Brexit...

[MikeO]

7 minutes ago, RPG said:

Sometimes, free trials are geo specific. Can you not get one?

I don't need or want one.

[Palfy]

How much has Rusty since first joining this site contributed in donations to keep it running, being how successful he is I should imagine a fair sum, and the fact he is a long standing supporter he would be regular contributor. 
Rusty would you like to divulge how much you have donated, or is it nothing. 

[MikeO]

1 minute ago, RPG said:

You allege I didn't mention numbets until Johnh got involved.

Yes, I did and I proved it. Just take the trouble to read my posts.

Can you link the post for me please because I can't find it; something from you, not the FT.

Are we still forgetting Clark?

[MikeO]

2 minutes ago, RPG said:

Mike, Please read the above post I made SLOWLY.

The post was made before Johnh got involved and clearly states, inter alia,

'It was the biggest single democratic exercise BY NUMBER

I'm not remotely surprised to discover that that is an edited post, and I'm sorry but having read this thread regularly for many years and taken a huge interest in it I have no hesitation in calling you out as a liar who made the edit after John's contribution because I'm not daft enough to have missed it. Why would John have felt the need to point it out and why would you have thanked him for clarifying had you already done so? I call bullshit, sorry. 

[MikeO]

10 minutes ago, RPG said:

Mike, Please read the above post I made SLOWLY.

I don't get angry often but you really are a condescending cunt.

[Palfy]

13 minutes ago, RPG said:

My finances are really none of your business Pal, are they. Maybe if you contributed the cost of just one of the three bottles you seem to be so proud that you knocked back earlier the site would be better off and you wouldn't have such a thick head and be able post in a more polite and constructive manner.

So as I thought fuck all you parasite. 

[Palfy]

4 minutes ago, RPG said:

Well, that will certainly get me putting my hand in my pocket won't it?

FWIW I think the mods do a great job on here, but I won't be contributing to a site which has such rude people as you on board Pal.

Which part of 'polite social engagement' do you have most trouble understanding?

The fact is you have never contributed and have never had any intention to contribute. 
 

[pete0]

14 minutes ago, RPG said:

Well, that will certainly get me putting my hand in my pocket won't it?

FWIW I think the mods do a great job on here, but I won't be contributing to a site which has such rude people as you on board Pal.

Which part of 'polite social engagement' do you have most trouble understanding?

Or is the Rijoca still talking?

You've come crawling back here after every other site wouldn't put up with you. Might be time to look inward, if you're capable of doing so. 

[MikeO]

8 hours ago, RPG said:

Fair enough, if that is the case, but a difference of less than 100,000 in almost 34 million is very tiny and I believe the FT reference also referred to the amount of build up, advertising, hustings, publicity stunts etc, that were associated with it. The FT definitely called it the single biggest democratic exercise in our electoral history and they are not the sort of paper to be wrong on that sort of thing - notwithstanding your well researched figures above.

If, as you suggest, you had already noted the "number" issue twelve hours ago, why did you not mention it in this post four hours later? Bit of a missed slam-dunk. You run a list of reasons but don't touch on the defining one.

Still calling bullshit, edited to pretend John didn't rescue you, no doubt in my mind.

[Palfy]

31 minutes ago, pete0 said:

You've come crawling back here after every other site wouldn't put up with you. Might be time to look inward, if you're capable of doing so. 

Your completely right Pete we can all see it. 

[MikeO]

19 minutes ago, RPG said:

If you are springloaded to the 'distrust' position I can't do anything about that.

I'm quite the opposite, I take people at their word every time; and my wife hates how open and honest I am in the other direction. When I can see blatant falsehoods from others it annoys me. You know and I know the timescale of what happened, other members active in this thread can draw their own conclusions.

Still nothing on Kenneth Clark I'm guessing? Let me know when you find something.

[StevO]

4 hours ago, RPG said:

Ok, let me try this another way. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I have no doubt that there was impropriety on both sides and, most certainly, constitutional impropriety on the part of the least impartial Speaker of the House in history and the MPs who employed some very constitutionally questionable tactics in Parliament (aided and abetted by said Speaker) to do nothing other than try to block brexit despite (with only a few exceptions) not having the cojones to declare their true intentions and not being able to come up with a single, credible, alternative plan. Is that not improper behaviour in public office?

So it’s not ok to do questionable things in the public arena, but to do them in secret online is ok? Just trying to clarify the viewpoint of what is on and what isn’t. Because so far I keep seeing that what was done online isn’t really that bad? Or am I wrong here?

[StevO]

4 minutes ago, RPG said:

Of course not Steve. But I think you are dealing with the issues on an idealistic level and I am possibly approaching them from a more practical level. Just as we know there will be fouls in a football match (including the cynical 'taking one for the team)  so we should, I suggest, understand that politics is a far dirtier game than football. On an idealistic level, I agree with you 100% but, unfortunately, the world is not ideal.

I don’t see why my view is idealistic and yours is practical, it’s not like this is something politicians have done for decades. This is new territory, and it’s illegal. There is nothing idealistic about expecting politicians to obey the law. 
Let me ask two questions. 
1, do you condone what Leave.eu did with Cambridge Analytica/AggregateIQ/Facebook?

2, of Remain did the same and they won the vote would you be happy about that?

[Palfy]

2 minutes ago, RPG said:

Perhaps I can answer both questions like this.

I am equally uncondoning of the way that both Leave and Remain conducted their campaigns, but not in the least bit surprised.

You are right that this is new territory but it is also, sadly, consistent with and just mirroring declining standards across all strata of society.

This thread is obviously about brexit, but brexit is merely one symptom of a much bigger problem that needs addressing if we wish for UK to remain a democracy.

How can a democracy be based on lies, I personally don’t think anyone on here likes you due to your pompous facist bigotry lies. 
So let’s put my theory to the test let’s have TT Exit based on who the members want to stay or leave out of you and me, it will be a secret ballot very democratic which you like, and after all let’s be honest if everything you have said about me is true you should win this hands down. 
If this is acceptable with you the mods can organise it. 

[MikeO]

17 minutes ago, RPG said:

Get this resolved first Mike. I speak the truth and am happy for the mods to prove it.

Disappointed that you adopt such a distristing attitude, but let the mods resolve it shall we?

Can't be proved or otherwise as the control panel has no info time-wise on the edits you made. I'm just going on what I saw; it may well be that your (unarguable) edit was made after I'd read your initial post, and the fact that you fell in line with John after his contribution and not before is a bit of a smoking gun.

Easy to say, "I speak the truth" and then peddle a fallacious (unless you've come up with a reputable source) Kenneth Clark lie I'm sure. 

[MikeO]

1 minute ago, RPG said:

I do speak the truth Mike.

You speak your truth which is a bit different.

[Bailey]

On 06/10/2019 at 19:54, MikeO said:

I agree completely that was the case for a large proportion of the electorate, it certainly was for me and I respect anyone who voted leave on that basis. Problem for me (here we go round in circles again) is that the leave vote was carried by by people who don't know what "philosophical" means and were driven by the lies and the tabloids. Xenophobes and racists carried the day/swung the balance.

I think anyone intelligent who argues for Brexit and doesn't acknowledge that is being disingenuous.

You wouldn't know for certain but there it is probably that it swung a certain percentage. There would have also been a percentage (albeit less) that would have been swung by the comments of say Obama, the BoE or any ofurther he other forecasters and of the other misrepresentations of the remain campaign as well. Either way there is little evidence that I have seen that says that even after however long it has been since the vote that things will change. There is still the same BS floating around on social media for both sides, sound bites from many politicians, mainstream media portraying a story in a certain way to support their own  narrative. 

I don't deny that the vote might swing the other way but the margin of victory will still be small and that would create even more bedlam.

On 08/10/2019 at 09:00, Matt said:

Which is why it was never a question for the population. If this has been proposed a project, with a clear plan, I’d have much less of an issue. Still disagree with it but at least there’d be actual facts to work on

anyway, apologies but I’m trying to take a break from all this. Found out yesterday that I will be unemployed by end of January next year and moving back is a possibility/probability.

I agree, it was a ridiculous decision.

Sorry to hear about the job as well mate. Redundancies are tough at the best of times, never mind when you have to relocate. Hopefully it will all work out for you and your family. 

On 09/10/2019 at 18:38, Sibdane said:

I've been reading this thread for awhile now without making any comment, but the one thing I can add is that just because something was "democratically" elected doesn't mean that it should be an absolute. That's why we have term limits, because things change. Look at the USA and Trump. He won an election, but there is a reason why he'll have to go up for re-election; people change their minds when they can see the true effect of a particular outcome.

Just my thoughts.  

 

I do largely agree, I am just not sure how it will go down with the voters. If they had done it quickly after the vote, they might have got away with whitewashing the result but now, after all the division, changing tack is going to split the country even further.

[MikeO]

7 minutes ago, RPG said:

No Mike, I speak THE truth.

I bow at your feet then.

Apologies for being so ill informed.

Kenneth Clark?

[StevO]

1 hour ago, RPG said:

Perhaps I can try to answer both questions like this.

I am equally uncondoning of the way that both Leave and Remain conducted their campaigns, but not in the least bit surprised.

You are right that this is new territory but it is also, sadly, consistent with, and just mirroring, declining standards across all strata of society.

This thread is obviously about brexit, but brexit is merely one symptom of a much bigger problem that needs addressing if we wish for UK to remain a democracy.

I’d rather you just actually answer the questions how they were asked to be honest. This appears to be a trait of yours so not very surprised. 

[Palfy]

5 hours ago, StevO said:

I’d rather you just actually answer the questions how they were asked to be honest. This appears to be a trait of yours so not very surprised. 

I’d rather he wasn’t here to be given the opportunity to answer any questions. 

[StevO]

2 hours ago, RPG said:

I tthought I had answered your questions. It is much more complicated than a binary yes/no and I was trying to provide context too.

So you do condone it, and if remain did the same and won the vote you would be happy with that?

[Matt]

So to summarize, and ignoring the bickering (Palfy, cut it out. Rusty may be frustrating as all, bordering on trolling, but you've been out of line several time), but let's see

a) that's not how democracy works in the UK (representative vs direct)

b) millions were actively denied a vote, who were of age to do so

c) we can choose our representative in the EU, and therefore have a say, but because of representative democracy people don't get an individual voice there's some sense of indvidual sorrow. oh, and there's more voices

d) remain exaggerated (debatable) whereas leave flat out lied

e) we have complete control over borders, provided they're actually funded

f) we've actually been trading as we like anyway

g) not in Schengen

it was democratic because;

a) the people spoke...

b) once you've collectively made a decision, it's final

c).... another misguided opinion, not fact, here

 

that where we're at?

[johnh]

If there is a second referendum then the option must be the same as the first referendum, ie Remain or Leave.  However, I think the options are going to be gerrymandered by the Remain Parliament eg  May's deal or Remain say, resulting in a 'rock  or hard place' choice for Leavers.  Doesn't surprise me as democracy seems to be selective in the Remain camp these days.

[Matt]

4 minutes ago, johnh said:

If there is a second referendum then the option must be the same as the first referendum, ie Remain or Leave.  However, I think the options are going to be gerrymandered by the Remain Parliament eg  May's deal or Remain say, resulting in a 'rock  or hard place' choice for Leavers.  Doesn't surprise me as democracy seems to be selective in the Remain camp these days.

No, it shouldn't. That helps no one

1) Remain - as is

2) Remain - with a plan to improve

3) No deal

4) Deal to leave (thats already idenitified

After all this time, John, you still don't get what democracy means...

[StevO]

2 hours ago, RPG said:

I do not condone anything that has potential or intent to mislead the electorate. But it is important to point out (context) that both sides were as bad as each other and that, democracy, whilst by no means perfect is by far the best system we have to run UK.

Maybe I can turn the situation around by asking you a question.

