How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 8)
Discussion
Robertj21a said:
I'm still finding it quite difficult to see how Remain could possibly increase their 48% at all. Surely, it's far more likely that Leave would increase slightly.
We just seem to be wasting valuable time before we get out once and for all.
Here is one theoryWe just seem to be wasting valuable time before we get out once and for all.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/brexit-second-refe...
toppstuff said:
Lol, that is desperate. Relying on the Grim Reaper rather then the quality of your argument. toppstuff said:
Robertj21a said:
I'm still finding it quite difficult to see how Remain could possibly increase their 48% at all. Surely, it's far more likely that Leave would increase slightly.
We just seem to be wasting valuable time before we get out once and for all.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/brexit-second-referendum-oddsWe just seem to be wasting valuable time before we get out once and for all.
Pollsters & Bookies 0 : 1 A Pigeon
John145 said:
toppstuff said:
Lol, that is desperate. Relying on the Grim Reaper rather then the quality of your argument. Its not rocket science. it could all be wrong of course and there are lots of caveats. I think the truth is that once again it will be very finely balanced if there is another vote.
Robertj21a said:
I'm still finding it quite difficult to see how Remain could possibly increase their 48% at all. Surely, it's far more likely that Leave would increase slightly.
We just seem to be wasting valuable time before we get out once and for all.
Anyone who has seen how Parliament acts may well decide that giving them even more power is a stupid thing to do.We just seem to be wasting valuable time before we get out once and for all.
toppstuff said:
John145 said:
toppstuff said:
Lol, that is desperate. Relying on the Grim Reaper rather then the quality of your argument. Its not rocket science. it could all be wrong of course and there are lots of caveats. I think the truth is that once again it will be very finely balanced if there is another vote.
But he doesn't recognise what happens in the gap between those two events: young people become old people.
Young people vote Labour. The Labour Party is 100 years old. Therefore EVERYBODY votes labour. Right? Nope.
toppstuff said:
John145 said:
toppstuff said:
Lol, that is desperate. Relying on the Grim Reaper rather then the quality of your argument. Its not rocket science. it could all be wrong of course and there are lots of caveats. I think the truth is that once again it will be very finely balanced if there is another vote.
Roman Rhodes said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
But this would then require a third vote, since one win for leave, and one for remain would certainly not settle the issue, especially if the margins were the same for the second vote as they were for the first.
A second and third referendum would serve to delay any kind of certainty even further, and would be in no ones interest. Or do we just do what the EU does, and make people vote again and again until the result the `EU' wants comes up, at which point all further voting for the public would be banned.
I still find all the fuss over the 2016 referendum odd, especially as not a single UK citizen voted, or was even given the chance to vote on whether or not they wanted the UK to be a member of the EU in the first place.
You're veering into 'making stuff up' territory. I'm not commenting on the merits of a second referendum let alone a third. How you can claim "would then require a third vote" I don't know - unless you're trivialising referenda to the level of coin-flipping.A second and third referendum would serve to delay any kind of certainty even further, and would be in no ones interest. Or do we just do what the EU does, and make people vote again and again until the result the `EU' wants comes up, at which point all further voting for the public would be banned.
I still find all the fuss over the 2016 referendum odd, especially as not a single UK citizen voted, or was even given the chance to vote on whether or not they wanted the UK to be a member of the EU in the first place.
Your point about "what the EU does" is rubbish - and I hope you know it. You do buy into fake news somewhat though (Ford/EU/Turkey).
toppstuff said:
Robertj21a said:
I'm still finding it quite difficult to see how Remain could possibly increase their 48% at all. Surely, it's far more likely that Leave would increase slightly.
We just seem to be wasting valuable time before we get out once and for all.
Here is one theoryWe just seem to be wasting valuable time before we get out once and for all.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/brexit-second-refe...
John145 said:
Robertj21a said:
I'm still finding it quite difficult to see how Remain could possibly increase their 48% at all. Surely, it's far more likely that Leave would increase slightly.
We just seem to be wasting valuable time before we get out once and for all.
The aim of the crafty remainiacs (Kier Starmer et al.) is to not even have leave on the ballot paper.We just seem to be wasting valuable time before we get out once and for all.
They want Remain or May's deal. They know Remain cannot beat Leave anymore and therefore do not want to ask that question.
SpeckledJim said:
Brexit is terrible. Everyone who is clever knows this.
Money floods in from clearly very stupid Norwegian billionaire plonkers.
So, is that "despite Brexit' or "because Brexit"?
Duh, i is sorry that i is nor as clever as you.Money floods in from clearly very stupid Norwegian billionaire plonkers.
So, is that "despite Brexit' or "because Brexit"?
Actually what you mean is: Everyone who thinks they are clever thinks this.
Edited by TriumphStag3.0V8 on Thursday 28th February 13:01
TriumphStag3.0V8 said:
SpeckledJim said:
Brexit is terrible. Everyone who is clever knows this.
Money floods in from clearly very stupid Norwegian billionaire plonkers.
So, is that "despite Brexit' or "because Brexit"?
Duh, i is sorry that i is nor as clever as you.Money floods in from clearly very stupid Norwegian billionaire plonkers.
So, is that "despite Brexit' or "because Brexit"?
You patronising prick
toppstuff said:
Robertj21a said:
I'm still finding it quite difficult to see how Remain could possibly increase their 48% at all. Surely, it's far more likely that Leave would increase slightly.
We just seem to be wasting valuable time before we get out once and for all.
Here is one theoryWe just seem to be wasting valuable time before we get out once and for all.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/brexit-second-refe...
