The Consequences of Brexit (part 2)

[retep]

I read the Guardian, the telegraph, the independent and the bbc.

 

What do you read?

 

Anything I can I'm a bit more diverse than you, does it make me more intelligent or more informed?

[Justin Smith]

Originally Posted by Justin Smith

My cousin voted for another £350 million a week to the NHS.

 

Your cousin is an idiot then (if they exist) To anyone sensible the writing on the bus was an example of what money could be used for, if it wasn't sent to the EU. At the time before the EU referendum, the writing on the bus was discussed immensely in the media and analysed.

 

There were only two options on the ballot paper and they were to either Remain or Leave the EU.

 

He isn`t an idiot, he`s just a young man with little interest in, or knowledge of politics. I doubt he watched or listened to much if anything about the £350 million pound lie. The thing is there are absolutely loads of people like my cousin. All perfect fodder for unscrupulous campaigners, particularly those who will have no comeback on them. It`s not like a General Election after all, or so the Leave campaign keep telling us.

[Cyclone]

Anything I can I'm a bit more diverse than you, does it make me more intelligent or more informed?

 

That depends, do you believe what you read in the dailyhate?

 

It's interesting that you say more diverse though, I've got a socialist, a liberal a tory and a neutral news source there. And those are what I read every day.

I'm not sure what political spectrum you could add to be more diverse, I wouldn't touch a red top, they aren't news, they're not just biased, they're filled with lies.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Cyclone

[Justin Smith]

Originally Posted by Justin Smith

 

For Brexiteers to commandeer the votes of the 52% in the way you suggest is hypocritical in the extreme, bearing in mind they are the same people saying any second vote at any time and under any circumstances "would be undemocratic".I thought we`d comprehensively statistically debunked this, why are you still repeating it ? A classic example of "certainty" ignoring facts.

Just to go through the motions, though it won`t make any difference (because "certainty" always overrides facts) :

 

48% voted to stay in the EU, by definition they voted against leaving the single market.

It is an absolute certainty that more than 4% (of the 52% who voted to leave), don`t even know what the single market is, much less whether they want to leave it.

 

It`s reading stuff like on Gamston`s post that`s reduced my patriotism to almost nothing, and respect for British democracy to a similarly low level.......

 

Utter Nonsense from a sore loser.

 

But it isn`t, and you haven`t answered the point, basically because you can`t.

Is it any wonder I have no respect for the result, or much at all left for the country. And all for something only 15% put in their top three of concerns only 18 months ago........

[retep]

That depends, do you believe what you read in the dailyhate?

 

I usually confirm news by looking around other sources, do you believe what you read from just yours because you think they are infallible.

[Gamston]

Are you trying to be stupid, ignorant or is it something natural?

 

The High Court has already ruled that the government cannot trigger Article 50 without parliament's consent. The Supreme Court is expected to endorse this view. So your opinion that the government doesn't need to involve parliament is garbage like everything else you have said so far.

You keep repeating things we all know. My point is any decent, respectable and honest MP, would just rubber stamp the process to allow the Government to trigger Article 50, so the democratic wishes of the electorate can be carried out sooner rather than later, without obstruction.

 

Try to think a little more about the way you construct your input.

[Cyclone]

You keep repeating things we all know. My point is any decent, respectable and honest MP, would just rubber stamp the process to allow the Government to trigger Article 50, so the democratic wishes of the electorate can be carried out sooner rather than later, without obstruction.

 

Try to think a little more about the way you construct your input.

 

No they wouldn't. For a start they have to represent the 48% of the people that voted against Brexit, which means at the very least understanding what the government actually has planned once the article is triggered.

Moreover they will want to act with the best interests of the country in mind, and that again means considering HOW exactly the government intends to execute the leaving of the EU and deciding if it's actually in the favour of the country or not and whether it's in line with the wishes of their constituents or not.

 

---------- Post added 22-12-2016 at 15:59 ----------

 

I usually confirm news by looking around other sources, do you believe what you read from just yours because you think they are infallible.

 

You realise that it's unlikely that all 4 of the papers I mentioned a) cover, b) put the same spin on the stories.

 

You've claimed a greater diversity of news sources. Did you mean on a regular basis? Because I meant that I read those every day.

[gomgeg]

Originally Posted by Justin Smith

My cousin voted for another £350 million a week to the NHS.

 

 

 

He isn`t an idiot, he`s just a young man with little interest in, or knowledge of politics. I doubt he watched or listened to much if anything about the £350 million pound lie. The thing is there are absolutely loads of people like my cousin. All perfect fodder for unscrupulous campaigners, particularly those who will have no comeback on them. It`s not like a General Election after all, or so the Leave campaign keep telling us.

Would that be your cousin or your nephew who was equally confused on the Boris and Trump thread? Or are they the part of the family who are mad about losing their EU citizenship? If so I wouldn't worry too much about that, they were probably confused when they said that.

You keep saying that the majority was only 4 percent. Well I totally agree a

3 percent swing and the result would have been different.

Leave could have had a 10 percent advantage and the remoaners would have still been complaining and spouting vitriol.

[Litotes]

You keep repeating things we all know. My point is any decent, respectable and honest MP, would just rubber stamp the process to allow the Government to trigger Article 50, so the democratic wishes of the electorate can be carried out sooner rather than later, without obstruction.

 

Try to think a little more about the way you construct your input.

 

Your Daily Mail mentality of suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you is not "decent, respectable and honest" doesn't do your argument any good.

 

MPs should either vote in whichever way they think best for the country, or if they have no strong opinion, vote how their electorate (note: their, not the national) wants them to vote.

 

But as has been pointed out, an MP doesn't have to reflect their electorate, they have the power to support what they think is best. So, voting for brexit is actually a contradiction to this stance as most MPs were against it in the first place and are now just pandering to the whims of those who voted for the UK to leave the EU.

 

And this is where the system falls down - it's not about what is best for the UK, it's about them keeping a job - they should be delegates of their electorate.

[retep]

No they wouldn't. For a start they have to represent the 48% of the people that voted against Brexit, which means at the very least understanding what the government actually has planned once the article is triggered.

Moreover they will want to act with the best interests of the country in mind, and that again means considering HOW exactly the government intends to execute the leaving of the EU and deciding if it's actually in the favour of the country or not and whether it's in line with the wishes of their constituents or not.

 

---------- Post added 22-12-2016 at 15:59 ----------

 

 

You realise that it's unlikely that all 4 of the papers I mentioned a) cover, b) put the same spin on the stories.

 

You've claimed a greater diversity of news sources. Did you mean on a regular basis? Because I meant that I read those every day.

 

Of course on a regular basis, I would suggest if you read the same newspapers every day it gives rise to being brainwashed.