PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Brexit,, Wilson V Prime Minister ( Dec 7th )
little-freddie
post Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 08:44
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 183
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
From: Mansfield
Member No.: 5,071




Ok, Leagle Eagles,... I've tried to wade through this,... simple question, Does this have wings?? Can it fly???


http://www.croftsolicitors.com/wp-content/...nt-of-Facts.pdf
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 08:44
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
progbloke
post Wed, 7 Nov 2018 - 13:18
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 299
Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Member No.: 3,329



My vote (and I suspect that of many others) was based solely on the issues. It had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how either campaign was funded. Nor did I have some shady Russian spy poking a gun in the small of my back as I marked the paper.

One thing that puzzles me about all these Remoaner trolls is that their apparent reluctance to embrace one of the great benefits this EUtopia offers - the freedom to live and work in any one of 28 countries. What better time for them to exercise their rights under this? Then they can remain in the EU while the rest of us leave and join the other 170 sovereign nations who manage perfectly well in their own way without being beholden to a corrupt and sclerotic dictatorship.

After all how many Ukrainians, Latvians and Croatians are still hankering for the USSR and Yugoslavia?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 7 Nov 2018 - 14:52
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,930
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



The issues, based on which facts? The ones in memes created by the Russian agencies? Or the lies (£350M a week for the NHS) told by the official campaign.

It’s easy for anyone to say on the issues and then dig and find that the issue they though was an issue wasn’t in fact one at all.

I’m not saying that just applies to the exiters either, nor necessarily to you, but they do have an impact however small. Whichever side and whatever the result misinformation is anti democratic.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 - 14:53


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fredd
post Wed, 7 Nov 2018 - 15:01
Post #23


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 7,170
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



The funding, or the targeting of social media messages, only affect the distribution of information, not its content. Nobody is being prosecuted for the accuracy of the information they provided, which I suggest is just as well for both the Leave and Remain campaigns.


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Steve_999
post Wed, 7 Nov 2018 - 18:00
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,043
Joined: 12 Jun 2008
From: West Sussex
Member No.: 20,304



QUOTE (Fredd @ Wed, 7 Nov 2018 - 15:01) *
The funding, or the targeting of social media messages, only affect the distribution of information, not its content. Nobody is being prosecuted for the accuracy of the information they provided, which I suggest is just as well for both the Leave and Remain campaigns.


Indeed, the cr@p spouted by the Remain Campaign almost pushed me to vote Leave!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DastardlyDick
post Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 08:13
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,557
Joined: 12 May 2012
Member No.: 54,871



I believe that there should be a second referendum, if on!y because so much information about the possible consequences, both positive and negative, has become available to the general public in the two years since the original one - especially the "mistake" that there won't be a £350m bonus for the NHS ( or anything else) after all!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 11:26
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,550
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (DastardlyDick @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 08:13) *
I believe that there should be a second referendum, if on!y because so much information about the possible consequences, both positive and negative, has become available to the general public in the two years since the original one - especially the "mistake" that there won't be a £350m bonus for the NHS ( or anything else) after all!

You could equally argue that we should leave and have another vote a couple of years after Brexit, because we'll have so much more information on the medium term consequences of leaving. You could equally say we should have the next vote after 20 years, as we'll have so much more information about the long term consequences.

In all seriousness though, we had a 41 years gap between the last referenda on this topic, so the next one should be help in 2057, which I would fully support.

Just as for the Scottish vote, they voted to join the UK in 1706, they held a referendum 2014 so the next vote should be in the year 2322, which again I would not be averse to.

The unfortunate problem is some people think that if a referendum doesn't go their way there should be a re-run before the outcome of the first referendum even comes into effect. Just look at how the Irish were forced to re-vote on the Lisbon treaty.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 12:56
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,930
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 11:26) *
Just as for the Scottish vote, they voted to join the UK in 1706, they held a referendum 2014 so the next vote should be in the year 2322, which again I would not be averse to.

Except the 2014 referendum was 35 years after the 1979 one, so by your logic the next is surely due in 2049?

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 12:57


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 13:53
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,999
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 11:26) *
QUOTE (DastardlyDick @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 08:13) *
I believe that there should be a second referendum, if on!y because so much information about the possible consequences, both positive and negative, has become available to the general public in the two years since the original one - especially the "mistake" that there won't be a £350m bonus for the NHS ( or anything else) after all!

You could equally argue that we should leave and have another vote a couple of years after Brexit, because we'll have so much more information on the medium term consequences of leaving. You could equally say we should have the next vote after 20 years, as we'll have so much more information about the long term consequences.

Sure, fill yer boots. Of course, a referendum held after Brexit would not be about Brexit at all, but about re-joining the EU on rather different terms--terms less favourable than the ones we have now. I'm not sure I'd vote to re-join under those circumstances, but it does rather depend on how things go outside the EU during the interim. But unlike the "one person, one vote, one time" Brexiteers, I don't fear the outcome of another vote (provided it's not just a re-run of the same stupid question).

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 14:08
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,550
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 12:56) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 11:26) *
Just as for the Scottish vote, they voted to join the UK in 1706, they held a referendum 2014 so the next vote should be in the year 2322, which again I would not be averse to.

Except the 2014 referendum was 35 years after the 1979 one, so by your logic the next is surely due in 2049?

I stand corrected, you're quite right, let's have another referendum in 2049. Would help the in campaign as it's article 49 you would use to re-join.

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 13:53) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 11:26) *
QUOTE (DastardlyDick @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 08:13) *
I believe that there should be a second referendum, if on!y because so much information about the possible consequences, both positive and negative, has become available to the general public in the two years since the original one - especially the "mistake" that there won't be a £350m bonus for the NHS ( or anything else) after all!

You could equally argue that we should leave and have another vote a couple of years after Brexit, because we'll have so much more information on the medium term consequences of leaving. You could equally say we should have the next vote after 20 years, as we'll have so much more information about the long term consequences.

Sure, fill yer boots. Of course, a referendum held after Brexit would not be about Brexit at all, but about re-joining the EU on rather different terms--terms less favourable than the ones we have now. I'm not sure I'd vote to re-join under those circumstances, but it does rather depend on how things go outside the EU during the interim. But unlike the "one person, one vote, one time" Brexiteers, I don't fear the outcome of another vote (provided it's not just a re-run of the same stupid question).

--Churchmouse

It would still be an in-out referendum. I have no problem with another vote being held, what I have a problem with is the idea that another vote should be held before the outcome of the previous vote has been put into effect. It's a bit like saying we should re-run a general election before the winner of the previous one has even had a chance to go to Buckingham Palace to be formally asked to be PM, or in America re-running the presidential election before the president elect has even been sworn in.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DastardlyDick
post Yesterday, 10:14
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,557
Joined: 12 May 2012
Member No.: 54,871



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 11:26) *
QUOTE (DastardlyDick @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 08:13) *
I believe that there should be a second referendum, if on!y because so much information about the possible consequences, both positive and negative, has become available to the general public in the two years since the original one - especially the "mistake" that there won't be a £350m bonus for the NHS ( or anything else) after all!

You could equally argue that we should leave and have another vote a couple of years after Brexit, because we'll have so much more information on the medium term consequences of leaving. You could equally say we should have the next vote after 20 years, as we'll have so much more information about the long term consequences.

In all seriousness though, we had a 41 years gap between the last referenda on this topic, so the next one should be help in 2057, which I would fully support.

Just as for the Scottish vote, they voted to join the UK in 1706, they held a referendum 2014 so the next vote should be in the year 2322, which again I would not be averse to.

The unfortunate problem is some people think that if a referendum doesn't go their way there should be a re-run before the outcome of the first referendum even comes into effect. Just look at how the Irish were forced to re-vote on the Lisbon treaty.


No, I don't think that we should have endless referendums until the result is whatever the majority of the Cabinet wants!
Apart from the £350 million "mistake", I doubt the fishermen who participated in Farage's little stunt on the Thames would have voted "leave" had they known that of the 3 Fisheries Protection Vessels we have, one is hauling refugees out of the Med, and one is mothballed because UK plc can't afford to run it!
Another referendum should (IMO) be held once the full "deal" and it's consequences is known, and accept the result of that.

This post has been edited by DastardlyDick: Yesterday, 10:15
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Yesterday, 10:34
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,999
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 14:08) *
It would still be an in-out referendum. I have no problem with another vote being held, what I have a problem with is the idea that another vote should be held before the outcome of the previous vote has been put into effect. It's a bit like saying we should re-run a general election before the winner of the previous one has even had a chance to go to Buckingham Palace to be formally asked to be PM, or in America re-running the presidential election before the president elect has even been sworn in.

Yours appears to be a rather artificial objection backed up with nonsense analogies, which I shall duly ignore. Why should the people of the UK be prevented from changing their minds whilst it is still possible to do so without serious consequences? Because they should be punished? Or because you just don't want to allow them to do so?

And of course, you wouldn't have proposed this "put the outcome into effect" requirement had there been a 'remain' outcome...

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nigelbb
post Yesterday, 12:40
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,274
Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,602



After the surprise result of 2016 the Brexiteers are terrified of another referendum because they fear the "Voice of the People" will say that the UK will be better off staying in the EU rather than leaving.


--------------------
British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf
Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Yesterday, 12:44
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,550
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 10:34) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 14:08) *
It would still be an in-out referendum. I have no problem with another vote being held, what I have a problem with is the idea that another vote should be held before the outcome of the previous vote has been put into effect. It's a bit like saying we should re-run a general election before the winner of the previous one has even had a chance to go to Buckingham Palace to be formally asked to be PM, or in America re-running the presidential election before the president elect has even been sworn in.

Yours appears to be a rather artificial objection backed up with nonsense analogies, which I shall duly ignore. Why should the people of the UK be prevented from changing their minds whilst it is still possible to do so without serious consequences? Because they should be punished? Or because you just don't want to allow them to do so?

And of course, you wouldn't have proposed this "put the outcome into effect" requirement had there been a 'remain' outcome...

--Churchmouse

I was fully resigned to a remain victory and the only reason I campaigned for leave was so that I would be able to say I did what I could to try and get us out. I have no doubt that had remain won by even 0.1%, David Cameron would have come out of number 10 the next morning with that broad, smug smile on his face and he would have proudly announced the matter was now settled for good because the people of Britain had made a choice to remain in the EU.

Putting the outcome into effect if there had been a remain outcome would have required nothing at all, as it would have been a vote for the status quo. Sure, Nigel Farage might have kept banging the drum but there would have been no serious support for another referendum, for all practical purposes a remain vote in 2016 would have been the end of the matter.

That being the case, a vote for leave must be equally decisive, unless you think a vote for leave is intrinsically worth less than a vote for remain (I don't know, maybe you do?).

QUOTE (nigelbb @ Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 12:40) *
After the surprise result of 2016 the Brexiteers are terrified of another referendum because they fear the "Voice of the People" will say that the UK will be better off staying in the EU rather than leaving.

Having another referendum would make the a mockery of the whole process. You cannot have a meaningful referendum unless all sides agree to accept the outcome, in this respect Alex Salmond was a lot more graceful in 2014 than the remain brigade is being now.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nigelbb
post Yesterday, 12:51
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,274
Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,602



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 13:44) *
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 10:34) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 14:08) *
It would still be an in-out referendum. I have no problem with another vote being held, what I have a problem with is the idea that another vote should be held before the outcome of the previous vote has been put into effect. It's a bit like saying we should re-run a general election before the winner of the previous one has even had a chance to go to Buckingham Palace to be formally asked to be PM, or in America re-running the presidential election before the president elect has even been sworn in.

Yours appears to be a rather artificial objection backed up with nonsense analogies, which I shall duly ignore. Why should the people of the UK be prevented from changing their minds whilst it is still possible to do so without serious consequences? Because they should be punished? Or because you just don't want to allow them to do so?

And of course, you wouldn't have proposed this "put the outcome into effect" requirement had there been a 'remain' outcome...

--Churchmouse

I was fully resigned to a remain victory and the only reason I campaigned for leave was so that I would be able to say I did what I could to try and get us out. I have no doubt that had remain won by even 0.1%, David Cameron would have come out of number 10 the next morning with that broad, smug smile on his face and he would have proudly announced the matter was now settled for good because the people of Britain had made a choice to remain in the EU.

Putting the outcome into effect if there had been a remain outcome would have required nothing at all, as it would have been a vote for the status quo. Sure, Nigel Farage might have kept banging the drum but there would have been no serious support for another referendum, for all practical purposes a remain vote in 2016 would have been the end of the matter.

That being the case, a vote for leave must be equally decisive, unless you think a vote for leave is intrinsically worth less than a vote for remain (I don't know, maybe you do?).

QUOTE (nigelbb @ Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 12:40) *
After the surprise result of 2016 the Brexiteers are terrified of another referendum because they fear the "Voice of the People" will say that the UK will be better off staying in the EU rather than leaving.

Having another referendum would make the a mockery of the whole process. You cannot have a meaningful referendum unless all sides agree to accept the outcome, in this respect Alex Salmond was a lot more graceful in 2014 than the remain brigade is being now.

Why should you be terrified of the "Voice of the People"? In a democracy people are entitled to change their minds especially when the true consequences of their choice becomes apparent. We have elections every five years so we can change our minds.


--------------------
British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf
Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Yesterday, 16:41
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,550
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (nigelbb @ Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 12:51) *
Why should you be terrified of the "Voice of the People"? In a democracy people are entitled to change their minds especially when the true consequences of their choice becomes apparent. We have elections every five years so we can change our minds.

So why didn't we have a referendum in 2011 when the people clearly wanted out more than at any time before or since?

The only thing that is apparent to me is that if remain were to win by 0.1%, there would never, ever be another referendum, even if at some point in future the polls showed a greater majority for leave than in 2011. The simple reason is that the political classes would never allow it / run the risk.

Of course this suits those who think that the outcome of the referendum was wrong and anyone who thinks we'd be better of out is crazy.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Today, 00:42
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,999
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 16:41) *
QUOTE (nigelbb @ Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 12:51) *
Why should you be terrified of the "Voice of the People"? In a democracy people are entitled to change their minds especially when the true consequences of their choice becomes apparent. We have elections every five years so we can change our minds.

So why didn't we have a referendum in 2011 when the people clearly wanted out more than at any time before or since?

The only thing that is apparent to me is that if remain were to win by 0.1%, there would never, ever be another referendum, even if at some point in future the polls showed a greater majority for leave than in 2011. The simple reason is that the political classes would never allow it / run the risk.

Of course this suits those who think that the outcome of the referendum was wrong and anyone who thinks we'd be better of out is crazy.

You know why there was a referendum, don't you? It had nothing to do with polls. The only reason was that it was in the Conservative Party's manifesto (inserted to stop UKIP from bleeding the Tories dry), but the Conservatives didn't hold exclusive power in 2011. It wasn't until 2015 that they were in a position to fulfil that commitment:

QUOTE
It will be a fundamental principle of a future Conservative Government that membership of the European Union depends on the consent of the British people – and in recent years that consent has worn wafer-thin. That’s why, after the election, we will negotiate a new settlement for Britain in Europe, and then ask the British people whether they want to stay in the EU on this reformed basis or leave. David Cameron has committed that he will only lead a government that offers an in-out referendum. We will hold that in-out referendum before the end of 2017 and respect the outcome.

If Remain had managed 51.89%, perhaps Cameron would have danced a jig--who cares--but he has fulfilled the party's 2015 manifesto commitment, and thus would certainly not have considered holding another referendum until the party decided again to require it. But that's water under the bridge.

However, "the people" now seem to want another chance. Saying that would make the result of the advisory referendum less "decisive" is facile. Of course it would--that's the point. If the result had gone the other way--and the sentiment on holding another referendum had also subsequently changed, there would not be any current manifesto commitment to hold another referendum, but if the government was otherwise persuaded to hold another one, I can see no legal or moral reason to deny the people that opportunity.

Similarly, if Brexit were somehow reversed next year, and a party should win another election after promising to hold an "in-out referendum", I would probably vote against it, but I would not be arguing that the issue had been "settled once and for all in 2019".

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bargepole
post Today, 15:17
Post #37


Member
Group Icon

Group: Bad Boyz & Girlz
Posts: 2,008
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
From: High Wycombe
Member No.: 1,353



QUOTE (nigelbb @ Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 12:40) *
After the surprise result of 2016 the Brexiteers are terrified of another referendum because they fear the "Voice of the People" will say that the UK will be better off staying in the EU rather than leaving.

The result in 2016 was no surprise to anyone who follows the polls.

The majority were pointing towards a Leave win in the run up to the referendum, and 'unofficial' polling on sites such as MSE, with a much bigger sample of over 20,000 respondents, were even more strongly pro-Leave.

