The Brexit Arms

[BrexitArmsLandLady]

🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧

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

All welcome, as ever...

🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧

Sorry woman

That was me

I will give it a good slam

Oh shit

Its come off its hinges

Shoddy workmanship

Its come off its hinges
Unhinged, that happens rufus I'd offer you a brew but we all know what happened last time.

Kaija,

This 'advisory' stuff really grates. It is legally only advisable because the government cocked up. However, unless you want a genuine revolution (with many many remainers on the side of the leavers) it is de facto mandatory.

Those claiming it is only advisory clearly do not think a BJ constitutes a sexual relationship!

You make a comment that is factual (with clear statistics to back it up) and remoaners dismiss it because you used the word 'fact'. Oh dear.

larrygrylls I think Bill Clinton would have you over a barrel there.

But it wasn't just the government that cocked up, it was the whole of parliament and the country that missed out that the referendum was only advisory. Probably because no one believed Brexit was possible...

Can you imagine what would have happened if remain had won and the government said, it was only advisory we are leaving anyway. Apocalypse NOW.

larry

It was advisory

But I completely agree with you, it was made clear that the government would follow the majority

Brexit has to happen in my opinion, I certainly wouldnt stand in its way

I know you and woman

I can concur that a blow job is not sexual relations.

Apparently....

I am glad so many of you remember the immortal line, 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman', followed by the squirming admission of having had a BJ but that did not legally constitute 'sexual relations'.

The 'advisory' argument is dancing on the same pinhead.

Good to see you here larrygrylls

I fully agree that the result of the referendum meant that A50 had to be triggered, even though technically it was advisory. In practice, most people understood it to be binding, and I really wished that it had been made completely clear before the vote whether it was advisory or binding. I don't understand what the point of an advisory referendum would be, other than an incredibly expensive opinion poll.
Yet another example of poor planning that has characterised this sorry shambles.
I also agree that the turnout was very high.
But the Leave vote was not an overwhelming majority.
Definitive, yes.
That's what started this whole tangent.

Anon you can try and spin the figures, but statistically higher proportions of the UK electorate have been voting for decades before the EU referendum. If you want to insist on using numbers, then 13 million people didn't bother to vote in 2016. In 1950, 5.5 million people didn't vote, in 1997 12.5 million people didn't vote.

And your comment on areas with the highest rates of EU immigration voting Remain because it was protecting the EU club - I'm assuming that you do realise that EU migrants didn't get a vote? Because if you do realise that, your comment really doesn't make sense.

I'm sorry you find it grating, Larry.

But it's incontrovertibly true.

The turnout was high. Numbers of votes for both leave and remain were high. Nothing overwhelming about it.

CountMagnus If you want to insist on using numbers, then a higher percentage of people voted in the referendum to leave the Eu than voted to join the EC. But you already knew that.

EU migrants didn't get a vote Really? There must have been electoral fraud then because I know a LOT of migrants that voted in the referendum. So your saying the vote to leave should have been a lot higher?

Nothing overwhelming about it. Seriously? It had almost twice the number of people than voted in the last referendum. More people voted than any other election in the UK ever! That is unprecedented.

And that applies to remain votes as well as leave votes, anon.

"I know a LOT of migrants that voted in the referendum."

EU migrants? Or commonwealth?

Anon There wasn't a vote to join the EEC, there was a referendum in 1975 to ask if the UK should stay in or not. More than twice as many people voted to remain in the EEC than voted to leave (17,378,000 against 8,470,000).

So you're wrong with your contention that a higher percentage of people voted to leave the EU in 2016 than voted to remain in it in the1975 referendum - it's 52% and 67% respectively.

And yes, I did already know that.

Anon EU citizens other than Irish, Cypriot and Maltese citizens resident in the UK were not eligible to vote in the EU referendum - here is a link to explain how it works for you.

If EU citizens had been able to vote, it could be argued that they would have been more likely to vote Remain. Since there are (or were) around 2.9 million EU citizens in the UK (not including those EU citizens eligible to vote), the EU referendum could have had a different outcome given that the margin of votes to leave was less than 1.3 million.

Anon EU migrants didn't get a vote Really? There must have been electoral fraud then because I know a LOT of migrants that voted in the referendum.

Is this one of those subjective facts I keep hearing about? Or is it an alternative fact? I'm struggling to keep up with all these new types of facts that we have now.

It had more than twice the number of votes than the last referendum

Guess people just weren't that worked up about the AV system. Hence only a 42% turnout.

Interestingly enough, that was wasn't an advisory referendum.

Kaija,

So, did Clinton have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky?

Wow Larry.
That question is as topical as it is relevant.