General / Off-Topic UK Only - POLL - How would you now vote if casting your vote again for the referendum?

How would you now vote if casting your vote again for the referendum?

  • I would vote to REMAIN in the EU

    Votes: 95 60.1%
  • I would vote to LEAVE the EU

    Votes: 63 39.9%

  • Total voters
    158
  • Poll closed .

verminstar

Banned
Ha! It does look like one of those silly Facebook things :) it actually reveals the 13 totally INSANE secrets to burning belly fat that insurers don't want you to know....

Seriously though, I agree all the qualities are important and in some respects can be seen as similar and in an ideal world you'd want all those qualities, but the question is what in your opinion is the most important of each pair if you had to chose.


  1. independence or respect for elders?
  2. obedience or self-reliance?
  3. considerate or to be well-behaved?
  4. curiosity or good manners?
I suppose my own beliefs are being mirrored by the more authoritarian figures like Putin and Pumpster, but that because right now, they seem to be the only ones willing to take a stand. Anyway, yeah losing belly fat shouldn't be a problem...44 and I still got a six pack when I hold my breath in...don't drink completely tee total means no beer gut here. Even though I say things like, I was hammered last night and got a hangover...I was literally off my face and wake up with cotton mouth but it's not the booze that does it. It's easier to just allow them to assume it's booze and mean's I won't get a ban fer saying what actually causes that. Anyway, ramblings aside, I shall attempt to answer without tripping myself up. Just getting back now after some business yesterday took a turn for the unexpected and I spent half the night in the police station...not me this time, my niece this time.

The first one is a tricky one, I admit because I firmly believe in both and it's damned hard to give more importance to either, but at a push, I would say independence...although if she were ever disrespectful to the likes of a veteran, I would sell her playstation and/or cut out her internet privileges for a time.

Second one is easier...self reliance. Obedience wouldn't be one of my strong points so I can't be the hypocrite and basically say to her, "Do as I say, not as I do". I teach her that if she truly believes she is right and someone else is wrong, that she should stand up and shout until she's heard, even if she's the only one in the room asking the questions.

Third one is very easy actually. Considerate. I'm not well behaved in any shape or form, but neither am I a complete bollox. I see someone like a pensioner or someone in a wheelchair trying to get across a busy road, and I'll walk out and stand in the middle of the road to stop the cars to allow them to cross...that would be how I best describe considerate, but as fer well behaved? haha...no

Fourth is a bollox. Curiosity is a very healthy sign of intelligence which she has in spades and I absolutely encourage that...good manners is something I had drummed into me from no age so it's fairly second nature to me. Having bother choosing between them so I'll have to think about that and get back to ye.

But ye...Trumpster and Pudsy are what I would see as hardliners and while I do agree with some things, I'm not so sure about others...but then that their problem and not mine.

I'm hardly anti gay considering my step daughter is married by civil partnership to her partner here in Belfast just 2 months ago...I was best man at their request and I've walked both sides of the fence meself. One of my old regular spots fer clubbing was the Kremlin nightclub which is one of Irelands biggest gay nightclubs...so me anti gay? Absolutely not so there's that myth blown outta the water before anyone so much as thinks it.

I don't like fox hunting even though both my dogs are both trained hunting dogs...trained as rat killers not fox hunting, jack russells mad wee things.

Anyway, could go on but that would leave nothing fer later. I'm aware of what my beliefs appear to look like, and at one point of my life, I would have been just as hardline as ye can imagine. I signed my Oath of Allegiance in my own blood...that's how serious some of us take our loyalty to the Crown. But like I explained before...we changed hence I have the benefit, if ye can call it that, of having a mixed perspective that includes opinions from both extremes.

In saying that, I do have some beliefs many here would find to be exceedingly uncomfortable. I believe that democracy is failing and that its' days are numbered...now it's nothing more than an old fashioned ideal which our politicians make a mockery off. Time for something different, something old maybe I don't have the answers to that but many of our current political systems in many countries need to be wiped from the face of the planet and started again. Also believe that politics and religion don't mix...seen plenty of examples of how that ethic repeatedly fails time and time again in this country with fire brand hate spewing politicians half in both worlds and quoting the bible while discussing making new laws which have proven to be hugely unpopular on the ground.

On a personal note, council came into our estate a month or so back and told us we had to take the flags down...it being very staunchly loyalist and it being the marching season here, the estate has multiple flags on every pole with many houses having flags on them too. We were told that they would come in and paint over the wall murals to which they were told to bring riot police if they intended following through with that. We were told we had to respect different cultures, hence such an outward show of "britishness" may be offensive to some...seriously, that the word of the politician who met with us..."britishness". They drove out of this estate under police escort while the kids threw bottles at them so they were under no illusions as to how we felt about their politically correct notions. The flags stayed up and the murals are now watched, but they never came back...they know better.

It ties in with yer point because those who take such a hardline stance here are very widely supported...because they appear to be the only ones who are prepared to stand up and defy them. It saddens me fer reasons ye wouldn't really understand because for a few years, they faded into the background...but lately, they have started recruiting heavily again and the sad thing about it is that after decades of unpopular changes and political correctness gone mad, there is no shortage of new recruits. We had the influence and the clout to rein in the hardliners before...now I honestly don't know if I even want to try. I'm tired of half measures and compromising all the time...tired of constantly losing ground and growing increasingly tired of soft politicians who make the dumbest decisions.

Anyway...rambling again...verm out ^^
 
You are possibly right, but does this mean nobody should have tried? In the end, lots of people tried and most of them came to the conclusion that the UK will be worse off both in the short and long term based on brexit. The short term part has already come true. Sure, they won't get the exact numbers right, but they can probably predict the trend.

Not at all. People are entitled to make whatever forecasts they feel qualified to make, and obviously some are more qualified than others. My point is that it would be a mistake to attach much confidence to any one prediction, or model mean predictions - especially when forecasting a time period longer than 12 months (when, even under the business-as-usual conditions, the models in use demonstrably have no skill).

We also know that the vast majority of experts in every field of human activity found it hard to envisage a scenario in which the UK would be better off outside the EU in the long term, except for the scenario where the EU itself collapses, in which case everyone will be worse off anyway.

Doesn't that depend on how you define "better"?

If you're talking GDP growth, then sure - at least in the shorter term. But that doesn't mean much to average joe on the street. UK GDP was at it's highest in 2014. How many people saw the benefit of that? What practical difference does a relative loss of 2% GDP growth in the next few years actually mean to most people?

What fields of human activity are relevant to people's EU decision? Speaking for myself, the opinion of the British Arts council wasn't really a factor in my own thinking. It very well be a factor for someone who works for said organisation though, and it's not for me to say that they were wrong. (Tongue in cheek to a degree, but you get my point I hope.)

People will always want to maintain the status quo when they're happy, so unsurprisingly a lot of bodies where people are relatively well off or think they have the best deal possible aren't keen for change. It's valid reasoning on their part - but that's why a plebiscite yielded the result it did in spite of the opinions of those vast majority of experts.
 

Javert

Volunteer Moderator
Doesn't that depend on how you define "better"?

If you're talking GDP growth, then sure - at least in the shorter term. But that doesn't mean much to average joe on the street. UK GDP was at it's highest in 2014. How many people saw the benefit of that? What practical difference does a relative loss of 2% GDP growth in the next few years actually mean to most people?

Well it may not mean anything to large numbers of people, but it will mean either tax increases, or cuts in services, and it may well mean job losses for some. So, if you are one of the people affected by that or needing to use one of those services, it affects you directly.

It means a weaker pound, higher prices on imports, and potentially those who are on the edge of being able to afford foreign holidays etc will be priced out of it in future.

The impact will not hit on everyone equally, but that's of course means that those who are impacted will be impacted in a more extreme way - longer waiting times for operations (possibly leading to death), losing your job etc.

The real interesting thing is that those who are more likely to be impacted by this and furthermore will be less able to pursue other options when it does happen, seem to be the ones who are totally sure we will be better off outside the EU.

Maybe another way to put it, which was never said, is to ask whether people are happy to accept a drop in standards of living, higher taxes, less choice in the shops, in order to "stop the rot" and go back to the "good old days".

Unfortunately in the end this is about wanting to stop the inexorable process of globalization. A process which I fear cannot be stopped unless you figure out a way to leave the planet, or decide to live in a commune on a remote Island (in the knowledge that you will have no healthcare etc).
 
Well it may not mean anything to large numbers of people, but it will mean either tax increases, or cuts in services, and it may well mean job losses for some. So, if you are one of the people affected by that or needing to use one of those services, it affects you directly.

It means a weaker pound, higher prices on imports, and potentially those who are on the edge of being able to afford foreign holidays etc will be priced out of it in future.

The impact will not hit on everyone equally, but that's of course means that those who are impacted will be impacted in a more extreme way - longer waiting times for operations (possibly leading to death), losing your job etc.

The real interesting thing is that those who are more likely to be impacted by this and furthermore will be less able to pursue other options when it does happen, seem to be the ones who are totally sure we will be better off outside the EU.

Maybe another way to put it, which was never said, is to ask whether people are happy to accept a drop in standards of living, higher taxes, less choice in the shops, in order to "stop the rot" and go back to the "good old days".

Unfortunately in the end this is about wanting to stop the inexorable process of globalization. A process which I fear cannot be stopped unless you figure out a way to leave the planet, or decide to live in a commune on a remote Island (in the knowledge that you will have no healthcare etc).

Those are the economic impacts.

What so many people seem to be overlooking are the societal impacts of this. When the remain camp said we weren't influenced by the EU legally they really were lying. It's just that we weren't influenced negatively.

Expect things like maternity pay, working time directives, bans on hazardous substances and regulations on health and safety to all be "modified" if some weirdo think-tank decides cutting corners is a way to solve problems. Does anyone remember this? Expect it to become mainstream government policy.

Our PM is a woman who made it her goal to abolish human rights legislation. Human rights laws are unlike most other laws in that they are mostly intended to protect the citizens from their own government. Once they decide that certain people no longer should be treated like human beings they're crossing a line a decent goverment won't cross.
 
Unfortunately in the end this is about wanting to stop the inexorable process of globalization.

Globalisation (to give it the proper English spelling! :D) is the only way we are going to survive as a species in the end. The attitude of 'Britain for British people' (or insert your country of origin) is a somewhat outdated concept which needs to die a quick death. Nothing wrong with being patriotic or any other word that fits the bill, but in the end globalisation has been happening for a long time and the only we can learn to live with each other is to live with each other. Closing down borders, becoming xenophobic and distancing over selves from the rest of the world is not the answer.
 
Last edited:
Isn't it also about being able to elect or remove the folks who run your country and make your laws? I just don't get that feeling from the EU.
 
Isn't it also about being able to elect or remove the folks who run your country and make your laws? I just don't get that feeling from the EU.

There are EU eliections where you can elect the people sitting in the EU parliament.

The commissioner of the UK is appointed by the UK government, thus elected indirectly. Same goes for your Prime Minister and his cabinet and I haven't heard any Brexiteer complaining about that.

Besides, the EU does not run your country. Nor does the EU make your laws.
Your government runs the country and the same government needs to agree on those EU laws.

The main tasks of the EU are redistributing funds over the 28 countries to support the economically weaker countries and to standardize regulations and laws to make the single market possible and trading easier.

The EU is much more a economical union than a political. As it is now each country has still their own voice in the world regarding military and diplomatic matters. Merely the competences to negotiate economical things have been given to an overspanning institution, the EU.

And that makes sense, since the EU as a bloc is around 5 times stronger than Germany, the biggest economy in the EU, alone, meaning it can negotiate on an equal level with the US and China.

I honestly don't know where the impression came from that those countries would give you a trade deal with better conditions once you're out.
 
Isn't it also about being able to elect or remove the folks who run your country and make your laws? I just don't get that feeling from the EU.
May I ask, and I don't mean to be rude, can you explain how the EU works? Do you know the main institutions and how they interact with each other and the public?

what do you know about the process by which the EU makes laws?

What do you know of the UK government and it's structures? Do you know how the UK makes laws?

I don't ask these questions to be rude or belittle, but often people who feel the EU is undemocratic have a view on how the EU works that is not accurate.

I'd be happy to explain if you genuinely want to know.
 

