The UK Babe Channels Forum

so all you remoaners...if in your dreams there is a 2nd ref....and if...if you actually win that one...wot then?? best of 3?? heads and tails??? scissors papers stones....?? jc and tm arm wrestle whilst vince cable has a heart attack in background? dup start a new holy war in ireland?

https://inews.co.uk/video/geoffrey-boyco...-comments/

(21-11-2018 17:05 )Jack the Nipper Wrote: [ -> ]Believe me Goodfella I'm not trying to be patronizing on your comments as I have always had an acknowledgement & respect on both sides of the debate on whether its Leave or Remain as there are pro & cons on both arguments on various sides of the debate.But the respect erodes when there is a non-acceptance of a democratic vote & a continued call to have another vote & then another vote if that vote doesn't provide the result the way certain people wanted.

I respect the result of the referendum and until recently I've actually been arguing the other side ... i.e. we've made our bed and now we're doomed to lie in it. And as pissed off as I was with Johnson and Farage for their lies upon lies upon lies, I was even angrier with Cameron, Osborne, Labour and the Lib Dems for failing to argue a compelling case for remain. They fell back on the Project Fear bullshit that seemed to work for them in the Scottish Referendum and, as far as I'm concerned, the apocalyptic economic projections for what will happen if we exit are completely overblown.

Even if we exit with no deal, I think the sun will rise on April 1, and we'll get on with our business. It won't be the sovereign paradise the Leavers promised; and it won't be the economic nightmare the Remainers warned us about. It'll be what it is and we'll adapt.

The ONLY reason that I have now come around to the idea of a second referendum is the fact that government can't seem to get its exiting shit together and it is looking increasingly likely that their own deal will be voted down. If the withdrawal agreement is approved by Parliament, then I'll be pissed, but I won't be shouting for a 2nd referendum "so I can get the result I want". But if the withdrawal agreement is voted down, by a democratically elected parliament, then I do think there is a legitimate case for a re-run.

The first referendum was respected inasmuch Article 50 was triggered and the Leavers had two years to negotiate a deal that Parliament could approve -- if they fail, then I think all bets are off.

I think this country is pretty fucked tbh
I was hoping that north korea guy was going to nuke us...just to thin out the population a little, you know getting rid of the pc snowflakes and idiot gangs and even those jackasses who film crime on their phones but don't bother to help

^I always had hoped 1 dirty bomb in London would be enough to get rid those types you mentioned mate..as it stands it's not happened. all we need is a Wikileaks moment to reveal names of all high ranking snowflakes that we could give our verbal best to

(21-11-2018 17:15 )terence Wrote: [ -> ]^given the abhorrent lies we were told and the lack of understanding most people had about the eu and what it's function is, wouldn't a second referendum be the ultimate democratic action?

(21-11-2018 17:46 )SecretAgent Wrote: [ -> ]^ No because Brexiteers don’t believe in Democracy! They stated quite clearly on the night of the referendum when they thought they’d lost that it would not be the end if the matter. Now when people of all persuasions question the deal on offer they want a hard Brexit that nobody voted for rather than trust the public to decide with the benefit of the knowledge we now have.

In other countries they manage to have votes in quick succession for Presidents so to my mind as there is no majority in Parliament for the current deal or a hard Brexit we should have 2 votes. The first one could be “Do you want to exit the EU on the basis of the current deal” If the public say yes then that’s what we do. If the public say no then a couple of weeks later a 2nd referendum is held where the question is “ Do you want a Hard Brexit or to Remain”

I find it ridulous that Brexiteers campaigned on Sovereignty but now as MP’s don’t trust the people who elected them.

You may have to excuse my occasional poor memory but didn't Cameron & the Remain side from all parties & constabularies involved openly say that this was a 'one time vote' & heck wasn't it written on the literature the Government spent £9 million sending out to every household (it even gave a sentence about respecting the vote/outcome). So could you imagine if back prior to the 2016 vote everybody politically involved in the Referendum told the public "listen whichever way you vote there's a pretty high probability that another vote would be needed & then possibly another if some people don't get the result they wanted!".As that is now what fundamentally some people keep asking for & as for the voters (like some of us here) back in 2016 would be voting for something thinking that looks & smells like a stitch-up.

And SecretAgent, who were the Brexiteer's who don't respect democracy by stating a vote to Remain in the the Referendum would be 'unfinished business' exactly?.From my recollection that was only Nigel Farage a man who doesn't speak for me on most things if anything. And doesn't the lack of respect or belief in democracy fall on the failure the respect the original decision/vote & protest against it days/weeks or even months later.And the very thought of two more questions on two separate Referendums is a bit of somewhat odd one as each Referendum usually requires up to 3 -4 months preparation.

The truth is the cards have fallen the way they have (which is a fucking mess)but when even the most Europhile member of parliament Ken Clarke (who has voted against every Brexit legislation) says that Referendums involving the public never work & that it should be up to Parliament to sort out the Brexit mess (he will be voting for Theresa Mays Deal).And so it should probably fall on the shoulders of those wise MP's to navigate through the mess & possibly reap the whirlwind should they ignore their constituencies wishes (& how they voted).And should that lead to the resurgence of UKIP or the rise of the BNP,NF (or something much worse) than so be it as 'that's democracy' as they say.

The way I kind of see things happening (through my tinted glasses)would be;
(options b) to f) will probably require an extension to Article 50);

a)May's Deal passes through Commons then Brexit proceeds & we leave in March.

b)It doesn't pass May goes back to EU for concessions/adjustments to send back for another vote in the Commons.

#)A bit of a murkier one this option as this one could go in a different order (possibly after option b), c) or d).Get cross-party support for a supplementary deal that gets agreement across the board (probably the trickiest option).

c)It doesn't pass & EU refuse to make concessions then May would have to stand-down as Leader in a no-confidence vote.A new leader (on a caretaker role) could replace her in 14 days & would have to re-negotiate with the EU.

d)Failure for a new Leader to re-negotiate with the EU or not get a dealthrough the Commons.Then a General Election is called.

e)General Election where Parties would clearly have to stipulate what their Brexit positions (& negotiation objectives are) & detail if they back a 2nd Ref.

f)2nd Referndum-Last option as debates about what the question should be & should there be a turnout threshold (to match or surpass the 2016 turnout) to make the vote valid.

PS;I hate keep coming back this thread that feels like living groundhog day every day.

(20-11-2018 07:22 )HannahsPet Wrote: [ -> ]Never has so much shit been spouted about so much by so few

We only follow our 'leaders' in this...

Evening Standard Wrote:[This] has been the quintessential “post-truth” political saga... a dramatic sequence more or less entirely governed by emotional resonance and founded on irreconcilable claims.

(https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comme...96066.html)

(19-11-2018 02:58 )Jack the Nipper Wrote: [ -> ]One man's curiosity is another man's form of sarcasm & judging by your numerous questions that even the most in-depth,knowledgeable EU expert would struggle to answer without a forensic research on every EU/UK law,trade,immigration & environmental policy etc I'm opting for the latter.If I had every answer to each of those without researching them first then I'd probably be a Government mandarin & not exchanging dialect on a forum.And if you too are unconversant with every machination of EU/UK then we are both talking hypothetically of what we both want inside or outside the EU.

Briefly touching over a things on a few subjects regarding immigration (7 out of 10 voters back controls on immigration) I'd back an end of freedom of movement in exchange for a tier/skills based visa system (time limited for certain sectors if there are labour shortages).More Government investment on apprenticeships (for both school leavers & adults) & work experience placements in school with better careers advice.Less focus on governments trying to push every school leaver into university (& pointless courses).

Withdrawal Deal/Backstop;The EU has offered 2 off the shelf models Norway & Canada Deal & from day dot I've always advocated for a Canada Plus model where EU negotiator Michel Barnier has admitted he is open for an Invisible Border between both Ireland's if sufficient technology is there(like there currently is with a technological one for differentiating VAT, currency etc).If full technology isn't available then I'd float the Nick Boles' idea of temporarily moving into a Norway Deal then transition into a Canada Plus model when technology is ready.And remember the backstop plan is there if a failure to negotiate a trade-deal.The main fault with Theresa May's backstop plan is that there is no end date & the only way the leave it is via a mutual agreement.And as I've mentioned previously 7 pages of the Withdrawal Agreement stipulates that any future trade deal with the EU requires us being in the Customs Union that would nulify the UK from trading independently around the world.

Cutting to the quick though neither you nor I will change each others minds or our reasons for voting so it's a futile debate.But as a leave voter I have a few questions for you (as a remainer)that I have prepared for you that aren't quite as technical as mine.

Do you back a People's Vote/2nd Ref & if so what question should be on the ballot paper (referendum questions in nature have 2 binary answers)?.

Should the remain vote win on a 2nd Ref what compromises (or elements of leave) could be made that would satisfy leave voters & unite the country?.

Should the leave vote win again on a 2nd Ref would it mean a Hard Brexit or would negotiations need to be made & for what?.

Under what circumstances should a Hard Border between both Ireland's be implemented & by whom?.

Regarding immigration rules who should get immigration preference an Indian Doctor or an EU fruit picker?.

7 out of 10 people believe the immigration in the UK needs to be controlled or reduced are they right? if no then do immigration levels have any impact on wages & infrastructure?.

Thanks for the reply. Rest assured you are over-estimating my powers of subtlety if you thought I was being sarcastic with my post. My intent was as stated. I was trying to encourage some comment on our building for the future and away from the divisiveness and tearing down that has characterised this fractious debate so far.

I agree that realistic answers to the questions I asked are beyond most laymen and that includes me! However, it was you who said you had researched the question posed in the referendum so I thought the attempt to establish what it was you wanted for everyone's future in voting as you did was worth a shot. Note too that I only asked for your aspirations on these questions, I was not overly concerned with your thoughts on what might practically be achieved from the actual negotiations. (I could perhaps have made that clearer.) Though I will, again, give you credit here JtN in that you seem more mindful of what can realistically be had from Brussels than most I've heard from on your side of the argument.

As I think is clear from what I've written already and the comment piece I quoted from above, I feel there has been far too much thinking with the heart on this one to date. For some, the harsh practicalities are only now coming home to roost two years down the line.

Regardless, we now see that like most in this debate you only researched this question so far. This is no slight on you, as it is no slight on anyone that did so. As Goodfella says these are the complex topics - the very things that we vote in politicians to handle for us in fact! But then when you have the likes of Raab admitting as he did only the other day that he failed to the understand intrinsics of our trade with the EU we can perhaps begin to understand the calibre of people we have been naive enough to trust in all this for so long. He sounded as clueless as any Joe Bloggs on the street.

When we were lumbered with the responsibility of deciding things, it turned out that the politicians' unresolved conflicts on this crucial matter happened to mirror those of the nation. This buck passing was due to their failings of course but the responsibility for the decision is something the politicians are even now keen to keep at our door with their constant insistence that the result must be honoured and Brexit carried out in full. In years to come, when this subject is spoken of by any politician, it'll be anyone but them that will be forever to blame for any downside of Brexit - that is the one and only thing that is still assured in all this.

Nevertheless, as I have stated before on this thread, I happen to agree with Lab and Con on the stand they have taken to date against any re-run of the referendum. Like modern cup matches, a replay is not part of the idea... The question was asked and an answer given. It is almost schoolboyish to the say what amounts to 'oh no wait, best of three ... or something'. The reputation of Referender in this country would be forever tarnished - to say nothing of the already incredibly poor respect we have for our politicians - if we had a second vote on this issue now.

Fwiw, I think I chime with a general vibe of the average man in the street on this, remainer and leaver, when I say we have made our bed here and we just have to get on with lying in it. (In the best Brit tradition we will proceed with some good ole boy fudging throughour. It's what we always do and, generally, in the end, we are pretty good at it!) This is not the same as saying more people believe in leave these days, no. I say instead that most of the public are more or less resigned to Brexit by now; that is quite a different thing to supporting it though.

If I HAD to state my preference for any new referenda question, and I agree any three tier question would be intrinsically unfair, I would have it thus: Accept the current deal; or suspend Article 50 and have a general election. This latter would then allow the parties to set out their stalls again on what the rejection of the deal meant and outline what they propose as an alternative. Of course it seems likely that any such suspension would have to be agreed by the ECJ in any case. (And, as such, I think we are now past the point it could be done in time, making this a muter point by the day.)

However, IF remain were to win a second vote I don't see anything that would then satisfy those that voted out in 2016... Were any of the compromises May has made so far really done with the placating of the remain voting public in mind? I feel in no way placated by her current plans. I feel all May is doing is trying to make the best of a bad job - stopping the economy from tanking even more and trying to keep hold of as many jobs as possible, etc., as I see it. In other words she is trying to ensure that the Tories are reelected. There can be no sop to remainers because we are not remaining.

And unless I'm missing something a Canada plus plus deal is still possible in the long run is it not?

As for your other questions...

I would like to avoid a hard border between the Irelands under any circumstance thank you very much. Anyone that wants a hard Brexit should have made sure it was outlined as such on the ballot paper for the 2016 referendum! It was not, and therefore there is not the slightest mandate for one.

Indian Doc or EU fruit picker? I have no argument with anyone working here who is making a net contribution to the economy of this country. (Overall EU workers make a net contribution to our economy and on average each worker contributes more than the average Brit. Source)

And proper research indicates that immigration (particularly that from the EU) does not have the overall negative impacts on indigenous wages (and unemployment) that propagandists would claim. I admit the impacts of immigration on infrastructure in the UK are even more complex and in some ways problematic but overall the picture is certainly no one way street. For instance, I see that London already has a vast shortfall of workers in its construction projects despite employing 30% from the EU. How is that work going to benefit from the throttling of EU migration?

Finally, can I ask, what the encouragement of apprenticeships, the focus on helping as many pupils as possible into university courses, etc., has to do with our membership of the EU?

^^^ Wasnt talking about you lot i was paraphrasing Churchills Few speech about the battle of britan talking about the the Politicans and the media

(22-11-2018 20:21 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]

Evening Standard Wrote:[This] has been the quintessential “post-truth” political saga... a dramatic sequence more or less entirely governed by emotional resonance and founded on irreconcilable claims.

(https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comme...96066.html)



Thanks for the reply. Rest assured you are over-estimating my powers of subtlety if you thought I was being sarcastic with my post. My intent was as stated. I was trying to encourage some comment on our building for the future and away from the divisiveness and tearing down that has characterised this fractious debate so far.

I agree that realistic answers to the questions I asked are beyond most laymen and that includes me! However, it was you who said you had researched the question posed in the referendum so I thought the attempt to establish what it was you wanted for everyone's future in voting as you did was worth a shot. Note too that I only asked for your aspirations on these questions, I was not overly concerned with your thoughts on what might practically be achieved from the actual negotiations. (I could perhaps have made that clearer.) Though I will, again, give you credit here JtN in that you seem more mindful of what can realistically be had from Brussels than most I've heard from on your side of the argument.


Regardless, we now see that like most in this debate you only researched this question so far. This is no slight on you, as it is no slight on anyone that did so. As Goodfella says these are the complex topics - the very things that we vote in politicians to handle for us in fact!

If I HAD to state my preference for any new referenda question, and I agree any three tier question would be intrinsically unfair, I would have it thus: Accept the current deal; or suspend Article 50 and have a general election. This latter would then allow the parties to set out their stalls again on what the rejection of the deal meant and outline what they propose as an alternative. Of course it seems likely that any such suspension would have to be agreed by the ECJ in any case. (And, as such, I think we are now past the point it could be done in time, making this a muter point by the day.)

However, IF remain were to win a second vote I don't see anything that would then satisfy those that voted out in 2016... Were any of the compromises May has made so far really done with the placating of the remain voting public in mind? I feel in no way placated by her current plans. I feel all May is doing is trying to make the best of a bad job - stopping the economy from tanking even more and trying to keep hold of as many jobs as possible, etc., as I see it. In other words she is trying to ensure that the Tories are reelected. There can be no sop to remainers because we are not remaining.

And unless I'm missing something a Canada plus plus deal is still possible in the long run is it not?

Indian Doc or EU fruit picker? I have no argument with anyone working here who is making a net contribution to the economy of this country. (Overall EU workers make a net contribution to our economy and on average each worker contributes more than the average Brit. Source)

And proper research indicates that immigration (particularly that from the EU) does not have the overall negative impacts on indigenous wages (and unemployment) that propagandists would claim. I admit the impacts of immigration on infrastructure in the UK are even more complex and in some ways problematic but overall the picture is certainly no one way street. For instance, I see that London already has a vast shortfall of workers in its construction projects despite employing 30% from the EU. How is that work going to benefit from the throttling of EU migration?

Finally, can I ask, what the encouragement of apprenticeships, the focus on helping as many pupils as possible into university courses, etc., has to do with our membership of the EU?

Firstly thanks Shandyhand for replying to my long-winded thread & before I try to answer a few of your points I just want to say regarding the article in The Evening Standard of which George Gideon Osborne is Editor of.The very man who agreed with Cameron to hold an EU Referendum in which they failed to prepare in all eventualities of the result & shirked any responsibility when the vote came in & cleared off but then opted to become Evening Standard Editor (along with his other jobs) where anyone who reads the paper would know he uses the paper as a soapbox to deride Brexit, Theresa May & the Tory Party in general(I have no allegence to any party).For me the Standard always used to be a pretty decent paper to read (& a good source of job adverts around the capital).Osborne has ruined that paper by using it for his own political agenda & so any comments in it I take with the largest pinch of salt & disdain it deserves.

I took it on the questions you were asking me as a means of trying to catch me out on what I knew about the EU & in truth when the Eu Ref was called in 2016 I did my own research (whether you choose to believe it not it's up to you).Apart from the televised EU debates I shut myself off from media influences (& stopped buying any newspapers) & did my own research about various aspects about EU -UK relationship such as differences from when we joined initially joined in the 1970's up to the present day & a multitude things like laws etc.My memory is not as good as was in my younger years (tbh I've never had a good memory) so when you were throwing out several questions to me so without doing the smart-arse thing by dipping back into my research recite it to you & claim I knew it all.Or if I just randomly answered your questions recalling back from memory it leaves me to be shot down by someone who knows better.And to be honest being a skilled-tradesmen in construction who works between several different companies & pricing up my own work spreads me a bit thin & is taxing on the brain cells as it is.

My question regarding immigration preferences between an Indian Doctor & an EU Fruit Picker was merely there as a ruse because under EU Immigration rules the EU fruit picker will get preference under FOM rules.And regarding immigration impacts on wage levels & the debate around can be rather nuanced depending on whether the pollster/researcher is pro or anti-immigration.The right-leaning Migration Watch has always used the link between the supply & demand of labour & un-controlled immigration will suppress wages but left-leaning think tanks say it doesn't & it provides competition who's right on that exactly?.But different think-tanks can often contradict each other with some saying EU workers predominantly fill low-skilled jobs (& are low tax payers) & non-EU fill the high skill jobs (pay high taxes)so who does one believe.
And as I've always said immigration is a benefit to this country as long as there is an element of control.

And regarding your comment on shortages of EU workers in the construction industry around London if the EU worker exodus is to be believed I can only speak as someone who works between several companies (& for myself) around the the London vacinity & I feel work has slowed up a bit largely due to work slowing down due budgets being withheld & other factors but I don't really the see shortages as you say.Several of my EU work colleagues have said whilst a few have left they haven't seen the large droves of EU citizens or workers leave like has been mentioned.In fact the black economy seems to be thriving around several builders merchants & wholesalers I use in certain areas where councils have had to issue blanket bans on people in certain area from congregating & looking for work.

You ask what my point in Apprenticeships has got to do with the EU but my point was employers & companies if FOM ends then these companies might just have to reconfigure their plans for recruitment which may be hiring UK workers & if there are shortages in higher skilled jobs then training/trained apprentices will fill the shortages.It does confuse me a bit where take the NHS will dramatically cut budgets on training Nurses etc but will go on recruitment drives to many poorer countries looking to recruit trained Nurses etc depleting their limited resources (are the two linked possibly?).

(19-11-2018 19:48 )Goodfella3041 Wrote: [ -> ]If I were The Emperor, I would insist on no more referendums, BUT there could only be free, un-whipped votes in Parliament from now on for anything Brexit-related. They created this mess -- they should deal with it, let the chips fall where they may, and then face their constituents like grown-ups.

Sadly, the closest I will ever come to being the Emperor is this...

(19-11-2018 16:24 )Jack the Nipper Wrote: [ -> ]I completely agree with Goodfella on not a lot.

With your talk of Emperor I think I've rumbled your true identity are you by any chance ......Noel Edmonds (you'll have to be watching I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here to understand my observation).

As Noel Edmonds would say.GOTCHA.