Current Affairs EU In or Out

In or Out

  • In

    Votes: 688 67.9%

  • Out

    Votes: 325 32.1%
  • Total voters
    1,013
Status
Not open for further replies.
DSu5mg-XkAAY63q
 
I am enjoying watching remainers use Farrarge talking about a second Referndum as proof that we need one. It might just be me but does anyone actually care what Farrarge thinks? I didn't make my vote based on anything he had to say and I don't know anyone else who did (apart from one remainer who voted against leaving purely on the basis that Farrarge was for it!). Seriously, since when did Farrarge become a person of significance in this country? I know some remainers like to pretend the out vote was all down to him but some of us have wanted to leave the common market/EU long before UKIP and the Tories hijacked the issue.

Frankly I really would sooner we just ignore the first referndum then go through the farce of a second. It's pointless to pretend it's about democracy because we all know that if the result had been a remain victory regardless of how slim the margin no way would a second vote of been entertained. I dont mind it just being ignored but I object to the nonsense suggestion that its being done in the name of democracy rather then it just being about getting the "correct" result. Just take a second to imagine what your reactions would of been had the results ended 52% remain and leavers had demanded a second. I think it's fair to say they'd of been laughed at. For the record I'd of been just as against a second one then as I am now. We're does this nonsense end?! The best of five? Or the winners have win by a margin of two clear victories?

This whole pantomime will end with us leaving in name only and some nonsense like us becoming an "associate country" under the same rules and regulations with possibly some slight alterations so that the Tories can spin it off as a victory. All in all it will be a colossal waste of time, effort, money and emotion from all concerned.
 
Gwladysstreetlad said:
I am enjoying watching remainers use Farrarge talking about a second Referndum as proof that we need one. It might just be me but does anyone actually care what Farrarge thinks? I didn't make my vote based on anything he had to say and I don't know anyone else who did (apart from one remainer who voted against leaving purely on the basis that Farrarge was for it!). Seriously, since when did Farrarge become a person of significance in this country? I know some remainers like to pretend the out vote was all down to him but some of us have wanted to leave the common market/EU long before UKIP and the Tories hijacked the issue.

Frankly I really would sooner we just ignore the first referndum then go through the farce of a second. It's pointless to pretend it's about democracy because we all know that if the result had been a remain victory regardless of how slim the margin no way would a second vote of been entertained. I dont mind it just being ignored but I object to the nonsense suggestion that its being done in the name of democracy rather then it just being about getting the "correct" result. Just take a second to imagine what your reactions would of been had the results ended 52% remain and leavers had demanded a second. I think it's fair to say they'd of been laughed at. For the record I'd of been just as against a second one then as I am now. We're does this nonsense end?! The best of five? Or the winners have win by a margin of two clear victories?

This whole pantomime will end with us leaving in name only and some nonsense like us becoming an "associate country" under the same rules and regulations with possibly some slight alterations so that the Tories can spin it off as a victory. All in all it will be a colossal waste of time, effort, money and emotion from all concerned.
Click to expand...

You have a point about Farrarge being anyone of serious note, however have to disagree about the second referendum. If remain had won it would be pointless in having a second unless some brilliant piece of evidence emerged to say why we shouldn't be in the EU. The paper didn't say leave at any cost and also didn't say it could be a watered down brexit where we still have mass immigration and have to obey EU rules for many things. We (as a country) have voted to leave the EU, I don't see anything wrong with having those discussions and when finished putting what the true cost and facts of what we are losing/gaining before the public instead of the phoney campaigns we put up with last time around.

If the vote still goes to brexit I would be much happier accepting it on that basis that at least everyone (well most people) knew what they are voting for.
 
The binman chronicles said:
You have a point about Farrarge being anyone of serious note, however have to disagree about the second referendum. If remain had won it would be pointless in having a second unless some brilliant piece of evidence emerged to say why we shouldn't be in the EU. The paper didn't say leave at any cost and also didn't say it could be a watered down brexit where we still have mass immigration and have to obey EU rules for many things. We (as a country) have voted to leave the EU, I don't see anything wrong with having those discussions and when finished putting what the true cost and facts of what we are losing/gaining before the public instead of the phoney campaigns we put up with last time around.

If the vote still goes to brexit I would be much happier accepting it on that basis that at least everyone (well most people) knew what they are voting for.
Click to expand...
We'll have to agree to disagree mate. A second referndum opens the floodgates for this to happen again and again. What would make the second referndum result any more vaild the the first? Why would the second one mean more then the first and why would a third not be called for down the line once "the facts have emerged"?

You know as well as I do that should a second referndum result in a second leave vote we would be right back here in a year with the same people demanding a third. I'd rather that the powers that be simply say the referndum was advisory which in legal terms it is, then go through the time consuming and expensive farce of a second when they have no intention of carrying out the actual results (unless it's the one they want) anyway.

You talk about phoney campaigns? Well think on this, when was the last a party truely did what it promised during an election campaign? It's not the campaigns that are faulty, but the politicians running the campaigns and they're faulty 100% of the time. Our politicians are the most dishonest people in the country so your dreaming if you think that would change during a second referndum.
 
Gwladysstreetlad said:
We'll have to agree to disagree mate. A second referndum opens the floodgates for this to happen again and again. What would make the second referndum result any more vaild the the first? Why would the second one mean more then the first and why would a third not be called for down the line once "the facts have emerged"?

You know as well as I do that should a second referndum result in a second leave vote we would be right back here in a year with the same people demanding a third. I'd rather that the powers that be simply say the referndum was advisory which in legal terms it is, then go through the time consuming and expensive farce of a second when they have no intention of carrying out the actual results (unless it's the one they want) anyway.

You talk about phoney campaigns? Well think on this, when was the last a party truely did what it promised during an election campaign? It's not the campaigns that are faulty, but the politicians running the campaigns and they're faulty 100% of the time. Our politicians are the most dishonest people in the country so your dreaming if you think that would change during a second referndum.
Click to expand...

The difference is that the government have negotiated a final deal, the question is do you take it or leave it. Everyone will see how much we are paying for the divorce, are we going to still have access to the single market etc. Facts over fiction so how can there be a third one afterwards? There would be no more negotiating at the point, as soon as the result is known we formally pull out of the EU if the result is another yes for brexit.
 
The binman chronicles said:
The difference is that the government have negotiated a final deal, the question is do you take it or leave it. Everyone will see how much we are paying for the divorce, are we going to still have access to the single market etc. Facts over fiction so how can there be a third one afterwards? There would be no more negotiating at the point, as soon as the result is known we formally pull out of the EU if the result is another yes for brexit.
Click to expand...
The divorce is the staying in fees for the transitional final two years , and to honour schemes we are signed up for if you think it's shocking funds it's what we pay annually hence a good reason to leave !
 
The binman chronicles said:
The difference is that the government have negotiated a final deal, the question is do you take it or leave it. Everyone will see how much we are paying for the divorce, are we going to still have access to the single market etc. Facts over fiction so how can there be a third one afterwards? There would be no more negotiating at the point, as soon as the result is known we formally pull out of the EU if the result is another yes for brexit.
Click to expand...
First of all, it's not a divorce. That nonsense description has been used by the politicians to make this an emotional subject and suggest it's the equivalent of breaking up a family. It is a buissness transaction that can be seen as a good thing or an utterly terrible thing.

I'm sorry mate but a second Referndum would carry no more weight the the first one. No amount of spin in the world will ever change that. I can get behind a referndum on the terms we take on leaving and the deal but on actually leaving itself? Sorry but that's been decided. If the government want to go back on it and say referendums are advisory I can deal with it. But I can't abide this pretense that a second one its being done for any other reason then to simply ignore the first.

It took 41 years for the eurosceptics to get a referndum after 75 (two years after we joined without the consent of the electorate) and we all know we won't wait that long for another one but to ask for a second when the decision of the first hasn't even been forfilled is just daft to me.
 
Gwladysstreetlad said:
We'll have to agree to disagree mate. A second referndum opens the floodgates for this to happen again and again. What would make the
second referndum result any more vaild the the first? Why would the second one mean more then the first and why would a third not be called
for down the line once "the facts have emerged"?

You know as well as I do that should
a second referndum result in a second leave vote we would be right back here in a year with the same people demanding a third. I'd rather
that the powers that be simply say the referndum was advisory which in legal terms it is, then go through the time consuming and expensive farce
of a second when they have no intention of carrying out the actual results (unless it's the one they want) anyway.


You talk about phoney campaigns? Well think on this, when was the last
a party truely did what it promised during an election campaign? It's not the campaigns that are faulty, but the
politicians running the campaigns
and they're faulty 100% of the time. Our politicians are the most dishonest people in the country so your dreaming if you think that would
change during a second referndum.
Click to expand...
Therefore let's give them more power before we get our own house in order?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top