The Brexit Thread

[exile]

8 minutes ago, Eisegerwind said:

I don't buy that, I wouldn't expect the general electorate to be that informed or interested in nuances of a Leave vote. (and to be honest no reason why they should be, that's what we pay politicians for).

If you look at the EU referendum thread on this forum which is generally posted on by politically minded posters there are no references to any of the terms that you've used in the second sentence prior to the vote. It would appear that theses issues have only become relevant since leave won!

There was extensive discussion about what kind of future scenario might mean in terms of things like EFTA, Norway, Switzerland, Canada models, etc. Those (especially Norway) were used to convince the voter that a Leave outcome needn't even leave all of the institutions (e.g. single market or customs union). I don't have time to find them right now (maybe later). I'd have thought Remainer sites will have them.* 

The suggestion that people in 2016 were generally not using terms like clean Brexit, no deal, WTO etc, supports my point that people were not thinking in those terms in that level of detail, therefore they can't turn round and say afterwards that 'people knew they were voting for them'

* e.g. 

 

Edited November 4, 2019 by exile

[Eisegerwind]

1 hour ago, exile said:

There was extensive discussion about what kind of future scenario might mean in terms of things like EFTA, Norway, Switzerland, Canada models, etc. Those (especially Norway) were used to convince the voter that a Leave outcome needn't even leave all of the institutions (e.g. single market or customs union). I don't have time to find them right now (maybe later). I'd have thought Remainer sites will have them.* 

The suggestion that people in 2016 were generally not using terms like clean Brexit, no deal, WTO etc, supports my point that people were not thinking in those terms in that level of detail, therefore they can't turn round and say afterwards that 'people knew they were voting for them'

* e.g. 

 

Still smacks of revisionism to me.

[exile]

5 minutes ago, Eisegerwind said:

Still smacks of revisionism to me.

Revisionism by whom?  Nigel Farage before the referendum holding up Norway as an example of what Leave could mean, and then after it, claiming that Brexit had to mean clean break / no deal / WTO. To me that is revisionism.

Similarly, Remainers claiming afterwards that Leave didn't mean no deal / clean break/ WTO could be considered revisionism. 

The Referendum question allowed both hard and soft Brexit options to be part of the Leave outcome, but the 17.4m mandate cannot be attributed to either on its own, just the sum of them.

 

[Eisegerwind]

2 hours ago, exile said:

It's clear that the majority voted Leave, but they only voted to leave the EU, i.e. what it said on the ballot paper.

17.4 million people did not vote for a clean break, no deal, WTO, EFTA, Norway, BrINO or any other particular kind of Brexit. 

The fact that people still claim they did, shows that it was (in that sense) not clear what they were voting for. 

I'd regard the above as revisionism, because you are using post vote terminology to analyse pre vote intentions.

26 minutes ago, exile said:

The Referendum question allowed both hard and soft Brexit options to be part of the Leave outcome, but the 17.4m mandate cannot be attributed to either on its own, just the sum of them.

 

I htink that's where we differ, for me the Leave vote was leave regardless of hard or soft, therefore the 17.4m applies to both or even all possible options.

[ParisInAKilt]

2 hours ago, Eisegerwind said:

I don't buy that, I wouldn't expect the general electorate to be that informed or interested in nuances of a Leave vote. (and to be honest no reason why they should be, that's what we pay politicians for).

If you look at the EU referendum thread on this forum which is generally posted on by politically minded posters there are no references to any of the terms that you've used in the second sentence prior to the vote. It would appear that theses issues have only become relevant since leave won!

Agreed. At least how I seen it from my bunker in Wellington at the time. 

I’ve been fairly open in my general hatred for all things EU but this referendum was always going to be divisive and it’s proven that and more, maybe that was the point, I don’t know, in hindsight is an in / out vote with such a small majority enough to leave? 

[exile]

2 hours ago, Eisegerwind said:

I'd regard the above as revisionism, because you are using post vote terminology to analyse pre vote intentions.

Eh, I literally just posted a video showing Farage talking about Norway and EEA. Before the referendum.

As for post-vote terms, their use after and not before the referendum is revisionism on the part of those who originally claimed we could leave the EU and still be in single market and customs union, but afterwards dismissed them as not really Brexit, or BrINO.

 

2 hours ago, Eisegerwind said:

I htink that's where we differ, for me the Leave vote was leave regardless of hard or soft, therefore the 17.4m applies to both or even all possible options.

I think the most that can be said is that 17.4m were prepared to vote Leave without knowing which kind of Brexit it would lead to, deal or no deal. But that is different from saying 17.4m voted for a clean break or no deal, as some claim. Which was my original point. 

A parallel could be: what did Yes voters think they were voting for, in terms of EU membership, in 2014? Some may have thought (hoped) that we'd get a deal to remain in the EU; others no doubt thought indy would mean a welcome clean break, getting shot of the EU. But of the 1.6m Yes voters,  all we can say is that they voted for indy, we surely can't claim that all 1.6m were all voting to stay in EU or all voting to exit the EU, neither of which option was on the ballot paper. Similarly, of the 17.4m, all we can say is that they voted to leave the EU, but they were not all voting for any particular soft or hard Brexit, which was not on the ballot paper.   

[Bonny79]

I do like the pound but hate the euro

[Rich NATA]

9 hours ago, Bonny79 said:

I do like the pound but hate the euro

What do you use to buy things when you go to a country, which uses the Euro?

[Bonny79]

7 minutes ago, Rich NATA said:

What do you use to buy things when you go to a country, which uses the Euro?

The dam euro sir.  Wish it wud die but no choice 

[Rich NATA]

If you hated it that much, you'd avoid it.

[Ally Bongo]

2 hours ago, Bonny79 said:

The dam euro sir.  Wish it wud die but no choice 

You are a fucking moron

[Bonny79]

6 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

You are a fucking moron

Cheers ally.  Ya not read anything bout anything but come in with an educated comment at the end.  😂

[Eisegerwind]

On 11/4/2019 at 11:57 PM, exile said:

Eh, I literally just posted a video showing Farage talking about Norway and EEA. Before the referendum.

As for post-vote terms, their use after and not before the referendum is revisionism on the part of those who originally claimed we could leave the EU and still be in single market and customs union, but afterwards dismissed them as not really Brexit, or BrINO.

 

I think the most that can be said is that 17.4m were prepared to vote Leave without knowing which kind of Brexit it would lead to, deal or no deal. But that is different from saying 17.4m voted for a clean break or no deal, as some claim. Which was my original point. 

A parallel could be: what did Yes voters think they were voting for, in terms of EU membership, in 2014? Some may have thought (hoped) that we'd get a deal to remain in the EU; others no doubt thought indy would mean a welcome clean break, getting shot of the EU. But of the 1.6m Yes voters,  all we can say is that they voted for indy, we surely can't claim that all 1.6m were all voting to stay in EU or all voting to exit the EU, neither of which option was on the ballot paper. Similarly, of the 17.4m, all we can say is that they voted to leave the EU, but they were not all voting for any particular soft or hard Brexit, which was not on the ballot paper.   

Politicians taking a harder line after they've won a vote not that surprising, and yes there probably is revisionism on all sides.

However even after the post vote shitshow we've had to endure if that question was put to the electorate again do you not think the 17.4 million would vote the same way again. I guess the election will sort of establish that or not.

[exile]

1 hour ago, Eisegerwind said:

Politicians taking a harder line after they've won a vote not that surprising, and yes there probably is revisionism on all sides.

However even after the post vote shitshow we've had to endure if that question was put to the electorate again do you not think the 17.4 million would vote the same way again. I guess the election will sort of establish that or not.

I don't know how people would vote, it would depend on the question. Also, some pro-remainers while originally wanting remain originally would vote leave to honour the first referendum.

