The Brexit Arms

[BrexitArmsLandLady]

🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧

Article 50 has been triggered (finally!).
Now we move onwards to the future 🍻

All welcome, as ever...

🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧

Leavers must be looking on in dismay as each one of the very few assurances they were given, is renaged upon

Must they [double take], where? Negotiations have hardly started, most Leavers are waiting for the outcome not the hyperbole of the discussions.

She is an ordinary (albeit wealthy) woman who had every right to use the legal system to ensure that the process was carried out in a democratic, transparent way

Umm yea its always wealthy people who are doing the right thing when they are using other peoples money to tell us plebs what they they actually meant when they voted for something. Its what angers people about the EU, if you don't like the outcome of a vote, make them vote again until they vote the right way.

she has been forced to spend a lot of money on private security
She certainly keeps telling us that, suits her victim narrative. All the rest of use the 'normal' police when we are threatened.

I haven't noticed GM courting publicity

Haven't you seen her as a paid political commentator on Sunday morning TV shows then? And on the news promoting her next legal challenge to the government?

So instead, 34 million voting in the referendum was unprecedented.

Not really. Voter turnout by percentage in the general elections held from 1945 to 1992 was higher, with the exception of 1970 at 72%.

So why is she so hated Anon? The only reasons I can see are:

1. She is wealthy (self made, btw) and not one of "us plebs"
2. She has different political opinions to you, and is outspoken about them.

I don't think if you voted leave you can talk about "wealthy people" when Aaron Banks and Cambridge Analytica made such an influence on the campaign. Certainly influencing the plebs was high on their agenda, they even admit it!

" Its what angers people about the EU, if you don't like the outcome of a vote, make them vote again until they vote the right way."

Or they go back, change things, and then ask if this is preferable? Which is what actually happened. Rather demonstrating the fact that the EU isn't inflexible.

I love her, she comes across as intelligent, incredibly tough, hard working and articulate. Even though I don't agree with all of her opinions, I respect her.

I think she's ace :)

Its also massively hypocritical to complain about people spending money on a campaign of their choice.

Especially as Leave.EU may have broken spending laws during theirs.

They didn't the referendum bill clearly said that the referendum was advisory, it needed to go through parliament what ever the result

I am not denying that. It was indeed the legal technically with which GM was able to take the matter to court. However I do not agree it was clear, pre-referendum. I do not remember a single MP saying the referendum result might not be implemented. It was very clear all MPs voted with the expectation that the result would be implemented. So the only reason to ask them to vote again would be to try and get a different result.

Lots of "Project Fear" appears to becoming reality right now
Well from my part of the UK it all looks pretty rosy, life is carrying on as normal and when I turn the news on, if anything, all I see is positive news. I must be watching the wrong news.

Best one ever is immigration
And? Their is more than one way to skin a goose, if that's what people want. Lets see what policies they vote for in 2020. TM might be able to square the circle and keep enough people happy.

You can't vote for unilateral trade deals at general elections
You can vote for parties who have policies laid out in their manifestos. If enough people do/dont want a trade deal with USA (for example) then expect parties to campaign to win/lose votes on that.

the problem with immigration isn't the immigrants, its people's attitudes towards them

If that is true you wont change their attitudes by shoving FOM down their throats. And it is to do with the EU because they are the ones shoving it down our throats.

Voter turnout by percentage in the general elections held from 1945 to 1992 was higher,

I don't know if you noticed, but 1992 was 25 yrs ago.

I could give numerous examples of things that were different (better/worse) a quarter of a century ago.

"So the only reason to ask them to vote again would be to try and get a different result."

No, its to follow the democratic process, we have a representitive democracy, especially as this process meant that the government have had to concede somethings that they previously said wouldn't be put to parliament, will be.

"I must be watching the wrong news."

Or ignoring anything that doesn't fit your agenda.

The point about trade deals still doesn't stand, because parties can't set out terms of trade deals in manifestos, because they are negotiated.

"shoving FOM down their throats. And it is to do with the EU because they are the ones shoving it down our throats."

The EU isn't shoving anything down "our throats" our own governments have choices in how we deal with immigration.

Its VERY telling that areas with the highest levels of EU immigration voted to mainly remain, and those with the lowest voted to leave. Its about attitude and prejudice, and not about reality.

Using language like "shoving down our throats" is utterly inaccruate.

You know it was the UK that pushed for the Eastern European countries to be members? Both Tory and Labour governments? We decided how that accession should be dealt with, We voted for governments that laid out their policy to the EU in their manifestos.

