ploughing on regardless and ignoring reality simply compounds our stupidity.
1. Not true.Laughing at us for punching ourselves in the face.
Laughing at us for using a binary question to decide on a complex set of possible outcomes.
Much of the world already judges us as morons. We can at least demonstrate an ability to learn and adapt. A second referendum would do that.
Ploughing on regardless and ignoring reality simply compounds our stupidity.
2. Speak for yourself.
Coolbanana said:
'It would be a disgrace to Democracy for such to occur unless it was indisputable that a majority of the Electorate made clear leaving on WTO was acceptable. Crucially, the 2016 Referendum did not demonstrate this and you would be a liar to dispute that.
It did demonstrate that remaining in the EU was unacceptable, that's the point.38911 said:
You don’t quite understand how a democratic referendum works, do you? The choice was a binary option : “stay” or “leave”. I don’t recall the voting form giving an option to pick and choose the specific details as to how those options would be implemented.
This ^^ is an important point and well-worth repeating; Some have suggested, that there should be another referendum, with the following options :
1. Hard Brexit
2. Soft Brexit
3. Remain
In the event of another referendum, having more than two options would clearly present a problem; what would the outcome be, in a (hypothetical) scenario, if the voting was :
1. Hard Brexit 32%
2. Soft Brexit 20%
3. Remain 48%
Would we say, Remainers have won the vote, as they have the highest percentage of the 3 options, being 50% higher than the Hard Brexit option ?
Or would we say, that the Hard Brexit option has won - since the combined Brexit score is higher than that for Remain ?
In a sense, a three-way choice is 'unfair', as there's only one Remain option, but it would obviously split the Leave vote into two options.
In the example that I've provided above, Remain could claim victory, on the basis of having won the highest percentage of votes - of the 3 groups. Leave would say that they have won, as their votes (in total) would be higher than those for Remain.
On what basis, would the winner of a three-way vote be chosen ?
Ultimately, I think that a three-option vote would be even more divisive (if that's possible) than the original referendum.
REALIST123 said:
kurt535 said:
pistonheads2018 said:
Max_Torque said:
Investigate? You realise that the majority of the population struggle to tie their own shoelaces right?
Speak for yourself. It still fails to explain how things will be different under a second referendum.Edited by kurt535 on Monday 10th December 22:13
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff