Reinhardt wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Looking very promising, but I’ll wait till the final wash up.

We are looking at around 60% for the leave parties v 40% remain.

No you're not. If you are intepreting the results as a vote on whether to leave or stay, then you must include the SNP + NI as the UK as a whole voted to stay or leave not England. In the context or comparing remainers vs brexiteers you have to use the votes of the parties that represents those views together, not just one party.

MEPs voted in:

Remain:

LIB 16
GRE 7
SNP 3
PC 1

= 27

If you then include Labour (like it or not, they will now back a peoples vote and vast majority of Labour MPs are remainers)

=38

Leave:

BXT = 29

CON = 4 (assuming all are leave, but they aren't)

= 33


So remainers win more seats.


If you do it percentages

LIB 20.3%
GRE 12.1%
SNP 3.6%
PC 1%

= 37 %

Add LAB (14.1%)

= 51.1%



BXT = 31.6%

CON = 9.1%

= 40.7%


If you pull out LAB from remain then you must pull out CON from leave.

It's not black and white. One thing is for certain, the only thing that happened is that BXT party took over UKIPs share of the vote and a few more % on top. There is still no mandate at all for a hard brexit. These figures still show a complete split in the vote, and therefore the only democratic thing to do, is to put it to a second vote.

You probably don’t know as much as a British Citizen living in the UK. Labour at the last election promised to deliver Brexit. Labour heartlands overwhelmingly voted to leave the EU. The Labour leader immensely dislikes the EU.

The call for a peoples vote may be a reactionary concern from Corbyn who is concerned about losing voters. But fact is fact. Most Labour voters, voted leave. There is nothing to suggest they’ve changed their minds.

You can interpret things as you want, but what you do interpret is not fact.

We do not need a second vote. We voted leave in 2016 and the parties that promised to deliver Brexit at the last general election secured the vast majority of votes.

Two thirds of voters didn’t vote on Thursday. So lets no interpret anything that most people do not want a hard Brexit.

aviationaware wrote:

Aesma wrote:

The default position of a country is to be protectionist.

I'm not necessarily opposed to protectionism. But at least own up to it, man. The EU is pretending to be the biggest free trader in the world when that's just not true.

You didn't read the quote right then: the EU is the biggest free trade bloc in the world. Which it is. There's free flow of goods, services, manpower, etc. within the EU28 (soon to be 27).

By definition, if free trade happens within the bloc trade with outside the bloc is not free, to differing degrees. Otherwise there'd be no incentive to be in.

I read that Boris Johnson might want to organize a new referendum if he was PM.
If only UK could just leave and end this ridiculous situation !

noviorbis77 wrote:

You probably don’t know as much as a British Citizen living in the UK. Labour at the last election promised to deliver Brexit. Labour heartlands overwhelmingly voted to leave the EU. The Labour leader immensely dislikes the EU.

I beg to differ, I think I'm rather more informed than you think.
I also think the millions who just deserted labour to vote lib dem beg to differ too.

They did promise to deliver Brexit but not a no deal brexit. They did vote for Art 50 to be implemented. But guess what, that was BEFORE the electoral comission report. That was BEFORE we knew how much of a screw up the current govenment would make of Brexit and what the therefore only two options would be left, hard brexit or a second vote with remain as an option.

Democracy does not stand still, it evolves, when you know more and when situations change. You don't continue down a blind alley when new things occur.

noviorbis77 wrote:

The call for a peoples vote may be a reactionary concern from Corbyn who is concerned about losing voters. But fact is fact. Most Labour voters, voted leave. There is nothing to suggest they’ve changed their minds.

Not a no deal leave. That was never Labour's plan. And don't start pointing to people voting for Brexit always ALL wanting a no deal, that is a complete lie shown again and again to be wrong.

Now they know how shi* it is, every front bench labour MP except Corbyn wants a public vote, the majority of labour MPs want a public vote or they want Brexit shelved if they cannot get 'A' customs union, which they can't.

noviorbis77 wrote:

You can interpret things as you want, but what you do interpret is not fact.

On the contrary, throughout this entire thread you have shown not to have any interest in fact, just pushing your hard brexit OPINIONS.

noviorbis77 wrote:

We do not need a second vote. We voted leave in 2016 and the parties that promised to deliver Brexit at the last general election secured the vast majority of votes.

Not a hard brexit. Through an illegal, 'advisory' referendum. Which came out after Art 50 was initiated. We know more, the EU elections show you have no mandate for a hard brexit, parliament won't approve a hard brexit, parliament is soverign, So what next?

noviorbis77 wrote:

Two thirds of voters didn’t vote on Thursday. So lets no interpret anything that most people do not want a hard Brexit.

But you looked at the numbers and said the majority were for brexit, where it's clear they are not???
The Brexit referendum turnout was only 72%, and leave got only just over half of that, so we can't interpret anything from that either?

In the UK, in parliamentary first past the post elections, it’s the party who gain the most MPs, not the most votes that get to try and form a government. Brexit Party just got the most MEPs in UK but still leftists argue they are not the majority (by totting up the other parties, based on false claim they are all pro-remain).
Well we had a straightforward leave or remain vote in 2016. Leave won the democratic vote. And still the left argue it’s not democratic “because people didn’t know the truth”. Which way do you want it...?

Well we know the truth now... the main two parties are too self interested to fulfill what was voted for. I’m sick of all sides in this argument. It’s pathetic. Greens and liberals having nothing to offer the country... they’re protest votes in the same way voting Brexit party is a protest vote... none of them are capable of achieving anything but they at least allow voters to show what a shower of shit Conservatives and Labour are

It was an EU vote. Results are not valid for a GE. Farage never been an MP for example .....

par13del wrote:

How do you use a vote - in the UK - where the majority of the eligible voters chose not to vote to invalidate the results of the largest election turnout in the history of the UK because the result was not what the politicians expected?.

Since there has been no second referendum yet on Brexit, this is the only official way of looking at how people have potentially changed their minds, if they indeed have. If people didn't vote, that's irrelevant. You can only judge based on the result and therefore the numbers of seats won by each party. And since parties have the same stance as each other on Brexit, it is completely sensible and valid to merge those votes together when looking at the subject of Brexit.

Since there has apparently been a massive surge in support for no deal, and since that hasn't been delivered (so we have all continiously been told), shouldn't the vote for Brexit supporting parties be huge?

From another UK forum I visit:

"UKIP + Tory 2014 - 43 Seats
UKIP + Brexit Party + Tory 2019 - 33 Seats"

By the way:

par13del wrote:

... largest election turnout in the history of the UK

Is wrong. It wasn't.
1992 General Election had the highest number of voters and a higher % turnout.

par13del wrote:

Its a question, I have been trying to fully understand the principle behind a new vote against the referendum and the GE when both parties stated that they respect the result of the referendum.
Initially they claimed the vote would be on whatever deal was agreed to not attempting to redo the 2016 referendum, now such a distinction if getting smaller and smaller.

I suggest you re-read the rest of my reply from my last post where I specifically deal with why the 'respect the result of the referendum' is out of date and no longer a valid arguement.

Bottom line everything has changed.
Referendum was not legally binding.
It was proven to be illegally won, if it was binding it would have had to have been voided and re-run.
Labour never pushed for a no deal, and only ever wanted a deal that included "A" Customs Union. If that isn't possible, a 2nd vote. This was agreed at their conference.
Democracy does not stand still. Things change. Laws change, Govenments change, personell change. What's possible changes. Therefore how people proceed has to be allowed to change.

To coin the phrase, I don't want a 2nd referendum. I want a legit, no illegal, non interfered 1st referendum. With a clearly defined Brexit (either no deal or a specific deal) and remain.

Olddog wrote:

It was an EU vote. Results are not valid for a GE. Farage never been an MP for example .....

Correct. The point I’m making is a comparison: we had a yes or no vote which leftists/remainers won’t accept the result of because it is not what they wanted... and now we have had a GE-style vote in EU elections rather than a yes or no... and the biggest vote share was for clear Brexit party. Can argue all all day about the other jokers and what they actually stand for but twice since 2016 now Britain has voted for Leave.

chimborazo wrote:

Olddog wrote:

It was an EU vote. Results are not valid for a GE. Farage never been an MP for example .....

Correct. The point I’m making is a comparison: we had a yes or no vote which leftists/remainers won’t accept the result of because it is not what they wanted... and now we have had a GE-style vote in EU elections rather than a yes or no... and the biggest vote share was for clear Brexit party. Can argue all all day about the other jokers and what they actually stand for but twice since 2016 now Britain has voted for Leave.

That's not how it works.

1/ Not all remainers are 'leftists'.
2/ No it's not what we wanted, but it wasn't a free and fair vote.
3/ The EU elections are specifically NOT a GE style election.
4/ Yes the party with the single biggest votes were the Brexit party, but it is perfectly statisically valid to pool the remain parties (because they have exactly the same policy on the one topic you are choosing to base your arguement on. Difficult to do otherwise I admit, because the Brexit party only has 1 policy!!!!) together to compare against. These results are absoutely in no way a vote to leave.

Reinhardt wrote:

par13del wrote:

How do you use a vote - in the UK - where the majority of the eligible voters chose not to vote to invalidate the results of the largest election turnout in the history of the UK because the result was not what the politicians expected?.

Since there has been no second referendum yet on Brexit, this is the only official way of looking at how people have potentially changed their minds, if they indeed have. If people didn't vote, that's irrelevant. You can only judge based on the result and therefore the numbers of seats won by each party. And since parties have the same stance as each other on Brexit, it is completely sensible and valid to merge those votes together when looking at the subject of Brexit.

Since there has apparently been a massive surge in support for no deal, and since that hasn't been delivered (so we have all continiously been told), shouldn't the vote for Brexit supporting parties be huge?

From another UK forum I visit:

"UKIP + Tory 2014 - 43 Seats
UKIP + Brexit Party + Tory 2019 - 33 Seats"

By the way:

par13del wrote:

... largest election turnout in the history of the UK

Is wrong. It wasn't.
1992 General Election had the highest number of voters and a higher % turnout.

par13del wrote:

Its a question, I have been trying to fully understand the principle behind a new vote against the referendum and the GE when both parties stated that they respect the result of the referendum.
Initially they claimed the vote would be on whatever deal was agreed to not attempting to redo the 2016 referendum, now such a distinction if getting smaller and smaller.

I suggest you re-read the rest of my reply from my last post where I specifically deal with why the 'respect the result of the referendum' is out of date and no longer a valid arguement.

Bottom line everything has changed.
Referendum was not legally binding.
It was proven to be illegally won, if it was binding it would have had to have been voided and re-run.
Labour never pushed for a no deal, and only ever wanted a deal that included "A" Customs Union. If that isn't possible, a 2nd vote. This was agreed at their conference.
Democracy does not stand still. Things change. Laws change, Govenments change, personell change. What's possible changes. Therefore how people proceed has to be allowed to change.

To coin the phrase, I don't want a 2nd referendum. I want a legit, no illegal, non interfered 1st referendum. With a clearly defined Brexit (either no deal or a specific deal) and remain.

Your last phrase is ridiculous. What if the vote had been 70 or 80 percent leave? Would you be using the same false arguments for ANOTHER referendum then? Just because it was “close” the barrel scraping begins of excuses that “we got it wrong”. What if 50.00001 % had voted remain. You wouldn’t be using the same false arguments then because the UK would have given the “right” answer.

