No absolutely not, the EU, USSR and China never wasted anything like the amounts Nominet have
Membership is FREE – with unlimited access to all features, tools, and discussions. Premium accounts get benefits like banner ads and newsletter exposure. ✅ Signature links are now free for all. 🚫 No AI-generated (LLM) posts allowed. Share your own thoughts and experience — accounts may be terminated for violations.
My book about Brexit is out!
- Thread starter Edwin
- Start date
No absolutely not, the EU, USSR and China never wasted anything like the amounts Nominet have
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2019
- Posts
- 982
- Reaction score
- 824
Gill, David Cameron used the term 'single market' 28 times in that interview, to try to create a false choice between 'Remain' (which he says is saying in the single market)... and leaving 2 years later under WTO rules (aka a No Deal Brexit).
That is a false dichotomy.
There are intermediate trading arrangements which he is basically glossing over, because he wanted people to vote remain. He wanted to make the choice as stark as possible. It doesn't have to be as stark as a No Deal Brexit.
The reality was that negotiation of an intermediate deal was an option (and a hoped for option) for many people who voted leave. Notwithstanding the false dichotomy David Cameron was attempting to portray (in typical politician style - repeat a mantra over and over) there was no clear definition of what kind of Brexit we would get, and the hope of many who voted 'leave' (as is shown by polls showing that No Deal is still umpopular) was that some kind of compromise deal would be achieved, and they voted to try to get that. There was scant definition of these intermediates because the rival parties were polarised and driven by views at the extremities of options...
... but there were, and are, other options that are clearly far more popular. and it would have been better if the referendum had asked what kind of relationship we wanted with the EU... not just 'remain' or 'leave'.
In these past 3 years, the intermediate options have been discussed far more, and the risk and dangers of a no-deal exit have been explored and convinced most people that they don't want that (that's just democratic fact). So personally I believe we are better placed now to make decisions on what we specifically want.
Referendum 2 could say:
1. Do you wish to 'remain' in the EU?
2. If we do not remain in the EU, which of the following exits do you favour?
That way, if most people don't want to leave any longer, question 1 answers that and we know the democratic will of the people.
If most people don't want to remain, then we get definition of which kind of exit we get.
Why are we afraid of finding out what people specifically want?
Referendum 1 wasn't specific. When Theresa May said 'Brexit means Brexit' that defined nothing. Most people did not vote for No Deal, or David Cameron's false dichotomy WTO option. They voted for a rational, non-extremist Brexit.
First you have to define specifically what kind of Brexit. Then Referendum 2 can confirm specifically what people want. They do NOT want to leave with a no deal.
The no-deal bit is the really problematic bit, (a) it's not specifically what people voted for in Referendum 1 (b) opinion polls make absolutely plain it's not what most people want today either.
Just my views, of course and, as I said earlier, I was a floating voter who had for years had concerns on the issue of British sovereignty. The whole situation is a train crash. We need to know *exactly* what people want now. I am embarrassed to be called British, and I am proud to be called Scottish. And that's a real shame, but the UK has become a laughing stock.
I'm not interested in 'Little England'. I'm interested in a progressive UK with strong social conscience (obviously not dependent on Donald Trump), or an independent Scotland.
That is a choice many people in Scotland are going to have to make if the 'UK' crashes out with a no-deal, in their own Referendum 2.
That is a false dichotomy.
There are intermediate trading arrangements which he is basically glossing over, because he wanted people to vote remain. He wanted to make the choice as stark as possible. It doesn't have to be as stark as a No Deal Brexit.
The reality was that negotiation of an intermediate deal was an option (and a hoped for option) for many people who voted leave. Notwithstanding the false dichotomy David Cameron was attempting to portray (in typical politician style - repeat a mantra over and over) there was no clear definition of what kind of Brexit we would get, and the hope of many who voted 'leave' (as is shown by polls showing that No Deal is still umpopular) was that some kind of compromise deal would be achieved, and they voted to try to get that. There was scant definition of these intermediates because the rival parties were polarised and driven by views at the extremities of options...
... but there were, and are, other options that are clearly far more popular. and it would have been better if the referendum had asked what kind of relationship we wanted with the EU... not just 'remain' or 'leave'.
In these past 3 years, the intermediate options have been discussed far more, and the risk and dangers of a no-deal exit have been explored and convinced most people that they don't want that (that's just democratic fact). So personally I believe we are better placed now to make decisions on what we specifically want.
Referendum 2 could say:
1. Do you wish to 'remain' in the EU?
2. If we do not remain in the EU, which of the following exits do you favour?
That way, if most people don't want to leave any longer, question 1 answers that and we know the democratic will of the people.
If most people don't want to remain, then we get definition of which kind of exit we get.
Why are we afraid of finding out what people specifically want?
Referendum 1 wasn't specific. When Theresa May said 'Brexit means Brexit' that defined nothing. Most people did not vote for No Deal, or David Cameron's false dichotomy WTO option. They voted for a rational, non-extremist Brexit.
First you have to define specifically what kind of Brexit. Then Referendum 2 can confirm specifically what people want. They do NOT want to leave with a no deal.
The no-deal bit is the really problematic bit, (a) it's not specifically what people voted for in Referendum 1 (b) opinion polls make absolutely plain it's not what most people want today either.
Just my views, of course and, as I said earlier, I was a floating voter who had for years had concerns on the issue of British sovereignty. The whole situation is a train crash. We need to know *exactly* what people want now. I am embarrassed to be called British, and I am proud to be called Scottish. And that's a real shame, but the UK has become a laughing stock.
I'm not interested in 'Little England'. I'm interested in a progressive UK with strong social conscience (obviously not dependent on Donald Trump), or an independent Scotland.
That is a choice many people in Scotland are going to have to make if the 'UK' crashes out with a no-deal, in their own Referendum 2.
Well good luck with second referendums which will people say, unite the divide. Not sure 17.4 million people who have waited for brexit to be delivered would entertain it lightly. I have to say to those that don't know what leave means. You might fool some but you still struggle to convince millions who understand perfectly what leave means.
Definition of Leave: to go away from someone or something for a short time or permanently.
Nothing whatsoever to do with where to going, just about where leaving. and in our case it was leave the EU. Not really rocket science just made to look that way by remainers.
Definition of Leave: to go away from someone or something for a short time or permanently.
Nothing whatsoever to do with where to going, just about where leaving. and in our case it was leave the EU. Not really rocket science just made to look that way by remainers.
No evidence that anyone has changed their mind after finding out what you describe as being the truth.
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2005
- Posts
- 9,729
- Reaction score
- 1,303
The problem is "no deal" (which is what "just leave" really means) isn't a destination, but a waypoint on the path towards a destination. We will still have to renegotiate all our treaties and trade agreements with the EU once we've left. And all the ones with the rest of the world we had by virtue of being an EU member. So Brexit won't be over for years or decades. One thing will change: we can't stay, because we'll already be out. So the notion of "Remain" goes away, presumably swiftly replaced by "Re-enter".
But please don't make the mistake of assuming that leaving ends Brexit. I know, I know, loads of politicians keep saying it will. But when you think about it for 30 seconds, that's impossible. We can't survive as a nation without connections to the global order - that would make us on a par with North Korea. So the process of rebuilding all of those is what will take time, lots of time. Until we've picked ourselves back up off the ground and found our feet again, Brexit continues. And our politicians will continue to be sidetracked by it (arguing over what future relationship to have) rather than concentrating on what they should be concentrating on: the NHS, mental health, policing, improving educational outcomes, tackling homelessness etc. etc. Basically, all the stuff that's been sidelined for 3 years will go on being sidelined.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2012
- Posts
- 3,179
- Reaction score
- 1,284
I think the problem is that a lot of people who voted to remain didn't understand the vote. A vote to leave would invoke article 50. Article 50 very clearly states that a deal will attempt to be negotiated but, in a failure to do so, the country would leave without one. So in essence it actually covered TWO eventualities - leave with a deal or leave without a deal. I see the confusion from people who didn't read, or understand, article 50 and so somehow think that the referendum should have been about how to leave (when it didn't need to be).
- Joined
- May 8, 2013
- Posts
- 2,521
- Reaction score
- 864
If you voted to leave a building and the owner decided to throw you out of the fourth floor window rather than the front door, wouldn't you be a bit peeved ?
You ignore the obvious. Leave is by definition not a destination. If someone wants to leave somewhere or someone, it is not a question about where they are going or how they get there. It is a simple definition. Remainers as you are doing make it more complex because they can not accept that when asked, do you want to leave or remain , leave had the majority of votes. There is no point in sawing sawdust.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2012
- Posts
- 3,179
- Reaction score
- 1,284
Not if it was known before hand that a vote to leave would mean either going through the front door or out the fourth floor window. However obviously in that situation I'd vote to stay in the building... unless it was on fire of course then either method of leaving is better than staying and burning to death (a perfect metaphor 
)
)You ignore the obvious. Leave is by definition not a destination. If someone wants to leave somewhere or someone, it is not a question about where they are going or how they get there. It is a simple definition. Remainers as you are doing make it more complex because they can not accept that when asked, do you want to leave or remain , leave had the majority of votes. There is no point in sawing sawdust.