You can vote for parties who have policies laid out in their manifestos. If enough people do/dont want a trade deal with USA (for example) then expect parties to campaign to win/lose votes on that.

It's actually hysterical that you are naive enough to think that, let alone post it.

You might want to look at what the Tory party manifesto said about staying in the Single Market.........

Just pointing out that a voter turnout of 72.2% is hardly unprecedented. It was still 71.4% in 1997. Voter apathy hit in 2001, so 16 years ago.

And 20 years isn't that long ago to some of us.

And 20 years isn't that long ago to some of us.

I agree (I am continually shocked it is no longer 1999, for example ).

However, it's the entire life (and some) of numerous voters.

I dated a cheque 2004 the other day.

And Yes I still use cheques (age)

Voter turnout by percentage in the general elections held from 1945 to 1992 was higher, with the exception of 1970 at 72%
Nice statistical side step but for many reasons more people of a smaller group voted. The referendum was unprecedented because more people voted in it that any other election in UK history.

So why is she so hated Anon?
Is she hated, I dont hate her, I dont know her. Have you met people who actually hate her?

1) She is wealthy (self made, btw) and yet used other peoples money to fund her campaign.
2) She has different political opinions to you, and is outspoken about them Don't know her political opinions, only her stance on Brexit.

I don't think if you voted leave you can talk about "wealthy people"
There is a difference between 'wealthy people' using their own money to influence your views during a campaign and 'wealthy people' using other peoples money to overturn a democratic vote after it has taken place.

Or they go back, change things, and then ask if this is preferable?
Sounds very similar to a bribe? But ok lets see if the EU offer us an end to FOM and maybe we will see that as preferable?

Well, duh, the UK voting population has increased massively, plus the EU Referendum included over 24,000 Gibraltar residents.

Not a statistical sidestep, just a fact.

I seriously can't remember the last time I wrote a cheque.

You helped write one back in June, but it was blank and will bounce us all into economic DOOOOOOOOMMMMM

"using other peoples money to overturn a democratic vote after it has taken place."

But that wasn't the point of it, and claiming so is dishonest and using "spin".

"But ok lets see if the EU offer us an end to FOM and maybe we will see that as preferable?"

No because the EU offered us changes to the FOM and the rules of how it operates, but we wanted a different rule yet again for us. No other country gets this.

Glad to see that your problem with the EU is admitted though.

So using other (foreign!) people's money to manipulate the campaign and not declaring it, is fine. But using British laws to ensure British Parliament has sovereignty over a decision is not.

Priorities.

"There is a difference between 'wealthy people' using their own money to influence your views during a campaign and 'wealthy people' using other peoples money to overturn a democratic vote after it has taken place."

Not possible to overturn the vote because it was only advisory - it had no legal status so there is nothing to overturn. What you can do is seek to influence how it is implemented, which GM quite rightly did.

At last general election around 30 million people voted.
At the referendum in 2011 around 19 million voted.
At the 2010 general election around 29 million people voted.
One before that around 27 million voted.
One before that around 26 million voted.
At the referendum to join the EC around 26 million people voted.
At the referendum to leave the EU nearly 34 million people voted.
That is an unprecedented number of people voting in the referendum.
FACT

No, its to follow the democratic process We have a parliament to keep the government in check, I wonder why it wasn't them taking the government to court? Maybe because the democratic process was in fact following the democratic referendum result. Turns out it was! And we have. All GM did was make a mountain out of a legal loophole.

The point about trade deals still doesn't stand, because parties can't set out terms of trade deals in manifestos Huh? If we dont like the resulting trade deal we cant elect a different government to do a different deal. Inside the EU we cant do that.

our own governments have choices in how we deal with immigration Unfortunately we dont David Cameron tried to get the EU to let him make changes to FOM, they slapped him down with a big wet fish. Well aint no one gonna slap TM down, we are 'taking back control'.

areas with the highest levels of EU immigration voted to mainly remain
Of course areas with the highest number of immigrants will have the highest number of people voting to stay in a club that allows unlimited immigration.

You know it was the UK that pushed for the Eastern European countries to be members?
And now we have changed our minds.

You might want to look at what the Tory party manifesto said about staying in the Single Market
Yea, the Tory party wanted to keep us in the single market and the EU, the people voted to change that policy.

No because the EU offered us changes to the FOM and the rules of how it operates, but we wanted a different rule yet again for us. No other country gets this. You mean the EU isn't flexible enough for us? So we are leaving, it pretty simple.

Good posts from you Anon today.

Really inkata

To be honest anyone using the word FACT in an non ironic way loses the arguement in my opinion

Fact!!

Agree with kaiji

Did some one leave the door open?