AIBU to ask what will actually happen on 29th March... Will we have John Snow narrating a countdown to armegedon? ?

[drivinmecrazy]

Genuine question. How do you think the media will cover it?
Will it be a countdown and then lights out?
Will it be programming as normal?
Will radio be playing poignant tunes?
I'm personally hoping the likes of the Mash Report and Last Leg will be on air to see me through

teaandgingercake I might've missed it but I can't tell which way you voted?

Hell will freeze over

So, from the article Clavinova posted: a group of about 400 made up of British expatriates living in Europe...and European Union citizens residing in the UK gathered in Hyde Park to call for the right to vote in a final referendum
So, not a bunch of EU students who have just decided to go along to march for fun .
Interesting that Clav thinks UK citizens resident in the EU for longer than 15 years and EU citizens who may have lived in the UK for decades, paid taxes, etc., should not be entitled to march and should just STFU. Not surprised though.

Funny that Clav didn't copy and paste that bit.

If half of the people marching are actually EU citizens it's more of a Please Don't Leave Us March , not a People's Vote March.
Sorry to bang on about this, but that would be a fucking big 'IF'
We see what you're doing, Clav, but if you think we'll believe 350,000 on the march were 'actually EU citizens' you must need your bumps read. I presume by 'EU citizens' you're not including the BRITISH EU citizens, just the foreign ones .

Funny that Clav didn't copy and paste that bit

400 citizens not eligible to vote in the first referendum (e.g. because they haven't lived in the UK during the last 15 years) or they are not UK citizens - suits my point more than yours. Unless someone changes the rules they won't be able to vote in a second referendum either.

What I actually posted was, several people interviewed here on the previous march - who were not eligible to vote in the first referendum.

E.g. Axel ... a spokesperson for campaign group the 3million, said:“It’s a very specific demand: we want a final say for all.The UK is our home. We are part of it. EU citizens didn’t even have a vote last time, we didn’t have a voice last time.”
and
De Clercq ... didn’t have a vote before and we all deserve the vote,” he said. “I’m doing this for every European citizen, including the British."^

But thank you for adding an extra 300 odd people to my example.

You lot are ON FIRE today. I haven't stopped laughing. If there is a silver lining to Brexit, it's this thread.

It’s my 41st birthday, so I will only be interested in stuffing my face and presents (no wine alas as am pg). There will be no Brexit TV or conversation in my house as the family all voted differently. Instead it will all be about meeeeeeee!

Ah but you posted that, whilst making a point about "if half of the people on the march are not eligible to vote" etc.

EU citizens should be allowed to vote if commonwealth citizens are allowed to vote.

I've added nothing to your example, nor is your weak attempts to use copy and paste ( what is your obsession with that?) to justify your idea that a significant proportion of the marchers would be unable to vote, relevant.

Clavinova

Yes you wouldn't want foreigners who've lived here for decades and will be badly affected having any say.

suits my point more than yours.
Clav, what point is that? The one where you said: If half of the people marching are actually EU citizens it's more of a Please Don't Leave Us March , not a People's Vote March.
You're tying yourself up in knots here trying to make some point about non-British people possibly making up a significant number of the 700,000 marchers. We're not buying.

I just skimmed through Clavinova's "breifings for brexit" link above! Jeez - it's got more holes than a cave full of Swiss cheese! If that's the quality of your "argument from authority" we really are fucked...

EU citizens should be allowed to vote if commonwealth citizens are allowed to vote

Perhaps they should - but unless someone changes the rules they can't vote. It's not their People's Vote because someone decided they are not the people who get to vote.

I just skimmed through Clavinova's "breifings for brexit" link above! Jeez - it's got more holes than a cave full of Swiss cheese! If that's the quality of your "argument from authority" we really are fucked...

I haven't read any of it myself - I just used it as an example of an £80m figure banded about by both sides of the argument.

Typical Quitling then. Don't bother to actually read anything, just quote nonsense from others...

Clavinova

Was it just a sound bite look liked?

CardinalSin

Typical Quitling then.Don't bother to actually read anything, just quote nonsense from others...^

Well - if you had actually bothered reading my post...

Quietrebel
Yep, £80billion already squandered.Almost a decade of EU membership fees gone up the spout for this pointless crap.
*
Me: I've just googled £80 billion and came up with this;

A WTO-based Brexit could yield the UK £80 billion per year ;

briefingsforbrexit.com/a-wto-based-brexit-could-yield-the-uk-80-billion-per-year/

It seems both camps can attach any figure they like to their side of the argument - the real answer is that nobody knows what the situation will be in 1, 5 or 10 years time.

Oh dear Clav, you fail miseranly on that one.

Did you read it?

Its fishing anal;ysis is based on increased catches, yet outside of the EU where are we going to sell 75% of the fish caught in British waters?

It also directly contradicts what Michael Gove has told the agri industry.

Discusses cutting benefits payments to EU citizens as a way of increasing that £80b ( forgetting that they are net contributors).

Includes the "benefits" of striking trade deals with other countrues - laughable.

Reducing regulatory burdens, half of the cost of "EU" directives are acutally international treaties like the Paris accords which aren't actually EU regulations, of the remaining, half of the cost comes down to the data protection act, and others are to do with products that we would seek to export, the ones we could change ( and will) are the employment ones. Great.

Essentially a lot of it is hot air and the "benefits" are assumed mainly based on the Minford model, which has been discredited.

It also fails on any economic basis by not discussing the costs of Brexit.

You must of course outline the costs as well as identifying the benefits.

This is of course the problem of just googling and copying and pasting stuff that you think backs your argument.

If you don't actually understand what it is saying, or how the conclusions have been arrived at then your points are very weak.

Definitely apply for passport now we've just renewed DDs online turnaround was about 10 days.

I heard a moron Brexiteer exclaim yesterday that all us Remoaners will be thankful for Brexit in 12 months

Gormless have you room for me? I reckon I could give someone a really sore arm with my chorizo throwing skills. > pictures longwayoff shoving cheese in faces of passers by in proper Partridge style

BorisBogtrotter Fri 22-Feb-19 14:29:54
Oh dear Clav, you fail miseranly on that one

Did you read it?

Oh, for goodness sake - I've already posted that I haven't read it!!

Are you English? Your comprehension skills are lacking.

I posted (in the original post);

It seems both camps can attach any figure they like to their side of the argument - the real answer is that nobody knows what the situation will be in 1, 5 or 10 years time.

i.e. anyone can wave a figure of £80 billion in the air to suit their argument.

I don't need to read the link or agree with it to make the point I made.
The reason I chose that particular link was because the figure of £80 billion was the same amount as Quietrebel's £80 billion.

However, one source is an official government agency, the other is a bunch of idiots pretending to have thought about something.

Pretty much sums up the remain/leave argument...

Nothing wrong with my comprehension skills.

Everyhing wrong with copying and pasting stuff in order to make a point when you don't understand how those writing it came to their conclusions.

It also matters what the sources are, "Briefings for Brexit" with the author being the lead economist at Right wing think tank Policy exchange ( although he uses his Honorary associate links with Cambridge to attempt to add credibility here), claiming a potential £80bn using spurious predicted calculations OR the Bank of England claiming costs of brexit based on current economic data.

Which one are you going to believe?

CardinalSin

However, one source is an official government agency, the other is a bunch of idiots pretending to have thought about something

I have to go out now - If you link to the report I will read it tonight.