The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[nirvana]

|OECD (experts) do u turn

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/21/oecd-does-a-u-turn-over-brexit-warning-as-it-revises-growth-forecast-for-britain

[nirvana]

Mrs May on the front foot with a straight bat. Fico, King of Slovakia, threatens pain

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/19/theresa-may-rounds-on-eu-leaders-who-criticise-brexit-telling-th/

[nirvana]

Only 1/3rd of voters including, Sturge, Bleurgh and Farron, back a second referendum

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/21/voters-showing-no-signs-of-buyers-remorse-over-brexit-top-pollst/

[MintTrav]

Only 1/3rd of voters including, Sturge, Bleurgh and Farron, back a second referendum

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/21/voters-showing-no-signs-of-buyers-remorse-over-brexit-top-pollst/

Only? That's a hell of a lot, considering the number on the Remain side who have stated that they have accepted the result as final. I surmise that the one-third includes some who voted Out.

Farron isn't part of the one-third wanting a second referendum, though some papers seem to have misunderstood his position. This is from his speech - "When Theresa May does agree a deal with the EU, we want the people to decide. Not a re-run of the referendum, not a second referendum, but a referendum on the terms of the as-yet-unknown Brexit deal."

I assume your earlier remark about him being undemocratic is because you were under the same misunderstanding and in your opinion a second referendum (which he isn't calling for) would somehow be undemocratic.

[DungBeetle]

Except he also talked of putting the proposed Brexit deal details to the British people and said "if we vote no to that deal then it is not satisfactory for the British people and we will remain a member of the European Union"

How is that not a second referendum if there is an option to remain?  He's just trying to be a weasel about it and looks like you have fallen for it.

[PokerBroker]

I can't take Tim Farron seriously.  That voice. 

[nirvana]

Only 1/3rd of voters including, Sturge, Bleurgh and Farron, back a second referendum

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/21/voters-showing-no-signs-of-buyers-remorse-over-brexit-top-pollst/

Only? That's a hell of a lot, considering the number on the Remain side who have stated that they have accepted the result as final. I surmise that the one-third includes some who voted Out.

Farron isn't part of the one-third wanting a second referendum, though some papers seem to have misunderstood his position. This is from his speech - "When Theresa May does agree a deal with the EU, we want the people to decide. Not a re-run of the referendum, not a second referendum, but a referendum on the terms of the as-yet-unknown Brexit deal."

I assume your earlier remark about him being undemocratic is because you were under the same misunderstanding and in your opinion a second referendum (which he isn't calling for) would somehow be undemocratic.

Semantics comrade, semantics. And yah, I do think a second referendum would be undemocratic. Leave means leave, I think the question, though laughable, was quite clear, as was the result.

[neeko]

Only 1/3rd of voters including, Sturge, Bleurgh and Farron, back a second referendum

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/21/voters-showing-no-signs-of-buyers-remorse-over-brexit-top-pollst/

Only? That's a hell of a lot, considering the number on the Remain side who have stated that they have accepted the result as final. I surmise that the one-third includes some who voted Out.

Farron isn't part of the one-third wanting a second referendum, though some papers seem to have misunderstood his position. This is from his speech - "When Theresa May does agree a deal with the EU, we want the people to decide. Not a re-run of the referendum, not a second referendum, but a referendum on the terms of the as-yet-unknown Brexit deal."

I assume your earlier remark about him being undemocratic is because you were under the same misunderstanding and in your opinion a second referendum (which he isn't calling for) would somehow be undemocratic.

Semantics comrade, semantics. And yah, I do think a second referendum would be undemocratic. Leave means leave, I think the question, though laughable, was quite clear, as was the result.

If that is the case then why was the 2016 referendum allowed as the 1975 referendum would have decided the issue for ever.

[DungBeetle]

Only 1/3rd of voters including, Sturge, Bleurgh and Farron, back a second referendum

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/21/voters-showing-no-signs-of-buyers-remorse-over-brexit-top-pollst/

Only? That's a hell of a lot, considering the number on the Remain side who have stated that they have accepted the result as final. I surmise that the one-third includes some who voted Out.

Farron isn't part of the one-third wanting a second referendum, though some papers seem to have misunderstood his position. This is from his speech - "When Theresa May does agree a deal with the EU, we want the people to decide. Not a re-run of the referendum, not a second referendum, but a referendum on the terms of the as-yet-unknown Brexit deal."

I assume your earlier remark about him being undemocratic is because you were under the same misunderstanding and in your opinion a second referendum (which he isn't calling for) would somehow be undemocratic.

Semantics comrade, semantics. And yah, I do think a second referendum would be undemocratic. Leave means leave, I think the question, though laughable, was quite clear, as was the result.

If that is the case then why was the 2016 referendum allowed as the 1975 referendum would have decided the issue for ever.

Feels like there is a fair amount of difference between us having another referendum in 2050 as opposed to Tim Farron re-running it in 2017 because he didn't like the result.  (Admittedly there is an argument that before triggering article 50 we can have as much debate and referendae as we like before pulling the trigger)

[Doobs]

Only 1/3rd of voters including, Sturge, Bleurgh and Farron, back a second referendum

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/21/voters-showing-no-signs-of-buyers-remorse-over-brexit-top-pollst/

Only? That's a hell of a lot, considering the number on the Remain side who have stated that they have accepted the result as final. I surmise that the one-third includes some who voted Out.

Farron isn't part of the one-third wanting a second referendum, though some papers seem to have misunderstood his position. This is from his speech - "When Theresa May does agree a deal with the EU, we want the people to decide. Not a re-run of the referendum, not a second referendum, but a referendum on the terms of the as-yet-unknown Brexit deal."

I assume your earlier remark about him being undemocratic is because you were under the same misunderstanding and in your opinion a second referendum (which he isn't calling for) would somehow be undemocratic.

Semantics comrade, semantics. And yah, I do think a second referendum would be undemocratic. Leave means leave, I think the question, though laughable, was quite clear, as was the result.

If that is the case then why was the 2016 referendum allowed as the 1975 referendum would have decided the issue for ever.

Feels like there is a fair amount of difference between us having another referendum in 2050 as opposed to Tim Farron re-running it in 2017 because he didn't like the result.  (Admittedly there is an argument that before triggering article 50 we can have as much debate and referendae as we like before pulling the trigger)

You could make an argument that people in 1975 haven't got what they voted for, and indeed the brexiters did before the referendum.  It seems pretty unlikely that the voters in 2016 are going to get what they voted for either.  It all feels very unsatisfactory right now.

Every time I hear somebody from a tinpot country making various threats to us, I fear I am becoming a little bit more xenophobic.  I haven't quite reached the level where I am thinking that Brexit is a good thing yet, but give me a few more months of this.

[nirvana]

Only 1/3rd of voters including, Sturge, Bleurgh and Farron, back a second referendum

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/21/voters-showing-no-signs-of-buyers-remorse-over-brexit-top-pollst/

Only? That's a hell of a lot, considering the number on the Remain side who have stated that they have accepted the result as final. I surmise that the one-third includes some who voted Out.

Farron isn't part of the one-third wanting a second referendum, though some papers seem to have misunderstood his position. This is from his speech - "When Theresa May does agree a deal with the EU, we want the people to decide. Not a re-run of the referendum, not a second referendum, but a referendum on the terms of the as-yet-unknown Brexit deal."

I assume your earlier remark about him being undemocratic is because you were under the same misunderstanding and in your opinion a second referendum (which he isn't calling for) would somehow be undemocratic.

Semantics comrade, semantics. And yah, I do think a second referendum would be undemocratic. Leave means leave, I think the question, though laughable, was quite clear, as was the result.

If that is the case then why was the 2016 referendum allowed as the 1975 referendum would have decided the issue for ever.

Feels like there is a fair amount of difference between us having another referendum in 2050 as opposed to Tim Farron re-running it in 2017 because he didn't like the result.  (Admittedly there is an argument that before triggering article 50 we can have as much debate and referendae as we like before pulling the trigger)

You could make an argument that people in 1975 haven't got what they voted for, and indeed the brexiters did before the referendum.  It seems pretty unlikely that the voters in 2016 are going to get what they voted for either.  It all feels very unsatisfactory right now.

Every time I hear somebody from a tinpot country making various threats to us, I fear I am becoming a little bit more xenophobic.  I haven't quite reached the level where I am thinking that Brexit is a good thing yet, but give me a few more months of this.

Fico !!

[nirvana]

Only 1/3rd of voters including, Sturge, Bleurgh and Farron, back a second referendum

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/21/voters-showing-no-signs-of-buyers-remorse-over-brexit-top-pollst/

Only? That's a hell of a lot, considering the number on the Remain side who have stated that they have accepted the result as final. I surmise that the one-third includes some who voted Out.

Farron isn't part of the one-third wanting a second referendum, though some papers seem to have misunderstood his position. This is from his speech - "When Theresa May does agree a deal with the EU, we want the people to decide. Not a re-run of the referendum, not a second referendum, but a referendum on the terms of the as-yet-unknown Brexit deal."

I assume your earlier remark about him being undemocratic is because you were under the same misunderstanding and in your opinion a second referendum (which he isn't calling for) would somehow be undemocratic.

Semantics comrade, semantics. And yah, I do think a second referendum would be undemocratic. Leave means leave, I think the question, though laughable, was quite clear, as was the result.

If that is the case then why was the 2016 referendum allowed as the 1975 referendum would have decided the issue for ever.

Pretty silly question tbf and yr quite bright

[TightEnd]

Look how much more fun last year's Labour leadership contest was compared to this one.

[TightEnd]

this is worthy of a bit of time, a deep read but good thought provoking stuff

"Liberal cosmopolitanism collided hard with Robert Tombs's England in the referendum. "

http://reaction.life/theresa-may-right-reject-global-elites-mania-open-borders/

[TightEnd]

How has the Brexit vote affected the UK economy? September verdict

good catch all article

https://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2016/sep/21/how-has-the-brexit-vote-affected-the-uk-economy-september-verdict?CMP=twt_gu