Are you happy that if there was a second referendum (highly unlikely) that both sides will behave impeccably? And if the answer to that question is No, does it not destroy any argument along the lines of impropriety for a second referendum? The legal challenges would just roll on and on, probably into a third and fourth referendum. All of that would take time that we haven't got but would suit the Remain side nicely.

You keep pointing out about both sides, but that’s not an argument as only one side have been found to have broken the law. So I don’t see where you are coming from. 
 

To answer your question, I don’t expect politicians to act impeccably. What I do expect them to do is not break the law. I expect that of everyone. That’s why we have laws. 

[Matt]

1 minute ago, RPG said:

Thanks Matt, but I am sure Palfy is just venting a bit. No offence taken at all. I actually found it quite entertaining.

Well good, but still it was out of line

[MikeO]

15 hours ago, RPG said:

Most of my posts are therefore edited purely to correct spelling mistakes.

Of course they are.

14 hours ago, RPG said:

You plank Palfy. That is not how either democracy or this board works. F the mods want me gone, I'm gone. Simple as that. Bit I am not the one using foul language and putting petsonal insults and vitriol into every post.

That's you Pal.

 

5 hours ago, RPG said:

I tthought I had answered your questions. It is much more complicated than a binary yes/no and I was trying to provide context too.

 

14 hours ago, RPG said:

No Mike, I speak THE truth. I have not edited the post you referred to in any way other than to correct spelling mistakes.

I can debate points with people who have very diffetent points of view without any problem, but there is no point in either of us continuing the debate if we can't trust each other to be honest.

Like I say, Up to you.

 

[StevO]

1 minute ago, RPG said:

It is possible to unfairly and immorally influence a vote without breaking the law.

For instance, did Project Fear break the law when they scare mongered about 800,000 nstant job losses if we dared to vote leave? Did Project Fear break the law when they stated that an immediate austerity budget would take place if we just voted leave? That was all false and immoral but a gray area from a legal point of view.

yes it’s possible to do them things without breaking the law. 
 

the scaremongering from remain didn’t break the law. The scaremongering from leave did. I can’t be more clear. 
 

The phrase project fear is ridiculous in itself. Strange how the side that caused more fear in individuals directly didn’t manage to pick up that name, but then they did it in secret whereas the others did it in plain sight. 
 

Ive got to be honest, I’ve wasted too much time talking about this with you. I’ve tried to not get pulled back in a few times, but as you can tell I don’t manage that very well. I honestly think your morals around all of this are questionable at best, I think you are so hell bent on getting out (with little effect to you or your lifestyle) that you are not bothered how the result came about as long as it’s the result you want. I don’t deal well with people like that, so I will keep trying to stay out of this. Me and you are just too far apart on what we expect of people and our morals. Can’t promise I’ll stay away, but I’ll be trying. 

[StevO]

2 minutes ago, RPG said:

Breaking the law is one thing that at least one side did, whether the other did still remains to be seen, but both sides used underhand tactics to unfairly and immorally try to effect the outcome. For instance, the government allegedly tried to extend the voting cut off time by a couple of days as they thought it would get more remain votes by doing so. Is that fair or moral?

You keep saying it remains to be seen, no one is actively looking into whether remain broke the law. I don’t even know where you get this from. 
 

they tried to extend the time, but they didn’t. it would be neither unfair or immoral if it was extended, if more remainers votes then more leave voters would have turned up too. But as you said “allegedly” tried to do this, leave didn’t allegedly break the law, they actually did. 
And if the result is as it was meant to be then it would have made no difference would it?

You are so scared that if the referendum happened again that remain would win aren’t you? It’s almost like you’re petrified of another referendum. I think you fully expect that remain would win and that is why you are no far against doing it again. You got the result you wanted by hook or by crook, fuck everyone else, we won and that’s all that matters. As I said, I question your morals and I need to stay away from this, I don’t do well with people like you. Too much negativity for me. 

[Palfy]

43 minutes ago, Matt said:

Well good, but still it was out of line

No it wasn’t and if you wish to talk about me at least refer it to me. 
And not discuss me with a twat.