New voters are very pro-remain, while the elderly are pro-leave.
Equally however, I sense that many who voted leave were sold a false prospectus. Greater scrutiny this time around on leave would prevent a repeat of the lies form 2016. I think Remain will poll 60% +
John145 said:
toppstuff said:
John145 said:
toppstuff said:
Lol, that is desperate. Relying on the Grim Reaper rather then the quality of your argument. Its not rocket science. it could all be wrong of course and there are lots of caveats. I think the truth is that once again it will be very finely balanced if there is another vote.
But as one of the few remainers here I get a lot of stick ( most of it simply wrong ) so recently have decided to not put up with it
I am not offering an opinion on the Wired article about young voters and old ones dying off - just offering it for discussion.
toppstuff said:
I am not offering an opinion on the Wired article about young voters and old ones dying off - just offering it for discussion.
Don't you think he should have offered an opinion / calculation / guess of how many people have transitioned (at whatever age) from young to old, during the same period that he was calculating how many young have arrived, and how many old have left?As it stands, there's no recognition in his figures that the old are simply the post-young, and the young are merely the pre-old.
It is an incomplete picture. One suspects, deliberately so.
Helicopter123 said:
Yes, that tallies with my own thinking, a demographic shift has happened.
New voters are very pro-remain, while the elderly are pro-leave.
Equally however, I sense that many who voted leave were sold a false prospectus. Greater scrutiny this time around on leave would prevent a repeat of the lies form 2016. I think Remain will poll 60% +
Please identify these lies. New voters are very pro-remain, while the elderly are pro-leave.
Equally however, I sense that many who voted leave were sold a false prospectus. Greater scrutiny this time around on leave would prevent a repeat of the lies form 2016. I think Remain will poll 60% +
The bus? TM decided to use that money to try and buy a cushty deal which has fallen through. That money still exists though. The only reason I can see that it doesn't is because Remainers claim our economy will be ruined meaning we do not have the tax take any more. However this is just more prediction.
It seems to me that on balance the side that predicted the future best was the Leave side.
amusingduck said:
Roman Rhodes said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
But this would then require a third vote, since one win for leave, and one for remain would certainly not settle the issue, especially if the margins were the same for the second vote as they were for the first.
A second and third referendum would serve to delay any kind of certainty even further, and would be in no ones interest. Or do we just do what the EU does, and make people vote again and again until the result the `EU' wants comes up, at which point all further voting for the public would be banned.
I still find all the fuss over the 2016 referendum odd, especially as not a single UK citizen voted, or was even given the chance to vote on whether or not they wanted the UK to be a member of the EU in the first place.
You're veering into 'making stuff up' territory. I'm not commenting on the merits of a second referendum let alone a third. How you can claim "would then require a third vote" I don't know - unless you're trivialising referenda to the level of coin-flipping.A second and third referendum would serve to delay any kind of certainty even further, and would be in no ones interest. Or do we just do what the EU does, and make people vote again and again until the result the `EU' wants comes up, at which point all further voting for the public would be banned.
I still find all the fuss over the 2016 referendum odd, especially as not a single UK citizen voted, or was even given the chance to vote on whether or not they wanted the UK to be a member of the EU in the first place.
Your point about "what the EU does" is rubbish - and I hope you know it. You do buy into fake news somewhat though (Ford/EU/Turkey).
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 28th February 13:04
John145 said:
Helicopter123 said:
Yes, that tallies with my own thinking, a demographic shift has happened.
New voters are very pro-remain, while the elderly are pro-leave.
Equally however, I sense that many who voted leave were sold a false prospectus. Greater scrutiny this time around on leave would prevent a repeat of the lies form 2016. I think Remain will poll 60% +
Please identify these lies. New voters are very pro-remain, while the elderly are pro-leave.
Equally however, I sense that many who voted leave were sold a false prospectus. Greater scrutiny this time around on leave would prevent a repeat of the lies form 2016. I think Remain will poll 60% +
The bus? TM decided to use that money to try and buy a cushty deal which has fallen through. That money still exists though. The only reason I can see that it doesn't is because Remainers claim our economy will be ruined meaning we do not have the tax take any more. However this is just more prediction.
It seems to me that on balance the side that predicted the future best was the Leave side.
Roman Rhodes said:
amusingduck said:
Roman Rhodes said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
But this would then require a third vote, since one win for leave, and one for remain would certainly not settle the issue, especially if the margins were the same for the second vote as they were for the first.
A second and third referendum would serve to delay any kind of certainty even further, and would be in no ones interest. Or do we just do what the EU does, and make people vote again and again until the result the `EU' wants comes up, at which point all further voting for the public would be banned.
I still find all the fuss over the 2016 referendum odd, especially as not a single UK citizen voted, or was even given the chance to vote on whether or not they wanted the UK to be a member of the EU in the first place.
You're veering into 'making stuff up' territory. I'm not commenting on the merits of a second referendum let alone a third. How you can claim "would then require a third vote" I don't know - unless you're trivialising referenda to the level of coin-flipping.A second and third referendum would serve to delay any kind of certainty even further, and would be in no ones interest. Or do we just do what the EU does, and make people vote again and again until the result the `EU' wants comes up, at which point all further voting for the public would be banned.
I still find all the fuss over the 2016 referendum odd, especially as not a single UK citizen voted, or was even given the chance to vote on whether or not they wanted the UK to be a member of the EU in the first place.
Your point about "what the EU does" is rubbish - and I hope you know it. You do buy into fake news somewhat though (Ford/EU/Turkey).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff