EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[DarloRich]

What, a precise summary of historical facts turned up? Vote again or just ignore is a standard EU dirty trick.

I have added to the post above. Please do try to understand the concepts involved and do some research. However it is easier just to look for easy words and simple statements that reinforce your prejudiced I guess.

I am sure, for instance, you understand how the Irish constitution works. You haven't just accepted a biased and inaccurate Facebook post at face value have you? Further, I am sure you have looked into how the Irish secured changes to the text of troublesome EU treaties and ensured their concerns were considered and how once the concerns of the people were addressed the constitution required they be asked again.

You do understand how the Dutch constitution works and that their referendum were advisory? You do know that the Dutch government then negotiated changes to the proposed treaties to alleviate those concerns.

You know all this right?

 

[dosxuk]

What is the eventual aim ? ..for everyone to be on Berlin time ?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...ing-time-from-2021/ar-BBVfl9w?ocid=spartanntp


This is something that should be down to individual countries to decide - the wrench from the EU will be painful but it is the only alternative to the dictatorship of bureaucracy.

Old rule - all EU countries must change to / from daylight savings on the same date.

New rule - individual members can decide if they want to implement daylight savings at all.

So the EU have just done what you wanted, given individual countries the right to decide whether they implement daylight savings.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Old rule - all EU countries must change to / from daylight savings on the same date.

New rule - individual members can decide if they want to implement daylight savings at all.

So the EU have just done what you wanted, given individual countries the right to decide whether they implement daylight savings.

I must admit it surprises me they have done this - putting the whole EU on the same timezone would make most sense.

 

[mmh]

Old rule - all EU countries must change to / from daylight savings on the same date.

New rule - individual members can decide if they want to implement daylight savings at all.

So the EU have just done what you wanted, given individual countries the right to decide whether they implement daylight savings.

That isn't what the article says.

 

[HH]

Leavers don't do research; research comes to them unbidden - via Facebook. Job's a good 'un!

 

[SHD]

I must admit it surprises me they have done this - putting the whole EU on the same timezone would make most sense.

CET/UTC +1 (in winter) is already way too wide in longitude (compare the sunrise/sunset hours in Warsaw and Madrid). Even within a single country, there may be significant differences (approx. 45 minutes between Strasbourg and Brest). Lumping together Portugal & Ireland, CET (UTC+1 in winter) countries, and EET (UTC +2 in winter) countries (Romania/Bulgaria/Greece/Cyprus/Finland/Baltic countries) would make zero sense.

 

[Clip]

Leavers don't do research; research comes to them unbidden - via Facebook. Job's a good 'un!

Are you saying all 17 million people who voted leave didnt do any research and they got all their info from facebook? Thats a mighty big claim so you can obviously back it up with solid facts about your claim?

 

[Jonny]

I have added to the post above. Please do try to understand the concepts involved and do some research. However it is easier just to look for easy words and simple statements that reinforce your prejudiced I guess.

I am sure, for instance, you understand how the Irish constitution works. You haven't just accepted a biased and inaccurate Facebook post at face value have you? Further, I am sure you have looked into how the Irish secured changes to the text of troublesome EU treaties and ensured their concerns were considered and how once the concerns of the people were addressed the constitution required they be asked again.

You do understand how the Dutch constitution works and that their referendum were advisory? You do know that the Dutch government then negotiated changes to the proposed treaties to alleviate those concerns.

You know all this right?

Most so-called research involves reading liberal-made proverbial bull excrement that is generally either the output of a particularly skewed groupthink exercise, a so-called academic who is just trying to keep a sponsor happy and is throwing truth to the wind in the process, someone with an agenda or all of the above. Please don't get me going about liberal so-called Theologians and the damage they can do; sadly the contagion is not contained to Theology departments but has been spreading like wildfire throughout Universities for decades now. In fact, a lot of it sounds like the particular brand of proverbial bull excrement that comes from a student union.

If the Constitution of a country explicitly allows for referendums to be ignored, then the country in question needs a new constitution - one that doesn't let the government wriggle out so easily. In other words, that image-meme was essentially correct and the only way you can explain otherwise is by pointing out that its laws were defective. There was me, thinking that Britain had the most screwed constitutional system in the developed world. It seems that other countries have it even worse.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Most so-called research involves reading liberal-made proverbial bull excrement that is generally either the output of a particularly skewed groupthink exercise, a so-called academic who is just trying to keep a sponsor happy and is throwing truth to the wind in the process, someone with an agenda or all of the above. Please don't get me going about liberal so-called Theologians and the damage they can do; sadly the contagion is not contained to Theology departments but has been spreading like wildfire throughout Universities for decades now. In fact, a lot of it sounds like the particular brand of proverbial bull excrement that comes from a student union.

What a load of populist tripe. I'm sorry, I don't know where to start in countering that.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Most so-called research involves reading liberal-made proverbial bull excrement that is generally either the output of a particularly skewed groupthink exercise, a so-called academic who is just trying to keep a sponsor happy and is throwing truth to the wind in the process, someone with an agenda or all of the above. Please don't get me going about liberal so-called Theologians and the damage they can do; sadly the contagion is not contained to Theology departments but has been spreading like wildfire throughout Universities for decades now. In fact, a lot of it sounds like the particular brand of proverbial bull excrement that comes from a student union.

And yet you believe a biased, inaccurate and misleading post shared on social media.
I am assuming you do not see the irony there.

 

[DarloRich]

Most so-called research involves reading liberal-made proverbial bull excrement that is generally either the output of a particularly skewed groupthink exercise, a so-called academic who is just trying to keep a sponsor happy and is throwing truth to the wind in the process, someone with an agenda or all of the above. Please don't get me going about liberal so-called Theologians and the damage they can do; sadly the contagion is not contained to Theology departments but has been spreading like wildfire throughout Universities for decades now. In fact, a lot of it sounds like the particular brand of proverbial bull excrement that comes from a student union.

If the Constitution of a country explicitly allows for referendums to be ignored, then the country in question needs a new constitution - one that doesn't let the government wriggle out so easily. In other words, that image-meme was essentially correct and the only way you can explain otherwise is by pointing out that its laws were defective. There was me, thinking that Britain had the most screwed constitutional system in the developed world. It seems that other countries have it even worse.

WOW. what on earth are you on about? It seems the answer to my question is no, you haven't a clue. Much easier just to type that than the bizarre diatribe quoted above. Wow.

EDIT - why would theologians have any impact on your ability to look into a topic? I don't want you to write your thesis on this point, just to look behind the guff you happily share and understand some of the concepts. Do "Theologians" prevent you from accessing a wide range of sources? Perhaps evil liberal "Theology departments" make reading views of people with differing views to your own difficult. Do "thologians" prevent you from using google? Perhaps "theologians" ensure that only pro brexit information is available on your computer. Do you know what Theology is?

This really is comedy gold.

What a load of populist tripe. I'm sorry, I don't know where to start in countering that.

It cant be.

 

[Bantamzen]

What a load of populist tripe. I'm sorry, I don't know where to start in countering that.

Seconded, if you are prepared to label anything that doesn't suit your argument BS then frankly the debate is over, not that it was a debate in the first place. It seems to have been a common theme amongst some (not all by any means) leavers, in the same way that flat Earthers dismiss evidence that the world is spherical, or the way conspiracists claim that the evidence that man landed on the moon was made in a film studio....

This is why we are where we are, because May has been trying to appease all sides including the hard-liners who make ridiculous claims then run away when they are called out on them.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Most so-called research involves reading liberal-made proverbial bull excrement that is generally either the output of a particularly skewed groupthink exercise, a so-called academic who is just trying to keep a sponsor happy and is throwing truth to the wind in the process, someone with an agenda or all of the above. Please don't get me going about liberal so-called Theologians and the damage they can do; sadly the contagion is not contained to Theology departments but has been spreading like wildfire throughout Universities for decades now. In fact, a lot of it sounds like the particular brand of proverbial bull excrement that comes from a student union.

If the Constitution of a country explicitly allows for referendums to be ignored, then the country in question needs a new constitution - one that doesn't let the government wriggle out so easily. In other words, that image-meme was essentially correct and the only way you can explain otherwise is by pointing out that its laws were defective. There was me, thinking that Britain had the most screwed constitutional system in the developed world. It seems that other countries have it even worse.

So a referendum can never be overturned if the situation changes ever?

In that case this referendum shouldn't have happened as we had one way back when. Regardless of changes that referendum can not be ignored.

What DarloRich is saying in his examples is that once the referendum was had and the public didn't support it, the government went away, got better deals, addressed the electorate's concerns and gave it back to them to decide if this time the government had done a better job. The public agreed that they had done a better job and therefore the referendum result swung the other way. That is actually a beautiful example of democracy. But oh well, better to just take on face value facebook posts designed to incite distrust.

 

[HH]

Are you saying all 17 million people who voted leave didnt do any research and they got all their info from facebook? Thats a mighty big claim so you can obviously back it up with solid facts about your claim?

LOL. I don't think I said that. Maybe the difference is a bit subtle.

Why don't you provide me with evidence of how many of the 17.4m actually did any independent research?

 

[Giugiaro]

Please don't get me going about liberal so-called Theologians and the damage they can do; sadly the contagion is not contained to Theology departments but has been spreading like wildfire throughout Universities for decades now.

...
What!?

This is getting horrendously similar to the behaviour of Terrence Andrew Davis. Is anyone near his area who can check on his health?
Seriously, I don't like where this is going...

 

[Jonny]

So a referendum can never be overturned if the situation changes ever?

In that case this referendum shouldn't have happened as we had one way back when. Regardless of changes that referendum can not be ignored.

What DarloRich is saying in his examples is that once the referendum was had and the public didn't support it, the government went away, got better deals, addressed the electorate's concerns and gave it back to them to decide if this time the government had done a better job. The public agreed that they had done a better job and therefore the referendum result swung the other way. That is actually a beautiful example of democracy. But oh well, better to just take on face value facebook posts designed to incite distrust.

It would take a seismic shift based on things that could not have been known since 2016 for that to be been remotely reasonable. There has been no real news, except maybe the news that the European Commission (the part of the EU that does the work) are a load of donkey's poopers...

Then again, given some of the ridiculous fines that the same European Commission has handed out (and pocketed) for various, spurious breaches it is debatable whether the EU are a load of donkey's poopers was already a known fact by 2016.

...
What!?

This is getting horrendously similar to the behaviour of Terrence Andrew Davis. Is anyone near his area who can check on his health?
Seriously, I don't like where this is going...

Don't worry, I've taken my medication. Besides I would never do anything that silly.

 

[YorkshireBear]

It would take a seismic shift based on things that could not have been known since 2016 for that to be been remotely reasonable. There has been no real news, except maybe the news that the European Commission (the part of the EU that does the work) are a load of donkey's poopers...

Then again, given some of the ridiculous fines that the same European Commission has handed out (and pocketed) for various, spurious breaches it is debatable whether the EU are a load of donkey's poopers was already a known fact by 2016.

Neither me or anyone were referring to a second referendum for Brexit, we were referring to the referendums you shared in a facebook post as ones where the EU has overruled them.

 

[WelshBluebird]

It would take a seismic shift based on things that could not have been known since 2016 for that to be been remotely reasonable. There has been no real news, except maybe the news that the European Commission (the part of the EU that does the work) are a load of donkey's poopers...

Right, so the findings that the leave campaign broke the law isn't "real news" then?
Nor is the fact that the government is incompetent?
Nor is the fact that the Brexit elite now seem to want to force a hard no deal Brexit, despite that being totally dismissed by them before the vote?
None of that is real news? Right ok.

 

[edwin_m]

It would take a seismic shift based on things that could not have been known since 2016 for that to be been remotely reasonable. There has been no real news, except maybe the news that the European Commission (the part of the EU that does the work) are a load of donkey's poopers...

Then: We will stay in the single market. Now: We're not staying in the single market.
Then: We will stay in the customs union. Now: No we can't, unless the backstop kicks in which the promoters don't want.
Then: We will sign up loads of trade deals really quickly. Now: we won't have a trade deal with anyone bigger than Switzerland.
Then: We can trade with the EU on the same terms. Now: only if we leave with the deal and lots more things are agreed afterwards.
Then: We will have blue passports. Now: We could have blue passports even if we stayed.
Then: We will restrict free movement. Now: We could always have restricted free movement but never bothered to.

("Now" refers to May's deal. That may all change again in the next few days. )

I think a few things have changed from what we were told by the Leave campaign. But flat-earthers probably don't believe in seismic shifts.

 

[Bantamzen]

Has the Speaker now killed May's deal?

Speaker John Bercow addresses the matter of a third meaningful vote on the prime minister's Brexit deal.

Mr Bercow has previously ruled that a third vote can not be brought to Parliament if it is "substantially the same" as the last vote on the deal.

"In order that there should be no misunderstanding, I do expect the government to meet the test of change," he says.

The government "should not seek to circumvent my ruling", he says.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-parliaments-47696409

Its all kicking off in the corridors, whatever next? There are rumours of a "surprising" statement from the DUP now circulating. Once this is all over, I wonder who will direct the film and TV spin offs...

 

[Howardh]

Are you saying all 17 million people who voted leave didnt do any research and they got all their info from facebook? Thats a mighty big claim so you can obviously back it up with solid facts about your claim?

I can point to about 650 people who probably got their facts about leaving the EU from facebook. Or the Dandy. They're easy to find, they are all in one London postcode right now!

 

[WelshBluebird]

Are you saying all 17 million people who voted leave didnt do any research and they got all their info from facebook? Thats a mighty big claim so you can obviously back it up with solid facts about your claim?

All 17 million? No. But some of them? Yes. Enough to have made a different to the result of the vote? Maybe, especially if you add in the "Newspapers" and Brexit Bus among other things too.

It is the same as the racists issue, or when people trying to claim that remainers are saying that leavers are stupid or whatever. Nobody is saying that 17.4 million people are racist or stupid etc. But what people are saying is that SOME of that number are, and that number may well have been enough to swing the result.

 

[Jonny]

Right, so the findings that the leave campaign broke the law isn't "real news" then?
Nor is the fact that the government is incompetent?
Nor is the fact that the Brexit "elite" now seem to want to force a hard no deal Brexit, despite that being totally dismissed by them before the vote?
None of that is real news? Right ok.

There was the slight matter of the government's explanatory leaflet, so highly biased towards remain, it was practically remain cheating, apparently worth £9 million pounds. The subsequent claims of leave illegality also look like a hatchet job by a journalist with a pro-remain agenda.

 

[Howardh]

I like option D ;

D - Nick Boles’s - common market 2.0

Tabled by Conservatives Nick Boles, Robert Halfon and Andrew Percy and Labour’s Stephen Kinnock, Lucy Powell and Diana Johnson. The motion proposes UK membership of the European free trade association and European Economic Area. It allows continued participation in the single market and a “comprehensive customs arrangement” with the EU after Brexit, which would remain in place until the agreement of a wider trade deal which guarantees frictionless movement of goods and an open border in Ireland.

Keeps us with almost the exact same benefits as we have now (D. Davis) but all the 17.4m will be skipping as we leave their hated EU so finally they will stop whinging.

 

[Esker-pades]

Most so-called research involves reading liberal-made proverbial bull excrement that is generally either the output of a particularly skewed groupthink exercise, a so-called academic who is just trying to keep a sponsor happy and is throwing truth to the wind in the process, someone with an agenda or all of the above. Please don't get me going about liberal so-called Theologians and the damage they can do; sadly the contagion is not contained to Theology departments but has been spreading like wildfire throughout Universities for decades now. In fact, a lot of it sounds like the particular brand of proverbial bull excrement that comes from a student union.

If the Constitution of a country explicitly allows for referendums to be ignored, then the country in question needs a new constitution - one that doesn't let the government wriggle out so easily. In other words, that image-meme was essentially correct and the only way you can explain otherwise is by pointing out that its laws were defective. There was me, thinking that Britain had the most screwed constitutional system in the developed world. It seems that other countries have it even worse.

So is all academic work "bull excrement" or just the stuff that is critical of your point of view?

 

[WelshBluebird]

There was the slight matter of the government's explanatory leaflet, so highly biased towards remain, it was practically remain cheating, apparently worth £9 million pounds. The subsequent claims of leave illegality also look like a hatchet job by a journalist with a pro-remain agenda.

Remind me again which campaign has been found to have actually broken the law?

 

[nlogax]

There was the slight matter of the government's explanatory leaflet, so highly biased towards remain, it was practically remain cheating, apparently worth £9 million pounds. The subsequent claims of leave illegality also look like a hatchet job by a journalist with a pro-remain agenda.

The government's leaflet clearly described its position and preference re. the referendum outcome, about which they made no secret. Cameron's government held the view that it would be beneficial for the United Kingdom to remain within the European Union. Remember?

 

[Jonny]

All 17 million? No. But some of them? Yes. Enough to have made a different to the result of the vote? Maybe, especially if you add in the "Newspapers" and Brexit Bus among other things too.

It is the same as the racists issue, or when people trying to claim that remainers are saying that leavers are stupid or whatever. Nobody is saying that 17.4 million people are racist or stupid etc. But what people are saying is that SOME of that number are, and that number may well have been enough to swing the result.

Or, that you would seek to selectively exclude those that you don't like.

So is all academic work "bull excrement" or just the stuff that is critical of your point of view?

It's BS when it either doesn't have factual basis, relies entirely on spurious anecdotes that cannot be representative of other cases or uses highly distorted statistics. Some areas are more susceptible than others, especially the so-called "Liberal Arts". Some areas need to be treated with extreme caution, however.

On the other hand, lab-based Science is the leasr affected. Or, at least I thought it was... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

 

[bnm]

Don't worry, I've taken my medication.

May I respectfully suggest you return to your GP to check the dosage is accurate.

 

[Darandio]

It's BS when it either doesn't have factual basis, relies entirely on spurious anecdotes that cannot be representative of other cases or uses highly distorted statistics.

But is totally legitimate when it pops up on your Facebook feed? Okay, got it.