There are some people who are so sure in their opinions and beliefs and that everyone else is wrong they are physically incapable of understanding someone else’s position or that they should even have a different position. Remain lost the democratic vote... deal with that and get the best for Britain, not this endless cycle of why other people are “wrong”.

chimborazo wrote:

Your last phrase is ridiculous. What if the vote had been 70 or 80 percent leave? Would you be using the same false arguments for ANOTHER referendum then? Just because it was “close” the barrel scraping begins of excuses that “we got it wrong”. What if 50.00001 % had voted remain. You wouldn’t be using the same false arguments then because the UK would have given the “right” answer.

In a democratic country the ability for any elections or referenda to be legal, and just is paramount.
I don't care what the % vote was in any direction. If a vote is illegal or frauduent then it should an annulled and run again.

In this case, we know more. The outcome option has changed (No Deal was never on the cards) and it is now the default option. Simply because of it's damaging nature and clear shift in all polls (original referendum was within margin of error) then a second vote should take place.

We're not America. You don't have endless amounts of money to influence politicans. The UK used to be the envy of the world for fair play and honesty.

Money should be tightly controlled and you should know exactly where it comes from. This is existing UK law and I want UK law upheld.

I base my opinion on Brexit purely on facts. What experts say. I have no interest in what is said by people who have no experience promoting a certain viewpoint that only helps their cause.

chimborazo wrote:

There are some people who are so sure in their opinions and beliefs and that everyone else is wrong they are physically incapable of understanding someone else’s position or that they should even have a different position. Remain lost the democratic vote... deal with that and get the best for Britain, not this endless cycle of why other people are “wrong”.

I don't believe it was a democratic vote, and I believe the proof shows it. I also seemingly believe what is best for Britain is something completely different to you. That's fine, just don't expect us to shut up about it especially when the difference was 3% and one side wants to go hell for leather on the most damaging of options that was never promoted as an option by any Brexiteer prior or post referendum.

par13del wrote:

Well good luck with that vision of utopia, every election will have some "fraud" involved, after all, a number of EU citizens in the UK were turned away at the poll, were they then allowed to vote, legally, illegally, when the investigation is completed, do we then invalidate this vote and do another?
Elections / votes across large sections of countries will always have "issues", just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the issues can be taken by any side to suit their interest.

Yes it's very difficult to eradicate all fraud but wholesale fraud, obvious, proven by the very people put in place to do exactly that is not a Democracy. If it's completely avoidable, and there are pushiments set out under law that can be applied then they should be. UK is not a bannana republic, it's the origin the founder of democracy. It's time it bloody well acted like it.

No it's highly unlikely you can invalidate the EU elections but what can happen is an investigation. If local councils were at fault or certain persons at polling stations were found to have wrongly turned away legitiate voters (which is exaclty what happened), then the people who screwed up should be delt with according to law. In regard to postal votes not being sent out in time, because the Govenment didn't give enough notice time that the UK was going to take part in the EU elections, when then I expect the UK Govenment to be fined by the EU for breach of Electoral Regulations.

Reinhardt wrote:

chimborazo wrote:

Olddog wrote:

It was an EU vote. Results are not valid for a GE. Farage never been an MP for example .....

Correct. The point I’m making is a comparison: we had a yes or no vote which leftists/remainers won’t accept the result of because it is not what they wanted... and now we have had a GE-style vote in EU elections rather than a yes or no... and the biggest vote share was for clear Brexit party. Can argue all all day about the other jokers and what they actually stand for but twice since 2016 now Britain has voted for Leave.

That's not how it works.

1/ Not all remainers are 'leftists'.
2/ No it's not what we wanted, but it wasn't a free and fair vote.
3/ The EU elections are specifically NOT a GE style election.
4/ Yes the party with the single biggest votes were the Brexit party, but it is perfectly statisically valid to pool the remain parties (because they have exactly the same policy on the one topic you are choosing to base your arguement on. Difficult to do otherwise I admit, because the Brexit party only has 1 policy!!!!) together to compare against. These results are absoutely in no way a vote to leave.

Incorrect again.

The Green Party attracts a number of voters who are motivated by concern for the environment and are indifferent to Brexit.

But hey ho, lets make more stuff up to misrepresent reality of what is going on in a country you do not live in, yet know everything about.

sebolino wrote:

I wouldn't say that for the socialists:
- End of death penalty
- 5th week of paid vacation
- Reduced work hours
- Universal healthcare
- Minimum revenue (RMI)
- ...

People always forget the good and retain the bad.

Now saying that Macron reelection would be terrible is utterly ridiculous. He's got his own way (liberal) but fights unemployment, and that's what France really need right now.
And I don't care about a bunch of idiots wearing yellow vests. I've seen so many of them driving big SUVs and angry to pay too much taxes (F*** you !).
What would be terrible is the election of the (b/w)itch Lepen from the nazionalist party or the neo-marxist Melenchon.

BTW I didn't vote Macron yesterday.

Yes if you go back 35 years you can find some stuff. 75 years for universal healthcare (communists and gaullists back then), 20 years for the 35 hours work week, but since then, not much. Well, one thing people remember bitterly is the sale of the autoroutes ! More recently you forgot marriage equality. I'm glad Bellamy crashed out of this election for his rhetoric about that alone.

I agree that unemployment is key, French people used to agree too, but somehow that has changed, even though unemployment figures have only improved a bit.

I saw a bit on youtube (DW channel) about the rise of the far right in Europe, they went to 4 countries including France. They went to the North, were steel mills have closed, and people there wanted more money. Not one talked about wanting a job, just more money. Frightening.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Reinhardt wrote:

chimborazo wrote:

Correct. The point I’m making is a comparison: we had a yes or no vote which leftists/remainers won’t accept the result of because it is not what they wanted... and now we have had a GE-style vote in EU elections rather than a yes or no... and the biggest vote share was for clear Brexit party. Can argue all all day about the other jokers and what they actually stand for but twice since 2016 now Britain has voted for Leave.

That's not how it works.

1/ Not all remainers are 'leftists'.
2/ No it's not what we wanted, but it wasn't a free and fair vote.
3/ The EU elections are specifically NOT a GE style election.
4/ Yes the party with the single biggest votes were the Brexit party, but it is perfectly statisically valid to pool the remain parties (because they have exactly the same policy on the one topic you are choosing to base your arguement on. Difficult to do otherwise I admit, because the Brexit party only has 1 policy!!!!) together to compare against. These results are absoutely in no way a vote to leave.

Incorrect again.

The Green Party attracts a number of voters who are motivated by concern for the environment and are indifferent to Brexit.

But hey ho, lets make more stuff up to misrepresent reality of what is going on in a country you do not live in, yet know everything about.

The joys of voting for a party with only 1 policy. You can shout from the sidelines and say x party has members who might not want to remain, because you're party only has 1 type of voter in it. There may well be some people who voted for Greens, who voted for Lib Dem who want Brexit. But the vast majority will have been remain supporting, since the parties are clearly massively remain. It's been part of their main party policy for the last few years. And they have won large numbers of MEP seats running in part on that narative. Yes other topics are involved, but it's part of it.

Bla bla bla, you don't live here, You can't have an opinion based on fact or being able to read data, or have decades of experience in international trade, of the Civil Service (which I am still highly duberous you have any noteworthly role in). By the way, the reason I left the UK, my family and friends = Brexit.

By the way, if the 'BREXIT' company (it is a company by the way, not a polical party) fields MPs, will you vote for them? Even it it duplices Farage's exact feeling around NHS being opened up to US style insurance, cancelling the ban on handguns?

par13del wrote:

Reinhardt wrote:

That's fine, just don't expect us to shut up about it especially when the difference was 3% and one side wants to go hell for leather on the most damaging of options that was never promoted as an option by any Brexiteer prior or post referendum.

Unfortunately, if that 3% margin is used for a re-vote and the result is remain, how do you then say that another vote is not required if the 3% margin remains?
The way things are in the UK today, the old folks have not yet died out and as the last GE showed, this shift in the wind still appears to be within the 3% margin, maybe in 5 years time it will change, but another vote now including a GE will most likely result in another hung parliament.
Since they are the one's who overwhelmingly designed the question and gave the vote, the sympathy factor is low, make the question complicated for cover, a simple question is too simple for the public to know what they are voting for.

The difference in polls over the last year specifically on no deal vs remain is well clear of any margin of error. Add in a deal to the equation and you get a 3 way split with remain even further ahead.
The fact the result of the first referendum was within this margin of error shows the original polling pre Brexit vote was accurate. Which shows that any new referendum should be around what the polls say, which is 55-60% remain.

If there is a new vote, with no cheating i.e legal and Brexit wins again then so be it. I'd leave you in peace to enjoy your no deal. So long as no deal and remain is on the voting form.

par13del wrote:

a simple question is too simple for the public to know what they are voting for

The original question, "do you want to remain in the EU or leave" was too simplistic. It's the one of the other main reasons we're in the mess we are now.

Reinhardt wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Reinhardt wrote:

That's not how it works.

1/ Not all remainers are 'leftists'.
2/ No it's not what we wanted, but it wasn't a free and fair vote.
3/ The EU elections are specifically NOT a GE style election.
4/ Yes the party with the single biggest votes were the Brexit party, but it is perfectly statisically valid to pool the remain parties (because they have exactly the same policy on the one topic you are choosing to base your arguement on. Difficult to do otherwise I admit, because the Brexit party only has 1 policy!!!!) together to compare against. These results are absoutely in no way a vote to leave.

Incorrect again.

The Green Party attracts a number of voters who are motivated by concern for the environment and are indifferent to Brexit.

But hey ho, lets make more stuff up to misrepresent reality of what is going on in a country you do not live in, yet know everything about.

The joys of voting for a party with only 1 policy. You can shout from the sidelines and say x party has members who might not want to remain, because you're party only has 1 type of voter in it. There may well be some people who voted for Greens, who voted for Lib Dem who want Brexit. But the vast majority will have been remain supporting, since the parties are clearly massively remain. It's been part of their main party policy for the last few years. And they have won large numbers of MEP seats running in part on that narative. Yes other topics are involved, but it's part of it.

Bla bla bla, you don't live here, You can't have an opinion based on fact or being able to read data, or have decades of experience in international trade, of the Civil Service (which I am still highly duberous you have any noteworthly role in). By the way, the reason I left the UK, my family and friends = Brexit.

By the way, if the 'BREXIT' company (it is a company by the way, not a polical party) fields MPs, will you vote for them? Even it it duplices Farage's exact feeling around NHS being opened up to US style insurance, cancelling the ban on handguns?

Well I can assure you I am a Civil Servant in a Senior Role. So please do not call me a liar.

And you left the UK allegedly because of Brexit? Well there you go. Blinkered really aren’t you.

noviorbis77 wrote:

You probably don’t know as much as a British Citizen living in the UK. Labour at the last election promised to deliver Brexit. Labour heartlands overwhelmingly voted to leave the EU. The Labour leader immensely dislikes the EU.

He can read as well as you.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Two thirds of voters didn’t vote on Thursday. So lets no interpret anything that most people do not want a hard Brexit.

Hilarious. Only 37% of the electorate voted to leave in 2016, but that's a rock solid 'majority'. You're happy to interpret that decisively.

scbriml wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

You probably don’t know as much as a British Citizen living in the UK. Labour at the last election promised to deliver Brexit. Labour heartlands overwhelmingly voted to leave the EU. The Labour leader immensely dislikes the EU.

He can read as well as you.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Two thirds of voters didn’t vote on Thursday. So lets no interpret anything that most people do not want a hard Brexit.

Hilarious. Only 37% of the electorate voted to leave in 2016, but that's a rock solid 'majority'. You're happy to interpret that decisively.

So you are confused by that chart as well?

Don’t worry, a lot of remoaners on Twitter don’t seem to understand it either. They have forgotten about the Conservative and Labour party.

Reinhardt wrote:

Is wrong. It wasn't.
1992 General Election had the highest number of voters and a higher % turnout.
.

Semantics on your part,

The two GE which had a direct impact result using the referenda before and after was the GE of 2015/17 the referenda had a higher turn out than both of the GE which had a direct correlation to the issue at hand

Referenda 72.2%
2015GE 66.4%
2017GE 68.8%

And by the way this hand wringing about statistic’s in the EU election for the UK is pretty meaningless, it meant nothing to me as it was purely a protest vote on my behalf as we are not suppose to be there.

The two new parties born out of the crap feast was the Brexit Party and the UK Change party why didn’t the UK Change party which had a direct correlation with remain why didn’t it do well?

scbriml wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

You probably don’t know as much as a British Citizen living in the UK. Labour at the last election promised to deliver Brexit. Labour heartlands overwhelmingly voted to leave the EU. The Labour leader immensely dislikes the EU.

He can read as well as you.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Two thirds of voters didn’t vote on Thursday. So lets no interpret anything that most people do not want a hard Brexit.

Hilarious. Only 37% of the electorate voted to leave in 2016, but that's a rock solid 'majority'. You're happy to interpret that decisively.

And what was the voter turn out at the referendum compared to Thursday?

scbriml wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

You probably don’t know as much as a British Citizen living in the UK. Labour at the last election promised to deliver Brexit. Labour heartlands overwhelmingly voted to leave the EU. The Labour leader immensely dislikes the EU.

He can read as well as you.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Two thirds of voters didn’t vote on Thursday. So lets no interpret anything that most people do not want a hard Brexit.

Hilarious. Only 37% of the electorate voted to leave in 2016, but that's a rock solid 'majority'. You're happy to interpret that decisively.

While you might very well wish to exclude Labour given the difficulty in pinning down their exact position prior to the election, to remove the Conservatives from the list of pro-Brexit parties when the party's avowed policy is to extract the UK from the EU and Labour and the Lib Dems have been moaning about a "Hard Tory Brexit" for months now is entirely disingenuous. So let's add the Conservative vote back into the pro-Brexit column and we get 44/40 Leave/Remain.

More grasping at straws from deluded Remainers who cannot accept that they have lost again.

KLDC10 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

You probably don’t know as much as a British Citizen living in the UK. Labour at the last election promised to deliver Brexit. Labour heartlands overwhelmingly voted to leave the EU. The Labour leader immensely dislikes the EU.

He can read as well as you.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Two thirds of voters didn’t vote on Thursday. So lets no interpret anything that most people do not want a hard Brexit.

Hilarious. Only 37% of the electorate voted to leave in 2016, but that's a rock solid 'majority'. You're happy to interpret that decisively.

While you might very well wish to exclude Labour given the difficulty in pinning down their exact position prior to the election, to remove the Conservatives from the list of pro-Brexit parties when the party's avowed policy is to extract the UK from the EU and Labour and the Lib Dems have been moaning about a "Hard Tory Brexit" for months now is entirely disingenuous. So let's add the Conservative vote back into the pro-Brexit column and we get 44/40 Leave/Remain.

More grasping at straws from deluded Remainers who cannot accept that they have lost again.

Bless them. Its all getting a bit much for them.

The Brexit Party came top in 9 of 12 regions
* It got the most votes - 32%.
* It got the most seats - 29.
* It came top in 90% of council areas in Eng/Wales

What part of that don't some people get?

Grizzly410 wrote:

Not only it doesn't support your original claim but it also proves your lack of knowledge about EU : the European Court of Human Rights is NOT an EU institution.

I know, but ordinary people do not go into such details, such as which institution this is. They still see this as European dictate.

Aesma wrote:

I saw a bit on youtube (DW channel) about the rise of the far right in Europe, they went to 4 countries including France. They went to the North, were steel mills have closed, and people there wanted more money. Not one talked about wanting a job, just more money. Frightening.

A couple of things here. First - expectations mismanagement due to overly large social safety net. People should be motivated to move to another region of France, where there are jobs, or possibly to the neighboring EU country, as opposed to be just sitting there and waiting, losing skills. Social system should motivate people to seek being employed, as opposed to sitting on welfare and wanting more and more money. In Canada, social system is sized just right - people do move around and go where there is work for them. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Second - what prompted closure of those mills in the first place? Could it be all your restrictive labor regulations, due to which they lost competitiveness in 21st century? Perhaps it is time to review them? Yes, asking everyone to give up some (say, early retirement, some labor union protections, a week of vacation), so that more people could have a job, and more things could be made in the country as opposed to being imported?

Reinhardt wrote:

chimborazo wrote:

Your last phrase is ridiculous. What if the vote had been 70 or 80 percent leave? Would you be using the same false arguments for ANOTHER referendum then? Just because it was “close” the barrel scraping begins of excuses that “we got it wrong”. What if 50.00001 % had voted remain. You wouldn’t be using the same false arguments then because the UK would have given the “right” answer.

In a democratic country the ability for any elections or referenda to be legal, and just is paramount.
I don't care what the % vote was in any direction. If a vote is illegal or frauduent then it should an annulled and run again.

In this case, we know more. The outcome option has changed (No Deal was never on the cards) and it is now the default option. Simply because of it's damaging nature and clear shift in all polls (original referendum was within margin of error) then a second vote should take place.

We're not America. You don't have endless amounts of money to influence politicans. The UK used to be the envy of the world for fair play and honesty.

Money should be tightly controlled and you should know exactly where it comes from. This is existing UK law and I want UK law upheld.

I base my opinion on Brexit purely on facts. What experts say. I have no interest in what is said by people who have no experience promoting a certain viewpoint that only helps their cause.

chimborazo wrote:

There are some people who are so sure in their opinions and beliefs and that everyone else is wrong they are physically incapable of understanding someone else’s position or that they should even have a different position. Remain lost the democratic vote... deal with that and get the best for Britain, not this endless cycle of why other people are “wrong”.

I don't believe it was a democratic vote, and I believe the proof shows it. I also seemingly believe what is best for Britain is something completely different to you. That's fine, just don't expect us to shut up about it especially when the difference was 3% and one side wants to go hell for leather on the most damaging of options that was never promoted as an option by any Brexiteer prior or post referendum.

I would imagine you would be fervently defending. It as a democratic vote had the scores been the opposite way.

There is no democracy anymore... he who shouts loudest and all that.

To your point about it not being what we voted for... yes we did vote for this. Options were remain in EU or leave the EU. Nothing on the vote about the mechanism. And Leave won. Leave won.

I don’t WANT to leave the EU but I voted Leave because I don’t want any further integration (way beyond what was voted for before I was born) and I want a work permit system for everybody who comes to the UK and isn’t a tourist/temporary business. I had no other way to express that. And there are many millions like me (in fact a majority as evidenced by a democratic vote in 2016 which Leave won despite any protestations to the contrary. And leave won because of the arrogance of the pro-EU brigade who were so amazingly confident that the UK voters would “do the right thing”. As said above left/liberal/pretend conservative/whatever but pro-EU: “it is how I think therefore it is the ONLY way to think, it’s inconceivable the UK populace would vote to leave the EU”. Well they were wrong about that and just as wrong about impending Armageddon afterwards. This is why many people do not believe politicians).

noviorbis77 wrote:

KLDC10 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

He can read as well as you.




Hilarious. Only 37% of the electorate voted to leave in 2016, but that's a rock solid 'majority'. You're happy to interpret that decisively.

While you might very well wish to exclude Labour given the difficulty in pinning down their exact position prior to the election, to remove the Conservatives from the list of pro-Brexit parties when the party's avowed policy is to extract the UK from the EU and Labour and the Lib Dems have been moaning about a "Hard Tory Brexit" for months now is entirely disingenuous. So let's add the Conservative vote back into the pro-Brexit column and we get 44/40 Leave/Remain.

More grasping at straws from deluded Remainers who cannot accept that they have lost again.

Bless them. Its all getting a bit much for them.

The Brexit Party came top in 9 of 12 regions
* It got the most votes - 32%.
* It got the most seats - 29.
* It came top in 90% of council areas in Eng/Wales

What part of that don't some people get?

That would be known in Australia as a double majority, But the fundamental difference between Australia and the UK and the European elections is Australia has compulsory voting

A101 wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

KLDC10 wrote:

While you might very well wish to exclude Labour given the difficulty in pinning down their exact position prior to the election, to remove the Conservatives from the list of pro-Brexit parties when the party's avowed policy is to extract the UK from the EU and Labour and the Lib Dems have been moaning about a "Hard Tory Brexit" for months now is entirely disingenuous. So let's add the Conservative vote back into the pro-Brexit column and we get 44/40 Leave/Remain.

More grasping at straws from deluded Remainers who cannot accept that they have lost again.

Bless them. Its all getting a bit much for them.

The Brexit Party came top in 9 of 12 regions
* It got the most votes - 32%.
* It got the most seats - 29.
* It came top in 90% of council areas in Eng/Wales

What part of that don't some people get?

That would be known in Australia as a double majority, But the fundamental difference between Australia and the UK and the European elections is Australia has compulsory voting

Five countries know compulsory voting in the EU. What is your point?

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Bless them. Its all getting a bit much for them.

The Brexit Party came top in 9 of 12 regions
* It got the most votes - 32%.
* It got the most seats - 29.
* It came top in 90% of council areas in Eng/Wales

What part of that don't some people get?

That would be known in Australia as a double majority, But the fundamental difference between Australia and the UK and the European elections is Australia has compulsory voting

Five countries know compulsory voting in the EU. What is your point?

Double majority

noviorbis77 wrote:

So you are confused by that chart as well?

Don’t worry, a lot of remoaners on Twitter don’t seem to understand it either. They have forgotten about the Conservative and Labour party.

Not confused in the slightest, old chap. However, it seem the Brexitards can't see the bloody obvious even when it's staring them in the face.

Yes, both the Tories and Labour said they'd honour the referendum, but I'm sure it hasn't escaped your notice that they've failed to do so. They are completely split on Brexit and have rejected the negotiated WA and overwhelmingly rejected a no-deal Brexit, so it doesn't matter what they said in their respective manifestoes. But, somehow, you still count a vote for them as a vote for Brexit, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Hilarious.

scbriml wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

So you are confused by that chart as well?

Don’t worry, a lot of remoaners on Twitter don’t seem to understand it either. They have forgotten about the Conservative and Labour party.

Not confused in the slightest, old chap. However, it seem the Brexitards can't see the bloody obvious even when it's staring them in the face.

Yes, both the Tories and Labour said they'd honour the referendum, but I'm sure it hasn't escaped your notice that they've failed to do so. They are completely split on Brexit and have rejected the negotiated WA and overwhelmingly rejected a no-deal Brexit, so it doesn't matter what they said in their respective manifestoes. But, somehow, you still count a vote for them as a vote for Brexit, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Hilarious.

Shocking a political party blatantly lying

scbriml wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

So you are confused by that chart as well?

Don’t worry, a lot of remoaners on Twitter don’t seem to understand it either. They have forgotten about the Conservative and Labour party.

Not confused in the slightest, old chap. However, it seem the Brexitards can't see the bloody obvious even when it's staring them in the face.

Yes, both the Tories and Labour said they'd honour the referendum, but I'm sure it hasn't escaped your notice that they've failed to do so. They are completely split on Brexit and have rejected the negotiated WA and overwhelmingly rejected a no-deal Brexit, so it doesn't matter what they said in their respective manifestoes. But, somehow, you still count a vote for them as a vote for Brexit, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Hilarious.

Wow you have managed to get completely every part of your statement wrong.

Well done.

anrec80 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I saw a bit on youtube (DW channel) about the rise of the far right in Europe, they went to 4 countries including France. They went to the North, were steel mills have closed, and people there wanted more money. Not one talked about wanting a job, just more money. Frightening.

A couple of things here. First - expectations mismanagement due to overly large social safety net. People should be motivated to move to another region of France, where there are jobs, or possibly to the neighboring EU country, as opposed to be just sitting there and waiting, losing skills. Social system should motivate people to seek being employed, as opposed to sitting on welfare and wanting more and more money. In Canada, social system is sized just right - people do move around and go where there is work for them. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Second - what prompted closure of those mills in the first place? Could it be all your restrictive labor regulations, due to which they lost competitiveness in 21st century? Perhaps it is time to review them? Yes, asking everyone to give up some (say, early retirement, some labor union protections, a week of vacation), so that more people could have a job, and more things could be made in the country as opposed to being imported?

Moving around isn't that easy for some people. My grandparents all moved a lot (including half way round the world), several of my uncles and aunts moved back to their parents' country (Italy) and now my Italian cousins, despite high level diplomas, struggle for work as they're not in the most dynamic part of the country. It's not the worst either, but clearly they could find jobs no problem in Milano or Torino, yet they don't move. The safety net in this case is called family, and small jobs like serving pizza.

In France there is the added parameter of real estate, people like owning their home, and the market is such that in places without jobs houses are worth nothing, and in places with jobs real estate, or even just rents, are crazy.

With that said, what you're talking about is basically Macron's program for France. After he started on this path, a lot of people aren't happy about it. We shall see if he continues anyway, that's what he says he's gonna do.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Well I can assure you I am a Civil Servant in a Senior Role. So please do not call me a liar.

This still baffels me. Now you are not just a Civil Servant, but one in a senior role and you have claimed to have met Theresa May a few times. In that case. you claim indeed to be in a senior role, not all civil servant will meet the PM on a regular basis. That still leaves a few questions unanswered:
> if you are truly in a senior role, you are doing a lousy job advising your PM/Minister, since they created a mess. This is partly due to the advice they are getting from the civil servants.
> when you are in service you are a civil servant and thus must act in the best interest of Great Britain, not what you happen to believe privately. How do you reconcile that within yourself? Acting in the worst interest of the UK out here and working for the best interest of the UK during your day job?
> what is your professional opinion to get out of this mess, not your personal believes, but your professional opinion?

You're going to struggle to find a sensible remainers opinion coming from the uk. There isn't a sensible remainer here.

anrec80 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

Not only it doesn't support your original claim but it also proves your lack of knowledge about EU : the European Court of Human Rights is NOT an EU institution.

I know, but ordinary people do not go into such details, such as which institution this is. They still see this as European dictate.

I understand you want to deflect this misconception on others but, I’m sorry, YOU were answering Dutchy’s “The EU is opening possibilities for people, not telling them how to live their lives” by saying “EU dictates too much. Way too much. How to properly do gay parades[…]”.
And to make it clear, Dutchy stopped at the gay parade stuff, but you also claimed EU dictates “how should court system look like, what a country’s leader should and should not do, or even say, who should be let into the countries and receive welfare benefits, etc”. This is as untrue as the gay parade claim.

Btw, the link provided doesn’t even support the claim that ECHR dictates anything, it just reminded Poland its duty in front of the Human Right Convention it ratified in its own name.

Dutchy wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Well I can assure you I am a Civil Servant in a Senior Role. So please do not call me a liar.

This still baffels me. Now you are not just a Civil Servant, but one in a senior role and you have claimed to have met Theresa May a few times. In that case. you claim indeed to be in a senior role, not all civil servant will meet the PM on a regular basis. That still leaves a few questions unanswered:
> if you are truly in a senior role, you are doing a lousy job advising your PM/Minister, since they created a mess. This is partly due to the advice they are getting from the civil servants.
> when you are in service you are a civil servant and thus must act in the best interest of Great Britain, not what you happen to believe privately. How do you reconcile that within yourself? Acting in the worst interest of the UK out here and working for the best interest of the UK during your day job?
> what is your professional opinion to get out of this mess, not your personal believes, but your professional opinion?

I do not work in a policy or advisory role and have no influence over Brexit.

Get out of this mess. Hard Brexit and then negotiate. Deliver what the public voted for, then sort out trade.

Make my day and just do it instead of empty rhetoric on the internet

noviorbis77 wrote:

Incorrect again.

The Green Party attracts a number of voters who are motivated by concern for the environment and are indifferent to Brexit.

Whilst you may be correct about the environment, it's dangerous to assume that those voting Greens are "indifferent" re. Brexit. The Greens have been campaigning on a pro-EU platform for some time now, from campaigning to remain at the 2016 referendum to backing a second referendum with remain as an option: -

https://www.greenparty.org.uk/europe-priorities.html

From my perspective, they were one of three options for us remainers in England. A vote for Labour (despite conflicting messages from some of their MP's), Tories, UKIP or the Brexit Party was a de facto endorsement for leaving given their policies (if Farage's new party can even be considered as having any official policies). You only have to look at some of the high profile people such as Lord Heseltine and Alastair Campbell voting Lib Dem instead of Tory or Labour to realise that a lot of people cast their votes based on where they stand with Brexit. I accept there are some who are remainers but voted Labour or Tory anyway because they always do and/or are paid-up members. Quite frankly, I'd be astonished if there are a lot of people out there that are "indifferent" as this is the single biggest issue of the day that's affecting us all whether people recognise it or not.

If Green voters were indifferent on the topic of Brexit, then I'd politely suggest the Greens is not the party for them. The same applies to the Scottish Greens and Northern Irish Greens (a separate party to the Greens in England & Wales despite the name).

In France the Greens (Les Verts) have associated themselves with a party called "Europe Ecologie" long ago, so now they're known as "Europe Ecologie - Les Verts", the only party with Europe in its name.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Well I can assure you I am a Civil Servant in a Senior Role. So please do not call me a liar.

This still baffels me. Now you are not just a Civil Servant, but one in a senior role and you have claimed to have met Theresa May a few times. In that case. you claim indeed to be in a senior role, not all civil servant will meet the PM on a regular basis. That still leaves a few questions unanswered:
> if you are truly in a senior role, you are doing a lousy job advising your PM/Minister, since they created a mess. This is partly due to the advice they are getting from the civil servants.
> when you are in service you are a civil servant and thus must act in the best interest of Great Britain, not what you happen to believe privately. How do you reconcile that within yourself? Acting in the worst interest of the UK out here and working for the best interest of the UK during your day job?
> what is your professional opinion to get out of this mess, not your personal believes, but your professional opinion?

I do not work in a policy or advisory role and have no influence over Brexit.

Get out of this mess. Hard Brexit and then negotiate. Deliver what the public voted for, then sort out trade.

Getting out means figuring out a new relationship with everybody else, there is nothing else on the agenda. In the long run the UK will probably change its current laws on this and that, but so far the plan is to copy everything from current "EU decided" books to UK books.

What do you expect to happen the day after Brexit ? What will change in your life ? You will still live in the same home, still have the same job (hopefully), still buy groceries at the same shop. Prices might change, products might change a bit, but other than that ?

noviorbis77 wrote:

Well I can assure you I am a Civil Servant in a Senior Role. So please do not call me a liar.

And you left the UK allegedly because of Brexit? Well there you go. Blinkered really aren’t you.

You may well be, but anything to do with International Trade? WTO terms? Or do you look after Health and Safety in a building next to number 10? You could be anything, and that doesn't make your opinion any more valid than anyone else. It sure as hell doesn't make it any more right or inline with the facts.

No, I experienced first hand the impacts of Brexit, financially. You know, based on evidence.

A101 wrote:

Reinhardt wrote:

Is wrong. It wasn't.
1992 General Election had the highest number of voters and a higher % turnout.
.

Semantics on your part,

The two GE which had a direct impact result using the referenda before and after was the GE of 2015/17 the referenda had a higher turn out than both of the GE which had a direct correlation to the issue at hand

Referenda 72.2%
2015GE 66.4%
2017GE 68.8%

And by the way this hand wringing about statistic’s in the EU election for the UK is pretty meaningless, it meant nothing to me as it was purely a protest vote on my behalf as we are not suppose to be there.

The two new parties born out of the crap feast was the Brexit Party and the UK Change party why didn’t the UK Change party which had a direct correlation with remain why didn’t it do well?

What??? This quote has been bounded around ever since the vote by people trying to make it sound like the number of people who voted means it's more important, means it should be precisely followed. There was never any intention, never any insinuation they were comparing it to the most recent GE's. It was always delivered as 'EVER'. This is bull.

chimborazo wrote:

I would imagine you would be fervently defending. It as a democratic vote had the scores been the opposite way.

And Nigel Farage said on more than one occasion that if Leave one by just a few % then it wasn't game over.
We can go on about this all day. I've stated my position clearly.

chimborazo wrote:

There is no democracy anymore... he who shouts loudest and all that.

This we agree with. Also include in this the most money. The truth and facts don't matter any more.

chimborazo wrote:

To your point about it not being what we voted for... yes we did vote for this. Options were remain in EU or leave the EU. Nothing on the vote about the mechanism. And Leave won. Leave won.

Disagree. 'Leave the EU' was not defined. You could have Norway, Switzerland, No deal, "A" Custom union - they all fit into 'Leave the EU'. Those who promoted leaving the hardest, again and again made no mention of No Deal at any point of the campaign.

This fault lies completely at the feet of Cameron. He should have known there was more than one leave option and thought of the country instead of his own party.

chimborazo wrote:

I don’t WANT to leave the EU but I voted Leave because I don’t want any further integration (way beyond what was voted for before I was born) and I want a work permit system for everybody who comes to the UK and isn’t a tourist/temporary business. I had no other way to express that. And there are many millions like me (in fact a majority as evidenced by a democratic vote in 2016 which Leave won despite any protestations to the contrary. And leave won because of the arrogance of the pro-EU brigade who were so amazingly confident that the UK voters would “do the right thing”. As said above left/liberal/pretend conservative/whatever but pro-EU: “it is how I think therefore it is the ONLY way to think, it’s inconceivable the UK populace would vote to leave the EU”. Well they were wrong about that and just as wrong about impending Armageddon afterwards. This is why many people do not believe politicians).

UK has a veto. It doesn't have to join in with anything it doesn't want to.

Why do you want a work permit system? What's wrong with FOM?

The remain campaign was badly run, and massively under-estimated the leave vote that's true.

The thing is, you think this is all about opinions and the way people think. I don't. I see rules, laws, facts and figures. And none of them support your feelings or thoughts.

chimborazo wrote:

impending Armageddon afterwards

Nearly happened for me personally. Didn't happen to the country because of action taken by the Bank Of England the day after the vote.

JJJ wrote:

I am totally opposed to EU freedom of movement. My primary aim of voting Brexit.

Why should Dutch, German, French and Czech Nationals be given a right to freely move to the UK, whilst our closest Allies (Americans) cannot. The same with Commonwealth nations.

Why is it ok for Europeans to freely move around and live in Europe, but not Africans and Asians.

Why is it ok for people from London to move freely to Scotland ? Why is it ok from your neighbour from the other street to walk in your street ?
You're just disputing the concept of economic and political entity, be it a nation, a city, or a union like the EU or the USA.

It is maybe not enough noticed but the EU elections produced a shift in NI. Two out of three NI MEP are now remainers....