Where's Boris?

[Gordon]

It wasn't about Scotland you dipstick, it was about the UK!!! This has really hit you hard you poor old soul.

Of course it is, for as long as Scotland is part of the UK. The reality is that UKIP cannot represent the position of Scotland in any dealings with the EU, since apart from the idiot Coburn who is an MEP they have no Scottish representation in either Westminster or Holyrood.

So, I'll ask again, what mandate does UKIP have to negotiate Brexit (which removes the idiot Coburn when it happens) on behalf of Scotland? I suspect you are conflating any anti-European sentiment from anywhere as being implicit support for UKIP - and yet we don't have any UKIP MSPs or MPs.

When this madness is resolved I expect UKIP will be history.

[Jack Knave]

No I didn't. The closest anybody came to asking "for themselves" was Gordon. Twit.

You're still whining!!! 

[Jack Knave]

He's called Mark Carney.

Funny isn't it - straight after we have apparently just 'taken back control' we have the most acute lack of leadership and control in government and the biggest constitutional crisis we've seen for decades.

Hmm if that's 'control' I'd prefer not to have it, thanks very much.

Hey, Moderator: content removed, we are still in the EU.

[Nearly Sane]

But for something as critical and crucial as this it should have done because now we have this farce where the wankers in the Commons are now trying to spin up some Brexit.

and yet it was never going to happen. The referendum is and always have been advisory as Parliament is sovereign. That you are stinging that it should be different just underlines your failure of comprehension. I cannot understand why you think it's OK for you to whinge about the way the referendum was held but not for others. You seem to not realise quite how hypocritical this comes across, Though I suspect that's because of your lack of self awareness.

[Jack Knave]

you have stated what the referendum should have done with your  little fantasy of UKIP getting a significant say in the negotiations. Was never going to happen so in that sense it's a failure.

The referendum never was never a legal affair, not legally binding.

[Jack Knave]

and it wasn't about givihg mandates to UKIP, I would suggest that you are moaning about the result but I'm currently not sure if you understood it.

What I'm saying in effect is that it should have been legally binding, and that each side should have manned a term to carry out their manifesto pledges.

[jeremyp]

As for your last bit, where did he say that? We won.

I posted the link to the story, twit. It was in the Daily Mirror on May 17.

[Nearly Sane]

That's nice for you, unfortunately it wasn't. Why are you whinging about it?

[Jack Knave]

Of course it is, for as long as Scotland is part of the UK. The reality is that UKIP cannot represent the position of Scotland in any dealings with the EU, since apart from the idiot Coburn who is an MEP they have no Scottish representation in either Westminster or Holyrood.

So, I'll ask again, what mandate does UKIP have to negotiate Brexit (which removes the idiot Coburn when it happens) on behalf of Scotland? I suspect you are conflating any anti-European sentiment from anywhere as being implicit support for UKIP - and yet we don't have any UKIP MSPs or MPs.

When this madness is resolved I expect UKIP will be history.

And I'll say again Scotland was not dealt with as a separate entity. It was the UK and the outcome of the UK referendum is applied to all of the UK, which includes that desolate bit at the top called Scotland.

How many Conservative MPs etc. does Scotland have? Yet they are doing the deal for the UK, which includes Scotland. Do they have a mandate to speak for Scotland?

[Nearly Sane]

The referendum never was never a legal affair, not legally binding.

No idea what you are trying to say here, sorry.

[Jack Knave]

and yet it was never going to happen. The referendum is and always have been advisory as Parliament is sovereign. That you are stinging that it should be different just underlines your failure of comprehension. I cannot understand why you think it's OK for you to whinge about the way the referendum was held but not for others. You seem to not realise quite how hypocritical this comes across, Though I suspect that's because of your lack of self awareness.

I'm not whinging, where did you get that from? It was just an idea about how things could have been conducted to ease this hiatus we are in now. With my idea the Leave team would have triggered Art 50 and got things going by now. Instead we have all these remainers crying like babies.

[Gordon]

Moderator:

There seems to be a degree of sniping going on in recent posts, one of which I've Modded.

While the terms used to date aren't unduly insulting, in comparison to some, nevertheless confrontational posting can escalate - so could we have less of this please. 

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not whinging, where did you get that from? It was just an idea about how things could have been conducted to ease this hiatus we are in now. With my idea the Leave team would have triggered Art 50 and got things going by now. Instead we have all these remainers crying like babies.

you are saying that you don't think the referendum was held as you believed it should. You are complaining that due to that the actual effects are not what you want. Since this is what seems to drive you to refer to other's as whinging, it is the logic of your position that you are whinging.

[Jack Knave]

you are saying that you don't think the referendum was held as you believed it should. You are complaining that due to that the actual effects are not what you want. Since this is what seems to drive you to refer to other's as whinging, it is the logic of your position that you are whinging.

Can't I present an idea, a suggestion etc., without you lot jumping down my throat? That was all I was doing; some better solution than the chaos and mess we have now. I thought what I suggested was reasonable and workable. Is this not what we humans do, come up with alternative solutions to commonly held but flawed customs?

[jeremyp]

As for your last bit, where did he say that? We won.

It's somewhat hypocritical to claim that a close vote would be unfinished business but only if your own side lost. Therefore I assumed that Nigel was talking about a close vote whichever way it goes.

