Proportional Representation (now morphed into B****t 2 or is it 3)

[idler]

I voted leave as I didn't believe in a much closer federal Europe.
I did expect that as in most divorces both sides would discuss sensibly an outcome that left both sides with something.
There hasn't been any sense of the Brexit side having the ability to negotiate between themselves, never mind the EU.
If as a second referendum I would change my vote to remain after the debacle of the last 30 months. That's without taking into account the likelihood of Putin pumping money into the leave campaign.

[Glyn_Wigley]

BST, as I saw it it was a vote to leave with no deal. I didn't think we'd have to 'deal', other than to tie up loose ends, such as settlement figures etc. I expected these to be carried out after Brexit, not delaying it.

You should have read Vote Leave's promises. Then you'd have known better.

I understood, as anyone should, that both leave and remain campaign groups had no authority to make promises and for you to paint such in the same way as a manifesto is disingenuous. I expect that from you though

I can only quote what the official Leave campaign were saying themselves. Not even they were promising No Deal. So for people to say that's what they understood it to mean at the time of voting...where did that idea come from? Was no official campaign to be believed and people were just supposed to make up their own versions?

If you were weak minded and daft enough to believe promises made by campaign groups with no official political power then more fool you. The ballot paper was simple enough to explain what the choice was.

If you then proceeded to make up your own version of what you though you were getting, wouldn't that be even more fool you?

I understood that I voted to leave the European union. No deals, none of the different models offered in BSTs post. Any of those would be a bonus granted. No preconceived ideas on anything, just to leave. If you want to twist that to fit into your narrative (I'm sure you will as you always do, kind of understand the opinion certain members of the fb group have of you now)

I'm just saying that nobody promised you no deals. I'm not twisting that - unless you know of a promise of no deal that WAS made by somebody at the time of the referendum that I don't know about?

And as I asked earlier, wouldn't therefore no deal be a betrayal of what was actually promised to the voters?

Since a campaign group has no grounds to make promises as it has no legislative power, no

So we shouldn't have believed anything Vote Leave said? The Leave campaign was pretty much all promises.

Man you like to twist don't you. I assume that because you agreed with remain everything they said or did is beyond reproach? As for leave, not my place to say is it?

Twist? You tell me what people should have believed and what they shouldn't have and how they could tell the two apart then. If it's not your place to say, why say people shouldn't have believed them at the time?

Of course I don't agree with everything Remain did. Osborne said some bloody stupid stuff, but then he always looked dead behind the eyes at the best of times. Cameron tried being his normal oily self, which didn't help, but he certainly didn't say there'd be WW3 if we voted Leave as some people keep insisting.

[BillyStubbsTears]

LDR.

I applaud your clear sightedness.

Just a question though. Does the prospect of an 8% dip in GDP following a No Deal Brexit concern you at all?

Only, there's no serious economic analysis of No Deal that suggests anything better than that.

Is it really worth losing the entire NHS budget for the foreseeable future to take back control?

[Ldr]

Thanks BST, id be lying if I said it wasn't a concern of course, doesn't change my opinion. I learned a long time ago that there is more to life than money. Money obsession is a distinct thatcherite trait which I am glad to have been able to move on from myself having been there.

[tommy toes]

Yes there is more to life than money but when lack of money means poverty, lack of investment in vital services such as the NHS and Social Care and job losses then it becomes a bit more of a problem.

[Ldr]

Indeed mate, which is a concern

[Bentley Bullet]

BST. What exactly do you want then?

[BillyStubbsTears]

LDR.

I respect that opinion. But I'm with Tommy on this.

Don't think of it as money. Think of it as the ability of the country to do things.

No one younger than 90 in the UK has any comprehension of what the effect of losing 8-9% of GDP would be on society. It hasn't happened for over 80 years.

But look at the 80/81 recession. We lost 2% of GDP for less than a year. The effect was a tripling of unemployment. Public service funding slashed. Massive societal tensions.

No deal would make that look like sweetness and light. If you are not concerned by that, to be blunt, you've not properly thought about it.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I want us to have a properly informed public discussion where the REALITY of the various forms of leave are set out. Not the unicorns and candyfloss versions  that were irresponsibly peddled in 2016.

Personally, I'd like to see the result of that being Britain getting over its emotional spasm, realising that our best interests are staying in the EU, and moving on.

But that's just my preference. If the country decided through a properly informed choice to leave in whatever way, I'd accept that.

[Bentley Bullet]

BST. Before the referendum, leaflets were sent out to every household in the country explaining the negatives of leaving the EU. The referendum had two choices, leave or remain. The majority of voters chose to leave.

We've heard nowt but 'properly informed discussion' ever since. The Leavers have been told time and time again that they are thick, stupid idiots who have been conned.

Despite this, 'experts' claim that another vote now would result in an even larger leave majority, and the Leavers reluctance to have had to risk losing a vote they previously won, and with nothing whatsoever to gain in doing so, wouldn't this change the face of democracy as we know it?

I believe even if the Leavers won again, it would. I also believe if the Leavers lost there would be unprecedented political unrest.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB

BB.

Regardless of that leaflet the Leave side comprehensively won the popular argument about the pros and cons of Brexiteers in 2016. But they did that by hammering on points which we now know we're fundamentally incorrect:
-We'll get a brilliant deal with the EU.
-We'll be economically better off.
-We'll save £350m/week which can go to the NHS.
-If we don't leave, 80million Turks are coming to a place near you.

I'm not saying people were thick to fall for that. I'm saying the Leave campaign knowingly, systematically and consistently peddled lies. Very skillfully.  And NOW we know they were lies. We have a far clearer idea of what the truths of Brexit are. So it is illogical to say that re-visiting the decision from a point of more understanding is somehow a crime against democracy.

And that's before you factor in the illegal actions of the Leave campaign in deliberately profiling a number of vulnerable people who they deliberately poured lies at through social media. And before you factor in the Kremlin pouring money into the Leave campaign.

Any single one of those points is grounds enough for calling for a re-visiting of the decision.

As for unrest, it might happen. It's more likely to if people pre-justify it. If you're really saying we shouldn't have a democratic process because the people who lose might get violent, you might want to consider your take on democracy. (And I'm using "you" generally here, not specifically aimed at you, before we get the "condescending" argument ressurected.)

[Bentley Bullet]

BST.

Regardless of your disregard of the one-sided leaflets that were sent through everyone's letterbox, If you believe leave votes were won because of the NHS bus advert and the Turks joining, do you also believe there were votes won for remain by the threats of an immediate recession, punishment budget, and pension cuts?

In view of the new 'facts' that have appeared since the first vote, Why do you think there are strong opinions of a greater majority of Leave voters should there be another vote?

[Axholme Lion]

BST.

I'll say again. The Leave vote was to leave! Leavers were voting to leave. The definition of leave is depart from, go away from, go from, withdraw from, retire from, take oneself off from, exit from, take one's leave of, pull out of, quit, be gone from, decamp from, disappear from, abandon, vacate, absent oneself from, evacuate.

That is the definition (I believe) the Leavers based their decision to leave.

That is EXACTLY what I thought I was voting for! I'm pretty sure everyone I know thought the same. I don't recall anything about doing deals before the vote. I thought it was simple in or out.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB.

We've been through this so many times, I'm a bit weary of it now. But it's important so I'll repeat it. Again.

1) We DID have a sharp economic slowdown as a result of the Leave vote. We didn't tip into recession because there was an unexpected global mini-boom that cushioned us, but our economic performance relative to Germany, France, Japan, Italy, Canada, USA etc has slipped by several % of GDP, and we WOULD have been in official recession conditions without the cushion of the global boom. But the fundamental issue is the same. The Brexit vote HAS hugely hit our economic performance, just as it was predicted to do.

2) The Brexit vote DID have a seriously detrimental effect on public finances. Before 2016, the aim was that the budget deficit would be eliminated by 2019/20. The current projections are that it won't be eliminated until 2025. Hammond, as Chancellor, chose to address that by a long, slow, grinding programme of suppressed Govt spending, rather than Osborne's stupid threat to do it in a single hit, but the fundamental argument is still the same. The Brexit vote HAS f**ked the Govt finances, just as it was predicted to do.

3) As for the Govt leaflet. Which predictions in that were wrong? I've just gone back and re-read it. You can too. It's here. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=2ahUKEwiA-Lqz2vffAhUmRBUIHdVMBgcQFjABegQIChAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.publishing.service.gov.uk%2Fgovernment%2Fuploads%2Fsystem%2Fuploads%2Fattachment_data%2Ffile%2F515068%2Fwhy-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2vwlBk5mBWzwPDSS3zhlGQ
Tell me which bits have been demonstrated to be lies. On a par with the £350m or the Turkish immigration claims of Leave.

4) I don't know whose these opinions are, predicting a greater majority of Leave voters in Ref2. But that's irrelevant anyway. My argument is that the electorate were consistently and deliberately lied to by one side in 2016. And that alone means that Ref2 is a sensible democratic choice. If Leave wins that, then grand. The electorate may well choose to commit economic suicide, but at least it will be doing so from a position of knowing what it is doing this time.

[Bentley Bullet]

BST, I'm sick and tired of repeating myself too.

WE DID NOT HAVE AN IMMEDIATE RECESSION.


What we did have immediately was an economic slowdown that was expected by BOTH Remainers and Leavers.

You can argue until you're blue in the face but what matters is what the people of the country think. Let's see who's more in touch with the majority opinion.

If only to settle this once and all, let's have what you demand. Let's have a re-vote. Let's see who wins!

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB.

You do yourself a dis-service by this silliness. You're a lot smarter than that.

Here's an analogy for your take. You are considering jumping out of an aircraft without a parachute. Someone tells you that you will fall at 100mph if you do.

You jump out of the plane. There's an unexpected updraft. You only fall at 50mph. You turn round and shout, "f**king useless prediction."

[Bentley Bullet]

BST, that's an analogy based on past experience of the consequences of jumping out of a plane without a parachute. No one has such a negative experience of the consequences of leaving the EU.

It's not a question of how smart or thick I am, it's about how the majority of the country perceive the situation.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Yes, BB. Of course no one has experience of the precise effect of a country leaving the EU.

But the topic of the effect of making trade easier or harder with other countries is a very well established area of economics research. So you can draw pretty robust general conclusions.

The Treasury forecast in 2016 was that the effect of a Leave vote would be to produce a drop in GDP of about 3.6% over two years compared to voting Remain. Since 2016, we HAVE lost something like that amount compared to the growth that other leading economies have experienced. They have seen GDP growth increase over that time. Ours has fallen.

The predictions were broadly correct. Unlike the key promises of the Leave campaign which have all been shown to be piss and wind.

And I agree that it's the perception of the majority that matters. Which is why it's so important that people don't continue to peddle falsehoods.

[Bentley Bullet]

You seem to me to overemphasize the impact the leave campaign had on the Leavers. In my opinion, the vast majority of people had made their mind up to leave not because of Turkey joining and an NHS bus advert being displayed, but largely because of immigration control and sovereignty.

I don't see what will have convinced those people to have changed their minds now, and perhaps their number may even have increased, not least because of the attitude of many of the Remainers.

This can be confirmed by the apparent increased support to leave now.

[BillyStubbsTears]

So BB. That poll in the week of the vote that showed that 48% of voters thought the £350m/week claim was correct?

And...why would Putin pour money into paying for Leave's social media campaign of lies if it was pointless? Why would Dominic Cummings stick £3m to Cambridge Analytica to identify people who were vulnerable to having lies pumped into their Facebook feed?

You reckon they were all wasting their time and everyone had made up their minds?

[BillyStubbsTears]

And WHAT increase in support to leave? The polls are going very strongly the other way.

[IDM]

You seem to me to overemphasize the impact the leave campaign had on the Leavers. In my opinion, the vast majority of people had made their mind up to leave not because of Turkey joining and an NHS bus advert being displayed, but largely because of immigration control and sovereignty.

I don't see what will have convinced those people to have changed their minds now, and perhaps their number may even have increased, not least because of the attitude of many of the Remainers.

This can be confirmed by the apparent increased support to leave now.

I get that people may have voted leave simply on the premise of sovereignty - and that is certainly more understandable than immigration issues.

However how many people who voted due to sovereignty would now be pissed off with how the leave process is working out..?

[Bentley Bullet]

Perhaps you have to be one of them to understand their thinking.

I suspect many of them will be well pissed off, along with many Remainers. Some of them might even take a different view on the EU because of its 'Virgin Broadband' like difficulty in terminating contracts!

[RedJ]

It isn't the terminating the contracts that's the difficulty though. We're asking for 300mb super fast fibre broadband while saying "nah f**k yous we're only paying for a phone line from now on".

[Bentley Bullet]

Are we?

[RedJ]

Aye.

[Bentley Bullet]

Have we tried Talk Talk or won't Jeremy agree to that?

[Bentley Bullet]

So BB. That poll in the week of the vote that showed that 48% of voters thought the £350m/week claim was correct?

You portray the poll as though 48% of leavers voted because of the bus slogan! I'm surprised you think the thick, stupid, misinformed, selfish Leavers would have the integrity to care about the future of the NHS.
 


And...why would Putin pour money into paying for Leave's social media campaign of lies if it was pointless? Why would Dominic Cummings stick £3m to Cambridge Analytica to identify people who were vulnerable to having lies pumped into their Facebook feed?

You reckon they were all wasting their time and everyone had made up their minds?

Do you honestly think many vulnerable Facebook people needed persuading to vote leave? Even if it's ever proved true I reckon it was £3 million quid wasted. Give me strength.

 

[BillyStubbsTears]

You've lost me entirely BB. I think you're losing yourself.

You keep on getting really confused on this issue.

There's no real complexity to leaving the EU if we want to leave with no deal. It's relatively simple. The EU won't stop us from doing that.

What they WILL do is to refuse to negotiate a preferential trade agreement with us if we just walk away, because us walking away would very badly affect one of their members, Ireland.

Why do you keep raising this claim that the EU are making it difficult for us to leave? If we are so boneheadedly stupid as to want to leave with a trade agreement, the EU would not stop us.  But not would they help us out of the catastrophic economic consequences of such a decision.

Where's the problem in that?

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB

I don't think they needed convincing to SUPPORT Leave. I think they needed a final push to get out and VOTE Leave.

That's the whole point of that advertising campaign. They targeted people whose viewing habits suggested they were anti-EU but who normally didn't vote. They egged them on to vote by lying to them.

That's not my opinion. You could check for yourself instead of assuming I'm trying to blather you. It's what the man who ran the f**king campaign is on record as saying.