Farage in favour of second referendum

[The Todal]

Oh, what fun. I'm sure he was only half-hearted about it but it was a
silly thing to say.

He knows, of course, that a second referendum would very likely be a
more emphatic result in favour of Leave.

The alternative would be a more complicated referendum with a multiple
choice. In that event, only a million or so voters would bother to go
to the voting booths and we'd have no clear mandate for any option.

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by The Todal
Oh, what fun. I'm sure he was only half-hearted about it but it was a
silly thing to say.
He knows, of course, that a second referendum would very likely be a
more emphatic result in favour of Leave.
The alternative would be a more complicated referendum with a multiple
choice. In that event, only a million or so voters would bother to go
to the voting booths and we'd have no clear mandate for any option.

Learn the lessons of history: -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Maastricht_Treaty_referendum,_1993

each time the isolationists won on a narrow majority in the the first referendum, only to lose heavily in the second when reason prevailed...

[The Todal]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by The Todal
Oh, what fun. I'm sure he was only half-hearted about it but it was a
silly thing to say.
He knows, of course, that a second referendum would very likely be a
more emphatic result in favour of Leave.
The alternative would be a more complicated referendum with a multiple
choice. In that event, only a million or so voters would bother to go
to the voting booths and we'd have no clear mandate for any option.

Learn the lessons of history: -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Maastricht_Treaty_referendum,_1993
each time the isolationists won on a narrow majority in the the first referendum, only to lose heavily in the second when reason prevailed...

I think you'd have to accept that the lesson of history (if you lose
first time you'll win the second time) is not the sort of lesson we
should stake our future on.

If the UK had a second referendum there would be nothing to justify a
massive change of mind. Not unless the main campaigners for Leave
decided to recant of their heresy and admit that they were wrong the
first time.

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by The Todal

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by The Todal
Oh, what fun. I'm sure he was only half-hearted about it but it was a
silly thing to say.
He knows, of course, that a second referendum would very likely be a
more emphatic result in favour of Leave.
The alternative would be a more complicated referendum with a multiple
choice. In that event, only a million or so voters would bother to go
to the voting booths and we'd have no clear mandate for any option.

Learn the lessons of history: -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Maastricht_Treaty_referendum,_1993
each time the isolationists won on a narrow majority in the the first referendum, only to lose heavily in the second when reason prevailed...

I think you'd have to accept that the lesson of history (if you lose
first time you'll win the second time) is not the sort of lesson we
should stake our future on.
If the UK had a second referendum there would be nothing to justify a
massive change of mind. Not unless the main campaigners for Leave
decided to recant of their heresy and admit that they were wrong the
first time.

Nigel was speaking from the hip - he will row back...

[Nightjar]

Post by The Todal
Oh, what fun. I'm sure he was only half-hearted about it but it was a
silly thing to say.
He knows, of course, that a second referendum would very likely be a
more emphatic result in favour of Leave.

Really? The last poll I saw, towards the end of last year, indicated
that 42% still supported leave, while 47% thought that, in retrospect,
it was the wrong choice. Around two in three think that May's government
are mishandling the talks, which may be a factor in those figures.

[The Todal]

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal
Oh, what fun. I'm sure he was only half-hearted about it but it was a
silly thing to say.
He knows, of course, that a second referendum would very likely be a
more emphatic result in favour of Leave.

Really? The last poll I saw, towards the end of last year, indicated
that 42% still supported leave, while 47% thought that, in retrospect,
it was the wrong choice. Around two in three think that May's government
are mishandling the talks, which may be a factor in those figures.

And the polls before the last General Election showed Labour's support
practically falling off a cliff, with Labour bound to lose many seats.

If there was a second referendum, there would be a renewed campaign and
the public would be inundated with fresh propaganda, probably of a more
sophisticated and convincing sort than last time but it would still be
from both sides.

And when it comes to the crunch, the vote for "let's have a change" is
likely to be more attractive than "let's just stay as we are".

[Ian Jackson]

Post by The Todal
And when it comes to the crunch, the vote for "let's have a change" is
likely to be more attractive than "let's just stay as we are".

For some, all they really want is to change things back to what they
used to be like - especially Mrs Miggins' husband, who wants
shipbuilding to return to Wearside (etc).

[Nightjar]

Post by The Todal

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal
Oh, what fun. I'm sure he was only half-hearted about it but it was a
silly thing to say.
He knows, of course, that a second referendum would very likely be a
more emphatic result in favour of Leave.

Really? The last poll I saw, towards the end of last year, indicated
that 42% still supported leave, while 47% thought that, in retrospect,
it was the wrong choice. Around two in three think that May's
government are mishandling the talks, which may be a factor in those
figures.

And the polls before the last General Election showed Labour's support
practically falling off a cliff, with Labour bound to lose many seats.

The fact that some polls have been wrong doesn't mean that all polls are
bound to be wrong.

Post by The Todal
If there was a second referendum, there would be a renewed campaign and
the public would be inundated with fresh propaganda, probably of a more
sophisticated and convincing sort than last time but it would still be
from both sides.
And when it comes to the crunch, the vote for "let's have a change" is
likely to be more attractive than "let's just stay as we are".

I am not convinced that would be the case now that people have seen just
how messy trying to leave is.

[tim...]

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal
Oh, what fun. I'm sure he was only half-hearted about it but it was a
silly thing to say.
He knows, of course, that a second referendum would very likely be a
more emphatic result in favour of Leave.

Really? The last poll I saw, towards the end of last year, indicated
that 42% still supported leave, while 47% thought that, in retrospect,
it was the wrong choice. Around two in three think that May's government
are mishandling the talks, which may be a factor in those figures.

And the polls before the last General Election showed Labour's support
practically falling off a cliff, with Labour bound to lose many seats.

The fact that some polls have been wrong doesn't mean that all polls are
bound to be wrong.

Post by The Todal
If there was a second referendum, there would be a renewed campaign and
the public would be inundated with fresh propaganda, probably of a more
sophisticated and convincing sort than last time but it would still be
from both sides.
And when it comes to the crunch, the vote for "let's have a change" is
likely to be more attractive than "let's just stay as we are".

I am not convinced that would be the case now that people have seen just
how messy trying to leave is.

which is exactly why we shouldn't be having a vote now

the mess created by trying to leave is an entirely irrelevant factor in the
decision, but it is influencing some people into having second thoughts.

But they shouldn't. They should to wait until the end of the negotiation
and see what the deal is, before deciding

tim

Post by Nightjar
--
--
Colin Bignell

[Ian Jackson]

Post by tim...

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal
Oh, what fun. I'm sure he was only half-hearted about it but it
was a silly thing to say.
He knows, of course, that a second referendum would very likely be
a more emphatic result in favour of Leave.

Really? The last poll I saw, towards the end of last year,
indicated that 42% still supported leave, while 47% thought that,
in retrospect, it was the wrong choice. Around two in three think
that May's government are mishandling the talks, which may be a
factor in those figures.

And the polls before the last General Election showed Labour's
support practically falling off a cliff, with Labour bound to lose
many seats.

The fact that some polls have been wrong doesn't mean that all polls
are bound to be wrong.

Post by The Todal
If there was a second referendum, there would be a renewed campaign
and the public would be inundated with fresh propaganda, probably of
a more sophisticated and convincing sort than last time but it would
still be from both sides.
And when it comes to the crunch, the vote for "let's have a change"
is likely to be more attractive than "let's just stay as we are".

I am not convinced that would be the case now that people have seen
just how messy trying to leave is.

which is exactly why we shouldn't be having a vote now
the mess created by trying to leave is an entirely irrelevant factor in
the decision, but it is influencing some people into having second
thoughts.
But they shouldn't. They should to wait until the end of the
negotiation and see what the deal is, before deciding

I tend to agree with you.

While we do seem to be gradually sliding into the shit, maybe this
situation is only temporary - and it will suddenly become perfectly
clear that we are about to emerge into the sunny uplands.

On the other hand, if it turns out that we have become totally
submerged, it may be far too late to do much about it.

[MM]

Post by tim...

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal
Oh, what fun. I'm sure he was only half-hearted about it but it was a
silly thing to say.
He knows, of course, that a second referendum would very likely be a
more emphatic result in favour of Leave.

Really? The last poll I saw, towards the end of last year, indicated
that 42% still supported leave, while 47% thought that, in retrospect,
it was the wrong choice. Around two in three think that May's government
are mishandling the talks, which may be a factor in those figures.

And the polls before the last General Election showed Labour's support
practically falling off a cliff, with Labour bound to lose many seats.

The fact that some polls have been wrong doesn't mean that all polls are
bound to be wrong.

Post by The Todal
If there was a second referendum, there would be a renewed campaign and
the public would be inundated with fresh propaganda, probably of a more
sophisticated and convincing sort than last time but it would still be
from both sides.
And when it comes to the crunch, the vote for "let's have a change" is
likely to be more attractive than "let's just stay as we are".

I am not convinced that would be the case now that people have seen just
how messy trying to leave is.

which is exactly why we shouldn't be having a vote now

You mean you don't want to risk hearing the truth?

MM

[pamela]

Post by tim...

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal
Oh, what fun. I'm sure he was only half-hearted about it but
it was a silly thing to say.
He knows, of course, that a second referendum would very
likely be a more emphatic result in favour of Leave.

Really? The last poll I saw, towards the end of last year,
indicated that 42% still supported leave, while 47% thought
that, in retrospect, it was the wrong choice. Around two in
three think that May's government are mishandling the talks,
which may be a factor in those figures.

And the polls before the last General Election showed Labour's
support practically falling off a cliff, with Labour bound to
lose many seats.

The fact that some polls have been wrong doesn't mean that all
polls are bound to be wrong.

Post by The Todal
If there was a second referendum, there would be a renewed
campaign and the public would be inundated with fresh
propaganda, probably of a more sophisticated and convincing
sort than last time but it would still be from both sides.
And when it comes to the crunch, the vote for "let's have a
change" is likely to be more attractive than "let's just stay
as we are".

I am not convinced that would be the case now that people have
seen just how messy trying to leave is.

which is exactly why we shouldn't be having a vote now
the mess created by trying to leave is an entirely irrelevant
factor in the decision, but it is influencing some people into
having second thoughts.
But they shouldn't. They should to wait until the end of the
negotiation and see what the deal is, before deciding

That's when the second referendum should be held. It would ask if
the negotiated agreement is to the liking of the British public
and also ask if it's not then how does the public wish to
proceed.

All very democratic.

[The Todal]

Post by pamela

Post by tim...

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal
Oh, what fun. I'm sure he was only half-hearted about it but
it was a silly thing to say.
He knows, of course, that a second referendum would very
likely be a more emphatic result in favour of Leave.

Really? The last poll I saw, towards the end of last year,
indicated that 42% still supported leave, while 47% thought
that, in retrospect, it was the wrong choice. Around two in
three think that May's government are mishandling the talks,
which may be a factor in those figures.

And the polls before the last General Election showed Labour's
support practically falling off a cliff, with Labour bound to
lose many seats.

The fact that some polls have been wrong doesn't mean that all
polls are bound to be wrong.

Post by The Todal
If there was a second referendum, there would be a renewed
campaign and the public would be inundated with fresh
propaganda, probably of a more sophisticated and convincing
sort than last time but it would still be from both sides.
And when it comes to the crunch, the vote for "let's have a
change" is likely to be more attractive than "let's just stay
as we are".

I am not convinced that would be the case now that people have
seen just how messy trying to leave is.

which is exactly why we shouldn't be having a vote now
the mess created by trying to leave is an entirely irrelevant
factor in the decision, but it is influencing some people into
having second thoughts.
But they shouldn't. They should to wait until the end of the
negotiation and see what the deal is, before deciding

That's when the second referendum should be held. It would ask if
the negotiated agreement is to the liking of the British public
and also ask if it's not then how does the public wish to
proceed.
All very democratic.

It would be absolute stupidity to hold another referendum. But if our
Parliament is stupid enough to pass a law enabling us to have another
referendum I hope they will think it through this time. It shouldn't be
a simple yes/no referendum. There should be at least half a dozen
options. There should be a clear margin of victory to alter the status
quo - but maybe that means it would need a two thirds majority to halt
Brexit.

It would be more logical to have a referendum on an issue where the
considerations are relatively simple. Should we allow euthanasia? Should
we bring back capital punishment? Should we replace the House of Lords
with an elected chamber?

Anyone who thinks that membership of the EU involves simple principles
and simple considerations, is profoundly ignorant. Such people believe
that we should leave the EU immediately and negotiate the deals and
arrangements later and at leisure.

[pamela]

Post by The Todal

Post by pamela

Post by tim...

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal
Oh, what fun. I'm sure he was only half-hearted about it
but it was a silly thing to say.
He knows, of course, that a second referendum would very
likely be a more emphatic result in favour of Leave.

Really? The last poll I saw, towards the end of last year,
indicated that 42% still supported leave, while 47% thought
that, in retrospect, it was the wrong choice. Around two in
three think that May's government are mishandling the
talks, which may be a factor in those figures.

And the polls before the last General Election showed
Labour's support practically falling off a cliff, with
Labour bound to lose many seats.

The fact that some polls have been wrong doesn't mean that
all polls are bound to be wrong.

Post by The Todal
If there was a second referendum, there would be a renewed
campaign and the public would be inundated with fresh
propaganda, probably of a more sophisticated and convincing
sort than last time but it would still be from both sides.
And when it comes to the crunch, the vote for "let's have a
change" is likely to be more attractive than "let's just
stay as we are".

I am not convinced that would be the case now that people
have seen just how messy trying to leave is.

which is exactly why we shouldn't be having a vote now
the mess created by trying to leave is an entirely irrelevant
factor in the decision, but it is influencing some people into
having second thoughts.
But they shouldn't. They should to wait until the end of the
negotiation and see what the deal is, before deciding

That's when the second referendum should be held. It would ask
if the negotiated agreement is to the liking of the British
public and also ask if it's not then how does the public wish
to proceed.
All very democratic.

It would be absolute stupidity to hold another referendum. But
if our Parliament is stupid enough to pass a law enabling us to
have another referendum I hope they will think it through this
time. It shouldn't be a simple yes/no referendum. There should
be at least half a dozen options. There should be a clear margin
of victory to alter the status quo - but maybe that means it
would need a two thirds majority to halt Brexit.
It would be more logical to have a referendum on an issue where
the considerations are relatively simple. Should we allow
euthanasia? Should we bring back capital punishment? Should we
replace the House of Lords with an elected chamber?
Anyone who thinks that membership of the EU involves simple
principles and simple considerations, is profoundly ignorant.
Such people believe that we should leave the EU immediately and
negotiate the deals and arrangements later and at leisure.

The terms of Brexit were not known before the referendum. There
was only speculation and a good deal of exaggeration.

When the terms of agreement do emerge the government should
consult the British public to ask if that's what they intended.

A qualified majority, as you mention, would make more sense but
for consistency it would need to be applied to both referendums.

[MM]

Post by The Todal

Post by pamela

Post by tim...

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal
Oh, what fun. I'm sure he was only half-hearted about it but
it was a silly thing to say.
He knows, of course, that a second referendum would very
likely be a more emphatic result in favour of Leave.

Really? The last poll I saw, towards the end of last year,
indicated that 42% still supported leave, while 47% thought
that, in retrospect, it was the wrong choice. Around two in
three think that May's government are mishandling the talks,
which may be a factor in those figures.

And the polls before the last General Election showed Labour's
support practically falling off a cliff, with Labour bound to
lose many seats.

The fact that some polls have been wrong doesn't mean that all
polls are bound to be wrong.

Post by The Todal
If there was a second referendum, there would be a renewed
campaign and the public would be inundated with fresh
propaganda, probably of a more sophisticated and convincing
sort than last time but it would still be from both sides.
And when it comes to the crunch, the vote for "let's have a
change" is likely to be more attractive than "let's just stay
as we are".

I am not convinced that would be the case now that people have
seen just how messy trying to leave is.

which is exactly why we shouldn't be having a vote now
the mess created by trying to leave is an entirely irrelevant
factor in the decision, but it is influencing some people into
having second thoughts.
But they shouldn't. They should to wait until the end of the
negotiation and see what the deal is, before deciding

That's when the second referendum should be held. It would ask if
the negotiated agreement is to the liking of the British public
and also ask if it's not then how does the public wish to
proceed.
All very democratic.

It would be absolute stupidity to hold another referendum. But if our
Parliament is stupid enough to pass a law enabling us to have another
referendum I hope they will think it through this time. It shouldn't be
a simple yes/no referendum. There should be at least half a dozen
options. There should be a clear margin of victory to alter the status
quo - but maybe that means it would need a two thirds majority to halt
Brexit.
It would be more logical to have a referendum on an issue where the
considerations are relatively simple. Should we allow euthanasia? Should
we bring back capital punishment? Should we replace the House of Lords
with an elected chamber?
Anyone who thinks that membership of the EU involves simple principles
and simple considerations, is profoundly ignorant. Such people believe
that we should leave the EU immediately and negotiate the deals and
arrangements later and at leisure.

Profoundly ignorant aptly describes those who voted to leave.

I do have to wonder whether ~any~ referendum would manage to persuade
millions of people to vote for it. given the level of ignorance there
is in the British population.

MM

[Pelican]

Post by MM

Post by The Todal

Post by pamela

Post by tim...

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal
Oh, what fun. I'm sure he was only half-hearted about it but
it was a silly thing to say.
He knows, of course, that a second referendum would very
likely be a more emphatic result in favour of Leave.

Really? The last poll I saw, towards the end of last year,
indicated that 42% still supported leave, while 47% thought
that, in retrospect, it was the wrong choice. Around two in
three think that May's government are mishandling the talks,
which may be a factor in those figures.

And the polls before the last General Election showed Labour's
support practically falling off a cliff, with Labour bound to
lose many seats.

The fact that some polls have been wrong doesn't mean that all
polls are bound to be wrong.

Post by The Todal
If there was a second referendum, there would be a renewed
campaign and the public would be inundated with fresh
propaganda, probably of a more sophisticated and convincing
sort than last time but it would still be from both sides.
And when it comes to the crunch, the vote for "let's have a
change" is likely to be more attractive than "let's just stay
as we are".

I am not convinced that would be the case now that people have
seen just how messy trying to leave is.

which is exactly why we shouldn't be having a vote now
the mess created by trying to leave is an entirely irrelevant
factor in the decision, but it is influencing some people into
having second thoughts.
But they shouldn't. They should to wait until the end of the
negotiation and see what the deal is, before deciding

That's when the second referendum should be held. It would ask if
the negotiated agreement is to the liking of the British public
and also ask if it's not then how does the public wish to
proceed.
All very democratic.

It would be absolute stupidity to hold another referendum. But if our
Parliament is stupid enough to pass a law enabling us to have another
referendum I hope they will think it through this time. It shouldn't be
a simple yes/no referendum. There should be at least half a dozen
options. There should be a clear margin of victory to alter the status
quo - but maybe that means it would need a two thirds majority to halt
Brexit.
It would be more logical to have a referendum on an issue where the
considerations are relatively simple. Should we allow euthanasia? Should
we bring back capital punishment? Should we replace the House of Lords
with an elected chamber?
Anyone who thinks that membership of the EU involves simple principles
and simple considerations, is profoundly ignorant. Such people believe
that we should leave the EU immediately and negotiate the deals and
arrangements later and at leisure.

Profoundly ignorant aptly describes those who voted to leave.
I do have to wonder whether ~any~ referendum would manage to persuade
millions of people to vote for it. given the level of ignorance there
is in the British population.

Assuming you are correct in that assessment, it takes you nowhere.
Democracy gives no guarantee that people will make rational decisions
based on the information presented or available.

Post by MM
MM

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Pelican

Post by MM

Post by The Todal

Post by pamela

Post by tim...

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal
Oh, what fun. I'm sure he was only half-hearted about it but
it was a silly thing to say.
He knows, of course, that a second referendum would very
likely be a more emphatic result in favour of Leave.

Really? The last poll I saw, towards the end of last year,
indicated that 42% still supported leave, while 47% thought
that, in retrospect, it was the wrong choice. Around two in
three think that May's government are mishandling the talks,
which may be a factor in those figures.

And the polls before the last General Election showed Labour's
support practically falling off a cliff, with Labour bound to
lose many seats.

The fact that some polls have been wrong doesn't mean that all
polls are bound to be wrong.

Post by The Todal
If there was a second referendum, there would be a renewed
campaign and the public would be inundated with fresh
propaganda, probably of a more sophisticated and convincing
sort than last time but it would still be from both sides.
And when it comes to the crunch, the vote for "let's have a
change" is likely to be more attractive than "let's just stay
as we are".

I am not convinced that would be the case now that people have
seen just how messy trying to leave is.

which is exactly why we shouldn't be having a vote now
the mess created by trying to leave is an entirely irrelevant
factor in the decision, but it is influencing some people into
having second thoughts.
But they shouldn't. They should to wait until the end of the
negotiation and see what the deal is, before deciding

That's when the second referendum should be held. It would ask if
the negotiated agreement is to the liking of the British public
and also ask if it's not then how does the public wish to
proceed.
All very democratic.

It would be absolute stupidity to hold another referendum. But if our
Parliament is stupid enough to pass a law enabling us to have another
referendum I hope they will think it through this time. It shouldn't be
a simple yes/no referendum. There should be at least half a dozen
options. There should be a clear margin of victory to alter the status
quo - but maybe that means it would need a two thirds majority to halt
Brexit.
It would be more logical to have a referendum on an issue where the
considerations are relatively simple. Should we allow euthanasia? Should
we bring back capital punishment? Should we replace the House of Lords
with an elected chamber?
Anyone who thinks that membership of the EU involves simple principles
and simple considerations, is profoundly ignorant. Such people believe
that we should leave the EU immediately and negotiate the deals and
arrangements later and at leisure.

Profoundly ignorant aptly describes those who voted to leave.
I do have to wonder whether ~any~ referendum would manage to
persuade
millions of people to vote for it. given the level of ignorance there
is in the British population.

Assuming you are correct in that assessment, it takes you nowhere.
Democracy gives no guarantee that people will make rational decisions
based on the information presented or available.

You only have to listen to some of James o'Brien's "Tell us why you
voted to be worse off" interviews to realise that at least a certain
section of the Brexiteer community 'simply want to leave the EU'. Even
when they understand the flaws in their reasoning (and agree that they
were - and are - wrong), they still insist that they did the right thing
- and will gladly do it again. Rational decisions simply don't come into
it.

[tim...]

Post by Pelican

Post by MM

Post by The Todal

Post by pamela

Post by tim...

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal
Oh, what fun. I'm sure he was only half-hearted about it but
it was a silly thing to say.
He knows, of course, that a second referendum would very
likely be a more emphatic result in favour of Leave.

Really? The last poll I saw, towards the end of last year,
indicated that 42% still supported leave, while 47% thought
that, in retrospect, it was the wrong choice. Around two in
three think that May's government are mishandling the talks,
which may be a factor in those figures.

And the polls before the last General Election showed Labour's
support practically falling off a cliff, with Labour bound to
lose many seats.

The fact that some polls have been wrong doesn't mean that all
polls are bound to be wrong.

Post by The Todal
If there was a second referendum, there would be a renewed
campaign and the public would be inundated with fresh
propaganda, probably of a more sophisticated and convincing
sort than last time but it would still be from both sides.
And when it comes to the crunch, the vote for "let's have a
change" is likely to be more attractive than "let's just stay
as we are".

I am not convinced that would be the case now that people have
seen just how messy trying to leave is.

which is exactly why we shouldn't be having a vote now
the mess created by trying to leave is an entirely irrelevant
factor in the decision, but it is influencing some people into
having second thoughts.
But they shouldn't. They should to wait until the end of the
negotiation and see what the deal is, before deciding

That's when the second referendum should be held. It would ask if
the negotiated agreement is to the liking of the British public
and also ask if it's not then how does the public wish to
proceed.
All very democratic.

It would be absolute stupidity to hold another referendum. But if our
Parliament is stupid enough to pass a law enabling us to have another
referendum I hope they will think it through this time. It shouldn't be
a simple yes/no referendum. There should be at least half a dozen
options. There should be a clear margin of victory to alter the status
quo - but maybe that means it would need a two thirds majority to halt
Brexit.
It would be more logical to have a referendum on an issue where the
considerations are relatively simple. Should we allow euthanasia? Should
we bring back capital punishment? Should we replace the House of Lords
with an elected chamber?
Anyone who thinks that membership of the EU involves simple principles
and simple considerations, is profoundly ignorant. Such people believe
that we should leave the EU immediately and negotiate the deals and
arrangements later and at leisure.

Profoundly ignorant aptly describes those who voted to leave.
I do have to wonder whether ~any~ referendum would manage to persuade
millions of people to vote for it. given the level of ignorance there
is in the British population.

Assuming you are correct in that assessment, it takes you nowhere.
Democracy gives no guarantee that people will make rational decisions
based on the information presented or available.

You only have to listen to some of James o'Brien's "Tell us why you voted
to be worse off"

I didn't

I voted for others to be worse off so that I can be better off.

(not personally of course)

tim

[The Todal]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Ian Jackson
You only have to listen to some of James o'Brien's "Tell us why you
voted to be worse off"

I didn't
I voted for others to be worse off so that I can be better off.
(not personally of course)

Maybe many of us voted to keep out all those Eastern European fruit
pickers, so that the price of our homegrown fruit would increase and
we'd pay more for it in the supermarkets.

There would be an element of altruism - our unemployed young people
deserve a decent wage for fruit-picking and other seasonal farm work.

And now for the SNP's official Impact Assessment for Scotland:

http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0053/00530160.pdf

[tim...]

Post by The Todal

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Ian Jackson
You only have to listen to some of James o'Brien's "Tell us why you
voted to be worse off"

I didn't
I voted for others to be worse off so that I can be better off.
(not personally of course)

Maybe many of us voted to keep out all those Eastern European fruit
pickers, so that the price of our homegrown fruit would increase and we'd
pay more for it in the supermarkets.

Funnily enough:

Julia Hartley-Brewer (I believe, a prominent Brexiteer) said on Sunday, in
the context of not wanting an open door to the foreign minimum wage workers
who have to have their salaries topped up by benefits because employers
don't pay enough, said

"perhaps the solution is to pay more for our fruit and veg"

Post by The Todal
There would be an element of altruism - our unemployed young people
deserve a decent wage for fruit-picking and other seasonal farm work.

Importing people from ROW who will work for the wage on offer, but which
then has to be topped up by benefits because it isn't enough to live on,
whilst the Brits who wont do the work also languish on benefits, cannot be
the correct solution.

I open as to what the alternative is. It doesn't have to be "stop the guy
from ROW coming here".
Oh, a completely unbiased assessment I expect (NOT)

Post by The Todal
http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0053/00530160.pdf

[Yellow]

Post by The Todal

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Ian Jackson
You only have to listen to some of James o'Brien's "Tell us why you
voted to be worse off"

I didn't
I voted for others to be worse off so that I can be better off.
(not personally of course)

Maybe many of us voted to keep out all those Eastern European fruit
pickers, so that the price of our homegrown fruit would increase and
we'd pay more for it in the supermarkets.
There would be an element of altruism - our unemployed young people
deserve a decent wage for fruit-picking and other seasonal farm work.

Personally, I would rather take the increase wages option because it has
been like Christmas for far too many companies who have been able to
increase their profits because they can employ people who will take less
money.

One of the reasons why I am always surprised when a socialist says they
support free movement.

It also opens up the possibility of automation, which would also open
the door to high skilled, high paying work for UK folk.

Post by The Todal
http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0053/00530160.pdf

[MM]

On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 23:15:14 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson
You only have to listen to some of James o'Brien's "Tell us why you
voted to be worse off" interviews to realise that at least a certain
section of the Brexiteer community 'simply want to leave the EU'. Even
when they understand the flaws in their reasoning (and agree that they
were - and are - wrong), they still insist that they did the right thing
- and will gladly do it again. Rational decisions simply don't come into
it.

Yes, this particular class of person, the "Brexiter" class, seems
unable to admit it is wrong, ever. As if admitting such a thing would
be tantamount to committing harakiri or something equally terminal.
Trouble is, I don't really see the POINT of having such people in a
society. They do nothing except divide it.

MM

[Fredxx]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Pelican

Post by The Todal

Post by tim...

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal
Oh, what fun. I'm sure he was only half-hearted about it but
it was a silly thing to say.
He knows, of course, that a second referendum would very
likely be a more emphatic result in favour of Leave.

Really? The last poll I saw, towards the end of last year,
indicated that 42% still supported leave, while 47% thought
that, in retrospect, it was the wrong choice. Around two in
three think that May's government are mishandling the talks,
which may be a factor in those figures.

And the polls before the last General Election showed Labour's
support practically falling off a cliff, with Labour bound to
lose many seats.

The fact that some polls have been wrong doesn't mean that all
polls are bound to be wrong.

Post by The Todal
If there was a second referendum, there would be a renewed
campaign and the public would be inundated with fresh
propaganda, probably of a more sophisticated and convincing
sort than last time but it would still be from both sides.
And when it comes to the crunch, the vote for "let's have a
change" is likely to be more attractive than "let's just stay
as we are".

I am not convinced that would be the case now that people have
seen just how messy trying to leave is.

which is exactly why we shouldn't be having a vote now
the mess created by trying to leave is an entirely irrelevant
factor in the decision, but it is influencing some people into
having second thoughts.
But they shouldn't.  They should to wait until the end of the
negotiation and see what the deal is, before deciding

That's when the second referendum should be held.  It would ask if
the negotiated agreement is to the liking of the British public
and also ask if it's not then how does the public wish to
proceed.
All very democratic.

It would be absolute stupidity to hold another referendum. But if our
Parliament is stupid enough to pass a law enabling us to have another
referendum I hope they will think it through this time. It shouldn't be
a simple yes/no referendum. There should be at least half a dozen
options. There should be a clear margin of victory to alter the status
quo - but maybe that means it would need a two thirds majority to halt
Brexit.
It would be more logical to have a referendum on an issue where the
considerations are relatively simple. Should we allow euthanasia? Should
we bring back capital punishment? Should we replace the House of Lords
with an elected chamber?
Anyone who thinks that membership of the EU involves simple principles
and simple considerations, is profoundly ignorant. Such people believe
that we should leave the EU immediately and negotiate the deals and
arrangements later and at leisure.

 Profoundly ignorant aptly describes those who voted to leave.
 I do have to wonder whether ~any~ referendum would manage to persuade
millions of people to vote for it. given the level of ignorance there
is in the British population.

Assuming you are correct in that assessment, it takes you nowhere.
Democracy gives no guarantee that people will make rational decisions
based on the information presented or available.

You only have to listen to some of James o'Brien's "Tell us why you
voted to be worse off" interviews to realise that at least a certain
section of the Brexiteer community 'simply want to leave the EU'. Even
when they understand the flaws in their reasoning (and agree that they
were - and are - wrong), they still insist that they did the right thing
- and will gladly do it again. Rational decisions simply don't come into
it.

There are different perceptions of worse off. The past 10 or more years
have brought prosperity to many in the UK. Others haven't been touched
by such a warm feeling, in fact for many wages have stagnated and
housing is more out of reach than ever before.

I'm sure the likes of James O'Brien doesn't consider those affected by a
slump in wages and increased demand in housing. He is doing very nicely.

Even the likes of Michael Heseltine is on record of endorsing low pay,
and keeping it low.

As you rightly say, some simply want independence from Europe, for many
it is not as simple as that. There is a very large silent contingent who
voted for Brexit, and for good reason.

[Ian Jackson]

In message <p3ip0t$7sa$***@dont-email.me>, Fredxx <***@nospam.com>
writes

Post by Fredxx

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Pelican

Post by The Todal

Post by tim...

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal
Oh, what fun. I'm sure he was only half-hearted about it but
it was a silly thing to say.
He knows, of course, that a second referendum would very
likely be a more emphatic result in favour of Leave.

Really? The last poll I saw, towards the end of last year,
indicated that 42% still supported leave, while 47% thought
that, in retrospect, it was the wrong choice. Around two in
three think that May's government are mishandling the talks,
which may be a factor in those figures.

And the polls before the last General Election showed Labour's
support practically falling off a cliff, with Labour bound to
lose many seats.

The fact that some polls have been wrong doesn't mean that all
polls are bound to be wrong.

Post by The Todal
If there was a second referendum, there would be a renewed
campaign and the public would be inundated with fresh
propaganda, probably of a more sophisticated and convincing
sort than last time but it would still be from both sides.
And when it comes to the crunch, the vote for "let's have a
change" is likely to be more attractive than "let's just stay
as we are".

I am not convinced that would be the case now that people have
seen just how messy trying to leave is.

which is exactly why we shouldn't be having a vote now
the mess created by trying to leave is an entirely irrelevant
factor in the decision, but it is influencing some people into
having second thoughts.
But they shouldn't.  They should to wait until the end of the
negotiation and see what the deal is, before deciding

That's when the second referendum should be held.  It would ask if
the negotiated agreement is to the liking of the British public
and also ask if it's not then how does the public wish to
proceed.
All very democratic.

It would be absolute stupidity to hold another referendum. But if our
Parliament is stupid enough to pass a law enabling us to have another
referendum I hope they will think it through this time. It shouldn't be
a simple yes/no referendum. There should be at least half a dozen
options. There should be a clear margin of victory to alter the status
quo - but maybe that means it would need a two thirds majority to halt
Brexit.
It would be more logical to have a referendum on an issue where the
considerations are relatively simple. Should we allow euthanasia? Should
we bring back capital punishment? Should we replace the House of Lords
with an elected chamber?
Anyone who thinks that membership of the EU involves simple principles
and simple considerations, is profoundly ignorant. Such people believe
that we should leave the EU immediately and negotiate the deals and
arrangements later and at leisure.

 Profoundly ignorant aptly describes those who voted to leave.
 I do have to wonder whether ~any~ referendum would manage to persuade
millions of people to vote for it. given the level of ignorance there
is in the British population.

Assuming you are correct in that assessment, it takes you nowhere.
Democracy gives no guarantee that people will make rational decisions
based on the information presented or available.

You only have to listen to some of James o'Brien's "Tell us why you
voted to be worse off" interviews to realise that at least a certain
section of the Brexiteer community 'simply want to leave the EU'. Even
when they understand the flaws in their reasoning (and agree that they
were - and are - wrong), they still insist that they did the right
thing - and will gladly do it again. Rational decisions simply don't
come into it.

There are different perceptions of worse off. The past 10 or more years
have brought prosperity to many in the UK. Others haven't been touched
by such a warm feeling, in fact for many wages have stagnated and
housing is more out of reach than ever before.
I'm sure the likes of James O'Brien doesn't consider those affected by
a slump in wages and increased demand in housing. He is doing very
nicely.

You obviously have never listened to J o'B. He's anything but the type
of person you are describing.

Post by Fredxx
Even the likes of Michael Heseltine is on record of endorsing low pay,
and keeping it low.

Well, he's a Conservative, isn't he! Nevertheless, just because someone
says something that turns out to be wrong - or it's something you
disagree with - it doesn't mean that everything they say is wrong, or
that you have to disagree with it.

Post by Fredxx
As you rightly say, some simply want independence from Europe,

I suppose "I simply want us to be independent" is at least a simple,
patriotic, heart-lifting mantra. It is easily remembered, and avoids the
complication of having to think of any of the benefits of being in the
EU, and the adverse consequences of leaving (and, arguably, also some of
the more-plausible reasons).

Post by Fredxx
for many it is not as simple as that. There is a very large silent
contingent who voted for Brexit, and for good reason.

Indeed - provided you consider things like a genuine belief in 'straight
bananas' a 'good reason'.

[Fredxx]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Fredxx

Post by Pelican

Post by The Todal

Post by tim...

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal
Oh, what fun. I'm sure he was only half-hearted about it but
it was a silly thing to say.
He knows, of course, that a second referendum would very
likely be a more emphatic result in favour of Leave.

Really? The last poll I saw, towards the end of last year,
indicated that 42% still supported leave, while 47% thought
that, in retrospect, it was the wrong choice. Around two in
three think that May's government are mishandling the talks,
which may be a factor in those figures.

And the polls before the last General Election showed Labour's
support practically falling off a cliff, with Labour bound to
lose many seats.

The fact that some polls have been wrong doesn't mean that all
polls are bound to be wrong.

Post by The Todal
If there was a second referendum, there would be a renewed
campaign and the public would be inundated with fresh
propaganda, probably of a more sophisticated and convincing
sort than last time but it would still be from both sides.
And when it comes to the crunch, the vote for "let's have a
change" is likely to be more attractive than "let's just stay
as we are".

I am not convinced that would be the case now that people have
seen just how messy trying to leave is.

which is exactly why we shouldn't be having a vote now
the mess created by trying to leave is an entirely irrelevant
factor in the decision, but it is influencing some people into
having second thoughts.
But they shouldn't.  They should to wait until the end of the
negotiation and see what the deal is, before deciding

That's when the second referendum should be held.  It would ask if
the negotiated agreement is to the liking of the British public
and also ask if it's not then how does the public wish to
proceed.
All very democratic.

It would be absolute stupidity to hold another referendum. But if our
Parliament is stupid enough to pass a law enabling us to have another
referendum I hope they will think it through this time. It shouldn't be
a simple yes/no referendum. There should be at least half a dozen
options. There should be a clear margin of victory to alter the status
quo - but maybe that means it would need a two thirds majority to halt
Brexit.
It would be more logical to have a referendum on an issue where the
considerations are relatively simple. Should we allow euthanasia? Should
we bring back capital punishment? Should we replace the House of Lords
with an elected chamber?
Anyone who thinks that membership of the EU involves simple principles
and simple considerations, is profoundly ignorant. Such people believe
that we should leave the EU immediately and negotiate the deals and
arrangements later and at leisure.

 Profoundly ignorant aptly describes those who voted to leave.
 I do have to wonder whether ~any~ referendum would manage to persuade
millions of people to vote for it. given the level of ignorance there
is in the British population.

Assuming you are correct in that assessment, it takes you nowhere.
Democracy gives no guarantee that people will make rational
decisions based on the information presented or available.

 You only have to listen to some of James o'Brien's "Tell us why you
voted to be worse off" interviews to realise that at least a certain
section of the Brexiteer community 'simply want to leave the EU'.
Even when they understand the flaws in their reasoning (and agree
that they were - and are - wrong), they still insist that they did
the right thing  - and will gladly do it again. Rational decisions
simply don't come into  it.

There are different perceptions of worse off. The past 10 or more
years have brought prosperity to many in the UK. Others haven't been
touched by such a warm feeling, in fact for many wages have stagnated
and housing is more out of reach than ever before.
I'm sure the likes of James O'Brien doesn't consider those affected by
a slump in wages and increased demand in housing. He is doing very
nicely.

You obviously have never listened to J o'B. He's anything but the type
of person you are describing.

Post by Fredxx
Even the likes of Michael Heseltine is on record of endorsing low pay,
and keeping it low.

Well, he's a Conservative, isn't he! Nevertheless, just because someone
says something that turns out to be wrong - or it's something you
disagree with - it doesn't mean that everything they say is wrong, or
that you have to disagree with it.

Post by Fredxx
As you rightly say, some simply want independence from Europe,

I suppose "I simply want us to be independent" is at least a simple,
patriotic, heart-lifting mantra. It is easily remembered, and avoids the
complication of having to think of any of the benefits of being in the
EU, and the adverse consequences of leaving (and, arguably, also some of
the more-plausible reasons).

Post by Fredxx
for many it is not as simple as that. There is a very large silent
contingent who voted for Brexit, and for good reason.

Indeed - provided you consider things like a genuine belief in 'straight
bananas' a 'good reason'.

If that is the best you can do as evidence against Brexit then things
can only work out just fine.

[pamela]

Post by Fredxx

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Fredxx

Post by Pelican

On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 14:26:59 +0000, The Todal

Post by The Todal

Post by tim...

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal
Oh, what fun. I'm sure he was only half-hearted
about it but it was a silly thing to say.
He knows, of course, that a second referendum would
very likely be a more emphatic result in favour of
Leave.

Really? The last poll I saw, towards the end of last
year, indicated that 42% still supported leave, while
47% thought that, in retrospect, it was the wrong
choice. Around two in three think that May's
government are mishandling the talks, which may be a
factor in those figures.

And the polls before the last General Election showed
Labour's support practically falling off a cliff, with
Labour bound to lose many seats.

The fact that some polls have been wrong doesn't mean
that all polls are bound to be wrong.

Post by The Todal
If there was a second referendum, there would be a
renewed campaign and the public would be inundated
with fresh propaganda, probably of a more
sophisticated and convincing sort than last time but
it would still be from both sides.
And when it comes to the crunch, the vote for "let's
have a change" is likely to be more attractive than
"let's just stay as we are".

I am not convinced that would be the case now that
people have seen just how messy trying to leave is.

which is exactly why we shouldn't be having a vote now
the mess created by trying to leave is an entirely
irrelevant factor in the decision, but it is influencing
some people into having second thoughts.
But they shouldn't.  They should to wait until the end
of the negotiation and see what the deal is, before
deciding

That's when the second referendum should be held.  It
would ask if the negotiated agreement is to the liking of
the British public and also ask if it's not then how does
the public wish to proceed.
All very democratic.

It would be absolute stupidity to hold another referendum.
But if our Parliament is stupid enough to pass a law
enabling us to have another referendum I hope they will
think it through this time. It shouldn't be
a simple yes/no referendum. There should be at least half
a dozen options. There should be a clear margin of victory
to alter the status
quo - but maybe that means it would need a two thirds
majority to halt
Brexit.
It would be more logical to have a referendum on an issue
where the considerations are relatively simple. Should we
allow euthanasia? Should
we bring back capital punishment? Should we replace the
House of Lords
with an elected chamber?
Anyone who thinks that membership of the EU involves
simple principles
and simple considerations, is profoundly ignorant. Such
people believe
that we should leave the EU immediately and negotiate the
deals and arrangements later and at leisure.

 Profoundly ignorant aptly describes those who voted to
leave.  I do have to wonder whether ~any~ referendum would
manage to persuade millions of people to vote for it. given
the level of ignorance there is in the British population.

Assuming you are correct in that assessment, it takes you
nowhere. Democracy gives no guarantee that people will make
rational decisions based on the information presented or
available.

 You only have to listen to some of James o'Brien's "Tell us
why you voted to be worse off" interviews to realise that at
least a certain section of the Brexiteer community 'simply
want to leave the EU'. Even when they understand the flaws in
their reasoning (and agree that they were - and are - wrong),
they still insist that they did the right thing  - and will
gladly do it again. Rational decisions simply don't come
into  it.

There are different perceptions of worse off. The past 10 or
more years have brought prosperity to many in the UK. Others
haven't been touched by such a warm feeling, in fact for many
wages have stagnated and housing is more out of reach than
ever before.
I'm sure the likes of James O'Brien doesn't consider those
affected by a slump in wages and increased demand in housing.
He is doing very nicely.

You obviously have never listened to J o'B. He's anything but
the type of person you are describing.

Post by Fredxx
Even the likes of Michael Heseltine is on record of endorsing
low pay, and keeping it low.

Well, he's a Conservative, isn't he! Nevertheless, just because
someone says something that turns out to be wrong - or it's
something you disagree with - it doesn't mean that everything
they say is wrong, or that you have to disagree with it.

Post by Fredxx
As you rightly say, some simply want independence from Europe,

I suppose "I simply want us to be independent" is at least a
simple, patriotic, heart-lifting mantra. It is easily
remembered, and avoids the complication of having to think of
any of the benefits of being in the EU, and the adverse
consequences of leaving (and, arguably, also some of the
more-plausible reasons).

Post by Fredxx
for many it is not as simple as that. There is a very large
silent contingent who voted for Brexit, and for good reason.

Indeed - provided you consider things like a genuine belief in
'straight bananas' a 'good reason'.

If that is the best you can do as evidence against Brexit then
things can only work out just fine.

Have you ever listened to James O'Brien?

[Fredxx]

Post by pamela

Post by Fredxx

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Fredxx

Post by Pelican

On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 14:26:59 +0000, The Todal

Post by The Todal

Post by tim...

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal
Oh, what fun. I'm sure he was only half-hearted
about it but it was a silly thing to say.
He knows, of course, that a second referendum would
very likely be a more emphatic result in favour of
Leave.

Really? The last poll I saw, towards the end of last
year, indicated that 42% still supported leave, while
47% thought that, in retrospect, it was the wrong
choice. Around two in three think that May's
government are mishandling the talks, which may be a
factor in those figures.

And the polls before the last General Election showed
Labour's support practically falling off a cliff, with
Labour bound to lose many seats.

The fact that some polls have been wrong doesn't mean
that all polls are bound to be wrong.

Post by The Todal
If there was a second referendum, there would be a
renewed campaign and the public would be inundated
with fresh propaganda, probably of a more
sophisticated and convincing sort than last time but
it would still be from both sides.
And when it comes to the crunch, the vote for "let's
have a change" is likely to be more attractive than
"let's just stay as we are".

I am not convinced that would be the case now that
people have seen just how messy trying to leave is.

which is exactly why we shouldn't be having a vote now
the mess created by trying to leave is an entirely
irrelevant factor in the decision, but it is influencing
some people into having second thoughts.
But they shouldn't.  They should to wait until the end
of the negotiation and see what the deal is, before
deciding

That's when the second referendum should be held.  It
would ask if the negotiated agreement is to the liking of
the British public and also ask if it's not then how does
the public wish to proceed.
All very democratic.

It would be absolute stupidity to hold another referendum.
But if our Parliament is stupid enough to pass a law
enabling us to have another referendum I hope they will
think it through this time. It shouldn't be
a simple yes/no referendum. There should be at least half
a dozen options. There should be a clear margin of victory
to alter the status
quo - but maybe that means it would need a two thirds
majority to halt
Brexit.
It would be more logical to have a referendum on an issue
where the considerations are relatively simple. Should we
allow euthanasia? Should
we bring back capital punishment? Should we replace the
House of Lords
with an elected chamber?
Anyone who thinks that membership of the EU involves
simple principles
and simple considerations, is profoundly ignorant. Such
people believe
that we should leave the EU immediately and negotiate the
deals and arrangements later and at leisure.

 Profoundly ignorant aptly describes those who voted to
leave.  I do have to wonder whether ~any~ referendum would
manage to persuade millions of people to vote for it. given
the level of ignorance there is in the British population.

Assuming you are correct in that assessment, it takes you
nowhere. Democracy gives no guarantee that people will make
rational decisions based on the information presented or
available.

 You only have to listen to some of James o'Brien's "Tell us
why you voted to be worse off" interviews to realise that at
least a certain section of the Brexiteer community 'simply
want to leave the EU'. Even when they understand the flaws in
their reasoning (and agree that they were - and are - wrong),
they still insist that they did the right thing  - and will
gladly do it again. Rational decisions simply don't come
into  it.

There are different perceptions of worse off. The past 10 or
more years have brought prosperity to many in the UK. Others
haven't been touched by such a warm feeling, in fact for many
wages have stagnated and housing is more out of reach than
ever before.
I'm sure the likes of James O'Brien doesn't consider those
affected by a slump in wages and increased demand in housing.
He is doing very nicely.

You obviously have never listened to J o'B. He's anything but
the type of person you are describing.

Post by Fredxx
Even the likes of Michael Heseltine is on record of endorsing
low pay, and keeping it low.

Well, he's a Conservative, isn't he! Nevertheless, just because
someone says something that turns out to be wrong - or it's
something you disagree with - it doesn't mean that everything
they say is wrong, or that you have to disagree with it.

Post by Fredxx
As you rightly say, some simply want independence from Europe,

I suppose "I simply want us to be independent" is at least a
simple, patriotic, heart-lifting mantra. It is easily
remembered, and avoids the complication of having to think of
any of the benefits of being in the EU, and the adverse
consequences of leaving (and, arguably, also some of the
more-plausible reasons).

Post by Fredxx
for many it is not as simple as that. There is a very large
silent contingent who voted for Brexit, and for good reason.

Indeed - provided you consider things like a genuine belief in
'straight bananas' a 'good reason'.

If that is the best you can do as evidence against Brexit then
things can only work out just fine.

Have you ever listened to James O'Brien?

I presume he's a Remoaner. No, I don't have time to listen to him.

[Ian Jackson]

In message <p3jhbh$p4g$***@dont-email.me>, Fredxx <***@nospam.com>
writes

Post by Fredxx

Post by pamela
Have you ever listened to James O'Brien?

I presume he's a Remoaner. No, I don't have time to listen to him.

So any opinion you have formed about what sort of bloke J o'B is - and
about his LBC interviews with die-hard Brexiteers - has the advantage of
being based on absolutely total ignorance?

Do you have time to listen to ANY of the opinions expressed in radio
phone-ins and interviews? If not, LBC is a good source (it's phone-in
for about 20 hours per day). I suggest to try to catch a good selection
of different phone-ins. In particular, Nigel Farage is a good listen. I
really enjoy his thinly-disguised, totally biassed, UKIP party-political
phone-ins.

[MM]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:11:22 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson
writes

Post by Fredxx

Post by pamela
Have you ever listened to James O'Brien?

I presume he's a Remoaner. No, I don't have time to listen to him.

...being based on absolutely total ignorance?

Par for the course where Brexiters are involved.

MM

[Yellow]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:11:22 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson
writes

Post by Fredxx

Post by pamela
Have you ever listened to James O'Brien?

I presume he's a Remoaner. No, I don't have time to listen to him.

So any opinion you have formed about what sort of bloke J o'B is - and
about his LBC interviews with die-hard Brexiteers - has the advantage of
being based on absolutely total ignorance?
Do you have time to listen to ANY of the opinions expressed in radio
phone-ins and interviews? If not, LBC is a good source (it's phone-in
for about 20 hours per day). I suggest to try to catch a good selection
of different phone-ins. In particular, Nigel Farage is a good listen. I
really enjoy his thinly-disguised, totally biassed, UKIP party-political
phone-ins.

You like LBC because it plays to your prejudices. :-)

[Ian Jackson]

Post by MM
On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:11:22 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson
writes

Post by Fredxx

Post by pamela
Have you ever listened to James O'Brien?