[Jack Knave]

It's somewhat hypocritical to claim that a close vote would be unfinished business but only if your own side lost. Therefore I assumed that Nigel was talking about a close vote whichever way it goes.

I've looked at the link.

These things are not reciprocal because if we had voted to stay the underlining issue for us to leave would still be there and unresolved for those who saw the need to leave. For me, and them, the EU is like a cancer, the issue is only over when it has been removed. What Farage was saying in the piece was that a future referendum would still be on the cards, but unlike some of the whinging Remainers, he didn't mean straight afterwards, as they are now calling for.

Therefore, and as for the close %age margin, which is what I think you are referring to, this changes nothing. If it had been 52/48 to stay then we would have stayed with the option of a future referendum, years hence. As it is, it was 52/48 to leave and so we have to leave with the option of a referendum in the future to re-join, years hence. The only difference is that re-joining does not get us back to square one in this regard as we would have to start from scratch and lose all our opt outs, and special conditions. We would also have to join the Euro, which you have agreed is a total failure and an abomination to mankind. This is why I say at the top that these things are reciprocal because in leaving and then joining again doesn't get us back to what was (or what we have at present).

What looks to be happening is that Brussels will be forced to radically change its whole plan of the federal state and if the EU does change to EU-light then re-joining at some future date may be palatable for some, or the majority. What might also happen is that the EU becomes an auxiliary institution to the nationl states and so we will be part of it not because we have moved back towards it but because it has moved to the nation states.

[jeremyp]

I've looked at the link.

Finally.

These things are not reciprocal because if we had voted to stay the underlining issue for us to leave would still be there and unresolved for those who saw the need to leave. For me, and them, the EU is like a cancer, the issue is only over when it has been removed.

But the EU is not actually like a cancer at all.

Therefore, and as for the close %age margin, which is what I think you are referring to, this changes nothing. If it had been 52/48 to stay then we would have stayed with the option of a future referendum, years hence.

Since it is very much harder to get back in once we are out, it makes much more sense to worry about second thoughts in the current case than if the result had been the other way around.

[Jack Knave]

Finally.

Hey I'm an old man I don't get around so much these days, anyway my colostomy bag was full.

But the EU is not actually like a cancer at all.

That's your best erudite comment you can come up with to my brilliant post? But that is how some of us see it. You can't be half in a disaster and survive.

Since it is very much harder to get back in once we are out, it makes much more sense to worry about second thoughts in the current case than if the result had been the other way around.

That's besides the point. If the people vote to leave then we must leave, which is what they have done. You only have second thoughts about something worth bothering about, which doesn't apply to the EU. Open your eyes, Jeremy, it is not only some of the British people who are discontented with the EU. Words of protest against it is growing all over the continent.

[jeremyp]

That's your best erudite comment you can come up with to my brilliant post? But that is how some of us see it. You can't be half in a disaster and survive.

You were the one who made the hysterical comparison to cancer, not me.

That's besides the point. If the people vote to leave then we must leave, which is what they have done.

Not necessarily. Circumstances change. The vote was not legally binding.

You only have second thoughts about something worth bothering about, which doesn't apply to the EU. Open your eyes, Jeremy, it is not only some of the British people who are discontented with the EU. Words of protest against it is growing all over the continent.

It could certainly do with reform, but events are showing that we would have done better to stay in.

[Udayana]

There's no reason why we should not have a chance to change our minds.

[Jack Knave]

Not necessarily. Circumstances change. The vote was not legally binding.

True, but I would like to see who has the nerve to go against what was a resounding vote to leave - turnout 73%.

It could certainly do with reform, but events are showing that we would have done better to stay in.

Reform isn't the word; total overhaul is. You think staying on a sinking ship is a good idea?

[Nearly Sane]

True, but I would like to see who has the nerve to go against what was a resounding vote to leave - turnout 73%.
Reform isn't the word; total overhaul is. You think staying on a sinking ship is a good idea?

Why quote turnout here? On and of itself it's irrelevant to the claim and given the figure then shows 27% of people voted neither way undermines the claim.

[jeremyp]

True, but I would like to see who has the nerve to go against what was a resounding vote to leave

Resounding? It was 52-48. These are statistics that Farage himself said would be inconclusive.

Reform isn't the word; total overhaul is. You think staying on a sinking ship is a good idea?

Well it's certainly sinking now. It wasn't before the vote.

[Jack Knave]

Resounding? It was 52-48. These are statistics that Farage himself said would be inconclusive.

1.25 million more voted to leave than to stay.

What Farage said was for the long term, not weeks later, or even months or a few years down the road.

Feel free to arrange a vote to join the EU in say 5 to 10 years time.

Well it's certainly sinking now. It wasn't before the vote.

Oh, if you had the honest eyes of reality you would have seen those gaping holes years ago.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

1.25 million more voted to leave than to stay.

What Farage said was for the long term, not weeks later, or even months or a few years down the road.

Feel free to arrange a vote to join the EU in say 5 to 10 years time.

Oh, if you had the honest eyes of reality you would have seen those gaping holes years ago.

No Farage said that if it was 52-48 it would be unfinished business and he proposed a second referendum would happen.
He was right he just got the sides the wrong way.

I think the population should have the right to a vote on this anytime. If it goes tits up before article 50 is invoked I think things will change.

Don't forget. Leave crashed the car.