1. We *were* tricked in! We were told we were just signing up for a trading bloc, not a progression towards an economic & political union.

Who do you think signed the Maastricht Treaty?

Who do you think signed the Maastricht Treaty?

 

Not the public, that's for sure - we were never given the chance!

 

[Will you allow me to post unmoderated this time? :teresa: ]

1. We *were* tricked in! We were told we were just signing up for a trading bloc, not a progression towards an economic & political union.

 

2. There's no sign there's going to be one.

 

3. Older people do not lose their capacity for rational thought, except in cases like Altzheimers & similar diseases, in which case they'd be incapable of voting at all.

 

4. Or perhaps it means that you have 'less capacity for rational thought than I - That's YOUR argument not mine BTW... :teresa:

 

5. It's almost exclusively Remainers who are demanding a 2nd referendum - we Leavers consider the issue already settled by the first.

 

1. No WE weren't, you were a child. OUR democratically elected governments agreed to every part of it that was subsequently amended or added to. What part of that fact don't you understand?

 

2. There's no sign there isn't going to be one. We can play this game forever.

 

3. Older people do become less coherent and forgetful as they get older, this is a medical fact. You can see in almost every person that has ever existed. A lucky few get to retain a fabulous memory into advanced old age. If older people weren't essily led astray they wouldnt be continuously targeted by charlatans. My parents phone rings every day with them trying to screw them with lies (again) as have my elderly neighbours.

 

I don't need any advice about alzheimers, thanks. My mum has it, I live with it every day. My dad doesn't have it. He is not in favour of Brexit (and neither would my mother have been).

 

4. Your response makes no sense whatsoever, it's just playground retorts.

 

5. Fortunately we just about live in a democracy, and everybody can campaign for anything they want to. And elect people who represent our views. Nothing is ever "settled". Not ever. That's reality. Roll on the next election....

 

 

Not the public, that's for sure - we were never given the chance!

 

[Will you allow me to post unmoderated this time? :teresa: ]

There are at least two large topics which have ended up revolving Brexit. You've started multiple polls on very narrow aspects of the Brexit debate and I don't see the point in having any more.

There are at least two large topics which have ended up revolving Brexit. You've started multiple polls on very narrow aspects of the Brexit debate and I don't see the point in having any more.

 

Well I couldn't start one in an existing thread as you can only do so at the start, and posing the question in a non-polley way looked very complicated... :)

1. No WE weren't, you were a child. OUR democratically elected governments agreed to every part of it that was subsequently amended or added to. What part of that fact don't you understand?

 

2. There's no sign there isn't going to be one. We can play this game forever.

 

3. Older people do become less coherent and forgetful as they get older, this is a medical fact. You can see in almost every person that has ever existed. A lucky few get to retain a fabulous memory into advanced old age. If older people weren't essily led astray they wouldnt be continuously targeted by charlatans. My parents phone rings every day with them trying to screw them with lies (again) as have my elderly neighbours.

 

I don't need any advice about alzheimers, thanks. My mum has it, I live with it every day. My dad doesn't have it. He is not in favour of Brexit (and neither would my mother have been).

 

4. Your response makes no sense whatsoever, it's just playground retorts.

 

5. Fortunately we just about live in a democracy, and everybody can campaign for anything they want to. And elect people who represent our views. Nothing is ever "settled". Not ever. That's reality. Roll on the next election....

 

1. Oh, I understand that perfectly well - but the strong Euroscepticism that we knew, even at the time, was there, was not taken into account.

 

2. Not forever, only until Mar 2019. ;)

 

3. I'm not denying medical facts, but you are doing the elderly a great disservice by suggesting they are incapable of making their minds up without the media telling them. As for being conned by cold-calling scammers, surely the fact that they make headline news, is indicative of the rarety that people actually fall for them?

 

4. I always endeavour to post politely, except under extreme provocation.

 

5. I agree with the first two parts, but FPTP often precludes the 'electing people who represent our views' part - e.g. until UKIP there was no mainstream party that Eurosceptics could vote for. As for 'nothing is ever settled', it took us over 40 years for the chance to have our say on the EU, so I see no good reason why the issue need be asked again in the near future.

Settled by the first with 37% qof the elctorate voting for it.

 

2/4s of the country voting against.

 

Even IF that paltry 51% was of the ENTIRE electorate it shows a deeply divided country, and therefore the KNOWN is the correct course of action, especially with the youth being 80% IN and leaving threatening the very existence of the UK union.

 

Settled??

 

Not on your life!!

 

Given it was advisory, the vote marginal, 37% of the electorate support, a deeply divided country, the status quo qas the way to go. In what club would 37% carry the vote? :) Except not very democratic FPTP.

 

Labour won in 2001. The issue is settled. We don't want another vote on it!

 

Settled by the first with 37% qof the elctorate voting for it.

 

2/4s of the country voting against.

 

Even IF that paltry 51% was of the ENTIRE electorate it shows a deeply divided country, and therefore the KNOWN is the correct course of action, especially with the youth being 80% IN and leaving threatening the very existence of the UK union.

 

Settled??

 

Not on your life!!

 

Given it was advisory, the vote marginal, 37% of the electorate support, a deeply divided country, the status quo qas the way to go. In what club would 37% carry the vote? :) Except not very democratic FPTP.

 

Labour won in 2001. The issue is settled. We don't want another vote on it!

 

Must we go down this absurd road *again*?! If someone can't be bothered to vote, then they don't care about the result.