I presume he's a Remoaner. No, I don't have time to listen to him.

So any opinion you have formed about what sort of bloke J o'B is - and
about his LBC interviews with die-hard Brexiteers - has the advantage of
being based on absolutely total ignorance?
Do you have time to listen to ANY of the opinions expressed in radio
phone-ins and interviews? If not, LBC is a good source (it's phone-in
for about 20 hours per day). I suggest to try to catch a good selection
of different phone-ins. In particular, Nigel Farage is a good listen. I
really enjoy his thinly-disguised, totally biassed, UKIP party-political
phone-ins.

You like LBC because it plays to your prejudices. :-)

Which ones?

[pamela]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by MM
On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:11:22 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Fredxx

Post by pamela
Have you ever listened to James O'Brien?

I presume he's a Remoaner. No, I don't have time to listen to him.

So any opinion you have formed about what sort of bloke J o'B
is - and about his LBC interviews with die-hard Brexiteers -
has the advantage of being based on absolutely total
ignorance?
Do you have time to listen to ANY of the opinions expressed in
radio phone-ins and interviews? If not, LBC is a good source
(it's phone-in for about 20 hours per day). I suggest to try
to catch a good selection of different phone-ins. In
particular, Nigel Farage is a good listen. I really enjoy his
thinly-disguised, totally biassed, UKIP party-political
phone-ins.

You like LBC because it plays to your prejudices. :-)

Which ones?

Maybe the anti-EU prejudices. LBC is full of that.

[Ian Jackson]

Post by pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by MM
On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:11:22 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Fredxx

Post by pamela
Have you ever listened to James O'Brien?

I presume he's a Remoaner. No, I don't have time to listen to him.

So any opinion you have formed about what sort of bloke J o'B
is - and about his LBC interviews with die-hard Brexiteers -
has the advantage of being based on absolutely total
ignorance?
Do you have time to listen to ANY of the opinions expressed in
radio phone-ins and interviews? If not, LBC is a good source
(it's phone-in for about 20 hours per day). I suggest to try
to catch a good selection of different phone-ins. In
particular, Nigel Farage is a good listen. I really enjoy his
thinly-disguised, totally biassed, UKIP party-political
phone-ins.

You like LBC because it plays to your prejudices. :-)

Which ones?

Maybe the anti-EU prejudices. LBC is full of that.

I wouldn't say that.

Weekdays, starring at 7am:
Nick Ferrari is pro-Brexit - but not overly so. [He's a bit of a bully
with his callers, and nowhere good at his job as he thinks he is.]
James o'Brian is definitely anti-Brexit. He does a good job of letting
anti-EU callers make a good case for remaining.
Shelagh Fogarty is pro-Remain - but not overly so.
Iain Dale is pro-Brexit, but usually not overly-so (except when a caller
makes the mistake of suggesting that there should be a second referendum
- and then he really 'goes off on one').
Nigel Farage - well, say no more! Well worth a listen!
Clive Bull - neutral (his phone-ins tend to be technical, legal and
medical).
Ian Collins - pro-Remain (often in a jolly, satirical way).

Others:
Maajid Nawaz: Essentially pro-Remain, but deals mainly with racial and
religious politics and tensions.
Beverley Turner - pro-Remain, but deals mainly with social and personal
problems.
Alex Salmond: Cast-off SNP leader, and pro-Remain. Deals with various,
but usually political.

There are some others who I rarely hear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LBC

[pamela]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by pamela

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by MM
On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:11:22 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Fredxx

Post by pamela
Have you ever listened to James O'Brien?

I presume he's a Remoaner. No, I don't have time to listen to him.

So any opinion you have formed about what sort of bloke J
o'B is - and about his LBC interviews with die-hard
Brexiteers - has the advantage of being based on absolutely
total ignorance?
Do you have time to listen to ANY of the opinions expressed
in radio phone-ins and interviews? If not, LBC is a good
source (it's phone-in for about 20 hours per day). I suggest
to try to catch a good selection of different phone-ins. In
particular, Nigel Farage is a good listen. I really enjoy
his thinly-disguised, totally biassed, UKIP party-political
phone-ins.

You like LBC because it plays to your prejudices. :-)

Which ones?

Maybe the anti-EU prejudices. LBC is full of that.

I wouldn't say that.
Nick Ferrari is pro-Brexit - but not overly so. [He's a bit of a
bully with his callers, and nowhere good at his job as he thinks
he is.] James o'Brian is definitely anti-Brexit. He does a good
job of letting anti-EU callers make a good case for remaining.
Shelagh Fogarty is pro-Remain - but not overly so.
Iain Dale is pro-Brexit, but usually not overly-so (except when
a caller makes the mistake of suggesting that there should be a
second referendum - and then he really 'goes off on one').
Nigel Farage - well, say no more! Well worth a listen!
Clive Bull - neutral (his phone-ins tend to be technical, legal
and medical).
Ian Collins - pro-Remain (often in a jolly, satirical way).
Maajid Nawaz: Essentially pro-Remain, but deals mainly with
racial and religious politics and tensions.
Beverley Turner - pro-Remain, but deals mainly with social and
personal problems.
Alex Salmond: Cast-off SNP leader, and pro-Remain. Deals with
various, but usually political.
There are some others who I rarely hear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LBC

In that case, perhaps I could listen 'safely' to some other shows
on LBC if they're not wall to wall anti-EU as I had assumed after
seeing Nigel Farage, Iain Dale and Nick Ferarri on Youtube!

[pamela]

Post by Fredxx

Post by pamela

Post by Fredxx

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Fredxx

Post by Pelican

On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 14:26:59 +0000, The Todal

Post by The Todal

Post by tim...

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal
Oh, what fun. I'm sure he was only half-hearted
about it but it was a silly thing to say.
He knows, of course, that a second referendum
would very likely be a more emphatic result in
favour of Leave.

Really? The last poll I saw, towards the end of
last year, indicated that 42% still supported
leave, while 47% thought that, in retrospect, it
was the wrong choice. Around two in three think
that May's government are mishandling the talks,
which may be a factor in those figures.

And the polls before the last General Election
showed Labour's support practically falling off a
cliff, with Labour bound to lose many seats.

The fact that some polls have been wrong doesn't mean
that all polls are bound to be wrong.

Post by The Todal
If there was a second referendum, there would be a
renewed campaign and the public would be inundated
with fresh propaganda, probably of a more
sophisticated and convincing sort than last time but
it would still be from both sides.
And when it comes to the crunch, the vote for "let's
have a change" is likely to be more attractive than
"let's just stay as we are".

I am not convinced that would be the case now that
people have seen just how messy trying to leave is.

which is exactly why we shouldn't be having a vote now
the mess created by trying to leave is an entirely
irrelevant factor in the decision, but it is
influencing some people into having second thoughts.
But they shouldn't.  They should to wait until the
end of the negotiation and see what the deal is,
before deciding

That's when the second referendum should be held. 
It would ask if the negotiated agreement is to the
liking of the British public and also ask if it's not
then how does the public wish to proceed.
All very democratic.

It would be absolute stupidity to hold another
referendum. But if our Parliament is stupid enough to
pass a law enabling us to have another referendum I hope
they will think it through this time. It shouldn't be
a simple yes/no referendum. There should be at least
half a dozen options. There should be a clear margin of
victory to alter the status quo - but maybe that means
it would need a two thirds majority to halt Brexit.
It would be more logical to have a referendum on an
issue where the considerations are relatively simple.
Should we allow euthanasia? Should we bring back capital
punishment? Should we replace the House of Lords
with an elected chamber?
Anyone who thinks that membership of the EU involves
simple principles and simple considerations, is
profoundly ignorant. Such people believe that we should
leave the EU immediately and negotiate the deals and
arrangements later and at leisure.

 Profoundly ignorant aptly describes those who voted
to leave.  I do have to wonder whether ~any~
referendum would manage to persuade millions of people to
vote for it. given the level of ignorance there is in the
British population.

Assuming you are correct in that assessment, it takes you
nowhere. Democracy gives no guarantee that people will
make rational decisions based on the information presented
or available.

 You only have to listen to some of James o'Brien's
"Tell us why you voted to be worse off" interviews to
realise that at least a certain section of the Brexiteer
community 'simply want to leave the EU'. Even when they
understand the flaws in their reasoning (and agree that
they were - and are - wrong), they still insist that they
did the right thing  - and will gladly do it again.
Rational decisions simply don't come into  it.

There are different perceptions of worse off. The past 10 or
more years have brought prosperity to many in the UK. Others
haven't been touched by such a warm feeling, in fact for
many wages have stagnated and housing is more out of reach
than ever before.
I'm sure the likes of James O'Brien doesn't consider those
affected by a slump in wages and increased demand in
housing. He is doing very nicely.

You obviously have never listened to J o'B. He's anything but
the type of person you are describing.

Post by Fredxx
Even the likes of Michael Heseltine is on record of
endorsing low pay, and keeping it low.

Well, he's a Conservative, isn't he! Nevertheless, just
because someone says something that turns out to be wrong -
or it's something you disagree with - it doesn't mean that
everything they say is wrong, or that you have to disagree
with it.

Post by Fredxx
As you rightly say, some simply want independence from
Europe,

I suppose "I simply want us to be independent" is at least a
simple, patriotic, heart-lifting mantra. It is easily
remembered, and avoids the complication of having to think of
any of the benefits of being in the EU, and the adverse
consequences of leaving (and, arguably, also some of the
more-plausible reasons).

Post by Fredxx
for many it is not as simple as that. There is a very large
silent contingent who voted for Brexit, and for good reason.

Indeed - provided you consider things like a genuine belief
in 'straight bananas' a 'good reason'.

If that is the best you can do as evidence against Brexit then
things can only work out just fine.

Have you ever listened to James O'Brien?

I presume he's a Remoaner. No, I don't have time to listen to
him.

If you have never listened to James O'Brien then your comment
about him can have no factual basis. You wrote:

"I'm sure the likes of James O'Brien doesn't consider those
affected by a slump in wages and increased demand in housing. He
is doing very nicely"

[Ian Jackson]

Post by pamela

Post by Fredxx

Post by pamela

Post by Fredxx

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Fredxx

Post by Pelican

On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 14:26:59 +0000, The Todal

Post by The Todal

Post by tim...

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal
Oh, what fun. I'm sure he was only half-hearted
about it but it was a silly thing to say.
He knows, of course, that a second referendum
would very likely be a more emphatic result in
favour of Leave.

Really? The last poll I saw, towards the end of
last year, indicated that 42% still supported
leave, while 47% thought that, in retrospect, it
was the wrong choice. Around two in three think
that May's government are mishandling the talks,
which may be a factor in those figures.

And the polls before the last General Election
showed Labour's support practically falling off a
cliff, with Labour bound to lose many seats.

The fact that some polls have been wrong doesn't mean
that all polls are bound to be wrong.

Post by The Todal
If there was a second referendum, there would be a
renewed campaign and the public would be inundated
with fresh propaganda, probably of a more
sophisticated and convincing sort than last time but
it would still be from both sides.
And when it comes to the crunch, the vote for "let's
have a change" is likely to be more attractive than
"let's just stay as we are".

I am not convinced that would be the case now that
people have seen just how messy trying to leave is.

which is exactly why we shouldn't be having a vote now
the mess created by trying to leave is an entirely
irrelevant factor in the decision, but it is
influencing some people into having second thoughts.
But they shouldn't.  They should to wait until the
end of the negotiation and see what the deal is,
before deciding

That's when the second referendum should be held. 
It would ask if the negotiated agreement is to the
liking of the British public and also ask if it's not
then how does the public wish to proceed.
All very democratic.

It would be absolute stupidity to hold another
referendum. But if our Parliament is stupid enough to
pass a law enabling us to have another referendum I hope
they will think it through this time. It shouldn't be
a simple yes/no referendum. There should be at least
half a dozen options. There should be a clear margin of
victory to alter the status quo - but maybe that means
it would need a two thirds majority to halt Brexit.
It would be more logical to have a referendum on an
issue where the considerations are relatively simple.
Should we allow euthanasia? Should we bring back capital
punishment? Should we replace the House of Lords
with an elected chamber?
Anyone who thinks that membership of the EU involves
simple principles and simple considerations, is
profoundly ignorant. Such people believe that we should
leave the EU immediately and negotiate the deals and
arrangements later and at leisure.

 Profoundly ignorant aptly describes those who voted
to leave.  I do have to wonder whether ~any~
referendum would manage to persuade millions of people to
vote for it. given the level of ignorance there is in the
British population.

Assuming you are correct in that assessment, it takes you
nowhere. Democracy gives no guarantee that people will
make rational decisions based on the information presented
or available.

 You only have to listen to some of James o'Brien's
"Tell us why you voted to be worse off" interviews to
realise that at least a certain section of the Brexiteer
community 'simply want to leave the EU'. Even when they
understand the flaws in their reasoning (and agree that
they were - and are - wrong), they still insist that they
did the right thing  - and will gladly do it again.
Rational decisions simply don't come into  it.

There are different perceptions of worse off. The past 10 or
more years have brought prosperity to many in the UK. Others
haven't been touched by such a warm feeling, in fact for
many wages have stagnated and housing is more out of reach
than ever before.
I'm sure the likes of James O'Brien doesn't consider those
affected by a slump in wages and increased demand in
housing. He is doing very nicely.

You obviously have never listened to J o'B. He's anything but
the type of person you are describing.

Post by Fredxx
Even the likes of Michael Heseltine is on record of
endorsing low pay, and keeping it low.

Well, he's a Conservative, isn't he! Nevertheless, just
because someone says something that turns out to be wrong -
or it's something you disagree with - it doesn't mean that
everything they say is wrong, or that you have to disagree
with it.

Post by Fredxx
As you rightly say, some simply want independence from
Europe,

I suppose "I simply want us to be independent" is at least a
simple, patriotic, heart-lifting mantra. It is easily
remembered, and avoids the complication of having to think of
any of the benefits of being in the EU, and the adverse
consequences of leaving (and, arguably, also some of the
more-plausible reasons).

Post by Fredxx
for many it is not as simple as that. There is a very large
silent contingent who voted for Brexit, and for good reason.

Indeed - provided you consider things like a genuine belief
in 'straight bananas' a 'good reason'.

If that is the best you can do as evidence against Brexit then
things can only work out just fine.

Have you ever listened to James O'Brien?

I presume he's a Remoaner. No, I don't have time to listen to
him.

If you have never listened to James O'Brien then your comment
"I'm sure the likes of James O'Brien doesn't consider those
affected by a slump in wages and increased demand in housing. He
is doing very nicely"

One can only hope he knows a lot more about the consequences of leaving
the EU than he does about James o'Brien and his phone-in callers.

As I keep suggesting, it's worth listening to a good selection of the
LBC phone-ins. You're bound to be cheered up when you hear callers who
you agree with totally - and enraged (or maybe simply perplexed) by
others with whom you couldn't disagree more.

[Yellow]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 21:38:12 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Fredxx
for many it is not as simple as that. There is a very large silent
contingent who voted for Brexit, and for good reason.

Indeed - provided you consider things like a genuine belief in 'straight
bananas' a 'good reason'.

EU Commission regulation 2257/94

[The Todal]

Post by Yellow
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 21:38:12 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Fredxx
for many it is not as simple as that. There is a very large silent
contingent who voted for Brexit, and for good reason.

Indeed - provided you consider things like a genuine belief in 'straight
bananas' a 'good reason'.

EU Commission regulation 2257/94

The regulation applies to unripened green bananas, and thus to growers
and wholesalers rather than retailers.[3] The main provisions of the
regulation were that bananas sold as unripened, green bananas should be
green and unripened, firm and intact, fit for human consumption, not
"affected by rotting", clean, free of pests and damage from pests, free
from deformation or abnormal curvature, free from bruising, free of any
foreign smell or taste.

How outrageous! We value the right of our grocers to sell us a few
rotten pieces of fruit hidden under the good stuff. It's a British
tradition! How else can they make a profit?

[Yellow]

Post by The Todal

Post by Yellow
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 21:38:12 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Fredxx
for many it is not as simple as that. There is a very large silent
contingent who voted for Brexit, and for good reason.

Indeed - provided you consider things like a genuine belief in 'straight
bananas' a 'good reason'.

EU Commission regulation 2257/94

The regulation applies to unripened green bananas, and thus to growers
and wholesalers rather than retailers.[3] The main provisions of the
regulation were that bananas sold as unripened, green bananas should be
green and unripened, firm and intact, fit for human consumption, not
"affected by rotting", clean, free of pests and damage from pests, free
from deformation or abnormal curvature, free from bruising, free of any
foreign smell or taste.
How outrageous! We value the right of our grocers to sell us a few
rotten pieces of fruit hidden under the good stuff. It's a British
tradition! How else can they make a profit?

Yep - bananas must not have "abnormal curvature" - and that is where all
the stories about the EU and bent bananas hail from.

[pamela]

Post by Yellow
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 21:38:12 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Fredxx
for many it is not as simple as that. There is a very large
silent contingent who voted for Brexit, and for good reason.

Indeed - provided you consider things like a genuine belief in
'straight bananas' a 'good reason'.

EU Commission regulation 2257/94

It says nothing of the sort. Here is a commentary:

Straight & bendy are not banned by the EU. Commission
Regulation 2257/94 identifies certain restrictions for fruits
that producers have to conform to in order to sell their
produce within the EU. The regulation states that bananas must
be "free from malformation or abnormal curvature." Class 1 bananas
can have "slight defects of shape" and Class 2 bananas full-on
"defects of shape".

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/media/euromyths/bend
ybananas.html

See also;
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/media/euromyths.html

[MM]

Post by pamela

Post by Yellow
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 21:38:12 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Fredxx
for many it is not as simple as that. There is a very large
silent contingent who voted for Brexit, and for good reason.

Indeed - provided you consider things like a genuine belief in
'straight bananas' a 'good reason'.

EU Commission regulation 2257/94

Straight & bendy are not banned by the EU. Commission
Regulation 2257/94 identifies certain restrictions for fruits
that producers have to conform to in order to sell their
produce within the EU. The regulation states that bananas must
be "free from malformation or abnormal curvature." Class 1 bananas
can have "slight defects of shape" and Class 2 bananas full-on
"defects of shape".
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/media/euromyths/bend
ybananas.html
See also;
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/media/euromyths.html

So will Yellow now apologise for spreading fake news?

MM

[pamela]

Post by MM

Post by pamela

Post by Yellow
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 21:38:12 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Fredxx
for many it is not as simple as that. There is a very large
silent contingent who voted for Brexit, and for good
reason.

Indeed - provided you consider things like a genuine belief
in 'straight bananas' a 'good reason'.

EU Commission regulation 2257/94

Straight & bendy are not banned by the EU. Commission
Regulation 2257/94 identifies certain restrictions for fruits
that producers have to conform to in order to sell their
produce within the EU. The regulation states that bananas
must be "free from malformation or abnormal curvature." Class
1 bananas can have "slight defects of shape" and Class 2
bananas full-on "defects of shape".
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/media/
euromyths/bend ybananas.html
See also;
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/media/
euromyths.html

So will Yellow now apologise for spreading fake news?
MM

I doubt it to judge by Yellow's feigned incomprehension about
immigrants travelling to EU Ireland, crossing the land border and
then going by ferry to the UK - all without residency papers.

[Ophelia]

"Yellow" wrote in message news:***@News.Individual.NET...

On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 21:38:12 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Fredxx
for many it is not as simple as that. There is a very large silent
contingent who voted for Brexit, and for good reason.

Indeed - provided you consider things like a genuine belief in 'straight
bananas' a 'good reason'.

EU Commission regulation 2257/94

==

:)

[pamela]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Pelican

On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 14:26:59 +0000, The Todal

Post by The Todal

Post by pamela

Post by tim...

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal
Oh, what fun. I'm sure he was only half-hearted about
it but it was a silly thing to say.
He knows, of course, that a second referendum would
very likely be a more emphatic result in favour of
Leave.

Really? The last poll I saw, towards the end of last
year, indicated that 42% still supported leave, while
47% thought that, in retrospect, it was the wrong
choice. Around two in three think that May's government
are mishandling the talks, which may be a factor in
those figures.

And the polls before the last General Election showed
Labour's support practically falling off a cliff, with
Labour bound to lose many seats.

The fact that some polls have been wrong doesn't mean that
all polls are bound to be wrong.

Post by The Todal
If there was a second referendum, there would be a
renewed campaign and the public would be inundated with
fresh propaganda, probably of a more sophisticated and
convincing sort than last time but it would still be from
both sides.
And when it comes to the crunch, the vote for "let's have
a change" is likely to be more attractive than "let's
just stay as we are".

I am not convinced that would be the case now that people
have seen just how messy trying to leave is.

which is exactly why we shouldn't be having a vote now
the mess created by trying to leave is an entirely
irrelevant factor in the decision, but it is influencing
some people into having second thoughts.
But they shouldn't. They should to wait until the end of
the negotiation and see what the deal is, before deciding

That's when the second referendum should be held. It would
ask if the negotiated agreement is to the liking of the
British public and also ask if it's not then how does the
public wish to proceed.
All very democratic.

It would be absolute stupidity to hold another referendum.
But if our Parliament is stupid enough to pass a law enabling
us to have another referendum I hope they will think it
through this time. It shouldn't be a simple yes/no
referendum. There should be at least half a dozen options.
There should be a clear margin of victory to alter the status
quo - but maybe that means it would need a two thirds
majority to halt Brexit.
It would be more logical to have a referendum on an issue
where the considerations are relatively simple. Should we
allow euthanasia? Should we bring back capital punishment?
Should we replace the House of Lords with an elected chamber?
Anyone who thinks that membership of the EU involves simple
principles and simple considerations, is profoundly ignorant.
Such people believe that we should leave the EU immediately
and negotiate the deals and arrangements later and at
leisure.

Profoundly ignorant aptly describes those who voted to leave.
I do have to wonder whether ~any~ referendum would manage to
persuade millions of people to vote for it. given the level
of ignorance there is in the British population.

Assuming you are correct in that assessment, it takes you
nowhere. Democracy gives no guarantee that people will make
rational decisions based on the information presented or
available.

You only have to listen to some of James o'Brien's "Tell us why
you voted to be worse off" interviews to realise that at least a
certain section of the Brexiteer community 'simply want to leave
the EU'. Even when they understand the flaws in their reasoning
(and agree that they were - and are - wrong), they still insist
that they did the right thing - and will gladly do it again.
Rational decisions simply don't come into it.

If a Brexiteer says they wish to leave despite the many drawbacks
of doing so, then fair enough. But to dress up leaving as a
rational decision for the betterment of the country is lunacy.

[MM]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 09:24:53 +1100, Pelican

Post by Pelican

Post by MM

Post by The Todal

Post by pamela

Post by tim...

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal

Post by Nightjar

Post by The Todal
Oh, what fun. I'm sure he was only half-hearted about it but
it was a silly thing to say.
He knows, of course, that a second referendum would very
likely be a more emphatic result in favour of Leave.

Really? The last poll I saw, towards the end of last year,
indicated that 42% still supported leave, while 47% thought
that, in retrospect, it was the wrong choice. Around two in
three think that May's government are mishandling the talks,
which may be a factor in those figures.

And the polls before the last General Election showed Labour's
support practically falling off a cliff, with Labour bound to
lose many seats.

The fact that some polls have been wrong doesn't mean that all
polls are bound to be wrong.

Post by The Todal
If there was a second referendum, there would be a renewed
campaign and the public would be inundated with fresh
propaganda, probably of a more sophisticated and convincing
sort than last time but it would still be from both sides.
And when it comes to the crunch, the vote for "let's have a
change" is likely to be more attractive than "let's just stay
as we are".

I am not convinced that would be the case now that people have
seen just how messy trying to leave is.

which is exactly why we shouldn't be having a vote now
the mess created by trying to leave is an entirely irrelevant
factor in the decision, but it is influencing some people into
having second thoughts.
But they shouldn't. They should to wait until the end of the
negotiation and see what the deal is, before deciding

That's when the second referendum should be held. It would ask if
the negotiated agreement is to the liking of the British public
and also ask if it's not then how does the public wish to
proceed.
All very democratic.

It would be absolute stupidity to hold another referendum. But if our
Parliament is stupid enough to pass a law enabling us to have another
referendum I hope they will think it through this time. It shouldn't be
a simple yes/no referendum. There should be at least half a dozen
options. There should be a clear margin of victory to alter the status
quo - but maybe that means it would need a two thirds majority to halt
Brexit.
It would be more logical to have a referendum on an issue where the
considerations are relatively simple. Should we allow euthanasia? Should
we bring back capital punishment? Should we replace the House of Lords
with an elected chamber?
Anyone who thinks that membership of the EU involves simple principles
and simple considerations, is profoundly ignorant. Such people believe
that we should leave the EU immediately and negotiate the deals and
arrangements later and at leisure.

Profoundly ignorant aptly describes those who voted to leave.
I do have to wonder whether ~any~ referendum would manage to persuade
millions of people to vote for it. given the level of ignorance there
is in the British population.

Assuming you are correct in that assessment, it takes you nowhere.
Democracy gives no guarantee that people will make rational decisions
based on the information presented or available.

