Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Members of parliament are there to serve the people. The moment they asked the public whether to remain or not their opinions became irrelevant. Honour the result or disband parliament as it will render itself irrelevant. " We are leaving. Some of them are trying to push us out on a no deal for personal gain. Others are pushing for the least damaging brexit option. None of the options even come close to remaining. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What if your constituents want what is not in the best interests of your country? " When MPs are sworn in they agree to represent country, constituents and party. Country is supposed to trump the other two but party seems to sadly  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Members of parliament are there to serve the people. The moment they asked the public whether to remain or not their opinions became irrelevant. Honour the result or disband parliament as it will render itself irrelevant. " No, they are not. They are there as representatives of their constituents not delegates of their constituents. Regardless of what some politicians said at the time, the brexit referendum was an advisory referendum, not a legally binding one, this is not my opinion, it is settled law that has been tested in both the English and Scottish courts. Further the final ruling on the subject said that had the referendum been legally binding the courts would have struck it down due to the illegal and dishonest nature of much of the leave campaign. If people don't like the fact that their MP has lied to them they get to remove them at the next election, that is the only recourse we have unless an MP's lies cross the line and become 'Misconduct in Public Office'. this can only happen when a law is broken or subverted, nothing like that happened in relation to the referendum. Therefore regardless of how reprehensible any MP's actions are or have been, they get away with them and we all need to start understanding how our 'Parliamentary Democracy' really works rather than substituting our personal opinions for legal facts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Members of parliament are there to serve the people. The moment they asked the public whether to remain or not their opinions became irrelevant. Honour the result or disband parliament as it will render itself irrelevant. " It was an advisory referendum that the government of the day would have been within their rights to just ignore. Labour and the Conservatives then made manifesto pledges to act on the result in the subsequent General Election. That's their own fault. Hoist by their own petard! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Members of parliament are there to serve the people. The moment they asked the public whether to remain or not their opinions became irrelevant. Honour the result or disband parliament as it will render itself irrelevant. " Er, no. Their role is to deliver an outcome that works best for their constituents. Unfortunately, no-one so far has come up with a "good deal". Indeed, a deal was never defined. So they argue about which one is least damaging. Some MPs simply cannot bring themselves to vote for something that all the evidence shows will cause harm to their constituents. Don't like it? Vote them out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
So it made no attempt to define the alternative, because it had no intention of implementing it.
3 1/2 years later and now we are on our second definition of Brexit invented by the Conservative Party.
We were told the first one was the will of the people and must be implemented.
We are being told the second one is the will of the people and must be implemented.
They must think we are all really thick.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Our members of parliament will continue to be out for themselves, if you were in that position would you vote to leave or to stay " Can you back up this claim that MPs are out for themselves. I'll accept that JRM, BoJo and Gove stand to benefit massively from leaving the EU without a deal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Members of parliament are there to serve the people. The moment they asked the public whether to remain or not their opinions became irrelevant. Honour the result or disband parliament as it will render itself irrelevant. Er, no. Their role is to deliver an outcome that works best for their constituents. Unfortunately, no-one so far has come up with a "good deal". Indeed, a deal was never defined. So they argue about which one is least damaging. Some MPs simply cannot bring themselves to vote for something that all the evidence shows will cause harm to their constituents. Don't like it? Vote them out. " Actually their role is to represent their constituents interests and concerns, when the constituents are asked what they wish to do, then that is the direction that their MP has been asked to go. It is not their remit to ask a question, then make it law (to answer the inevitable "it was advisory line") then ignore it. When MP's decide to outsource a question to the public rather than discuss in the houses of parliament then they lose the mandate to ignore it. They asked the public to make a decision and they did. Simple answer is don't ask a question you don't want the answer to. If parliament prevents us leaving the EU now it will irreparably break faith in our structure of government. There are lots of very very angry people that have not gone on marches yet, have not been out protesting, but are waiting, giving parliament time to see if they will actually do what they have said they would. If they actually get to a point where they give a straight answer and refuse it, then those people will come out. And please, don't come out with the rubbish that they are all old and decrepit etc. They are not, they are as fit and healthy as anyone else. Their boots on the ground will matter and you will see civil unrest. If you want a democratic solution, leave then campaign to rejoin. If the EU is so fantastic, then you will have no problem making a great case and you can even get greater integration with them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Members of parliament are there to serve the people. The moment they asked the public whether to remain or not their opinions became irrelevant. Honour the result or disband parliament as it will render itself irrelevant. Er, no. Their role is to deliver an outcome that works best for their constituents. Unfortunately, no-one so far has come up with a "good deal". Indeed, a deal was never defined. So they argue about which one is least damaging. Some MPs simply cannot bring themselves to vote for something that all the evidence shows will cause harm to their constituents. Don't like it? Vote them out. Actually their role is to represent their constituents interests and concerns, when the constituents are asked what they wish to do, then that is the direction that their MP has been asked to go. It is not their remit to ask a question, then make it law (to answer the inevitable "it was advisory line") then ignore it. When MP's decide to outsource a question to the public rather than discuss in the houses of parliament then they lose the mandate to ignore it. They asked the public to make a decision and they did. Simple answer is don't ask a question you don't want the answer to. If parliament prevents us leaving the EU now it will irreparably break faith in our structure of government. There are lots of very very angry people that have not gone on marches yet, have not been out protesting, but are waiting, giving parliament time to see if they will actually do what they have said they would. If they actually get to a point where they give a straight answer and refuse it, then those people will come out. And please, don't come out with the rubbish that they are all old and decrepit etc. They are not, they are as fit and healthy as anyone else. Their boots on the ground will matter and you will see civil unrest. If you want a democratic solution, leave then campaign to rejoin. If the EU is so fantastic, then you will have no problem making a great case and you can even get greater integration with them." Nonsense! If something is stupid to do, just don't do it! It's not rocket science. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Members of parliament are there to serve the people. The moment they asked the public whether to remain or not their opinions became irrelevant. Honour the result or disband parliament as it will render itself irrelevant. " Only 1 poll out of 74 this year didn't have the people wanting to remain in the EU. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Members of parliament are there to serve the people. The moment they asked the public whether to remain or not their opinions became irrelevant. Honour the result or disband parliament as it will render itself irrelevant. Er, no. Their role is to deliver an outcome that works best for their constituents. Unfortunately, no-one so far has come up with a "good deal". Indeed, a deal was never defined. So they argue about which one is least damaging. Some MPs simply cannot bring themselves to vote for something that all the evidence shows will cause harm to their constituents. Don't like it? Vote them out. Actually their role is to represent their constituents interests and concerns, when the constituents are asked what they wish to do, then that is the direction that their MP has been asked to go. It is not their remit to ask a question, then make it law (to answer the inevitable "it was advisory line") then ignore it. When MP's decide to outsource a question to the public rather than discuss in the houses of parliament then they lose the mandate to ignore it. They asked the public to make a decision and they did. Simple answer is don't ask a question you don't want the answer to. If parliament prevents us leaving the EU now it will irreparably break faith in our structure of government. There are lots of very very angry people that have not gone on marches yet, have not been out protesting, but are waiting, giving parliament time to see if they will actually do what they have said they would. If they actually get to a point where they give a straight answer and refuse it, then those people will come out. And please, don't come out with the rubbish that they are all old and decrepit etc. They are not, they are as fit and healthy as anyone else. Their boots on the ground will matter and you will see civil unrest. If you want a democratic solution, leave then campaign to rejoin. If the EU is so fantastic, then you will have no problem making a great case and you can even get greater integration with them." So "democracy" means delivering an undefined outcome? What version of "Brexit means Brexit" is the one that all leavers find acceptable let alone keeps the country at large together? I assume that you know so please inform us. Parliament reflects the will of the people which is pretty much 50:50 from one day to the next. That is as it should be. That is what is being reflected. "Democracy" means not being able to change your mind when new information becomes available? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok _asyuk. Seeing as you want to play "expert credentials" please share your enlightened knowledge with us. Tell exactly, and I do mean exactly, what situation we will be in with the EU in 5 years time? So that we can all make an enlightened decision to remain knowing exactly what we are voting for. I'll go out on a limb and say it won't be the same situation we have now. There will be many votes, some might go our way some won't. Things will change. As they will if we leave. But that doesn't mean we ignore all the previous votes just in case something different information comes along. " In exactly, and I mean exactly, the same situation as we are now. We will be sat at a big table with a lot of people negotiating a compromise situation that more or less works for everyone. We will be at the table though. We will be setting the agenda as one of the major players. Just as we have been for the last 40 years. Where exactly, and I mean exactly, will we be in 5 years time with UK laws and trade deals? Will we be in as strong an international position as we are now? What do actual experts in their field think? Perhaps they are all wrong? Do you have better data than the current government's own economic data? What is your actual point? That things change? So? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You've just made my point for me. You have no idea where we will be in terms of actual policy that affects the UK and it's population. You love to shout down others pretending that you somehow know better than them. But in fact, you can't answer the questions anymore than anyone else. I've never pretended to know where we will be in 5 years time if we leave, except from the opinions I have formed from the research I have done, that I believe we will have more opportunities and if we take advantage of those we will build a good future for our country and the people in it." I don't about anybody down. Where? When? You "believe" based on what? In 5 years it is much, much, much more certain what our trading and geopolitical relationships will be from within the EU than outside it. We, as a country, have failed large parts of our population. What is also much, much, more certain is that there will be even less chance of anything being done about this whilst renegotiating everything about our place on the world. We can blame everything on that now instead of the EU. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So your still playing a guessing game based on the odds as you perceive them. Which means your opinion is no more or less valid or correct than mine. You are fully entitled to your opinion, so am I, if you turn out right, then I'll hold my hands up and say you were right. What are you going to do if we exit the EU and after the deals are worked out, we have good deals and travel arrangements with other parts of the world beyond Europe (or maybe even still with them)?" I'll be cock-a-hoop if mine and everybody else has the same standard of living or better than we do now with no unnecessary hardship in-between. Most leavers don't believe that will be the case despite the cake and eat it lies during the referendum. Do you? Of course it is a matter of opinion. However, it is far easier to make decisions based on experience and existing information and relationships than speculation. Remain has the former, leave has the latter. Do a risk analysis of this. What is the worst case of staying (without the lies about EU armies etc) compared to the worst case of leaving? Climate change. Vaccines. What's your view on those? What conclusions do you draw based on "your research" rather than that of those with experience in the field? This sort of thing comes down to attitude rather than data. You will choose not to believe me when I say that my day job requires me to look at data dispassionately to hit the targets that I need to. I have to listen to the most junior members of the team because what they say may be vital. I have to learn from the things that fail as much as those that succeed. So every single day I have to suck up the fact that I might have been wrong and reformulate my opinion. There has been nothing to make me do that with climate change, vaccinations, Brexit or the world being flat. Your opinion is your own and if the last three years haven't changed it, then perhaps you don't want to change it. Have things gone well so far? Are there people to blame? What will change? Belief is often stronger than data in human psychology. That's fine as long as you acknowledge it rather than pretend that it is based on logical analysis. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You really lost me at the point I needed to break out the tin foil hats, I can't actually think how you link Brexit and anti vaxers. I'm asking for a democratic vote to be respected, not to find a way to reduce CO2 emissions. I am also asking for people to think about the future consequences of telling vast chunks of the population that their vote didn't count, but it's ok cause we promise to listen to when you vote about other things. Trust will be broken and people react badly when they don't trust a government. Please look at Hong Kong, or Spain, or Chile or perhaps Ecuador. This is what happens when people realise that the government doesn't work for them and they have no political recourse. As for a data analysis, I'm a scientist, I'm pretty sure you can only do a data analysis on actual data. Just to avoid confusion, there is none about what happens after Brexit. We haven't negotiated any form of trade deal yet so no one knows what those terms will be, nor do we know what other deals or agreements may be obtained with other countries re tarrifs, taxes travel etc. You can only offer a hypothesis at this time based on estimates from sources which have such a large margin of error that the data, whilst not worthless, is at best uncertain. Also, please bear in mind, a lot of statements have been from companies trying to get the best deal for their profit margins, they will still trade with our market, they just might have to pay the board and shareholders a little less. The only way to get an answer is to actually test it." A "scientist" who doesn't use the available data to inform his decisions? One who prefers to "believe" that things will be "better" somehow. You don't base a new theory based on existing knowledge? You are saying that there is no data to inform you of the current costs and benefits of being in the EU. No information about market size, population, GDP as compared to the UK on it's own? No information on how geopolitics or trade relationships function depending on the relative size of the the parties involved? OK. Interesting. Which pieces of information indicates that we will get equivalent or better trade deals outside the EU than within? Is it our current negotiating prowess? I'm sure that it will absolutely make sense for companies to provide goods and services to divergent UK and EU standards and that they'd be delighted to have no say in the regulations of their nearest and wealthiest trading partners. A "scientist" who doesn't know what cognitive bias is? Perhaps you don't suffer from it at all. You don't need a tin foil hat to know that perfectly intelligent people are perfectly capable of picking and choosing the small amount of information that they want to rationalise the position that they favour whilst ignoring the much larger body of data that indicates otherwise. So is climate change something not to worry about because the data is "uncertain"? You don't make any decisions without certainty? Regardless of the magnitude of the what the risk of inaction? Does the advantage of doing nothing outweigh that? Why don't some people believe that vaccinations are not a good idea? Is it because they haven't seen the consequences of not being vaccinated? Those people who've voted to leave have been listened to. What's been happening over the last three years? Lots and lots of people have tried to act on "it". What is "it"? What is "Brexit means Brexit"? Do you believe that it is a "conspiracy" of "liberal elites" preventing it or is it conceivable that it's an incredibly complicated thing to achieve and that Parliament is just as divided as the general population? Statistically, as a scientist, would you say that a 4% margin is "overwhelming"? On another day might the decision have gone the other way? What did you vote for? What was your best scenario for the outcome? What's Mark Francois' best scenario? Do you want and expect the same thing? What about a 65 year old in Surrey or a 45 year old in Hull? You want to "leave the EU"? Under any and all consequences? Would anything be unacceptable? Does what has happened over the last few years differed in anyway from what was publicised during the referendum campaign? Does democracy stop at one vote? Why have another general election. Do we have to wait until everything on a manifesto is achieved first? Should the opposition oppose anything or support the government without question? You have to try something to know the answer? Like stepping into traffic with your eyes closed? Based on your knowledge and experience, what would be the outcome? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Our members of parliament will continue to be out for themselves, if you were in that position would you vote to leave or to stay Can you back up this claim that MPs are out for themselves. I'll accept that JRM, BoJo and Gove stand to benefit massively from leaving the EU without a deal." This is what ive worried about all along, they're supposed to represent their constituents, and seem to lign their pockets at the same time, plus they solemnly promise the NHS isn't up for sale 
Promises from politicians have a habit of vanishing like a fart in the wind | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ffs easy how many questions a day do you ask lmao" That's how you test logic rather than belief? That's how I reached the view that I have. Have you asked yourselves those questions? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ffs easy how many questions a day do you ask lmao That's how you test logic rather than belief? That's how I reached the view that I have. Have you asked yourselves those questions?" Yep I've asked myself a lot of those questions, however you are still rambling on about vaccine deniers and elite conspiracies, which quite literally have no bearing on anything I have been discussing. You demand answers about whether I have based my decision on the "data" available, no as I already explained, the data set is incomplete, yes you can look at the current situation re the EU membership but there is no equivalent data at all re leaving as none of the agreements have been negotiated. Could be worse, could be better, as a "scientist" (medical R and D if you care) I understand this is why people test things to establish results. As for your rather bizarre comments about stepping into traffic without looking, I think this hypothesis has been more than sufficiently tested and the data set well established and peer reviewed to conclude that this is a bad idea. I wouldn't recommend you try that one. Although, statistically, you do actually have a chance of making it to the other side unscathed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ffs easy how many questions a day do you ask lmao That's how you test logic rather than belief? That's how I reached the view that I have. Have you asked yourselves those questions? Yep I've asked myself a lot of those questions, however you are still rambling on about vaccine deniers and elite conspiracies, which quite literally have no bearing on anything I have been discussing. You demand answers about whether I have based my decision on the "data" available, no as I already explained, the data set is incomplete, yes you can look at the current situation re the EU membership but there is no equivalent data at all re leaving as none of the agreements have been negotiated. Could be worse, could be better, as a "scientist" (medical R and D if you care) I understand this is why people test things to establish results. As for your rather bizarre comments about stepping into traffic without looking, I think this hypothesis has been more than sufficiently tested and the data set well established and peer reviewed to conclude that this is a bad idea. I wouldn't recommend you try that one. Although, statistically, you do actually have a chance of making it to the other side unscathed." ...Companies leaving the UK to settle in mainland Europe, banks and hedge funds moving to Berlin and Paris from London, British citizens moving away from the UK to settle somewhere in mainland Europe, brexiteer businessmen relocating their businessess to mainland Europe and Asia; farmers in the UK looking desperately for alternatives to EU funding support, UK research institutes looking desperately for alternatives to continue research ties with European partners after brexit and bracing for when EU research supported is stopped... All that happening after the 24th of June 2016; isn't that some data? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ffs easy how many questions a day do you ask lmao That's how you test logic rather than belief? That's how I reached the view that I have. Have you asked yourselves those questions? Yep I've asked myself a lot of those questions, however you are still rambling on about vaccine deniers and elite conspiracies, which quite literally have no bearing on anything I have been discussing. You demand answers about whether I have based my decision on the "data" available, no as I already explained, the data set is incomplete, yes you can look at the current situation re the EU membership but there is no equivalent data at all re leaving as none of the agreements have been negotiated. Could be worse, could be better, as a "scientist" (medical R and D if you care) I understand this is why people test things to establish results. As for your rather bizarre comments about stepping into traffic without looking, I think this hypothesis has been more than sufficiently tested and the data set well established and peer reviewed to conclude that this is a bad idea. I wouldn't recommend you try that one. Although, statistically, you do actually have a chance of making it to the other side unscathed. ...Companies leaving the UK to settle in mainland Europe, banks and hedge funds moving to Berlin and Paris from London, British citizens moving away from the UK to settle somewhere in mainland Europe, brexiteer businessmen relocating their businessess to mainland Europe and Asia; farmers in the UK looking desperately for alternatives to EU funding support, UK research institutes looking desperately for alternatives to continue research ties with European partners after brexit and bracing for when EU research supported is stopped... All that happening after the 24th of June 2016; isn't that some data?" No, that is not data for comparative analysis. That is opinions of companies based on theoretical models. You cannot state what the outcome will be of corporation tax changes for example, when you have no idea what those rates will be. Hence business uncertainty and contingency planning. If the UK suddenly halved it's tax rate investment would flood in, if it doubles it then the reverse is more likely. Also, please bear in mind, none of these things are governed by any physically limiting factors. Literally anything is possible with tax and regulations, it only needs both sides to agree. It's not a case of something not being possible due to a constraint of the laws of physics. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ffs easy how many questions a day do you ask lmao That's how you test logic rather than belief? That's how I reached the view that I have. Have you asked yourselves those questions? Yep I've asked myself a lot of those questions, however you are still rambling on about vaccine deniers and elite conspiracies, which quite literally have no bearing on anything I have been discussing. You demand answers about whether I have based my decision on the "data" available, no as I already explained, the data set is incomplete, yes you can look at the current situation re the EU membership but there is no equivalent data at all re leaving as none of the agreements have been negotiated. Could be worse, could be better, as a "scientist" (medical R and D if you care) I understand this is why people test things to establish results. As for your rather bizarre comments about stepping into traffic without looking, I think this hypothesis has been more than sufficiently tested and the data set well established and peer reviewed to conclude that this is a bad idea. I wouldn't recommend you try that one. Although, statistically, you do actually have a chance of making it to the other side unscathed. ...Companies leaving the UK to settle in mainland Europe, banks and hedge funds moving to Berlin and Paris from London, British citizens moving away from the UK to settle somewhere in mainland Europe, brexiteer businessmen relocating their businessess to mainland Europe and Asia; farmers in the UK looking desperately for alternatives to EU funding support, UK research institutes looking desperately for alternatives to continue research ties with European partners after brexit and bracing for when EU research supported is stopped... All that happening after the 24th of June 2016; isn't that some data? No, that is not data for comparative analysis. That is opinions of companies based on theoretical models. You cannot state what the outcome will be of corporation tax changes for example, when you have no idea what those rates will be. Hence business uncertainty and contingency planning. If the UK suddenly halved it's tax rate investment would flood in, if it doubles it then the reverse is more likely. Also, please bear in mind, none of these things are governed by any physically limiting factors. Literally anything is possible with tax and regulations, it only needs both sides to agree. It's not a case of something not being possible due to a constraint of the laws of physics." Yours is an inductive approach, which is something researchers use after data is available. For instance, if you study the occurrence of earthquakes in Japan during the last 30 years, you could sort of expect that there will be one size 7+ per year in that region... For you to have brexit related data for comparative analysis, following your inductive approach, you would need to have several brexit occurances in the past which gladly you dont... I hope you don't get me wrong, but you're starting to sound a bit sadistic by wanting to have a brexit occurance in order to pursue a data-based/inductive type of research on it, specially after what I wrote above. You would also need at least 10-15 more years to make a proper case study on the issue. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You really lost me at the point I needed to break out the tin foil hats, I can't actually think how you link Brexit and anti vaxers. I'm asking for a democratic vote to be respected, not to find a way to reduce CO2 emissions. I am also asking for people to think about the future consequences of telling vast chunks of the population that their vote didn't count, but it's ok cause we promise to listen to when you vote about other things. Trust will be broken and people react badly when they don't trust a government. Please look at Hong Kong, or Spain, or Chile or perhaps Ecuador. This is what happens when people realise that the government doesn't work for them and they have no political recourse. As for a data analysis, I'm a scientist, I'm pretty sure you can only do a data analysis on actual data. Just to avoid confusion, there is none about what happens after Brexit. We haven't negotiated any form of trade deal yet so no one knows what those terms will be, nor do we know what other deals or agreements may be obtained with other countries re tarrifs, taxes travel etc. You can only offer a hypothesis at this time based on estimates from sources which have such a large margin of error that the data, whilst not worthless, is at best uncertain. Also, please bear in mind, a lot of statements have been from companies trying to get the best deal for their profit margins, they will still trade with our market, they just might have to pay the board and shareholders a little less. The only way to get an answer is to actually test it." So are you booking yourself on the first mission to pass into and through a black hole because your thinking suggests that theory and subsequent practice are the only proof that matters whereas for many of us we think that our lives are pretty good so why fuck about with them by trying something completely unknown which carries a degree of risk which is unacceptable given the lack of verifiable proof of the benefits of Brexit. In other words common sense and empathy for your fellow man tells you that Brexit is destructive with no evidential benefit that can be proved. It’s like playing Russian roulette with only one bullet removed from the magazine. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Its gone too far now we need to leave. Its a bit like some of the dicks who commit fabiside on here people always smell them and avoid them we just need to get out now. " Surely what you meant is "It's gone too far now we need to cancel it all". Because as you already know "just leave" is just the beginning. We'd then have many years of negotiating all the trade deals, services, frameworks etc that we'd just have walked away from. All against the backdrop of being 9.3% worse off economically. Even Farage is disagreeing with Johnson now. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What if your constituents want what is not in the best interests of your country? " Then they can vote for someone else at the next General Election. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What if your constituents want what is not in the best interests of your country? " Try changing the profession from politician to doctor and then change a few words in the above to: What if your patients want what is not in the best interests of their health? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So your still playing a guessing game based on the odds as you perceive them. Which means your opinion is no more or less valid or correct than mine. You are fully entitled to your opinion, so am I, if you turn out right, then I'll hold my hands up and say you were right. What are you going to do if we exit the EU and after the deals are worked out, we have good deals and travel arrangements with other parts of the world beyond Europe (or maybe even still with them)?" This is a really strange post. No one anywhere is even vaguely suggesting that we will have good trade deals and travel arrangements with our parts of the world. So what would we do if this happened. We'd be really fucking surprised. Along with every single other human on the planet. I don't mean to be harsh on you specifically. But the whole "my opinion based on faith and no information is as valid as your opinion based on data, information, reasoning, research and analysis" is a very American way of trying to debate. They use it on evolution, climate change etc. And its just nonsense. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There are 45 trade agreements already signed (some are trade blocks so one agreement covers several countries). 23 agreements are still ongoing. EU negotiations cannot take place until the withdrawal agreement is signed. The information is publicly available, I am not even going to attempt to type it all in here. There would most likely be more by now if the government wasn't tied up with political infighting." Assuming this is accurate, you're suggesting that the last three years has brought the UK to a position where we have less trade deals lined up than we have now? Any evidence that these trade deals aren't worse than what we have now? And what good could we have done if we weren't wasting all the time with this nonsense? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There are 45 trade agreements already signed (some are trade blocks so one agreement covers several countries). 23 agreements are still ongoing. EU negotiations cannot take place until the withdrawal agreement is signed. The information is publicly available, I am not even going to attempt to type it all in here. There would most likely be more by now if the government wasn't tied up with political infighting." . By political infighting , I assume you are referring to the Tory MPs who voted against May' s deal who then voted for Mays deal who then sacked MPs from their own party who had consistently voted for their party while they hadn't , while at the same time assuring their partners in the DUP that under no circumstances would a prime minister and leader of the conservative and unionist party place a border down the Irish Sea while at the same time placing a border down the Irish Sea and saying a letter would not be sent asking for an extension while sending a letter asking for an extension , while in addition to this , since the 2016 referendum have always held a majority in the House of Commons ( along with the help of the DUP and the magic money since the 2017 general election which the conservative prime minister repeatedly said there wouldn't be ) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never mentioned an individual political party in the discussion." . That's a fair point but I have , you quite rightly pointed out that the government is being held back by political infighting , I merely pointed out that since the Conservative party held the 2016 referendum , following the 2015 general election , the Conservative party have had a majority in the House of Commons , so irrespective of what LibDem , SNP , Plaid , Labour etc. do or have done the Conservative party could have passed what they wanted but have been unable to because of the political infighting to which you quite rightly refer | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Yep I've asked myself a lot of those questions, however you are still rambling on about vaccine deniers and elite conspiracies, which quite literally have no bearing on anything I have been discussing. You demand answers about whether I have based my decision on the "data" available, no as I already explained, the data set is incomplete, yes you can look at the current situation re the EU membership but there is no equivalent data at all re leaving as none of the agreements have been negotiated. Could be worse, could be better, as a "scientist" (medical R and D if you care) I understand this is why people test things to establish results. As for your rather bizarre comments about stepping into traffic without looking, I think this hypothesis has been more than sufficiently tested and the data set well established and peer reviewed to conclude that this is a bad idea. I wouldn't recommend you try that one. Although, statistically, you do actually have a chance of making it to the other side unscathed." I notice that you only managed to address two points from my reply to you and made a valiant attempt to reply out of context 
My reference to both climate change denial and anti-vaxing is in the context of cognitive bias.
There have been no studies on stepping into traffic with your eyes closed. There is zero experimental analysis of this topic. That brings into question that you have to try something before you know it is true.
Your point appears to be that as there is a small statistical chance of success that there is no harm in trying it out although you also suggest that this shouldn't be tried.
