Agreed I expect a significant number of no voters really couldn’t be bothered, but I know some who didn’t vote because they weren’t able to make their minds up due to all the lies and rubbish peddled by both sides. I also know some one who really couldn’t make his mind up but thought he should vote, so he voted to leave because he thought they wouldn’t win so it wouldn’t matter. How bloody stupid is that
Not sure if it’s true, but I think people are more energised and more disposed to voting if they want a change, than those who are ok with the status quo.
This is just a slogan "Take no deal off the table." There is no way to take no deal off the table other to agree a deal or to cancel Brexit. I accept many on here and across the country are quite happy to do the latter and Ides' satirical analysis that wants leave backing Tories to vote through a deal that is not leave is expected however there is no way you can take "no deal" off the table in anything other than pretence and false promises unless the process ends via a deal or revocation. There are more slogans that are carried on with public repeating them. "Cross party negotiation." This seems to be very popular amongst those that can't see the wood for the trees. How would that have changed anything? The MPs themselves disagree with each other. The parties have setup red lines countering each others policies and in some cases countering their own manifestos. It would have changed nothing because cross party or not the house is dominated by 5:1 in favour of MPs that would only (in reality) be negotiating which is the best route to remaining or at worst (in their eyes) achieving a BRINO. Then we get on to the whole undercurrent (that will happen) of a 2nd referendum. We are in exactly the same position as we were before the last one. An establishment that are pushing for a 2nd referendum and expecting a remain victory. If we get an extension by offering a referendum to get it then is anyone talking about what will happen after if leave wins again? Because this time there is no time to decide when to trigger the 2 year article 50 process. We've already done that card. All we will have is the remainder of the few months of extension that remain and then we default to the legal position of A50.......to leave by the default of "no deal" because the time had run out. So how does "taking no-deal off the table" work then? If Parliament decides that it can take it off the table, a 2nd referendum happens, leave wins again and the house doesn't like the "Tory" deal? We default to a position that parliament has tried to legislate internally as illegal. Seeing as they are all lawyers (I actually typed liars genuinely by accident there, must have been thinking it, lol) surely those legal eagles can see that no matter what they make law in this country that "leaving with no deal" is the EU's legal default. If the period ends, that is what happens on their side. Our side can refuse to accept it all they want but they do not control the EU's legal process, just ours. So all this talk of "cross party discussions" and "taking no deal off the table" are just words that mean nothing and would change nothing. We would still be left with warring parties and MPs that would vote down their opposition's ideas even if they were exact mirrors of their own and we are still left with a parliament that is not in the slightest interested in working through an actual deal. Purely working towards trying to cancel Brexit, cheered on by many on here. I'm sure the EU are listening to all this talk of "taking no deal off the table" and thinking "stupid British" either in that "stupid British" politicians are trying to present this as something that actually means anything OR as politicians themselves thinking that the public is stupid and lapping it up...........because the whole remain side of the argument being represented by so many more than leave in the "media bubble" of commentariat, actual media, politicians, head of unions, lobbies etc has ended up with us hearing all day long about "taking no deal off the table." Most likely the EU are chuckling along because politicians are politicians and ours are only doing what theirs do so they are fully sold into the "we just have to say words, doesn't mean they have to be true......or even possible." Only the EU can take "no deal" off the table in real terms without a deal or revocation because it is the EU's A50 law that has "no deal" as a default. Our parliament can do nothing about that other than try and avoid it by meeting the requirements of the EU to avoid it. And we all know that the abundance of lawyers in the house know this very well. They are just so used to lying and presenting the impossible as fact, fiction as fact, the lack of power they have as absolute power that they just can't help themselves. They continue on and on as if they think no-one outside of their bubble can see or hear them. Either that or they think that the whole populace is so stupid that they lap up everything as being fact, that the public are just watching seeing that they are not actually doing what their words try to present them as doing. Everytime the news has anyone on (leave or remain) it is constant slogans, constant words that don;t mean their actual intention and constant presentation of an imaginary "listening to people" that mirrors what that commentator prefers as if they had actually been inundated with "constituent concerns." But let them pin all their hopes on a 2nd referendum and not considering that it may well confirm the last result leaving them with zero time and most definitely a "default" that the parliament tried to pretend it could "take off the table." My uninformed opinion is that if the next referendum was simply remain:leave then leave would win again. However parliament is going to fudge this one and make it a 3 way second preference type in which remain and no deal would beat the 3rd option of "just take the deal" but 2nd preferences of the remain side would mean that despite finishing last of the 3 "just take the deal" would end up winning. I think it should simply be a remain:leave 2 way referendum with a 2nd question IF you put your X next to leave of Deal or no deal. This despite the reality that leave was already decided in the last referendum and thus any 2nd referendum based on the language used of "what type of deal we want" (which is bandied around by political folk that really only want to remain) should mean that the next referendum is simply options of what type of leave it is.