Yes, that is true. I'd love to watch Brexiters queuing up to choose
their surgeon based on whether (s)he is foreign or not, coloured or
not. Irrational, but better dead than risk a professional assessment,
eh!

MM

[MM]

Post by The Todal
If there was a second referendum, there would be a renewed campaign and
the public would be inundated with fresh propaganda, probably of a more
sophisticated and convincing sort than last time but it would still be
from both sides.

However, the Leavers could not use that £350m slogan again. That's
completely dead now. They could also not argue against the so-called
"politics of fear", much of which is coming to pass as we enter 2018:
Pound still weak, large public and private organisations employing
tens of thousands of workers in crisis, shockingly high level of
inflation compared to, say, Germany, France, Spain or Italy, price
rises galore, wage rises practically non-existent.

As 2018 progresses, can anyone see any light at the end of the long
tunnel to the cliffs which the Brexiters are preparing for us?

MM

[The Todal]

Post by MM

Post by The Todal
If there was a second referendum, there would be a renewed campaign and
the public would be inundated with fresh propaganda, probably of a more
sophisticated and convincing sort than last time but it would still be
from both sides.

However, the Leavers could not use that £350m slogan again. That's
completely dead now.

I disagree. The principle remains that if (that's if) we are sending
billions of pounds to the EU and getting virtually nothing in return,
the money would be better spent on our NHS and social care. Whether it's
350m per week or some other figure, that principle is still logical and
attractive.


They could also not argue against the so-called

Post by MM
Pound still weak, large public and private organisations employing
tens of thousands of workers in crisis, shockingly high level of
inflation compared to, say, Germany, France, Spain or Italy, price
rises galore, wage rises practically non-existent.

They can convincingly argue that this isn't caused by our Brexit
referendum decision and that the real consequences of Brexit are still
in the distant future.

Post by MM
As 2018 progresses, can anyone see any light at the end of the long
tunnel to the cliffs which the Brexiters are preparing for us?
MM

I'm sure the civil servants and mandarins have a plan, and that it
involves preserving most of our EU rights and not telling the plebs
until it's a good day to bury bad news.

[MM]

Post by The Todal

Post by MM

Post by The Todal
If there was a second referendum, there would be a renewed campaign and
the public would be inundated with fresh propaganda, probably of a more
sophisticated and convincing sort than last time but it would still be
from both sides.

However, the Leavers could not use that £350m slogan again. That's
completely dead now.

I disagree. The principle remains that if (that's if) we are sending
billions of pounds to the EU and getting virtually nothing in return,
the money would be better spent on our NHS and social care. Whether it's
350m per week or some other figure, that principle is still logical and
attractive.

It's rubbish to say that we get virtunally nothing in return. There
have been dozens of projects throughout the UK which came about
through funding from the EU.

Post by The Todal
They could also not argue against the so-called

Post by MM
Pound still weak, large public and private organisations employing
tens of thousands of workers in crisis, shockingly high level of
inflation compared to, say, Germany, France, Spain or Italy, price
rises galore, wage rises practically non-existent.

They can convincingly argue that this isn't caused by our Brexit
referendum decision and that the real consequences of Brexit are still
in the distant future.

You mean, the real consequences are going to be even worse in the
distant future?

If the facts I listed were not caused by the Brexit referendum, why
aren't other EU countries suffering a similar downturn?

MM

[The Todal]

Post by The Todal

Post by MM

Post by The Todal
If there was a second referendum, there would be a renewed campaign and
the public would be inundated with fresh propaganda, probably of a more
sophisticated and convincing sort than last time but it would still be
from both sides.

However, the Leavers could not use that £350m slogan again. That's
completely dead now.

I disagree.

And here you are, hot off the press:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/15/leave-campaigns-350m-claim-was-too-low-says-boris-johnson

Boris Johnson has ratcheted-up his defence of Vote Leave’s infamous
assertion on the side of their bus that Britain sends £350m a week to
the EU by saying the group could have used a much higher figure.

The foreign secretary said the UK’s weekly gross contribution would rise
to £438m by the end of a post-Brexit transition period and insisted
leave campaigners were right to pledge extra cash to the NHS.

“There was an error on the side of the bus. We grossly underestimated
the sum over which we would be able to take back control,” said Johnson,
in an exclusive interview with the Guardian.

Though he conceded that the leave campaign had used a gross figure, he
said about half the total could be ploughed into public services.

“As and when the cash becomes available – and it won’t until we leave –
the NHS should be at the very top of the list,” said Johnson, on a day
that the Guardian revealed that students were being drafted in to help
plug NHS gaps opening up in the winter crisis.

[Ian Jackson]

Post by The Todal
Oh, what fun. I'm sure he was only half-hearted about it but it was a
silly thing to say.
He knows, of course, that a second referendum would very likely be a
more emphatic result in favour of Leave.
The alternative would be a more complicated referendum with a multiple
choice. In that event, only a million or so voters would bother to go
to the voting booths and we'd have no clear mandate for any option.

I'm sure Nigel Farage must read these newsgroups.

As I said only a couple of days ago, those statistics showed that voters
who were less than 55 were more likely to vote to stay, while those over
55 were more likely to vote to leave.

Assuming that the old folk continue to die, and new 18 year-olds move in
at the bottom - and if voters don't tend to change their mind as they
get older - then the quicker a second referendum can be run the better
for those supporting Leave. If it is delayed too long, the 55 will
become 56, the 57, then 58 (and so on), and after that there will be an
irrecoverable majority to Remain.

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by The Todal
Oh, what fun. I'm sure he was only half-hearted about it but it was a
silly thing to say.
He knows, of course, that a second referendum would very likely be a
more emphatic result in favour of Leave.
The alternative would be a more complicated referendum with a multiple
choice. In that event, only a million or so voters would bother to go
to the voting booths and we'd have no clear mandate for any option.

I'm sure Nigel Farage must read these newsgroups.
As I said only a couple of days ago, those statistics showed that voters
who were less than 55 were more likely to vote to stay, while those over
55 were more likely to vote to leave.
Assuming that the old folk continue to die, and new 18 year-olds move in
at the bottom - and if voters don't tend to change their mind as they
get older - then the quicker a second referendum can be run the better
for those supporting Leave. If it is delayed too long, the 55 will
become 56, the 57, then 58 (and so on), and after that there will be an
irrecoverable majority to Remain.
--
Ian

The Brexit answer to that is people change their minds as they get older, which might be true.


As in

"Anyone who isn't a socialist at 25 has no heart and anyone who isn't a conservative by 55 has no brain."

However as we have seen educational attainment is the biggest predictor, and people don't lose qualifications...


In addition some of the Brexit lies are getting found out. Not £350M per week for the NHS, but its biggest winter crisis since 2004.

[Handsome Jack]

Post by R. Mark Clayton
The Brexit answer to that is people change their minds as they get
older, which might be true.

[snip]

Post by R. Mark Clayton
However as we have seen educational attainment is the biggest
predictor, and people don't lose qualifications...

But they do get older, and age is another predictor of voting intention.
So, whatever their level of educational attainment, people on average
become more likely to vote Brexit as they age.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
In addition some of the Brexit lies are getting found out. Not £350M
per week for the NHS, but its biggest winter crisis since 2004.

So the flu outbreak was caused by the Brexit vote, was it? You get more
desperate every day. Must be all those degrees, though they don't seem
to have helped you understand statistics.

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by R. Mark Clayton
The Brexit answer to that is people change their minds as they get
older, which might be true.

[snip]

Post by R. Mark Clayton
However as we have seen educational attainment is the biggest
predictor, and people don't lose qualifications...

But they do get older, and age is another predictor of voting
intention. So, whatever their level of educational attainment, people
on average become more likely to vote Brexit as they age.

Older people do tend to become more conservative, and a lot of the
'batty old lady' type of phoner-in I've heard (often rather posh and
well-spoken) essentially hanker for some glorious mythical time back in
the 50s and 60s. [One of them was probably Mrs Miggins of Sunderland.]
Their reasons for wanting to leave the EU largely consisted of
wall-to-wall emotion and nostalgia.

However, as they grow older I doubt if a large proportion of either
Leavers or Remainers will change their opinions and experiences
regarding the subject of the EU. OK, as time goes by some will learn
something new, and this may cause them to change their minds - but in
the main, they probably won't.

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by R. Mark Clayton
In addition some of the Brexit lies are getting found out. Not £350M
per week for the NHS, but its biggest winter crisis since 2004.

So the flu outbreak was caused by the Brexit vote, was it? You get more
desperate every day. Must be all those degrees, though they don't seem
to have helped you understand statistics.

While Brexit may not be directly to blame for the present winter crisis
(unless it has resulted in the PM being too busy to do anything apart
from saying the equivalent of "Shit happens"), more importantly what the
EU IS responsible for is the increased use of plastics. Did anyone know
that the EU forbids supermarkets from letting shoppers take their
purchases away in their used cardboard boxes (which used to be common
practice)? One caller to yesterday's Nick Ferrari phone-in insisted this
was true, despite NF assuring him that one of his local Sainsburys DID
indeed have a pile of boxes available for customers' convenience.

[pamela]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Handsome Jack
So the flu outbreak was caused by the Brexit vote, was it? You
get more desperate every day. Must be all those degrees, though
they don't seem to have helped you understand statistics.

While Brexit may not be directly to blame for the present winter
crisis (unless it has resulted in the PM being too busy to do
anything apart from saying the equivalent of "Shit happens"),
more importantly what the EU IS responsible for is the increased
use of plastics. Did anyone know that the EU forbids
supermarkets from letting shoppers take their purchases away in
their used cardboard boxes (which used to be common practice)?

Brilliant! Complete the following sentence.

A picture fell off my wall yesterday and I think the EU is
responsible because ....

a) EU nails are crap
b) EU string is crap
c) EU hammers are crap
d) EU wall plaster is crap
e) EU pictures are too heavy
f) EU frames are too heavy
g) EU permitted wall vibration is too great
h) EU permitted vehicle weight is too great

etc

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Ian Jackson

[quoted text muted]

Older people do tend to become more conservative,

So the vote for change - to leave the EU - should diminish with time.

Or is "conserve" one of those irregular words ...

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Ian Jackson

[quoted text muted]

Older people do tend to become more conservative,

So the vote for change - to leave the EU - should diminish with time.

By snipping the rest of what I said, you've totally changed its meaning.

Post by Jethro_uk
Or is "conserve" one of those irregular words ...

Young people have a limited personal experience of the past - so instead
of old people tending to be 'conservative' (wanting to preserve what
exists at the moment), a better word might have been 'reversionist'
(wanting reinstate the rose-tinted conditions that they believe existed
when they were young).

[Vidcapper]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Ian Jackson

[quoted text muted]

Older people do tend to become more conservative,

So the vote for change - to leave the EU - should diminish with time.

By snipping the rest of what I said, you've totally changed its meaning.

Post by Jethro_uk
Or is "conserve" one of those irregular words ...

Young people have a limited personal experience of the past - so instead
of old people tending to be 'conservative' (wanting to preserve what
exists at the moment), a better word might have been 'reversionist'
(wanting reinstate the rose-tinted conditions that they believe existed
when they were young).

The term 'reactionary' is often used, too.

[Handsome Jack]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Ian Jackson

[quoted text muted]

Older people do tend to become more conservative,

So the vote for change - to leave the EU - should diminish with time.
Or is "conserve" one of those irregular words ...

I didn't write it - one of your Remainer colleagues (Ian) did. Any
criticisms of its use should be directed at him.

[MM]

On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 14:20:01 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by R. Mark Clayton
The Brexit answer to that is people change their minds as they get
older, which might be true.

[snip]

Post by R. Mark Clayton
However as we have seen educational attainment is the biggest
predictor, and people don't lose qualifications...

But they do get older, and age is another predictor of voting
intention. So, whatever their level of educational attainment, people
on average become more likely to vote Brexit as they age.

Older people do tend to become more conservative, and a lot of the
'batty old lady' type of phoner-in I've heard (often rather posh and
well-spoken) essentially hanker for some glorious mythical time back in
the 50s and 60s. [One of them was probably Mrs Miggins of Sunderland.]
Their reasons for wanting to leave the EU largely consisted of
wall-to-wall emotion and nostalgia.
However, as they grow older I doubt if a large proportion of either
Leavers or Remainers will change their opinions and experiences
regarding the subject of the EU. OK, as time goes by some will learn
something new, and this may cause them to change their minds - but in
the main, they probably won't.

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by R. Mark Clayton
In addition some of the Brexit lies are getting found out. Not £350M
per week for the NHS, but its biggest winter crisis since 2004.

So the flu outbreak was caused by the Brexit vote, was it? You get more
desperate every day. Must be all those degrees, though they don't seem
to have helped you understand statistics.