Javert

Volunteer Moderator
Expect things like maternity pay, working time directives, bans on hazardous substances and regulations on health and safety to all be "modified" if some weirdo think-tank decides cutting corners is a way to solve problems. Does anyone remember this? Expect it to become mainstream government policy.

Our PM is a woman who made it her goal to abolish human rights legislation. Human rights laws are unlike most other laws in that they are mostly intended to protect the citizens from their own government. Once they decide that certain people no longer should be treated like human beings they're crossing a line a decent goverment won't cross.

So I'm not clear on the context of where the PM advocated this, but I think she said she wanted to withdraw from the EU obligation of the European Court of Human rights, rather than abolishing human rights entirely. Presumably there are some human rights aspects of being part of the international community, the UN etc. I must admit I haven't looked into this too much, but I suspect there may be a context to it. Don't get me wrong, I am somewhat alarmed about it, but I'm not convinced I really have all the information to judge why she said that.

Regarding maternity pay and so on, I agree this is a major concern. However, as it stands today we are still a democratic country - would any government or PM that abolished maternity pay and increased working hours be voted in the next time around if there were other parties saying they would repeal it? Personally I would vote for any party that maintained maternity pay and equality and if someone tried to take it away, I would vote for whichever party is going to bring it back again.

I am concerned about these things, but I am not 100% certain they are going to happen as you seem to be. It's definitely worrying though when you see that not just here, but in the US and other countries we seem to have this authoritarian approach taking hold. It almost feels like we are going back to the mid 1930s.
 

Javert

Volunteer Moderator
The main tasks of the EU are redistributing funds over the 28 countries to support the economically weaker countries and to standardize regulations and laws to make the single market possible and trading easier.

One aspect of this which was never discussed neither during the referendum nor on these threads, and I haven't heard it discussed in the news I've seen, is the impact of this on the EU budget. Granted the 350m claim was a lie, but the truth is that even net, the UK makes a net contribution of roughly $150m per week which is 7.8 billion (using the thousand million definition) per year. Since the UK was one of the only few large net contributors to the EU, and most of the countries are taking money out, the loss of the UK contribution puts a pretty big hole in the EU budget in terms of what is available to dole out to other countries. There is going to be a heck of an argument within the EU about how to plug that hole, and realistically, most of the burden of that will fall on Germany. I'm not sure what effect this will have on internal German discussions, but it's been largely ignored up to now.

Edit: Of course, the EU will probably hope to get this money back one way or another from the UK, either by membership fees for the EEA, or by tarrifs or some other method.
 
Last edited:
So I'm not clear on the context of where the PM advocated this, but I think she said she wanted to withdraw from the EU obligation of the European Court of Human rights, rather than abolishing human rights entirely. Presumably there are some human rights aspects of being part of the international community, the UN etc. I must admit I haven't looked into this too much, but I suspect there may be a context to it. Don't get me wrong, I am somewhat alarmed about it, but I'm not convinced I really have all the information to judge why she said that.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ion-on-human-rights-theresa-may-eu-referendum

There is certianly a view by many that the ECHR is a criminal's charter and honeypot for lawyers.
 
Isn't it also about being able to elect or remove the folks who run your country and make your laws? I just don't get that feeling from the EU.

"Give me a control of a nations finances, and I care not who makes its laws"
- Rothschild.

The EU doesn't make our laws. The legal status of drugs for example, is decided in parliament. The sentencing guidelines on everything from shoplifting to murder, set in parliament. The notion that we don't set those laws is UKIP propaganda, and a cursory glance at the facts would reveal this.

But for the rest? How much control do you think you're going to have. Wages in China will cause job losses in Britain. The price of steel in India will effect car production in Slovakia. The crop yields of coffee in Brazil will effect the share prices of companies in New York. The quality of silicon made in California will impact the quality of devices constructed in South Korea.

Globalization is upon us. The genie isn't so much out of the bottle as it has taken the bottle and crushed it in the name of progress. Almost every nation on earth is entangled with every other in so many ways (North Korea, Liberia, Eritrea are exceptions). To try to fight against it by going on your own is to hurt yourself. The only way to really beat it is to join with other nations in trade treaties and political alliances that are mutually beneficial. Even the USA, arguably the most neomerchantile nation on earth has signed up to such an organization (NAFTA)
 
One aspect of this which was never discussed neither during the referendum nor on these threads, and I haven't heard it discussed in the news I've seen, is the impact of this on the EU budget. Granted the 350m claim was a lie, but the truth is that even net, the UK makes a net contribution of roughly $150m per week which is 7.8 billion (using the thousand million definition) per year. Since the UK was one of the only few large net contributors to the EU, and most of the countries are taking money out, the loss of the UK contribution puts a pretty big hole in the EU budget in terms of what is available to dole out to other countries. There is going to be a heck of an argument within the EU about how to plug that hole, and realistically, most of the burden of that will fall on Germany. I'm not sure what effect this will have on internal German discussions, but it's been largely ignored up to now.

Edit: Of course, the EU will probably hope to get this money back one way or another from the UK, either by membership fees for the EEA, or by tarrifs or some other method.

It's going to be carried mostly by germany, yep.

Our EU membership fee will increase from 0,5 billion (roughly estimated using the financial data from 2014) to 0,55-058 billion per week (assuming we pay half of the UKs membership fee after the rebate) as long as the UK isn't a part of the single market.

But I guess a hefty fee will be one of those non negotiable conditions coming with a associated status like Norway or Switzerland and the access to the single market. In the end the membership fee after the Brexit could be higher than the membership fee before the Brexit, which is pretty ironic.
 
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ion-on-human-rights-theresa-may-eu-referendum

There is certianly a view by many that the ECHR is a criminal's charter and honeypot for lawyers.
Are you aware that the ECHR and it's court the European court of human rights (stupidly confusing, I'll use lower case to refer to the court) are nothing to do with the EU? They are a completely separate organization that predates the EU (or the European Coal and Steel Community which was the start of the EU).

The only practical link between the two is (I believe, please correct me if I'm wrong), that membership and adherence to the ECHR and the judgements of the Echr is a condition of membership so leaving the ECHR whilst being a member of the EU might have been difficult.

The ECHR was set up, in part, by British lawyers using UK laws and rights as a guide.

Like the EU, it has been the subject of many "myths", some propagated by Mrs May - The "we can't send an illegal immigrant back because he has a cat" case - full story was an (I think) Brazilian student had overstayed his study visa and was therefore illegal and about to be deported. He fought the deportation on the basis that he had a family life here, a long term girlfriend, and deporting him would violate that. The court asked for evidence that the relationship was genuine and intended to last so various bits of evidence were produced, photos of them on holiday, at friends weddings, rental agreements with both names on, witness statements from friends etc. one of the items was that the couple had bought a cat together.

I've actually had to provide evidence like that (photos, written statement that a couple have been together for a long time etc) for a friend who wanted to get his then girlfriend (now wife) into Australia when he got a job there.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

It's going to be carried mostly by germany, yep.

Our EU membership fee will increase from 0,5 billion (roughly estimated using the financial data from 2014) to 0,55-058 billion per week (assuming we pay half of the UKs membership fee after the rebate) as long as the UK isn't a part of the single market.

But I guess a hefty fee will be one of those non negotiable conditions coming with a associated status like Norway or Switzerland and the access to the single market. In the end the membership fee after the Brexit could be higher than the membership fee before the Brexit, which is pretty ironic.
I'm going to bet some deal will be worked out where the gross amount is less but because we won't get any money back the net amount is the same or higher.

In fact I think when all this is over, we will have pretty much all the things we have now, free movement, access to the single market, EU regulations etc

The only difference is it will cost more and we will get less and have less say over what we get.
 
I'm going to bet some deal will be worked out where the gross amount is less but because we won't get any money back the net amount is the same or higher.

In fact I think when all this is over, we will have pretty much all the things we have now, free movement, access to the single market, EU regulations etc

The only difference is it will cost more and we will get less and have less say over what we get.

Pretty much, yeah. You might end up paying a less gross amount which exceeds the amount you pay now after the rebate ^^
 

verminstar

Banned
Should be plenty on union jacks in manchester tomorrow...organizers are expecting a decent sized crowd and ask all to bring union jacks...protest march demanding westminister trigger article 50 right now. Getting tired of the delays and the excuses, we want it done right now so that the few remain hopefuls have no more choices left but to accept it ^^
 
Back
Top Bottom