If it had not been for the murder of MP Jo Cox by a right-wing nutter, and the ill-advised Farage poster, many psephologists believe that the result would have been more like 55-45.

Those now clamouring for a second in-out referendum are convinced that, with two years worth of new voters becoming enfranchised, and some older voters dying off, the result would be reversed.

In the unlikely event of such a referendum, I wouldn't be so sure that the result will be any different.


--------------------
We'll fight them on the roads, we'll fight them in the courts, and we shall never, ever, surrender
Cases Won = 20 (17 as McKenzie Friend) : Cases Lost = 4. Private Parking tickets ignored: 3. Paid: 0.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Today, 15:25
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,930
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (bargepole @ Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 15:17) *
Those now clamouring for a second in-out referendum are convinced that, with two years worth of new voters becoming enfranchised, and some older voters dying off, the result would be reversed.

In the unlikely event of such a referendum, I wouldn't be so sure that the result will be any different.

I'm sure those in favour of a second referendum would argue that they believe the result would be different as the "promised" 'easy' trade deal with the EU has not materialised. Also we now have admissions that the '£350M a week for the NHS' was a complete construct with no basis in reality at all (though apparently a relatively large number of people still believe it's real according to some recent polls).


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bargepole
post Today, 19:27
Post #39


Member
Group Icon

Group: Bad Boyz & Girlz
Posts: 2,008
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
From: High Wycombe
Member No.: 1,353



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 15:25) *
QUOTE (bargepole @ Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 15:17) *
Those now clamouring for a second in-out referendum are convinced that, with two years worth of new voters becoming enfranchised, and some older voters dying off, the result would be reversed.

In the unlikely event of such a referendum, I wouldn't be so sure that the result will be any different.

I'm sure those in favour of a second referendum would argue that they believe the result would be different as the "promised" 'easy' trade deal with the EU has not materialised. Also we now have admissions that the '£350M a week for the NHS' was a complete construct with no basis in reality at all (though apparently a relatively large number of people still believe it's real according to some recent polls).


I'm sure they would make that argument.

But equally, the Remain campaign gave warnings of dire consequences in the event of a Leave vote, none of which have materialised.

And every time messrs. Juncker, Tusk or Barnier open their mouths, they drive more people to conclude that leaving that shower is the best option.


--------------------
We'll fight them on the roads, we'll fight them in the courts, and we shall never, ever, surrender
Cases Won = 20 (17 as McKenzie Friend) : Cases Lost = 4. Private Parking tickets ignored: 3. Paid: 0.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Today, 19:48
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,999
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (bargepole @ Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 15:17) *
QUOTE (nigelbb @ Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 12:40) *
After the surprise result of 2016 the Brexiteers are terrified of another referendum because they fear the "Voice of the People" will say that the UK will be better off staying in the EU rather than leaving.

The result in 2016 was no surprise to anyone who follows the polls.

The majority were pointing towards a Leave win in the run up to the referendum, and 'unofficial' polling on sites such as MSE, with a much bigger sample of over 20,000 respondents, were even more strongly pro-Leave.

If it had not been for the murder of MP Jo Cox by a right-wing nutter, and the ill-advised Farage poster, many psephologists believe that the result would have been more like 55-45.

The polling was close most of the time and within a few percentage points either way. Here's the Telegraph's take: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24...were-the-polls/

Wikipedia has a comprehensive table showing the almost all of the Brexit polls conducted from 2010 through 22 June 2016:: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polli...ship_referendum

I voted, but I recall being quite complacent about it. After all, nobody I knew or spoke to (in the City) said they were voting Leave! I'd always known that the UK outside of London was different, but the Brexit vote really brought it home (and kicked me in the stomach)...

In any case, as Rookie mentions, changing demographics alone would not be the driving force behind a Remain victory in an additional Brexit referendum: there is a lot more clarity now about what Brexit would really mean for individuals affected by it (and even more will be revealed when "the deal" is presented to Parliament for a "meaningful vote", if that ever occurs). If there is another referendum and it comes down to a choice between Remain and No Deal, Remain will absolutely win. There is very little appetite for a car-crash Brexit...nor do I think that outcome was ever supported by a majority of Leave voters. So you better hope for a deal (unfortunately, it will be a poor one...).

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
4 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Wednesday, 14th November 2018 - 20:42
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.