leaving everything. Simple. We control our own borders. We agree our own trade deals. We control our own laws. Yes I know that there is a lot of no UK "facts of life" that mean that our own control has to take some consideration of those outside influences but our parliament to control what happens to our laws. So the deal that was put forward was just a deal written by the EU for supporters of staying in the EU where "language" was used in a way to present some semblance that it actually meant leaving. Maybe it could have fooled people had those high up in the EU or high up in other countries administration not been so loose lipped and smug in how they had "trapped" the UK or were going to have "us" in a strangehold forever more but at the end of the day it would still have been a deal that did not represent leaving. If we have to meet regulations to sell into the EU etc then of course we can decide to meet those regulations..........just like non EU countries do. But it would be for us to decide what the regulations in this country are and if we want them to be even tougher. This is constantly sold as being us having to comply with the EU. No-one ever considers that we might want stuff coming into this country to have tighter regulations than the EU. It is always as if we want to reduce our standards, never that we might want to strengthen some. Maybe strengthen things to stop horsemeat coming from the EU labelled as Beef? Maybe strengthen things to stop Chinese product passing through Europe, carrying fake EU certification, and ending up in our high streets? This is always sold as the EU being the pinnacle of standards and the UK being the naughty "spiv" that wants standards to be lowered.
I do not have a tablet (4 in the house but that's 3 kids and a wife for you.) I do not own a smartphone (see previous one on that as well.) I only ever access the internet on a laptop I've just added a longer one Yes I can touchtype. Learnt it at college while on day release when I was (what is now considered by some fools as "slave labour) on YTS.
I'm assuming this is the answer to my question. If you want "control of our borders" then you want to stop freedom of movement. So no Single Market. "Agree our own trade deals" means no Customs Union. "Control our own laws". That's an odd one. If we've left the single market and the customs union then what laws might apply to us? The laws that apply are pretty much all to do with trade. So, is that an accurate rephrasing of what you want? Vin
As it is Winnie the Pooh Day, May Theresa should have borrowed one of his expressions, before declaring Article 50. “Best to know what you are looking for, before you look for it”.
Look at the reaction from the whole of the front row!!! Amazing how you can "randomly" select an audience yet not one of the front row joins in the cheer, arms folded, disgusted.
?? Including the black lady in the green jumper clapping? Doesn't look like a chav football supporter to me. And Rent a Mob on the BBC? Surely not, they've spent years denying it when the audiences were vehemently anti-Brexit.
What are you quoting? BBC political audiences are hand picked, theyve never said any different to my knowledge. doesnt surprise me they have seating arrangements.
Anyone that backs a no deal is a total ****ing idiot. Why gamble with the national future? It would be a move unprecented in political history with countless ramifications. Idiots.
Because they are usually adherents to the likes of Boris Johnson and Farage, and readers of the Express. Even the Mail does not advocate such an extreme step.
