There's a difference between not liking a result, and claiming your opponent only won through the nature of their campaign.

 

You cannot *prove* that the campaign was decisive, especially as polling indicated there was little movement of opinion during the course of it : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polli...ship_referendum

 

In fact, the only thing that made a significant difference was the Jo Cox murder, with the week before averaging ~3% Leave lead, switching to a 3% Remain lead for the week after. To me, that suggests that without that tragic occurence, Leave would have had a bigger victory margin. If I could recall the date the £350m NHS ad appeared, I could check whether that made a difference too. :unsure:

 

The only way to test your theory is to vote again. that you don't want to shows you have no faith in your own theory, quite frankly. So why should I?

The only way to test your theory is to vote again. that you don't want to shows you have no faith in your own theory, quite frankly. So why should I?

 

OK then : say we had another vote because 'public opinion has changed' and it resulted in a narrow Remain win - by your logic, if public opinion changed *again* towards Brexit after another 2 years, then you could not deny the electorate a third vote. Can you see where I'm going with this?

OK then : say we had another vote because 'public opinion has changed' and it resulted in a narrow Remain win - by your logic, if public opinion changed *again* towards Brexit after another 2 years, then you could not deny the electorate a third vote. Can you see where I'm going with this?

If public opinion had quite clearly changed enough to warrant a later vote perhaps due to some catastrophic EU event like Poland going all out fascist then I wouldn't object to another referendum. It's democracy as long as the campaign was based on facts not lies.

If public opinion had quite clearly changed enough to warrant a later vote perhaps due to some catastrophic EU event like Poland going all out fascist then I wouldn't object to another referendum. It's democracy as long as the campaign was based on facts not lies.

 

And since we haven't had a 'catastrophic event' since the referendum, there's no reason for another vote - personal distaste over the nature of the campaign is not a sufficient reason in my book.

And since we haven't had a 'catastrophic event' since the referendum, there's no reason for another vote - personal distaste over the nature of the campaign is not a sufficient reason in my book.

I specified no lies. In my view that can be catastrophic. As substantiated today by the grim reading of the state of the UK economy from the IFS. This ought to be at the very top of the news agenda they say.

 

But by all means continue to not give a monkey's uncle but you should clearly understand that at least half the country DOES give a monkey's what happens to us. We don't hold that view because we worship at the feet of the Gods Of The EU, we hold it because it's practical and sensible and we don't worship at the feet of the Gods Of The UKIP.

And since we haven't had a 'catastrophic event' since the referendum, there's no reason for another vote - personal distaste over the nature of the campaign is not a sufficient reason in my book.

Nigel Farage’s continued existence is a pretty catastrophic event

I specified no lies. In my view that can be catastrophic. As substantiated today by the grim reading of the state of the UK economy from the IFS. This ought to be at the very top of the news agenda they say.

 

But by all means continue to not give a monkey's uncle but you should clearly understand that at least half the country DOES give a monkey's what happens to us. We don't hold that view because we worship at the feet of the Gods Of The EU, we hold it because it's practical and sensible and we don't worship at the feet of the Gods Of The UKIP.

 

While I obviously can't speak for all Leavers, it was certainly not for economic reasons that I voted the way I did. I've never claimed leaving the EU would solve all our problems, but neither do I subscribe to the sort of worst-case scenario that some Remainers postulate.

 

Nigel Farage’s continued existence is a pretty catastrophic event

 

Very droll.

 

While I obviously can't speak for all Leavers, it was certainly not for economic reasons that I voted the way I did. I've never claimed leaving the EU would solve all our problems, but neither do I subscribe to the sort of worst-case scenario that some Remainers postulate.

Very droll.

 

 

No, that Government & independent experts suggest. We just repeat the facts. You choose to have faith you are right based on nothing and dont care if we are worse off.

No, that Government & independent experts suggest. We just repeat the facts. You choose to have faith you are right based on nothing and dont care if we are worse off.

 

But you accept that that's not true of *all* Leavers, right?

And since we haven't had a 'catastrophic event' since the referendum, there's no reason for another vote - personal distaste over the nature of the campaign is not a sufficient reason in my book.

Knowing the terms of exit would represent a significant change of circumstances. Therefore, another referendum would be wholly justified.

But you accept that that's not true of *all* Leavers, right?

Of course not. People voted for many reasons. Some are racist. Some are gullible. Some dont care how much damage it does so wracked with hatred for the Eu are they (hi to a family member).Some are devious rich. Some weighed up the claims in the ref With the best of intentions and chose to believe the lies. See gullible. :P

Knowing the terms of exit would represent a significant change of circumstances. Therefore, another referendum would be wholly justified.

 

For me, the wording of any such referendum would be crucial.

 

Of course not. People voted for many reasons. Some are racist. Some are gullible. Some dont care how much damage it does so wracked with hatred for the Eu are they (hi to a family member).Some are devious rich. Some weighed up the claims in the ref With the best of intentions and chose to believe the lies. See gullible. :P

 

What about those MP's who support Leave (genuinely I mean, rather than bandwagon jumpers)?

 

For me, the wording of any such referendum would be crucial.

What about those MP's who support Leave (genuinely I mean, rather than bandwagon jumpers)?

 

I covered that under "weighed up the reasons" and "gullible".

 

Back to polls. It will be interesting to see how labour does in the opinion polls...

I covered that under "weighed up the reasons" and "gullible".

 

Back to polls. It will be interesting to see how labour does in the opinion polls...

 

But surely you can't argue that Leave-supporting MP's don't have access to the facts, or are too uneducated to understand the pros & cons of EU membership?

 

As for polls, we know how Labour are doing from regular opinion polls.

Edited March 16, 20187 yr by vidcapper

But surely you can't argue that Leave-supporting MP's don't have access to the facts, or are too uneducated to understand the pros & cons of EU membership?

Partly self interest, partly a cultural distrust of the rest of Europe.

Yesterday's YouGov poll:

 

CON: 42% (+1)

LAB: 39% (-4)

LDEM: 7% (-)

 

Quite likely just simple variation, but timely in the light of Corbyn's response to the Russia incident.

 

Last year's election campaign miracle has been such a double-edged sword in that it has cemented someone as Our Main Hope despite him being far from the perfect antidote to 2018 Tories. Corbyn just doesn't offer what a good chunk of anti-Tory and Tory-sceptic voters want, and I don't see where we go from here.

Partly self interest, partly a cultural distrust of the rest of Europe.

 

Would 'extra pressure on housing resources' be considered a legitimate con?

Would 'extra pressure on housing resources' be considered a legitimate con?

 

Yes, because the housing situation is political. It can be solved just as it has been solved in the past.

 

By building houses.

The government's refusal to build houses has nothing to do with the EU. Like that's so basic I'd be insulting common sense to call it common sense.

The government's refusal to build houses has nothing to do with the EU. Like that's so basic I'd be insulting common sense to call it common sense.

 

My theory is that if they committed to building lots more houses, it would be a tacit admission that the population is rising too fast, just like building more prisons would be an admission that they cannot control crime...