Punishment?

 

It is what you voted for: blue passports with no rights.

 

You Brexiteers can have those and we will keep our EU passports with full rights both at work and with travel.

 

I trust Popchart more on the original referendum. REAL facts and INCREASED PARTICIPATION were fully supplied. The sun et all told people to vote in and so they did. This time they told then to vote out and so they did.

 

To ignore an ADVISORY vote that falls well short of safeguards in a country or four nations plus small islands makes you a socialist?? Many of my other views make me a socialist. This one just shows common sense.

Now why ever would someone who lived in Europe hate this braindead result? :thinking:

Dominic Lawson in the Mail today :

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-...-come-next.html

 

DOMINIC LAWSON: So what demented (and doomed) ploy to stop Brexit will they come up with next!

 

Whenever it seems that those who refuse to accept the EU referendum result have scraped the bottom of the barrel of ruses and excuses, they somehow manage to go lower. Over the weekend the 'Remoaners' have done it again.

 

This time their argument is that a nefarious combination of mind-bending social media marketing and illicit expenditure 'bought' the result, and that therefore the British people's decision in June 2016 to leave the EU should be dismissed as illegitimate.

 

This concerted attempt to void the result of the biggest exercise in mass democracy ever undertaken by the British people began almost as soon as the votes had been counted and declared.

 

Days afterwards, Tony Blair's former spin-doctor supreme, Alastair Campbell, called (via Twitter) for the outcome to be rejected on the grounds that 'EU law allows customers to withdraw from contract if contract based on lies. Leave agenda riddled with them'.

 

Coming from the propaganda maestro who manufactured the 'dodgy dossier' on Iraq, this almost defied satire.

Then this gang argued that the referendum was not binding on Parliament and that it would be illegal for the Government to invoke the EU's Article 50 (which is required for a nation to secede) unless it was approved in a vote by all MPs.

 

The Supreme Court agreed with this legal claim, brought by that indefatigable anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller.

 

So then Parliament did vote. And by 498 votes to 114, it agreed that the referendum decision should be honoured. Thus, a year ago this week, Article 50 was invoked by Theresa May's Government.

 

End of story? Not a bit of it. Defeated both by the public and Parliament, those who don't want the result to stand are now calling for a second referendum.

 

According to Chuka Umunna, the London MP who chairs a political group that meets every Wednesday to discuss how to stop Brexit, this would be to 'let the people decide' whether to accept the terms of departure negotiated between the UK and the EU.

 

Last week Umunna came to the support of Owen Smith, after his fellow Labour MP was sacked from the Shadow Cabinet by Jeremy Corbyn for demanding a second referendum on our relationship with the EU.

 

Umunna complained that Smith had been 'sacked for saying what Labour voters overwhelmingly support'. This, however, is not true.

 

Last Friday, the pollsters BMG revealed the result of asking the public to respond to the statement 'the Government should get on with implementing the result of the referendum to take Britain out of the EU and in so doing take back control of our borders, laws, money and trade'.

 

No less than 57 per cent agreed, and only 22 per cent disagreed (with the rest saying they did not have a view).

 

Even among Labour voters there were 10 per cent more agreeing than disagreeing with what amounts, in layman's language, to Theresa May's policy of leaving both the single market and the customs union.

 

Oh, that was the other ruse of the Remoaners: because Theresa May had, through an admittedly inept election campaign, lost her Commons majority, there was no mandate for what they invariably describe as 'hard Brexit'.

 

This argument, too, fails on the most cursory examination. Not just the Conservatives but Labour and also Northern Ireland's biggest party, the Democratic Unionists, all pledged in the 2017 General Election not only that they would honour the result of the 2016 referendum but that the UK would no longer be a member of the single market.

 

Free movement is a fundamental rule of the single market, and all these parties accepted that the British people — including the majority of Labour voters as well as Conservative ones — were opposed to uncontrolled migration from the rest of the EU.

 

All along, however, the Brexit refuseniks have been motivated by the view that what differentiates them from the majority is that they know better: that ignorance and stupidity are what define their opponents.

 

In public, they try to hide this conceit, but it has always been there.

 

It was most clearly expressed in the days after the referendum in a reader's online comment at the foot of an article in The Independent (which itself called for the result to be rejected): 'Why should the pond life that dragged itself from the estates to the ballot box be allowed to ruin everything for the rest of us?'

 

Moronic

 

This idea — that the moronic masses have somehow been dragged or duped into voting for an outcome that defies both reason and their own interests — lies behind the latest attempt to thwart the Brexit vote.

 

It rests on two claims. First, that a company called Cambridge Analytica, controlled by a U.S. billionaire called Robert Mercer and using a sinister-sounding technique called 'psychographics', had played a decisive role in convincing the British to vote for Brexit.

 

And, second, that the official Leave campaign had broken Electoral Commission rules by funnelling £625,000 to a secretly linked group called BeLeave.

 

This second claim was exposed as meretricious only last week in the High Court. It determined that the Electoral Commission had approved, in writing, Vote Leave's decision to donate to other organisations campaigning for Brexit.

 

A youthful volunteer in that campaign, by the name of Shahmir Sanni, has now told Channel 4 that he still feels the way this was done was a form of 'cheating', and that 'almost two thirds of a million pounds makes all the difference'.

 

Really? Does anyone other than Mr Sanni and the self-deluding anti-Brexit last-ditchers believe this £625,000 of spending swung the result behind Leave, and that otherwise this outcome — a winning margin of over 4 per cent, let's remember — would not have occurred?

 

Let's also remember that not only did every mainstream political party organisation back Remain, but so did almost every institution in the land, including the Church of England.

 

Above all, we should recall that just before the official start of the campaign (thus sneakily evading the spending limits decreed by the Electoral Commission), the Government posted a leaflet to every household in the land — at a £9 million cost to taxpayers — warning of economic disaster if we did not vote to remain in the EU.

 

Those still campaigning to stop Brexit never mention that. Nor do they like to recall the final words of that leaflet addressed to voters: 'This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.'

 

Rejected

 

As for Cambridge Analytica and its allegedly spooky mind-bending techniques based on using information hoovered up from Facebook profiles: even if they were effective, this is completely irrelevant, and for one very good reason.

 

The company wanted to work for Vote Leave but was rejected by the campaign's mastermind, Dominic Cummings, who regarded them as nothing more than plausible charlatans. That's right: Cambridge Analytica played as big a role in the referendum as Scooby-Doo.

 

So the claim in the Observer newspaper that 'if the referendum result stands' it would mean we had consented to 'a result paid for by a U.S. billionaire using military-style technology' is a conspiracy theory lacking not just a conspiracy but even a credible theory.

 

Because no one has yet demonstrated that these techniques swing elections and I have seen no coherent explanation of how they have done so. Cambridge Analytica and Robert Mercer put CA's so-called 'micro-targeting' to work for Ted Cruz in his campaign to become the Republican candidate for the 2016 u.s. Presidential election. It was a disaster.

 

Perhaps those fighting to thwart Brexit need to believe that some sort of wicked brainwashing lay behind the referendum result. The people's verdict was, to them, so incredible and unbearable that they can never accept it happened fair and square: it must be a conspiracy.

 

So now their latest line to discredit the referendum result — gullible Britons were brainwashed by spooky Americans into voting Leave — has proved so obviously demented and doomed to fail, what will the stop Brexit crowd try next?

 

I don't know. But you can be sure it will be an insult to our intelligence.

 

well that's certainly a warped viewpoint on events.

 

I simply say: an athlete who uses banned substances gets any result taken away, regardless of whether it helped or not. The Cambridge anal-ytica investigation is ongoing and the claims above have no basis in fact, only in "faith". The firm itself claims they DID influence many elections and referendums. If that data was illegally obtained (yet to be determined) then that is no different to using drugs to win a race.

 

What about publically outing what may be a whistleblower to try and blackmail him into not going public? Then lying about the circumstances of him being introduced.

 

there were 2 leave campaigns. If one of them was acting corruptly, that doesn't mean the one that wasn't (presumably) has carte blanche to justify the other one as having no influence when the Farage behind it was the whole reason for the referendum in the first place. Of course they had an influence. Only an idiot and a moron would suggest otherwise.

 

The rest of the article is just anti-Remainer waffle masquerading as making actual points. Dominic Mailman's views on C.A. are just that: opinion. Nothing factual. Panicking that the case for a vote (NOT a referendum) on the final agreed deal is becoming stronger in case the people he claims weren't swayed by the "Establishment" might be swayed by "The Facts". So, not convincing anyone that he believes his own words or else he would be certain people would vote the same way again and a final say on the matter would be welcomed as confirmation that the public feel the same way. As usual Brexiteers contradicting their own logic.

Now why ever would someone who lived in Europe hate this braindead result? :thinking:

 

The answer is obvious - without the UK's significant net contribution, everyone else will have to pay more.

The answer is obvious - without the UK's significant net contribution, everyone else will have to pay more.

 

and yet despite that every country is unified in everything they said they would do before the referendum and since. Havent waivered once....

 

PS:

 

https://www.fairvote.uk/the-evidence/

 

 

Clearly Dominic Lawson takes after his father. He speaks fluent bollocks. As ever, the self-proclaimed "party of law and order" looks the other way when they are caught with their fingers in the till.

and yet despite that every country is unified in everything they said they would do before the referendum and since. Havent waivered once....

 

PS:

 

https://www.fairvote.uk/the-evidence/

 

I cannot find an instance of a UK election result that has been overturned for overspending alone.

 

Clearly Dominic Lawson takes after his father. He speaks fluent bollocks. As ever, the self-proclaimed "party of law and order" looks the other way when they are caught with their fingers in the till.

 

I much prefer Nigella anyway. ;)

The answer is obvious - without the UK's significant net contribution, everyone else will have to pay more.

 

As in you are taking away a LOT of people's jobs. AND I want others to have the same experience I had. And I would like the option to go back when I want.

I cannot find an instance of a UK election result that has been overturned for overspending alone.

Spending limits on the national campaign have only been in place since the 2001 election. If one MP is elected after a modest overspend, it generally doesn't make a huge amount of difference. The same cannot be said of a national referendum. Surely you can see the difference.

The answer is obvious - without the UK's significant net contribution, everyone else will have to pay more.

 

You know we could make a compromise: have people opt into Europe. How ever many opt in changes the contribution level. Of course only we would benefit from European rights and passports. You lot would not, as you voted for that.

 

I would also hope you realise that the UK receives MORE from Europe than in puts in? Oh economy will shatter upon leaving oops

As in you are taking away a LOT of people's jobs. AND I want others to have the same experience I had. And I would like the option to go back when I want.

 

You do relaise Brexit won't stop that - the EU will hardly be building a 'Berlin wall' to keep us trapped here! :rolleyes:

 

 

Spending limits on the national campaign have only been in place since the 2001 election. If one MP is elected after a modest overspend, it generally doesn't make a huge amount of difference. The same cannot be said of a national referendum. Surely you can see the difference.

 

But I can also see that it would be impossible to prove if it had a decisive effect on the result.

 

You know we could make a compromise: have people opt into Europe. How ever many opt in changes the contribution level. Of course only we would benefit from European rights and passports. You lot would not, as you voted for that.

 

I would also hope you realise that the UK receives MORE from Europe than in puts in? Oh economy will shatter upon leaving oops

 

1. Then there'd be an absurd situation of having you be in the EU, but your next door neighbour out of it...

 

2. That claim could not be proven during the Ref campaign, so why would it have any more influence now?

1. The money the EU gives back in rebates and project funding that the bast*rd Landed Gentry party would never spend outside the London boroughs. In fact, it would probably disappear like a large part of the economy did recently. Into the Caymens.

 

2. Then add the economic benefits from the EU.

 

Done. The EU is therefore beneficial in pure number terms before even delving into the rest.

 

Yes. The country is 50/50 divided and Brexit is a clown show and a braindead decision. So let us have that ridiculous notion instead of the current ridiculous Boris Bojo the Clown backed one. I will keep my rights as a European, but you can lose yours. It is how you voted, so don't be jealous.

 

An Irish person with EU rights or a visa sponsored Brit. Ho hmm. Now who will get the jib, who will get the job. Look at job profiles on the continent for English speakers. No, let me do it for you. Aussie NZ and American are often told not to apply unless they have the right to work within the EU already lol. In fact that good s for a lot of European jobs I've seen. Congratulations. Your grubby little vote took away people's jobs. Not that I expect you to know anythin aboot this due to your last pithy reply. Brexiteera should never mention benefits again after depriving a lot of people of work.

Question:

 

Some in the German Parliament ant EU citizenship to be given to any Brit who wants it. Would you apply for that?

Question:

 

Some in the German Parliament ant EU citizenship to be given to any Brit who wants it. Would you apply for that?

 

I suspect you already know the answer to that! ;)

I suspect you already know the answer to that! ;)

 

So you would. That makes you a huge hypocrite. I suspect MAAANY a Brexiteer would do the same.

 

Can't believe my rights are getting stripped away. We renainers are angry, believe me. The Tories are finished.

So you would. That makes you a huge hypocrite. I suspect MAAANY a Brexiteer would do the same.

 

Can't believe my rights are getting stripped away. We renainers are angry, believe me. The Tories are finished.

 

Oh God so true, I know people joyous at Brexit then crowing they can get EU passports because their partners are European Citizens as well as British citizens. f***ing hypocrites want to keep foreigners out (but not their partners) want to deny me an EU passport and all the benefits, but want to keep it for themselves and then brag about it. Tosspots.

But I can also see that it would be impossible to prove if it had a decisive effect on the result.

So what? If a football team field an ineligible player and wins the match, that victory will be taken from them. That applies even if the player concerned is sent off in the first minute without having touched the ball. They cheated; therefore they lose the match - even if it is due to a cock-up rather than a deliberate act.

Clearly Dominic Lawson takes after his father. He speaks fluent bollocks. As ever, the self-proclaimed "party of law and order" looks the other way when they are caught with their fingers in the till.

 

Yes, ultra-hypocrites.

I cannot find an instance of a UK election result that has been overturned for overspending alone.

 

We havent had a referendum before with potential illegal targeting. That's more important than the overspending. Cambridge Anal records show there has been mass deleting of files going on since the story broke and before the supposed organisation monitoring affairs got it's act together. The Americans are much less forgiving than the British, so hopefully there will be prosecutions from the USA which incidentally throws up all the dirt they have admitted online, in person and in tweets, that they do. That's why they got hired by Aaaron Moneybags who has tweeted confirmation that they were hired for the Leave campaign (which he funded along with UKIP generally).

 

So your sentence is pretty pointless.

Oh God so true, I know people joyous at Brexit then crowing they can get EU passports because their partners are European Citizens as well as British citizens. f***ing hypocrites want to keep foreigners out (but not their partners) want to deny me an EU passport and all the benefits, but want to keep it for themselves and then brag about it. Tosspots.

 

It is unbelievably selfish and hypocritical. I bet they are chomping at the bit to smugly explain to people getting off the plane how they don't have to wait about, then will march heads held high, EU passports out, up the EU nationals empty queues.