While Brexit may not be directly to blame for the present winter crisis
(unless it has resulted in the PM being too busy to do anything apart
from saying the equivalent of "Shit happens"), more importantly what the
EU IS responsible for is the increased use of plastics. Did anyone know
that the EU forbids supermarkets from letting shoppers take their
purchases away in their used cardboard boxes (which used to be common
practice)? One caller to yesterday's Nick Ferrari phone-in insisted this
was true, despite NF assuring him that one of his local Sainsburys DID
indeed have a pile of boxes available for customers' convenience.

But customers ARE allowed to bring their own containers and fill them:
https://thezerowaster.com/zero-waste-near-you/

MM

[MM]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by R. Mark Clayton
The Brexit answer to that is people change their minds as they get
older, which might be true.

[snip]

Post by R. Mark Clayton
However as we have seen educational attainment is the biggest
predictor, and people don't lose qualifications...

But they do get older, and age is another predictor of voting intention.
So, whatever their level of educational attainment, people on average
become more likely to vote Brexit as they age.

Is that just a HJ assumption or is there any factual basis for the
claim?

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by R. Mark Clayton
In addition some of the Brexit lies are getting found out. Not £350M
per week for the NHS, but its biggest winter crisis since 2004.

So the flu outbreak was caused by the Brexit vote, was it? You get more
desperate every day. Must be all those degrees, though they don't seem
to have helped you understand statistics.

Once again, a Brexiter states some fake news, then bases his argument
upon it.

MM

[Fredxx]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by The Todal
Oh, what fun. I'm sure he was only half-hearted about it but it was a
silly thing to say.
He knows, of course, that a second referendum would very likely be a
more emphatic result in favour of Leave.
The alternative would be a more complicated referendum with a multiple
choice. In that event, only a million or so voters would bother to go
to the voting booths and we'd have no clear mandate for any option.

I'm sure Nigel Farage must read these newsgroups.
As I said only a couple of days ago, those statistics showed that voters
who were less than 55 were more likely to vote to stay, while those over
55 were more likely to vote to leave.
Assuming that the old folk continue to die, and new 18 year-olds move in
at the bottom - and if voters don't tend to change their mind as they
get older - then the quicker a second referendum can be run the better
for those supporting Leave. If it is delayed too long, the 55 will
become 56, the 57, then 58 (and so on), and after that there will be an
irrecoverable majority to Remain.
--
Ian

The Brexit answer to that is people change their minds as they get older, which might be true.
As in
"Anyone who isn't a socialist at 25 has no heart and anyone who isn't a conservative by 55 has no brain."
However as we have seen educational attainment is the biggest predictor, and people don't lose qualifications...

But it is also a good indicator of voting Labour rather than Tory. Are
you confirming that Tory voters are thick people without a heart?
Perhaps its a dementia thing?

Post by R. Mark Clayton
In addition some of the Brexit lies are getting found out. Not £350M per week for the NHS, but its biggest winter crisis since 2004.

Not many believed that to be the case, no more than than the number
believing the economy would collapse through project fear.

The biggest winter NHS crisis was foreseen by many. More a Tory
austerity issue than anything to do with Brexit.

[Ophelia]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by The Todal
Oh, what fun. I'm sure he was only half-hearted about it but it was a
silly thing to say.
He knows, of course, that a second referendum would very likely be a
more emphatic result in favour of Leave.
The alternative would be a more complicated referendum with a multiple
choice. In that event, only a million or so voters would bother to go
to the voting booths and we'd have no clear mandate for any option.

I'm sure Nigel Farage must read these newsgroups.
As I said only a couple of days ago, those statistics showed that voters
who were less than 55 were more likely to vote to stay, while those over
55 were more likely to vote to leave.
Assuming that the old folk continue to die, and new 18 year-olds move in
at the bottom - and if voters don't tend to change their mind as they
get older - then the quicker a second referendum can be run the better
for those supporting Leave. If it is delayed too long, the 55 will
become 56, the 57, then 58 (and so on), and after that there will be an
irrecoverable majority to Remain.
--
Ian

The Brexit answer to that is people change their minds as they get older,
which might be true.
As in
"Anyone who isn't a socialist at 25 has no heart and anyone who isn't a
conservative by 55 has no brain."
However as we have seen educational attainment is the biggest predictor,
and people don't lose qualifications...

But it is also a good indicator of voting Labour rather than Tory. Are
you confirming that Tory voters are thick people without a heart?
Perhaps its a dementia thing?

Post by R. Mark Clayton
In addition some of the Brexit lies are getting found out. Not £350M per
week for the NHS, but its biggest winter crisis since 2004.

Not many believed that to be the case, no more than than the number
believing the economy would collapse through project fear.

The biggest winter NHS crisis was foreseen by many. More a Tory
austerity issue than anything to do with Brexit.

==

All the extra incomers it has to cover might have something to do with it
too!

Blair has a lot to answer for with that too.

[Fredxx]

Post by Fredxx

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by The Todal
Oh, what fun. I'm sure he was only half-hearted about it but it was a
silly thing to say.
He knows, of course, that a second referendum would very likely be a
more emphatic result in favour of Leave.
The alternative would be a more complicated referendum with a multiple
choice.  In that event, only a million or so voters would bother to go
to the voting booths and we'd have no clear mandate for any option.

I'm sure Nigel Farage must read these newsgroups.
As I said only a couple of days ago, those statistics showed that voters
who were less than 55 were more likely to vote to stay, while those over
55 were more likely to vote to leave.
Assuming that the old folk continue to die, and new 18 year-olds move in
at the bottom - and if voters don't tend to change their mind as they
get older - then the quicker a second referendum can be run the better
for those supporting Leave. If it is delayed too long, the 55 will
become 56, the 57, then 58 (and so on), and after that there will be an
irrecoverable majority to Remain.
--
Ian

The Brexit answer to that is people change their minds as they get older,
which might be true.
As in
"Anyone who isn't a socialist at 25 has no heart and anyone who isn't a
conservative by 55 has no brain."
However as we have seen educational attainment is the biggest predictor,
and people don't lose qualifications...

But it is also a good indicator of voting Labour rather than Tory. Are
you confirming that Tory voters are thick people without a heart?
Perhaps its a dementia thing?

Post by R. Mark Clayton
In addition some of the Brexit lies are getting found out.  Not £350M per
week for the NHS, but its biggest winter crisis since 2004.

Not many believed that to be the case, no more than than the number
believing the economy would collapse through project fear.
The biggest winter NHS crisis was foreseen by many. More a Tory
austerity issue than anything to do with Brexit.
==
All the extra incomers it has to cover might have something to do with
it too!
Blair has a lot to answer for with that too.

I was reading that the Tories had cut funding for training Nurses and
medical staff. So storing up inevitable problems.

I have no problem with the idea of efficiency saving etc, but their
policies stink of short-sightedness with no consideration of the future.

Quite, the larger population doesn't help.

[Ophelia]

Post by Fredxx

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by The Todal
Oh, what fun. I'm sure he was only half-hearted about it but it was a
silly thing to say.
He knows, of course, that a second referendum would very likely be a
more emphatic result in favour of Leave.
The alternative would be a more complicated referendum with a multiple
choice. In that event, only a million or so voters would bother to go
to the voting booths and we'd have no clear mandate for any option.

I'm sure Nigel Farage must read these newsgroups.
As I said only a couple of days ago, those statistics showed that voters
who were less than 55 were more likely to vote to stay, while those over
55 were more likely to vote to leave.
Assuming that the old folk continue to die, and new 18 year-olds move in
at the bottom - and if voters don't tend to change their mind as they
get older - then the quicker a second referendum can be run the better
for those supporting Leave. If it is delayed too long, the 55 will
become 56, the 57, then 58 (and so on), and after that there will be an
irrecoverable majority to Remain.
--
Ian

The Brexit answer to that is people change their minds as they get older,
which might be true.
As in
"Anyone who isn't a socialist at 25 has no heart and anyone who isn't a
conservative by 55 has no brain."
However as we have seen educational attainment is the biggest predictor,
and people don't lose qualifications...

But it is also a good indicator of voting Labour rather than Tory. Are
you confirming that Tory voters are thick people without a heart?
Perhaps its a dementia thing?

Post by R. Mark Clayton
In addition some of the Brexit lies are getting found out. Not £350M per
week for the NHS, but its biggest winter crisis since 2004.

Not many believed that to be the case, no more than than the number
believing the economy would collapse through project fear.
The biggest winter NHS crisis was foreseen by many. More a Tory
austerity issue than anything to do with Brexit.
==
All the extra incomers it has to cover might have something to do with it
too!
Blair has a lot to answer for with that too.

I was reading that the Tories had cut funding for training Nurses and
medical staff. So storing up inevitable problems.

I have no problem with the idea of efficiency saving etc, but their
policies stink of short-sightedness with no consideration of the future.

Quite, the larger population doesn't help.

==

Yes, they are being short sighted.

[MM]

Post by Fredxx
Are
you confirming that Tory voters are thick people without a heart?

Yes. Tories are inherently more selfish than people on the left.
Tories believe in one thing only, which is themselves -- and the
rest can go hang. Tories do not care about other people, especially
those less fortunate.

MM

[Fredxx]

Post by MM

Post by Fredxx
Are
you confirming that Tory voters are thick people without a heart?

Yes. Tories are inherently more selfish than people on the left.
Tories believe in one thing only, which is themselves -- and the
rest can go hang. Tories do not care about other people, especially
those less fortunate.

Are you now suggesting smart people think everyone else should pay,
apart from themselves?

[MM]

Post by Fredxx

Post by MM

Post by Fredxx
Are
you confirming that Tory voters are thick people without a heart?

Yes. Tories are inherently more selfish than people on the left.
Tories believe in one thing only, which is themselves -- and the
rest can go hang. Tories do not care about other people, especially
those less fortunate.

Are you now suggesting smart people think everyone else should pay,
apart from themselves?

Would turkeys vote for Christmas?

MM

[Fredxx]

Post by MM

Post by Fredxx

Post by MM

Post by Fredxx
Are
you confirming that Tory voters are thick people without a heart?

Yes. Tories are inherently more selfish than people on the left.
Tories believe in one thing only, which is themselves -- and the
rest can go hang. Tories do not care about other people, especially
those less fortunate.

Are you now suggesting smart people think everyone else should pay,
apart from themselves?

Would turkeys vote for Christmas?

No but those living off their backs would.

[MM]

Post by Fredxx

Post by MM

Post by Fredxx

Post by MM

Post by Fredxx
Are
you confirming that Tory voters are thick people without a heart?

Yes. Tories are inherently more selfish than people on the left.
Tories believe in one thing only, which is themselves -- and the
rest can go hang. Tories do not care about other people, especially
those less fortunate.

Are you now suggesting smart people think everyone else should pay,
apart from themselves?

Would turkeys vote for Christmas?

No but those living off their backs would.

What on earth does that mean?

MM

[MM]

On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 01:53:31 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by The Todal
Oh, what fun. I'm sure he was only half-hearted about it but it was a
silly thing to say.
He knows, of course, that a second referendum would very likely be a
more emphatic result in favour of Leave.
The alternative would be a more complicated referendum with a multiple
choice. In that event, only a million or so voters would bother to go
to the voting booths and we'd have no clear mandate for any option.

I'm sure Nigel Farage must read these newsgroups.
As I said only a couple of days ago, those statistics showed that voters
who were less than 55 were more likely to vote to stay, while those over
55 were more likely to vote to leave.
Assuming that the old folk continue to die, and new 18 year-olds move in
at the bottom - and if voters don't tend to change their mind as they
get older - then the quicker a second referendum can be run the better
for those supporting Leave. If it is delayed too long, the 55 will
become 56, the 57, then 58 (and so on), and after that there will be an
irrecoverable majority to Remain.
--
Ian

The Brexit answer to that is people change their minds as they get older, which might be true.
As in
"Anyone who isn't a socialist at 25 has no heart and anyone who isn't a conservative by 55 has no brain."
However as we have seen educational attainment is the biggest predictor, and people don't lose qualifications...

Indeed they don't, and in fact people with even modest qualifications
can build upon them and use their better educational attainments to
find out more about the truth of the matter, whereas those in the low
education category are pretty much screwed, because they've never had
the experience of finding out anything of importance.

MM

[MM]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:39:33 +0000, Ian Jackson

... then the quicker a second referendum can be run the better
for those supporting Leave.

This could be the key reason for Farage's sudden and completely
unexpected volte-face. He may, like David Aaronovitch, have studied
the stats of people's dying habits since June 2016 and those stats
don't look so good for Brexiters any longer.

And by the time the final deal on which MPs will vote actually comes
around, the balance will be even more in the remainers' favour.

MM