There is an argument for any second referendum only having alternative Leave options on the ballot. This would probably have to have a no deal option on it, and if so, it should have a soft Brexit option (e.g. single market and customs union), and maybe one in between (May or Boris deal). That would honour the 2016 result, and resolve whether people really wanted no deal or softer Brexit or whatever.   

I wouldn't bank on the present election sorting out the issue. Even a Boris majority could be tricky, if the new intake Tories are very Brexity, they may vote down the Boris deal and prolong the agony. A Boris slim majority could be tricky, a Boris minority would be back where we started, a Corbyn victory of any sort would open up new cans of worms, and could end up in another referendum anyway! 

Edited November 6, 2019 by exile

[Eisegerwind]

3 minutes ago, exile said:

I don't know how people would vote, it would depend on the question. Also, some pro-remainers while originally wanting remain originally would vote leave to honour the first referendum.

There is an argument for any second referendum only having alternative Leave options on the ballot. This would probably have to have a no deal option on it, and if so, it should have a soft Brexit option (e.g. single market and customs union), and maybe one in between (May or Boris deal). 

I wouldn't bank on the present election sorting out the issue. Even a Boris majority could be tricky, if the new intake Tories are very Brexity, they may vote down the Boris deal and prolong the agony. A Boris slim majority could be tricky, a Boris minority would be back where we started, a Corbyn victory of any sort would open up new cans of worms, and could end up in another referendum anyway! 

i don't know either but I suspect if the question was the same the numbers would be the same.

As a point of pedantry which was pointed out to me by a colleauge, a referendum is a vote on a single point. A 'referendum' on several leave options would be an absolute minefield in just about every way possible.

Nor would I but it's what's happening.

[ThistleWhistle]

6 hours ago, thplinth said:

Have you been following that. The violence now is horrendous. Here is the latest little incident...

https://twitter.com/dancohen3000/status/1193864857994567680

It seems to have boiled down to one of these so called 'colour revolutions' and now lost a lot of support with the ordinary HK folk. Cop shot a guy the other day as well...

https://twitter.com/CarlZha/status/1193752539222560768

Note the truck driver applauding the cops at the end.

If the UK was on the US's shitlist I suspect the Scottish independence movement here would have received a lot of 'help'... Although they'd have a hell of job igniting Scots in any way. We are so docile.

Read about the policeman one yesterday but fuck me the clip of the guy getting set alight is horrendous.  Do you think this is because it has been going on so long that anarchy was inevitable or that it has been helped along with outside interference - US maybe interfering or even possibly China to gain legitimacy in reasserting control?

[g@un]

I remember a few months back, someone at work saying Brexit would be like Scottish clubs, out of Europe by November.

FFS! How that one aged badly. MK Dons supporter as well!

[TDYER63]

On 10/30/2019 at 6:28 PM, Ally Bongo said:

BBC Scotland runs an NHS bad story daily for the last 5 years - despite NHS Scotland being the best performance wise in the UK

Unionist Politicians attack the SNP weekly with Scottish NHS bad stories - despite NHS Scotland being better than those in England, Wales and NI

Unionist media run with regular Scottish NHS bad stories despite NHS Scotland being the best in the UK

Tory Politicians attack the SNP regularly in Westminster regarding Scottish NHS performance - despite it being the best in the UK

Today Boris Johnson threatens to take the Scottish NHS under Westminster control - despite it being the best run NHS in the UK

Scottish Tories laugh with glee

Yet Boris tells SNP that they may lose the right to  run the NHS in Scotland but NHS England figures at worst ever level.  He blames ‘ huge demand’. 

