View Poll Results: If there was a second Brexit referendum how would you vote?

Voters
810. You may not vote on this poll
  • Remain

    559 69.01%
  • Leave

    222 27.41%
  • Wouldn’t vote

    29 3.58%
  1. #72991

    2 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by cunning fergus View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The trouble with your rants is that they are incoherent?

    If there are bankers rubbing their hands at Brexit they are in a tiny minority, as confirmed by the BBA.

    https://www.bba.org.uk/news/press-re.../#.XE3eUSenyhB

    I think the problem with you is that you are so used to banging on about the legions of brown shirted facsists ready to take control of the U.K you’ve lost sight of who is right and left wing.

    The bankers are in favour of the EU because it delivers exactly what they and their capitalist chums in global business want, de-regulated privatised industry and free market economics. Even “protectionist” arrangements in play with the EU are loaded in favour of the rich and their land owning chums.

    You are right about Labour though, they won’t be truly left wing till they change clause 4 back to its original state........bloody capitalist pigs.
    Don't recall ever mentioning legions of fascists, brown-shirted or otherwise, or claiming that they are about to take over. Ultra-nationalists and knuckle-dragging racists, yes - I've pointed out, more than once, that they are among the most enthusiastic of your fellow-travellers on the Brexit bus, even if you seem oddly reluctant to acknowledge them.

    De-regulated is not the opposite of regulated. It's a question of degree. You want a lot more, the right-wing pro-Brexit types want a lot less. The moderate view is somewhere in the middle but it does tend to be a characteristic of extremists that they can deal only with black and white. When it comes to shades of grey, they often mistake it for incoherence and describing Corbyn's Labour Party as capitalist pigs rather proves the point.

    • North Stand Chat

      advertising
      Join Date: Jul 2003
      Posts: Lots

        


    • #72992

      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Baldseagull View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      All the benefits of the EU plus. It retains considerable powers at state level, but also prevents any state from being too extreme, corrupt or oppressive, and the State Governments can also be a balance to prevent the Federal Government from becoming any of these. A Federal EU would have a single military, and it makes sense that it would be a more useful and powerful military for less expense than 28 separate ones. A powerful military and a powerful economy gives more influence in the world.

      The structure and which powers should be held locally and which centrally is crucial to creating the most benefits and fewest problems.
      whilst you may well be right about the influence that the EU would have, I would be very sceptical that a single EU army would be effective; I am pretty certain that each government would want and indeed use a veto, if they thought that their interests or allies would be harmed in any way. Also, if, for example, the Argentinians invade the Falklands again, and our army was fully integrated into a EU force, would all EU governments be happy to back any attempt to regain the islands. I very much doubt it.
    • #72993
      Bringer of TRUTH JC Footy Genius's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 2015
      Location
      Middle Earth
      Posts
      8,095


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by ManOfSussex View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      That's fine. I shan't tell you about my recent constituency surgery appointment with my MP then. Obviously me and my MP value our privacy and discretion as much as you do, so what went on and was said shall remain strictly between the consenting adults present. I'm sure you'll understand.

      What I will say though is she didn't appear to remember me after that incident in Sainsbury's some years back. I can understand your necessary level of scepticism at that dynamite revelation, but it's true, she didn't remember me. As a result I had 'It started with a kiss' by Hot Chocolate going through my head the whole meeting:

      'You don't remember do you?'
      'You don't remember do you?'
      'You don't remember do you!?'

      Hope her security team are aware you may be stalking her ...

      Speaking of meeting people we have major political differences with I had the pleasure of seeing Gina Miller last week ...