- Joined
- May 8, 2013
- Posts
- 2,521
- Reaction score
- 864
Not if it was known before hand that a vote to leave would mean either going through the front door or out the fourth floor window. However obviously in that situation I'd vote to stay in the building... unless it was on fire of course then either method of leaving is better than staying and burning to death (a perfect metaphor
Lol.... agreed. Not the best metaphor, but my point being that no one knew what an absolute fustercluck this would turn into. I personally know a few leavers who given the current situation and seeing the fallout have changed their mind. I dont know anyone who voted remain who has know gone.... actually this looks great. We should leave
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2019
- Posts
- 982
- Reaction score
- 824
Opinion polls show that most people do not want to leave with a 'No Deal'. Therefore, the UK presumably needs to extend the period and clarify what kind of 'deal' the UK actually does want to leave with.
It makes no sense to leave with a 'no deal' when you know the country doesn't want that, and you have the option to extend the negotiations.
It makes no sense to leave with a 'no deal' when you know the country doesn't want that, and you have the option to extend the negotiations.
- Joined
- May 8, 2013
- Posts
- 2,521
- Reaction score
- 864
Someone might want to tell Captain prorogue
I know lot's of remainers who said they voted leave but didn't really and say they have now changed their minds. I can tell you what is precious to us all whatever our politics and that is the ballot box. It is sacrosanct. We go into a booth and cast our vote, we can not be bullied in that box and nobody will ever know how we voted. Consider why that is the case and then decide if you want to protect that method of running our country. It's not about polls or heresay, it's about each and every person having the right to vote and when that vote is counted you have to implement the result or face the consequences which would have far worse effects than any no deal brexit or even a Marxist government.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2019
- Posts
- 982
- Reaction score
- 824
Websaway, it will be up to the Scottish Government to work out the wording of IndyRef 2. And up to the people of Scotland to determine their own future. I shouldn't lose sleep over that. If the UK crashes out with a 'no deal' then the options will frankly be pretty straightforward for the people of Scotland. 'Do you want to stay in the UK or don't you?'
Given the significant change in circumstances from the last referendum, we'll have to see what the people of Scotland want. I'm not saying independence is inevitable, but the way Scotland and its interests and views on the EU are sidelined, I hope the English Brexiteers fully understand the possibility that the UK may cease to exist. There's no point waving the flag over Brexit if people end up without a Union to have a Union Jack for. Politicians are playing with fire. Fortunately, in Scotland, calm and measured decisions will be taken, step by step. We'll have to wait and see, but the Scottish Government will draft the Referendum wording. It's up to them.
Given the significant change in circumstances from the last referendum, we'll have to see what the people of Scotland want. I'm not saying independence is inevitable, but the way Scotland and its interests and views on the EU are sidelined, I hope the English Brexiteers fully understand the possibility that the UK may cease to exist. There's no point waving the flag over Brexit if people end up without a Union to have a Union Jack for. Politicians are playing with fire. Fortunately, in Scotland, calm and measured decisions will be taken, step by step. We'll have to wait and see, but the Scottish Government will draft the Referendum wording. It's up to them.
- Joined
- May 8, 2013
- Posts
- 2,521
- Reaction score
- 864
Absolutely 100% agree. However.... it wasnt a vote. It was a referendum. I could be wrong, but my understanding is that it's purely advisory and allows the decision to then be made. Even as i voted, I had expected there to be further consultation. And that goes both ways... i would have expected the same if it had been a remain vote.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2019
- Posts
- 982
- Reaction score
- 824
If you think the ballot box is sacrosanct (I agree) then if people have changed their minds, the result of any 'update' ballot box will also be sacrosanct. At all times, we need to keep up to speed with what the people actually want.
If people actually have changed their minds... like you say... let the ballot box speak.
They may not have changed their minds, in which case you have nothing to fear. It's obvious that a referendum in 2019 is a more up to date measurement of what people actually want now, than a referendum in 2016. Why should you be running scared of what people want here and now in 2019?
A no deal Brexit isn't even remotely acceptable to most people. If it is, you'll win the 2nd referendum, won't you?
I can go with a sensible negotiated deal-based relationship with the EU. I can't go with a No deal, because it will hit the poorest hardest, and risks throwing us into the arms of Trump. I think that is a moderate position, and a middle ground position that more people hold than the extremist option of crashing out with no deal.
If that's what people actually want, how are we going to establish that - a second referendum is one way.
If people actually have changed their minds... like you say... let the ballot box speak.
They may not have changed their minds, in which case you have nothing to fear. It's obvious that a referendum in 2019 is a more up to date measurement of what people actually want now, than a referendum in 2016. Why should you be running scared of what people want here and now in 2019?
A no deal Brexit isn't even remotely acceptable to most people. If it is, you'll win the 2nd referendum, won't you?
I can go with a sensible negotiated deal-based relationship with the EU. I can't go with a No deal, because it will hit the poorest hardest, and risks throwing us into the arms of Trump. I think that is a moderate position, and a middle ground position that more people hold than the extremist option of crashing out with no deal.
If that's what people actually want, how are we going to establish that - a second referendum is one way.