The figures show:

• 4.42 million patients on the waiting list
• 84.8% of them waiting under 18 weeks - below the 92% target and the worst performance since the target started was introduced, in 2012
• 83.6% of accident-and-emergency patients admitted or transferred within four hours - below the 95% target and the worst performance since the target started was introduced, in 2004
• 76.9% of cancer patients starting treatment within 62 days - below the 85% target

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-50397856

 

[phart]

5 minutes ago, thplinth said:

I think the US will be up to their necks in it as they were in igniting the problems in Ukraine as they were in starting the mini war between Georgia and Russia a while back etc etc. They are desperately trying to provoke a big heavy handed crackdown from mainland China but the Chinese seem to be wise to this and are showing remarkable constraint. If protestors were pulling this sort of stuff in the USA they would be slaughtered. 

You can see it in their media, there are two simultaneous protests going on in Hong Kong and Chile.

In HK it is protestors fighting for freedom, in Chile it's rioters.

The US is against China and for Chile.

 

Both the Hong Kong Protestors and Chilean Protestors have been giving big tips on how to handle the tactics of civilian control, defuse tier gas, how to bring down dronse etc

 

The Chilean police have been blinding protestors somthing like 200+ eye injuries in one day, the next day the protestors rocked up with lasers like thousands of them, also i someome brought out what looked like a carbon monoxide blue laser it doesn't even look real it;s something from a  lab. It's fucking mental.

 

This is like cyberpunk or bladerunner shit

 

 

[phart]

here is them taking down a drone

 

[Dave78]

29 minutes ago, phart said:

here is them taking down a drone

 

 

Went digging into the comments, as i wanted to know how exactly lasers could bring down a drone. 

Seems it was a controlled descent

 

https://twitter.com/GossiTheDog/status/1194645624387493888

[phart]

3 minutes ago, Dave78 said:

 

Went digging into the comments, as i wanted to know how exactly lasers could bring down a drone. 

Seems it was a controlled descent

 

https://twitter.com/GossiTheDog/status/1194645624387493888

What do they mean it's not real? The footage is faked? doctored?

Also " Drones navigate with GPS (radio waves), not via light. " Radio waves and light waves are both electromagnetic waves i'm not sure what distinction he is trying to make. The Electrical Engineer i spoke to mentioned possible to overload diodes but he wasn't sure and it was flying erratically.

 

The video posted doesn't show anything.

The guy posts " i been close like 2 mts from this scene and happened that the owner of the drone are in the middle receiving the drone. was a controlled descent. Here is the video."

then posts this video

We see someone with a drone in their hands.

[phart]

Either way it came down either cause the owner couldn't see shit and intiated it to come down or it was brought down, jump or push was the options it seems.

[Dave78]

5 minutes ago, phart said:

What do they mean it's not real? The footage is faked? doctored?

Also " Drones navigate with GPS (radio waves), not via light. " Radio waves and light waves are both electromagnetic waves i'm not sure what distinction he is trying to make. The Electrical Engineer i spoke to mentioned possible to overload diodes but he wasn't sure and it was flying erratically.

 

 

My initial thought that was that the drones used some IR beam to measure their height from the ground. The lasers could mess that up, causing it to come down. But i dunno if that's how they gauge their height from the ground?

 

1 minute ago, phart said:

Either way it came down either cause the owner couldn't see shit and intiated it to come down or it was brought down, jump or push was the options it seems.

Pretty sure the owner doesn't need to be able to see though. They can fly completely automatically. The owner can literally just click points on a map and it'll fly there.

[phart]

35 minutes ago, Dave78 said:

My initial thought that was that the drones used some IR beam to measure their height from the ground. The lasers could mess that up, causing it to come down. But i dunno if that's how they gauge their height from the ground?

 

Pretty sure the owner doesn't need to be able to see though. They can fly completely automatically. The owner can literally just click points on a map and it'll fly there.

I don't know how drones work well enough to make any educated guesses on how they measure altitude.

 

Well flying there is one thing doing anything useful is another. If you're trying to film something you do need to see, sure if you just want to fly your drone like an advanced 3d scaletrix set then sure you don't need to be able to see anything bar the drone. The Drone is just a fancy tripod for a camera same functionality, outwith races with them etc.

 

Hong Kong were using laser to fuck up cameras and other intelligence gathering methods (Facial recognition)