 

Irrelevant, as that isn't how voting works here.

 

Do you honestly think that ignoring a Leave vote would make the country *less* divided? :wacko:

 

Strawman

This is a key point you've hit on, but not for the reason you intended.

 

We weren't born into such a system, we were *tricked* into it! :(

 

The same old article of faith. :rolleyes:

You seem to be totally discounting their life experience - there's nothing better than that to counter propaganda.

 

That's why authoritarian gov'ts concentrate on the young, as they know the old are less susceptible to influence.

What I don't get is while you are so keen to give up our sovreignty?

If they wanted us to rejoin as a net contributor, they could not insist on all three!

Oh, is that what 'This is your decision - we will implement what you decide' really meant? :rolleyes:

Why do you use 'will', suggesting certainly, when you are actually only speculating?

As has been pointed out to you several times, the government were very clear in the Commons that this was an advisory vote. If it had been binding, there would probably have been a threshold and that threshold would have been higher than 51&. You seem to be endorsing a minister who told a blatant lie to the House of Commons.

As has been pointed out to you several times, the government were very clear in the Commons that this was an advisory vote.

 

then why did the leaflet indicate exactly the opposite?

 

then why did the leaflet indicate exactly the opposite?

Lying in the Commons is considered a serious offence for anyone. For a minster it should be a sackable offence. Of course, you have already made it clear what you think of the lies told by Leavers.

Lying in the Commons is considered a serious offence for anyone. For a minster it should be a sackable offence. Of course, you have already made it clear what you think of the lies told by Leavers.

 

I think of them the same way I think of the lies told by Remainers...

I think of them the same way I think of the lies told by Remainers...

Nobody has yet produced an example. Please remember that a prediction, by definition, cannot be a lie.

Must we go down this absurd road *again*?! If someone can't be bothered to vote, then they don't care about the result.

 

Irrelevant, as that isn't how voting works here.

 

Do you honestly think that ignoring a Leave vote would make the country *less* divided? :wacko:

 

Strawman

 

It is not a strawman argument - it is a HIIIIGHLY RELEVANT POINT.

 

You do not understand the meaning, idiot savant.

 

It is 37% of the country, 51%, 2/4s of the nations.

 

That ia NOT ENOUGH. THE VOTR WAS ADVISORY.

Nobody has yet produced an example. Please remember that a prediction, by definition, cannot be a lie.

 

So the claim that there'd be an extra £350m for the NHS wasn't a lie, but a prediction? :rolleyes:

 

You know I always have examples prepared. ;)

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/matthew-el...b_12191462.html

 

[What, you expected me to look in the Guardian or the LD website to find them - that would be a futile exercise] :lol:

Nobody has yet produced an example. Please remember that a prediction, by definition, cannot be a lie.

 

There will be an 'emergency budget' within weeks of a leave vote.

Theresa May got handed her P45 during the midde of her speech!! :lol:

So the claim that there'd be an extra £350m for the NHS wasn't a lie, but a prediction? :rolleyes:

 

You know I always have examples prepared. ;)

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/matthew-el...b_12191462.html

 

[What, you expected me to look in the Guardian or the LD website to find them - that would be a futile exercise] :lol:

The claim was that we paid £350m p.w. to the EU. That claim was a lie. I didn't see the point of reading the article beyond the point where the writer repeated that lie.

1. Oh, I understand that perfectly well - but the strong Euroscepticism that we knew, even at the time, was there, was not taken into account.

 

2. Not forever, only until Mar 2019. ;)

 

3. I'm not denying medical facts, but you are doing the elderly a great disservice by suggesting they are incapable of making their minds up without the media telling them. As for being conned by cold-calling scammers, surely the fact that they make headline news, is indicative of the rarety that people actually fall for them?

 

4. I always endeavour to post politely, except under extreme provocation.

 

5. I agree with the first two parts, but FPTP often precludes the 'electing people who represent our views' part - e.g. until UKIP there was no mainstream party that Eurosceptics could vote for. As for 'nothing is ever settled', it took us over 40 years for the chance to have our say on the EU, so I see no good reason why the issue need be asked again in the near future.

 

1. It was a vote. Exactly as you claim 2016 was. Being angry over losing a vote that you didn't take part in because you were a child at the time is truly bizarre.

 

2. Teresa May said 2021 or didn't you listen to her speeches? About the time of the next election.....

 

3. You are putting words into my mouth. I never said anything of the sort. All I pointed out was that your constant harping on about older being wiser is bullshit and you only use it to back up points you make then dismiss it when it doesn't suit (ie 1973 referendum). I was older and wiser than you then, and I still am :P

 

Cold calling IS a big problem, and old people's phone numbers are constantly sold on by foreigners preying on them. It's not news because there is nothing anyone can do about it. They live abroad. They ring everyday.

 

4. I didn't say it was insulting or polite, and dont recall ever having had an insulting personal comment from you. just irrelevant as a comment is all. harmless though and marginally amusing comeback.

 

5. Depends totally on how the economy performs post-Brexit. Priti Patel was only today talking about Brexit being the perfect opportunity to privatise swathes of the Social Care systems in the UK. That means those on benefits, support, NHS, local government, health & safety, schools, and anything that basically rich people object to paying more tax for....

 

I'm paraphrasing liberally but the sentiment is correct.

 

 

 

 

Theresa May got handed her P45 during the midde of her speech!! :lol: