Jump to content

The now-enacted will of (some of) the people


blandy

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, bickster said:

So far I've seen headlines of £166m Brexit Tax for Credit Card users and Air BnB (and other online companies) facing a Price Hike Post Brexit

I'm presuming that's Uber ballsed up too being as you pay them in the Netherlands

What about the big bus ?

"Cash Cow in bus form, 350m a week" the man said. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicked from David Allan Green:

"...the papers include several examples of esoteric changes that would be necessary in a no-deal situation. For example, the UK would need to introduce its own cigarette packet warnings because Brussels owns the copyright to those used at present"

So it's literally being done on the back of a fag packet.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Genie said:

Such a mess. There's going to be people dying in hospitals being told its as a result of Brexit, I'm sure of it.

It'll effect cancer treatments due to the decision to leave Euratom meaning reduced access to radioactive materials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Genie said:

Loads of stuff coming out now that would have been really useful BEFORE the nation decided what to do.

Of course, yet I wonder if it would have made a blind bit of difference in the face of "project fear" claims, because I suspect (from the sample of leave voters I know) that they didn't vote leave based on economic impact papers or claims, but on other issues - immigration, sovereignty, and all that - intangible arguments, mostly. I genuinely only know two people who used rational argument to back up their position to leave - one of them is @Awol on here, and another is a work colleague. All the others, and there are plenty, were more emotion based. And for those you can't use reason to get them from a position they got to without using reasoning.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, blandy said:

Of course, yet I wonder if it would have made a blind bit of difference in the face of "project fear" claims, because I suspect (from the sample of leave voters I know) that they didn't vote leave based on economic impact papers or claims, but on other issues - immigration, sovereignty, and all that - intangible arguments, mostly. I genuinely only know two people who used rational argument to back up their position to leave - one of them is @Awol on here, and another is a work colleague. All the others, and there are plenty, were more emotion based. And for those you can't use reason to get them from a position they got to without using reasoning.

That is all true, but given just how tight the vote was, a well planned and delivered remain campaign with solid facts about the potential life after Brexit might have got 1) those who didn’t vote to vote remain and 2) some of the borderline brexiteers to switch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of today's advice is for pharmacies etc to simply stock an additional 6 weeks of medicines just in case.

Finally, a good use for all that empty storage space that hospitals and pharmacies have had knocking around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Genie said:

That is all true, but given just how tight the vote was, a well planned and delivered remain campaign with solid facts about the potential life after Brexit might have got 1) those who didn’t vote to vote remain and 2) some of the borderline brexiteers to switch.

Even now, after everything, this is basically a version of “if only we’d explained a bit harder how terrible leaving would be, Remain would’ve won.” No. That was laid on by the ton before the vote, so blood curdling that it became a bit of a joke. We still voted to leave. Fear didn’t and doesn’t work. 

What Remain failed to do then and is still failing to do now is articulate a positive vision of the future in the EU. Where’s it going to be in 10 years or 20 years, what are the institutions going to look like? Where are the borders going to be, where will it end? Will expansion end? How are they going to fix the Eurozone? 

There’s a bucket full of genuine and valid questions Leave voters had that are completely ignored by a Remain campaign, who never tried to win the argument with anything positive. 

Now they are pushing for a 2nd referendum with exactly the same game plan. Not a single serious Remain leader has asked why they lost and tried to work forward from there. It’s ridiculous. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Awol said:

Even now, after everything, this is basically a version of “if only we’d explained a bit harder how terrible leaving would be, Remain would’ve won.” No. That was laid on by the ton before the vote, so blood curdling that it became a bit of a joke. We still voted to leave. Fear didn’t and doesn’t work. 

What Remain failed to do then and is still failing to do now is articulate a positive vision of the future in the EU. Where’s it going to be in 10 years or 20 years, what are the institutions going to look like? Where are the borders going to be, where will it end? Will expansion end? How are they going to fix the Eurozone? 

There’s a bucket full of genuine and valid questions Leave voters had that are completely ignored by a Remain campaign, who never tried to win the argument with anything positive. 

Now they are pushing for a 2nd referendum with exactly the same game plan. Not a single serious Remain leader has asked why they lost and tried to work forward from there. It’s ridiculous. 

 

There are loads of positive reasons for being in the EU. It’s just that what someone like me sees as a positive (free movement of people and goods, regulations to curb the worst excesses of conservative governments etc) a lot of other people actually see as negatives :P

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

There are loads of positive reasons for being in the EU. It’s just that what someone like me sees as a positive (free movement of people and goods, regulations to curb the worst excesses of conservative governments etc) a lot of other people actually see as negatives :P

We need a foreign institution to “curb the worst excesses” of the people we freely elect to represent us?

Brexit in a nutshell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Awol said:

We need a foreign institution to “curb the worst excesses” of the people we freely elect to represent us?

Brexit in a nutshell.

'Freely'.

We both know this is disingenuous.

The voting system means we rarely actually get who we voted for representatively. 

Which I guess is why more voted in the ref. However, we need a serious middle ground. Both FPTP and Direct Democracy are awful. Going off topic though.

Edited by StefanAVFC
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Awol said:

We need a foreign institution to “curb the worst excesses” of the people we freely elect to represent us?

Brexit in a nutshell.

In the UK you currently elect EU mps to represent your interests in Europe yet don’t elect the members of the House of Lords. A lot of Brexiteers who campaigned for democracy reasons seem perfectly happy with that paradox. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also where is the answer for Northern Ireland?

1) Soft Brexit between EU and UK and no border between NI and I

2) Hard border between NI and I. Breaks the GF agreement.

3) No border between NI and I and hard border between NI and the rest of the UK. Also inconceivable. 

I don't see how there's any other option and I don't see how any of these options are realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â