This is aN excellent demonstration of cognitive dissonance. Holding two contradictory positions simultaneously  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Actually, all I initially wanted was for the vote to be respected, the discussion about what Brexit means came after. The only reason I am asking for evidence is that without it, I will not accept the argument that leaving the EU is automatically bad and staying in is automatically good. We do not know where either will leave us in 5 years, 10 years etc. There are 167 other countries in the world outside the EU. We will be able to negotiate trade deals that are right for the UK with them as well as continuing to trade with the EU. Will all of them be better than now, possibly not, but some will be. EU trade agreements are never based on what's best for 1 country, things that are good for Greece and bad for us, things that are good for us are bad for Italy etc. Please don't mistake what I'm saying, I don't mean that the entire EU is bad and must be made out to be the bogey man. Just that there is far more to the world than them. I believe the future of the UK is better served being able to independently engage with the rest of the globe. " You "believe". Enough said. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There are 45 trade agreements already signed (some are trade blocks so one agreement covers several countries). 23 agreements are still ongoing. EU negotiations cannot take place until the withdrawal agreement is signed. The information is publicly available, I am not even going to attempt to type it all in here. There would most likely be more by now if the government wasn't tied up with political infighting." The 46 countries with which we now have continuity agreements represent 8% of our trade. 8% Several of these are time-limited and can be renegotiate to our benefit or detriment at a later date. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You are both deliberately wording questions so that if there isn't an immediate answer that is categorically better then it must all be rubbish. Trade agreements take time, no one I know who voted leave expected all the deals to be sorted the second the leave vote came through. This is not about instant gratification, this is about what will be better for the future. You have your view on what that is, I have mine. Neither can be proved right or wrong at this second. " What is your logic for the fact that any future tease agreements would be on better terms than we have now? We will have a smaller market and access to be EU (our biggest neighbour) will be contingent on that trade deal. How did inward investment to the UK change after EU membership? You forsee a similar or greater increase in investment from the opposite action? Why might that be? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The 46 countries with which we now have continuity agreements represent 8% of our trade. 8%" You miss the whole point both of brexit and what matters to the brexit faithful. The value of trade or potential trade has little or no worth, the important thing is we have 46 trade deals, that's deals with 46 countries. that is 19 more countries than are in the EU (after we leave)... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The 46 countries with which we now have continuity agreements represent 8% of our trade. 8% You miss the whole point both of brexit and what matters to the brexit faithful. The value of trade or potential trade has little or no worth, the important thing is we have 46 trade deals, that's deals with 46 countries. that is 19 more countries than are in the EU (after we leave)... "I know. Politics is both emotional and logical. That is fine. I don't mind that if they accept that they are making an emotional argument Based on "belief" and not a logical one. The self-delusion of pretending otherwise is what I take exception to  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I did not address your points regarding anti vaccination and climate change as they are totally irrelevant in the current debate. If you wish to study cognitive bias, please start with your own views and place them in a separate thread for uncluttered discussion. There is no need to further study walking into a road as there are more than sufficient bodies in morgues where people did not look before they stepped into the road. I am fully aware of how much the trade agreements represent, the information is publicly available and I have already stated that I would not type it verbatim into this forum." Then why do you keep referring to them? 
How do you know that these bodies in morgues were due to people not looking?
Past experience is not acceptable evidence and theoretical extrapolation is inadequate. You have stated as much.
We don't know what happens until we actually try it out properly and actually get some people to step into traffic with their eyes closed.
We will only know for sure then. Until then we don't "know" either way. Statistically some may survive anyway.
Cognitive bias and cognitive dissonance are completely relevant to this discussion as you are arguing opposite things but are unaware of it apparently
There have been specific threads on it where people demonstrated exactly the same lack of self-awareness as you are.
However, as I am always happy to learn, where have I failed on my logic or expresses a self-contradictory point? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never mentioned an individual political party in the discussion.. That's a fair point but I have , you quite rightly pointed out that the government is being held back by political infighting , I merely pointed out that since the Conservative party held the 2016 referendum , following the 2015 general election , the Conservative party have had a majority in the House of Commons , so irrespective of what LibDem , SNP , Plaid , Labour etc. do or have done the Conservative party could have passed what they wanted but have been unable to because of the political infighting to which you quite rightly refer " Yes, had the Conservative Party been united in its policy, the United Kingdom would have left the European Union now. It isn't, so we haven't. If the party in power is disunited, how can anyone expect the country to be united? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You are also incorrect with your trade deal statistics, the official figures are 45 trade deals and 23 in negotiations. This is direct from published government sources. They are also not all continuity agreements some are, some are trade deals, some are customs unions. Please check the details for yourself." There are 45 not 46 and that's official! So there Easyuk! That's show you! And put you in your place! Na Na Nana Na... Now everyone lets line up on the Dover cliffs and moon at France while singing a rousing chorus of 'there'll always be an England!' | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You are both deliberately wording questions so that if there isn't an immediate answer that is categorically better then it must all be rubbish. Trade agreements take time, no one I know who voted leave expected all the deals to be sorted the second the leave vote came through. This is not about instant gratification, this is about what will be better for the future. You have your view on what that is, I have mine. Neither can be proved right or wrong at this second. " Come on now. Brexit has nothing to do with "what's better for the future". Where do you get this rhubarb from? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Come on now. Brexit has nothing to do with "what's better for the future". Where do you get this rhubarb from? " I, for one, suspect you may be quite wrong there. However I happily concede that brexit is only going to be "what's better for the future" of a tiny minority, and I further suspect that most of those were like the Murdoch's and did not have a say, (other than influencing others through their media outlets (and maybe illegal financial support)), in brexit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't think the EU in the future is going to be the best thing for this country." I am sure you are right. In the not so distant future the EU will be a very bad thing for this country. Because we will no longer be in it, and the EU looks after its own to the detriment of all others. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The remainiacs are on the loose. The paper holds their folded faces to the floor And every day the paper boy brings more. "Ah paraphrasing Pink Floyd's 'Brain Damage'. However let me remind you it is the brexiteers who are 'locking the door and throwing away the key'. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't profess to speak for anyone else but myself when it comes to the reason for voting leave. Much as you would revel in it if I suddenly said I did it cause I hate all those foreigners and I want a British empire. Sadly, the truth is so much more mundane. I don't think the EU in the future is going to be the best thing for this country. Anyone elses reasons are their own." This encapsulates the problem. There is no evidence what so ever to suggest that leaving the EU will have anything other than a catastrophic impact on the UK for generations. We are living in a time when opinion based on made up bollocks is held on a level with actual information and facts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Come on now. Brexit has nothing to do with "what's better for the future". Where do you get this rhubarb from? I, for one, suspect you may be quite wrong there. However I happily concede that brexit is only going to be "what's better for the future" of a tiny minority, and I further suspect that most of those were like the Murdoch's and did not have a say, (other than influencing others through their media outlets (and maybe illegal financial support)), in brexit." Yeah for sure. There are clear benefactors from brexit. The same people who funded it. The ultra rich who want to currency trade and avoid paying tax, the Americans who want to expand the market for their substandard produce into the UK, and the Russians who just want to destablise Europe. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't profess to speak for anyone else but myself when it comes to the reason for voting leave. Much as you would revel in it if I suddenly said I did it cause I hate all those foreigners and I want a British empire. Sadly, the truth is so much more mundane. I don't think the EU in the future is going to be the best thing for this country. Anyone elses reasons are their own." A country of 66 million with no trade agreements Vs a unified trading block of 440+ million, who will be competitors at that point. You're probably right on that point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I refer to them as you have some misguided belief they are relevant, I am simply trying to explain they are not. You are also incorrect with your trade deal statistics, the official figures are 45 trade deals and 23 in negotiations. This is direct from published government sources. They are also not all continuity agreements some are, some are trade deals, some are customs unions. Please check the details for yourself." You have not explained anything. You have just made assertions without addressing what I actually wrote
You really are an interesting type of "scientist". That said, many scientists believe in the existence of a deity or deities. However, they don't try to explain anything else based on belief and faith. Yet that is all that you have offered in Brexit being "better" for the UK
If you feel that the distinction of "continuity agreement" is important then great
Just for the sake of pedantry, which seems to be your latest refuge, I'd encourage you to check your "official figures". Are you sure that there are 45 "trade deals"?
I didn't say that they were
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-47213842
I guess that I may have summarised "countries and territories" as "countries" for which I apologise unreservedly | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The remainiacs are on the loose. The paper holds their folded faces to the floor And every day the paper boy brings more.
Ah paraphrasing Pink Floyd's 'Brain Damage'.
However let me remind you it is the brexiteers who are 'locking the door and throwing away the key'.". There's brexiteers in government?. Crickey you wouldn't have guessed it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We are not allowed to have our own whilst in the EU therefore we cannot have any deals negotiated with only the UK's best interests at heart." What about the other side? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We are not allowed to have our own whilst in the EU therefore we cannot have any deals negotiated with only the UK's best interests at heart. What about the other side?" A valid question, I was perhaps a little unclear in the previous statement, I was referring to negotiation being in the UK's best interests on that side of the deal. Any deal is a compromise between the 2 principal parties, it is easier to get a mutually beneficial deal for those 2 parties when you don't have to take into account 27 other different economic situations and global geopolitical positions. This is not a dig at the EU, it is simply the reality of negotiations with many interested parties. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Aaaand we are back to the bits I've already tried to answer. It will take time to sort all the agreements out, we already have trade deals and are working on more. If you have unrealistic expectations about the definitive answers that can be supplied at this point in time, that's for you and not me to sort out. Do you ask for absolute lifelong guarantees before you change jobs? Or do you look to where you think it will take you in the future? After all, it's pretty serious if you can't pay the mortgage. Also, if you are worried about the "elite" earning money out of Brexit, open an account and short the pound yourself. It requires very low investment, and if it really is being manipulated by the super rich, you're onto a dead cert so you don't need to worry about losing your investment." All this tells us, is that you're detached from reality. Inside the EU we had all these trade deals already. And as for your comment on currency trading. The fees and commission alone would wipe out any profit unless you're investing 100s of thousands at least. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't believe in deities, I got my figures directly from the official government website rather than the BBC, and before you go down the "is that cause you think the BBC is biased" route. The articles on news sites are static, the government website is updated regularly. You are once again demanding answers immediately before the discussions that provide them have even happened. As I said before, it is impossible to categorically state how something will turn out before it has been tried. Hence why I use the term belief as it is not a discreet answer at this time. There are more countries in the world than Europe, European trade deals are always a compromise between all members, they have to be. We are not allowed to have our own whilst in the EU therefore we cannot have any deals negotiated with only the UK's best interests at heart." Sigh. I didn't even imply that you believe in deities. Perhaps That you believe in Brexit unicorns. That is the parallel that you missed. Belief and faith are all that are required. Well done identifying that there are other countries outside Europe. Are they further away or are they closer than the EU? Are they individually wealthier or are they poorer than the EU? Do they individually have larger or smaller markets than the EU? How does Germany do with its exports to these countries from within the EU compared to us? What are the best interests of the UK that have been compromised? Are you going to say that you don't know and you have no answers? That my questions are too difficult to answer? Worth gambling on belief and hope though right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Members of parliament are there to serve the people. The moment they asked the public whether to remain or not their opinions became irrelevant. Honour the result or disband parliament as it will render itself irrelevant. Er, no. Their role is to deliver an outcome that works best for their constituents. Unfortunately, no-one so far has come up with a "good deal". Indeed, a deal was never defined. So they argue about which one is least damaging. Some MPs simply cannot bring themselves to vote for something that all the evidence shows will cause harm to their constituents. Don't like it? Vote them out. Actually their role is to represent their constituents interests and concerns, when the constituents are asked what they wish to do, then that is the direction that their MP has been asked to go. It is not their remit to ask a question, then make it law (to answer the inevitable "it was advisory line") then ignore it. When MP's decide to outsource a question to the public rather than discuss in the houses of parliament then they lose the mandate to ignore it. They asked the public to make a decision and they did. Simple answer is don't ask a question you don't want the answer to. If parliament prevents us leaving the EU now it will irreparably break faith in our structure of government. There are lots of very very angry people that have not gone on marches yet, have not been out protesting, but are waiting, giving parliament time to see if they will actually do what they have said they would. If they actually get to a point where they give a straight answer and refuse it, then those people will come out. And please, don't come out with the rubbish that they are all old and decrepit etc. They are not, they are as fit and healthy as anyone else. Their boots on the ground will matter and you will see civil unrest. If you want a democratic solution, leave then campaign to rejoin. If the EU is so fantastic, then you will have no problem making a great case and you can even get greater integration with them." We've not left and leaving And then rejoining is not as simple and free of cost as getting off and then back on to a tube train. If our representatives conclude that leaving via the current mechanism is wrong, it should be cancelled to prevent further harm and deficits upon public finances. The public can then be educated upon the reasons for the current departure being inappropriate. A sunk cost fallacy is not justification to continue with an inappropriate course of action | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For the trades, leveraged positions mean no you don't have to invest hundreds of thousands. They are risky, but if you are certain of manipulation then you will be fine. And for yet another list of questions from your good friend hear, I will pose one back. What are you actually trying to achieve with these huge lists? This whole conversation started with me saying I wanted a democratic vote respected, it is clear you will not and have no interest in understanding my point of view, by now, half the people reading this thread are brow beaten into submission with you trying to take the conversation in a million different directions all at once then triumphantly declaring that cause every minute point hasn't been answered to your exacting specifications (whether relevant or not) that somehow you are the moral victor. Within this forum there are limitations as to what it is possible to explain and show. You are fully aware of that and tailor your questions so that there is always something you can come back with another question about. I have limitations on my life expectancy, probably only got another 40 or 50 years in me. Certainly not enough to wade through the internet and published material to obtain all the answers for you. Let's spin it around, you go and get all the source material that proves (so please, no predicted scenarios) that the EU will definitely be better that anything that it is possible to achieve by leaving for the rest of this century (I'll time limit it for you). If you come back with this, then I'll happily announce that you won something and you can sit in judgment of me and feel superior. Otherwise, I will stand here, true to what I believe and very happy to allow others to have different opinions to me, I'm not saying it absolutely will be better, just that in my opinion it will be." The only thing that you have said is that you believe that we will get better trade deals outside of the EU but actually nobody knows anything or predict anything until they've tried it. You have not explained or shown anything. All of those words, but that's it. I have tried very hard to understand your point of view but as you are unwilling or unable to do anything except repeat the same thing. I haven't asked for absolute proof of anything. Just some vague logic. Nobody, not you, not the Leave campaign, not the government, not Parliament knows what "Brexit means Brexit" means. Everybody has been desperately trying to deliver "Brexit" but as it is undefined, here we sit. Within the EU we are in a stable situation, working within a stable and known set of rules for both business and politics. We have significant influence both geopolitically and economically as a leading member of one of the world's three largest power blocks. You propose leaving because you "believe" that we will be better off. We are back to the the simile of standing on the pavement, closing our eyes and stepping into traffic. That's your offer | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That’s all he does question after question after question 8 in his last post he’s the headmaster we are all his naughty kids not listning to him he be bringing out the cane next lol" Why do you bother posting? You really just want to pop up and tell me that I ask questions? Questions that you don't want to think about. Too hard? Too boring? Boo hoo | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Our members of parliament will continue to be out for themselves, if you were in that position would you vote to leave or to stay " Scrutinise and review all available information on what the deal, then think is this is in the interests of my constituents. If so then present my findings to my constituents in a general meeting, then let my constituents decide if the information presented is acceptable. If so then vote for withdrawal based on current proposals , if it needs amending, then push for amendments to be added. If unacceptable on all counts then remain. That’s how I would do it, you really don’t need a 2nd referendum you just need to go back to your constituents really and consult with them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That’s all he does question after question after question 8 in his last post he’s the headmaster we are all his naughty kids not listning to him he be bringing out the cane next lol Why do you bother posting? You really just want to pop up and tell me that I ask questions? Questions that you don't want to think about. Too hard? Too boring? Boo hoo "And again you respond with a load of questions, I think I am beginning to understand, you have lots of questions, many do, but you are unable to filter, you attach absolute importance to every question. In any discussion there can be questions that can wait, things that don't need to be answered right this second in minute detail (this stretches far beyond the score of this conversation as I have been looking over many of the other posts you have put on here). I will not engage with you again, it's pointless. You may post a response and feel somehow that having the last word means you have one. Quite frankly I no longer care. You cannot discuss with you. And no, the questions were not too hard, voluminous, demanding, beyond what was in any way practical to answer in this type of forum, but they really really did get boring. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Our members of parliament will continue to be out for themselves, if you were in that position would you vote to leave or to stay Scrutinise and review all available information on what the deal, then think is this is in the interests of my constituents. If so then present my findings to my constituents in a general meeting, then let my constituents decide if the information presented is acceptable. If so then vote for withdrawal based on current proposals , if it needs amending, then push for amendments to be added. If unacceptable on all counts then remain. That’s how I would do it, you really don’t need a 2nd referendum you just need to go back to your constituents really and consult with them. " How many of them would you see? Would you go door to door for those that couldn't get out? This is a representative democracy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" you really don’t need a 2nd referendum you just need to go back to your constituents really and consult with them. " They did. It was called the 2017 General Election. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That’s all he does question after question after question 8 in his last post he’s the headmaster we are all his naughty kids not listning to him he be bringing out the cane next lol Why do you bother posting? You really just want to pop up and tell me that I ask questions? Questions that you don't want to think about. Too hard? Too boring? Boo hoo
And again you respond with a load of questions, I think I am beginning to understand, you have lots of questions, many do, but you are unable to filter, you attach absolute importance to every question. In any discussion there can be questions that can wait, things that don't need to be answered right this second in minute detail (this stretches far beyond the score of this conversation as I have been looking over many of the other posts you have put on here). I will not engage with you again, it's pointless. You may post a response and feel somehow that having the last word means you have one. Quite frankly I no longer care. You cannot discuss with you. And no, the questions were not too hard, voluminous, demanding, beyond what was in any way practical to answer in this type of forum, but they really really did get boring."I don't think that you are beginning to understand. Leaving the EU is complicated, but you have nothing to offer to the discussion. No analysis. No reasoning. We can get better trade deals for one country than as part of a global trading block. You believe we'll be better off. Got it
Now two posts doing nothing but complain about me asking questions that you can't answer.
Got it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