      “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
    • #72994
      Members
      Join Date
      Jan 2012
      Location
      Crawley
      Posts
      6,102


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Hastings gull View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      whilst you may well be right about the influence that the EU would have, I would be very sceptical that a single EU army would be effective; I am pretty certain that each government would want and indeed use a veto, if they thought that their interests or allies would be harmed in any way. Also, if, for example, the Argentinians invade the Falklands again, and our army was fully integrated into a EU force, would all EU governments be happy to back any attempt to regain the islands. I very much doubt it.
      My post is in the context of a full Federal EU or United States of Europe if you prefer. A fully federal EU would require a single military, an invasion of the Falkland isles by Argentina may well not be as popular to repel in Spain as it would be in Britain, but the Falkland isles would not be a British overseas territory in that case, it would be an EU overseas territory, and it would require action from the EU, armed or economic, as would an invasion of the Canaries or Madeira. I think Spanish support for claims by Argentina to the Falklands isles would diminish if it were able to see those isles as part of the same Federation as Spain.
      Posted by Kosh, 19/7/2016 - 14th - 11th this year, or I'll eat my big Ritchie Blackmore hat.
    • #72995
      We wunt be druv ManOfSussex's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2016
      Location
      Rape of Hastings
      Posts
      11,250


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Hastings gull View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      But why should she remember you -she must meet thousands of folk in her job. Is it your ego here or perhaps you are just . .well non-descript.
      Exactly @Hastings gull She knows she has many a constituency member, like you and me, who voted remain and then voted Peter Chowney in 2017 because we want a better Hastings - For the many, not the few.

      Even though you and I wont vote for her, I sort of quite like her too as you do.
      Each to his choice, and I rejoice the lot has fallen to me
      In a fair ground-in a fair ground -
      Yea, Sussex by the sea!
    • #72996
      We wunt be druv ManOfSussex's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2016
      Location
      Rape of Hastings
      Posts
      11,250


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by JC Footy Genius View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      I had the pleasure of seeing Gina Miller last week ...
      You lucky, lucky.........................
      Each to his choice, and I rejoice the lot has fallen to me
      In a fair ground-in a fair ground -
      Yea, Sussex by the sea!
    • #72997
      Dullard Thunder Bolt's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2009
      Location
      Beside the seaside, beside the sea
      Posts
      47,439


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by A1X View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      The government insist they are acting on the will of the people, and bringing in martial law to make sure they do!
      It's utter madness.
      Quote Originally Posted by brighton bluenose View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      NSC at its very best ~ a post based on assumption on a matter the poster hasn't got a clue about!!
      When people are rude to you, they reveal who they are, not who you are.
    • #72998
      Members pastafarian's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2011
      Location
      Sussex
      Posts
      10,302


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Baldseagull View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      You are very good at saying at length what he is saying in regard to what, and what it was not in regard to, I have got that thanks.
      What I am asking you for is his working out as to why it might be a good idea in the first instance, you know what I am asking for, and I know why you are not responding to that point.

      It will try to rephrase it, just in case you really are misunderstanding me. Why might it make more sense to have a second referendum after a re-negotiation of our membership on the terms agreed?
      And you are not very good at saying obviously JRM is not suggesting another referendum after a final deciding binary IN/OUT referendum. The video is therefore misleading.

      I didnt bother responding to that because given the circumstances it was blindingly obvious what was meant. In that particular circumstance when Mogg was talking about the sense of the process and a second referendum, or even series of referendums as he was, he was responding about and specifically addressing the points the Foreign Secretary had just made, who had just said a referendum should have a binary answer to a specific proposal, and that it didn’t make sense to be multiple choice and to have an instruction to renegotiate membership of staying IN included in a 3 way referendum choice that already had IN and OUT in it, as the instruction to renegotiate membership of staying IN was not only too vague by its wording but doesn’t fit into an option that already has an IN OUT contained as options, indeed the whole 3 way process according to the Foreign secretary was flawed. Hey presto, up steps Mogg and says yes it might make more sense to get the renegotiated membership instruction completed first and out of the way before going on to a second vote(which would obviously be the final decision vote question)
      In theory you can have multiple referendums faffing about, but eventually you arrive at a final referendum where a decision is given. We obviously went for that renegotiation of membership option, but via an election vote instead of a referendum, skipping that 3 way referendum process altogether and simply then having a one off final deciding binary referendum vote to stay IN or get OUT.
      Im sure even you are not still going to try and say renegotiating membership terms of staying IN then having a final deciding binary IN/OUT vote is the same as having the final deciding binary IN/OUT vote then entering the negotiations to be OUT that come with that decision…….or maybe you have convinced yourself they are the same thing.

      Either way, the video is pants and deliberately misleading when people infer from it that JRM is saying we could have a second referendum after withdrawal negotiations to Leave or having it after an initial IN/OUT referendum, which we had. It has fooled some gullible people though who will no doubt keep posting it.

      Did I mention the final deciding binary IN/OUT vote must be FINAL.
      Jazz Festival n. The purchase of two or more Noddy books at one time.
    • #72999
      Members pastafarian's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2011
      Location
      Sussex
      Posts
      10,302


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Lincoln Imp View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      Well I'll give it a go.

      I suppose if a 1937 referendum had gone as expected and the 'appeasement means appeasement and everyone else is an undemocratic loon' faction had held sway then world history would have played out differently. Alternatively, if the whining of the headless chickens had led to a second referendum three years later then we might have been able to start placing Spitfire orders in the summer of 1940. That would have been good.

      The only other option I suppose is that whiners such as Churchill reacted to the 1937 referendum and said "Bugger that. I'm ignoring it." Obviously the will of the people lot would have been incandescent but they would have be grateful in the long run.
      See, there you go. Even in your hypothetical scenario you have the electorate becoming angry at their democratic vote being ignored. And rightly so.
      You could apply your hypothetical scenario to any referendum vote on any subject at any time, hindsight or not and you still would arrive every time, at the electorate would be incandescent if their democratic vote was ignored.
      The question is what do your do with this knowledge, knowing that people dont like their vote ignored. Do you not even consider ignoring a democratic vote anyway or believe instead it should be respected, knowing full well democracy is the bedrock of society and the public would be furious if it was stolen from them. Or do you act like an undemocratic loon, and as you say, simply say bugger that, lets ignore that vote, they will be grateful in the long run anyway that their democratic vote is ignored
      Jazz Festival n. The purchase of two or more Noddy books at one time.
    • #73000
      Members
      Join Date
      Jan 2012
      Location
      Crawley
      Posts
      6,102


      1 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by pastafarian View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      And you are not very good at saying obviously JRM is not suggesting another referendum after a final deciding binary IN/OUT referendum. The video is therefore misleading.

      I didnt bother responding to that because given the circumstances it was blindingly obvious what was meant. In that particular circumstance when Mogg was talking about the sense of the process and a second referendum, or even series of referendums as he was, he was responding about and specifically addressing the points the Foreign Secretary had just made, who had just said a referendum should have a binary answer to a specific proposal, and that it didn’t make sense to be multiple choice and to have an instruction to renegotiate membership of staying IN included in a 3 way referendum choice that already had IN and OUT in it, as the instruction to renegotiate membership of staying IN was not only too vague by its wording but doesn’t fit into an option that already has an IN OUT contained as options, indeed the whole 3 way process according to the Foreign secretary was flawed. Hey presto, up steps Mogg and says yes it might make more sense to get the renegotiated membership instruction completed first and out of the way before going on to a second vote(which would obviously be the final decision vote question)
      In theory you can have multiple referendums faffing about, but eventually you arrive at a final referendum where a decision is given. We obviously went for that renegotiation of membership option, but via an election vote instead of a referendum, skipping that 3 way referendum process altogether and simply then having a one off final deciding binary referendum vote to stay IN or get OUT.
      Im sure even you are not still going to try and say renegotiating membership terms of staying IN then having a final deciding binary IN/OUT vote is the same as having the final deciding binary IN/OUT vote then entering the negotiations to be OUT that come with that decision…….or maybe you have convinced yourself they are the same thing.

      Either way, the video is pants and deliberately misleading when people infer from it that JRM is saying we could have a second referendum after withdrawal negotiations to Leave or having it after an initial IN/OUT referendum, which we had. It has fooled some gullible people though who will no doubt keep posting it.

      Did I mention the final deciding binary IN/OUT vote must be FINAL.
      See the bit in bold in your post, can you explain why it might make more sense? Or will you just post another long winded evasion?
      Posted by Kosh, 19/7/2016 - 14th - 11th this year, or I'll eat my big Ritchie Blackmore hat.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •