The Brexit aftermath thread

[Mayhem]

I don't come in this thread often but you lost any and all credibility, for eternity when you said that leaving would be amazeballs but if it goes bad your SO is French so you'd just go over there.

That comment is contender for the "dumbest things ever uttered in history". It literally defines you, for ever as a lightweight to be mocked and ignored. Well played.

It changed to Italy later on, and he asked what Salvini thinks about foreigners and if he should be worried.

[Huehuecoyotl]

Do these leavers make it clearer? (skip to 1 minute for the leavers)



what about this;

So a 6 minute video, that was 5.5 minutes of Remain politicians saying what it would mean. And 30 seconds of Leave politicians saying it would mean leaving; apart from 1 person who said "it might" mean us leaving. Then a second video from UKIP, which I can file under "well, they would say that, wouldn't they".

So instead, maybe I could look back at one of Leaves own websites: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html. Surely this would make it plain that we were going to be leaving the Customs Union. Oh wait, despite a considerable amount of information on there, it doesn't seem to say anything about that. But sure, it would have been completely clear to everyone voting that was what they meant. Not actually saying it wouldn't have mattered, because clearly it was implied. A bit.

Nothing was explicitly defined for Leave. They said a ton of things would happen, and a lot of people took what they liked and said "I'll vote because of that". Leaving us with 17m people that probably had hundreds of separate reasons to want to leave. And there probably isn't any version of leaving that will keep more than a quarter of them happy.

Give people a vote on two actual defined choices; Remain or May's deal. Let us debate on those two defined options, and vote accordingly. Then let the chips fall where they may. No pun intended.

[dribbles]

So a 6 minute video, that was 5.5 minutes of Remain politicians saying what it would mean. And 30 seconds of Leave politicians saying it would mean leaving; apart from 1 person who said "it might" mean us leaving. Then a second video from UKIP, which I can file under "well, they would say that, wouldn't they".

So instead, maybe I could look back at one of Leaves own websites: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html. Surely this would make it plain that we were going to be leaving the Customs Union. Oh wait, despite a considerable amount of information on there, it doesn't seem to say anything about that. But sure, it would have been completely clear to everyone voting that was what they meant. Not actually saying it wouldn't have mattered, because clearly it was implied. A bit.

Nothing was explicitly defined for Leave. They said a ton of things would happen, and a lot of people took what they liked and said "I'll vote because of that". Leaving us with 17m people that probably had hundreds of separate reasons to want to leave. And there probably isn't any version of leaving that will keep more than a quarter of them happy.

Give people a vote on two actual defined choices; Remain or May's deal. Let us debate on those two defined options, and vote accordingly. Then let the chips fall where they may. No pun intended.

It does make it plain that we are leaving the Customs Union, it has a whole damn section on it, directly from your link...

We'll be free to trade with the whole world.

The EU stops us signing our own trade deals with key allies like Australia or New Zealand, and growing economies like India,China or Brazil..

How much clearer could it be?

And no, Remain cannot be on any second referendum as that's been done, not that there will be one but if there were, the choice has to be May's deal or No deal.

[Huehuecoyotl]

It does make it plain that we are leaving the Customs Union, it has a whole damn section on it, directly from your link...



How much clearer could it be?

And no, Remain cannot be on any second referendum as that's been done, not that there will be one but if there were, the choice has to be May's deal or No deal.

How much clearer could it be? Well, for a start it could actually say "we will be leaving the Customs Union". Which it doesn't. Instead it talks about all the things we will get; like being able to trade with the rest of the world (despite the fact we already could). That we could do our own trade deals (glossing over the fact we are half a century now with no experience of doing this). And of course that we would be able to continue to trade with the EU. Nothing about leaving anything. Nothing about losing anything.

You can spout your nonsense as much as you like, the fact is it wasn't clear to anyone. Deliberately so. People could fill in the blanks with the expectations they had for what Brexit would mean. Which is why so many people from right across the political spectrum ostensibly voted for the same thing. The racists saw a chance to get rid of the foreigners (which they won't). The people that want to support the NHS saw the chance to get more money for it (which it won't). Those on the left saw a chance for a socialist utopia (which certainly won't happen with this lot in charge). Why would they all vote for the same thing if it was precise and clear what that thing was going to be?

3/10 Dribbles. Must try harder.

[Mayhem]

How much clearer could it be?

And no, Remain cannot be on any second referendum as that's been done, not that there will be one but if there were, the choice has to be May's deal or No deal.

Apparently, it wasn't clear enough even for those who ran the leave campaign because if it was there would've been no need to waste 2,5 years if no-deal was what everyone wanted.

[Pann]

So a 6 minute video, that was 5.5 minutes of Remain politicians saying what it would mean. And 30 seconds of Leave politicians saying it would mean leaving; apart from 1 person who said "it might" mean us leaving. Then a second video from UKIP, which I can file under "well, they would say that, wouldn't they".

So instead, maybe I could look back at one of Leaves own websites: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html. Surely this would make it plain that we were going to be leaving the Customs Union. Oh wait, despite a considerable amount of information on there, it doesn't seem to say anything about that. But sure, it would have been completely clear to everyone voting that was what they meant. Not actually saying it wouldn't have mattered, because clearly it was implied. A bit.

Nothing was explicitly defined for Leave. They said a ton of things would happen, and a lot of people took what they liked and said "I'll vote because of that". Leaving us with 17m people that probably had hundreds of separate reasons to want to leave. And there probably isn't any version of leaving that will keep more than a quarter of them happy.

Give people a vote on two actual defined choices; Remain or May's deal. Let us debate on those two defined options, and vote accordingly. Then let the chips fall where they may. No pun intended.

Key leave figures saying that leaving the EU would mean leaving the Single Market is not good enough for you? What a surprise.

I don't know why you are mentioning the customs union when Dribbles' post, which you replied to, and my own post were talking about the single market. The customs union and single market are two different things that serve different purposes.

Looking at the Leave website it states "We'll be in charge of our borders", "We can control immigration" and "We can make our own laws" all of which are incompatible with single market membership. It also states "We'll be free to trade with the whole world." which is incompatible with the customs union. Are you seriously arguing that because they did not mention either the single market or the customs union that people did not vote for these things?

Please tell that remain has better arguments should the opportunity of a second referendum arise because if that's all we've got it's dead in the water before the campaign begins.

[Slant]

Key leave figures saying that leaving the EU would mean leaving the Single Market is not good enough for you? What a surprise.

I don't know why you are mentioning the customs union when Dribbles' post, which you replied to, and my own post were talking about the single market. The customs union and single market are two different things that serve different purposes.

Looking at the Leave website it states "We'll be in charge of our borders", "We can control immigration" and "We can make our own laws" all of which are incompatible with single market membership. It also states "We'll be free to trade with the whole world." which is incompatible with the customs union. Are you seriously arguing that because they did not mention either the single market or the customs union that people did not vote for these things?

Please tell that remain has better arguments should the opportunity of a second referendum arise because if that's all we've got it's dead in the water before the campaign begins.

What arguments remain has doesn't matter now, does it? Remember the stuff about "we don't listen to experts"? Well, reality is beginning to give you a couple friendly jabs already. Just wait until it starts using the big punches into the gut. And people are still ignoring facts. Some people can't be helped. You're dead in the water already. You can choose to try and swim out of it and fail... or you can just fail. I don't see the downside to not doing it. I mean, honestly, at this point nobody gives a toss about "democracy" in the UK already... so why use that as a pretense to not have a second referendum.

But, you do you...

[Shalcker]

Are you incapable of using indefinite articles?

Sorry, my native language (Russian) doesn't have any, so it is a concept i would have to consciously monitor while writing (as spell-checkers don't seem to be useful in that regard); and i'm usually more focused on sourcing and general argument being presented.

[Huehuecoyotl]

Key leave figures saying that leaving the EU would mean leaving the Single Market is not good enough for you? What a surprise.

You do understand that we are talking about all the different things that Leave said, don't you? So showing me a video that has a Leave person saying "we will leave the Customs Union" and another leave person saying "we might leave the Customs Union" doesn't actually help your case. If it wasn't you, I would find a Leave person saying "we won't leave the Customs Union" to prove my point further. But I know you would then just start an argument about the semantics of what "leave" really means. So what's the point?

[Pann]

You do understand that we are talking about all the different things that Leave said, don't you? So showing me a video that has a Leave person saying "we will leave the Customs Union" and another leave person saying "we might leave the Customs Union" doesn't actually help your case. If it wasn't you, I would find a Leave person saying "we won't leave the Customs Union" to prove my point further. But I know you would then just start an argument about the semantics of what "leave" really means. So what's the point?

No, it was quite clear that Dribbles and I were talking about the single market as were the people in the videos I linked. The Single Market and Customs Union are not interchangeable terms.

There is some weapons grade irony that you accuse people of arguing semantics given your post above and especially when your entire argument comes down to leave didn't actually use the words customs union or single market on their website. And rather unsurprisingly you've ignored what they did actually say.

[Mayhem]

Sorry, my native language (Russian) doesn't have any, so it is a concept i would have to consciously monitor while writing (as spell-checkers don't seem to be useful in that regard); and i'm usually more focused on sourcing and general argument being presented.

Ha, at least you're funny.

- - - Updated - - -

You do understand that we are talking about all the different things that Leave said, don't you? So showing me a video that has a Leave person saying "we will leave the Customs Union" and another leave person saying "we might leave the Customs Union" doesn't actually help your case. If it wasn't you, I would find a Leave person saying "we won't leave the Customs Union" to prove my point further. But I know you would then just start an argument about the semantics of what "leave" really means. So what's the point?

Considering Pann either has me on ignore or isn't able to answer my questions anymore, I'll have to ask you if I understand what you two are arguing about.

Is it that leave made it clear beyond any doubt that a vote to leave would mean leaving without a deal?

[lothwothe]

I mean, honestly, at this point nobody gives a toss about "democracy" in the UK already... so why use that as a pretense to not have a second referendum.

I do, actually. And the consequences would reach far beyond the UK and would extend into other areas of governance nothing to do with the EU. It would be a clear illustration that any morally bankrupt government could simply bypass democracy whenever it chose.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Sorry, my native language (Russian) doesn't have any, so it is a concept i would have to consciously monitor while writing (as spell-checkers don't seem to be useful in that regard); and i'm usually more focused on sourcing and general argument being presented.

Ahh... fair enough. My bad. Your English is certainly better than my Russian.

[Shalcker]

Ha, at least you're funny.

I literally spent 10-15 minutes looking at different articles and trying different time windows with search for that message.

Like "I remember it happening like this, even if that is slight exaggeration, let's search for articles to underline my point. Hmm, should i maybe link to this The Independent article that polls show 2/3 don't like Cameron deal, that could be interesting parallel with current May deal? But that poll was preliminary and low power, and later articles de-emphasise it... Maybe some early promises? How did timeline of them changing look like?"... that's what forum fun looks for me

[Huehuecoyotl]

Considering Pann either has me on ignore or isn't able to answer my questions anymore, I'll have to ask you if I understand what you two are arguing about.

Is it that leave made it clear beyond any doubt that a vote to leave would mean leaving without a deal?

My general point was that Leave never explained exactly what would happen if we did leave. While Pann (and Dribbles) are trying to make the point that we absolutely should have known, because Leave (and sometimes Remain) told us that certain things would. While ignoring that a whole bunch of contradictory things were said in the referendum.

Now Pann has gone back to his usual trick; if you try and make a general point, he will ignore it to fixate on one detail. If you try and focus on that detail, he will then explain how you were actually talking about another detail, and then he insults you. Repeat until you get fed up with it. I keep trying to start honest debates with him, but every time he reminds me why it's pointless.

[Slant]

I do, actually. And the consequences would reach far beyond the UK and would extend into other areas of governance nothing to do with the EU. It would be a clear illustration that any morally bankrupt government could simply bypass democracy whenever it chose.

Which it can. As has been demonstrated by Turkey as the most recent example of a long string of countries that have disabled democracy when it didn't suit them. This is pretty much what martial law has been designed for.

- - - Updated - - -

Ahh... fair enough. My bad. Your English is certainly better than my Russian.

Thanks for asking the important question. I have learned something today. @Shalcker This is important, as you guys seem to come off as "simple folk" when you don't do it. It skewes perception and changes how people interact with you, even if most wouldn't admit it.

[Pann]

My general point was that Leave never explained exactly what would happen if we did leave. While Pann (and Dribbles) are trying to make the point that we absolutely should have known, because Leave (and sometimes Remain) told us that certain things would. While ignoring that a whole bunch of contradictory things were said in the referendum.

Now Pann has gone back to his usual trick; if you try and make a general point, he will ignore it to fixate on one detail. If you try and focus on that detail, he will then explain how you were actually talking about another detail, and then he insults you. Repeat until you get fed up with it. I keep trying to start honest debates with him, but every time he reminds me why it's pointless.

You linked the leave website it was quite clear that the points they listed for voting leave were incompatible with both the SM and CU. It is now almost three years since campaigning for the referendum began, nearly two since A50 was triggered and the Cons were elected if you have not grasped that leaving the EU meant leaving the CU and the SM between then and now there is only one person to blame - you.

The referendum was two and half years ago why are you trying to rerun the same arguments? It's over! It's utterly pointless trying to dig up what happened then whilst ignoring everything that has happened since.

No, that's your trick not mine.

[Kallisto]

You linked the leave website it was quite clear that the points they listed for voting leave were incompatible with both the SM and CU. It is now almost three years since campaigning for the referendum began, nearly two since A50 was triggered and the Cons were elected if you have not grasped that leaving the EU meant leaving the CU and the SM between then and now there is only one person to blame - you.

The referendum was two and half years ago why are you trying to rerun the same arguments? It's over! It's utterly pointless trying to dig up what happened then whilst ignoring everything that has happened since.

No, that's your trick not mine.

Yes yes let's all just shoot ourselves in the foot when everyone with 2 braincells can tell you it's absolutely stupid because "Muh willz on the peoplez"

[Mayhem]

My general point was that Leave never explained exactly what would happen if we did leave. While Pann (and Dribbles) are trying to make the point that we absolutely should have known, because Leave (and sometimes Remain) told us that certain things would. While ignoring that a whole bunch of contradictory things were said in the referendum.

Now Pann has gone back to his usual trick; if you try and make a general point, he will ignore it to fixate on one detail. If you try and focus on that detail, he will then explain how you were actually talking about another detail, and then he insults you. Repeat until you get fed up with it. I keep trying to start honest debates with him, but every time he reminds me why it's pointless.

Seems to me arguing with Pann is utter pointless.

If he was right, every prominent leaver should've been arguing for leaving with no deal since the referendum result.

[ranzino]

Yes yes let's all just shoot ourselves in the foot when everyone with 2 braincells can tell you it's absolutely stupid because "Muh willz on the peoplez"

sometimes democracy hurts its voters. so what then ? obey democracy or keep them safe from their wishes ?