[Withano]

Originally Posted by jaxie

You need to stop the personal remarks to users and the argument goading.

I'll take it down a notch, im just really struggling to follow this particular argument. Im pretty sure there isnt one, im trying to find out.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

When you stop yours.

You genuinely just asked for brexit to be lead by leavers and in response to learning or remembering that the main three in charge of negotiations were brexiteers you said they were all very intelligent. What is your argument? i feel like youre just arguing for the sake of arguing!

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Withano

I'll take it down a notch, im just really struggling to follow this particular argument. Im pretty sure there isnt one, im trying to find out.

Sorry to hear You're struggling to follow the argument. Il'll try to simplify it for you in future, although no promises.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Sorry to hear You're struggling to follow the argument. Il'll try to simplify it for you in future, although no promises.

Perhaps just think it through yourself first. Not the first time youve contradicted yourself multiple times on news and debates.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Withano

You genuinely just asked for brexit to be lead by leavers and in response to learning or remembering that the main three in charge of negotiations were brexiteers you said they were all very intelligent. What is your argument? i feel like youre just arguing for the sake of arguing!

Please don't put words in my mouth as I stated I was just pointing out that the process of exiting the EU was mainly in the hands of the remainers which is true. Point out what part of that statement is wrong if you can.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Withano

Perhaps just think it through yourself first. Not the first time youve contradicted yourself multiple times on news and debates.

Ditto. If you are constantly going to attempt to undermine those with an opposing view then your posts need to be better informed and more accurate.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Sounds you didn't read it but I could say the same to you, how much does one statement by someone in the red Cross really mean and how factual is it. You choose to believe what you wish, so will I.

No, you couldn't say that to me because I did read it that's how I know it was Sarah Wollaston that refutes the claim by the Red Cross not 'the NHS'.

The chief executive of the British red cross reiterates their response to the humanitarian crisis here....

“The British Red Cross is on the front line, responding to the humanitarian crisis in our hospital and ambulance services across the country,” said Red Cross chief executive Mike Adamson in a statement.'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7515801.html

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jaxie

The NHS has never been in 'profit'. Not sure where you are getting that from. There were reports in the 80s of people dying in trollies. Nothing has changed really, it needs more cash it always has. It's probably the shining star of our society but it's expensive to run and the drug companies Rob us blind.

It needs some sort of extra boost similar to the way sport has benefitted from the lottery IMO.

Wrong

'NHS hospitals will end the financial year in the red for the first time in eight years, according to official figures, with 26 loss-making trusts reporting a combined deficit of Ł456.8m.

The University Hospitals of Leicester NHS trust has run up the largest deficit: Ł39.8m.'


'Exclusive The joint venture between a private company and the Department of Health that processes payments to GP practices has dramatically improved its finances last year, with an 88% boost in profits.

Annual accounts seen by Pulse show that NHS Shared Business Services grew its profits from Ł4.2m in 2011 to Ł7.8m in 2012, with the organisation citing the ‘successful launch’ of a national payment system for the NHS a key driver behind the healthy balance sheet.

The growth in annual profits came on the back of a 30% rise in revenues from Ł62.4m to Ł81.1m, and after CCGs were mandated to use the company to process payments as a condition for authorisation.
The large jump in profits compares with an 11% increase in profits last year,'

http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/your-pra...004002.article

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...me-eight-years

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

The welfare cuts by the government were a reaction to the increased amount being spent on benefits - much of which is going to immigrants who sponge off our system.

This is what happens when you take the comments section of the Daily Mail as gospel.

You are proving me right, the mere mention of immigration has caused you to gloss over the Human Rights abuse in an attempt to blame them for our current issues. Just like I said in the post you quoted.

The only thing you and any Leaver achieved by voting Leave was making our Human Rights more open to abuse. Immigration won't change, we won't get more funds for public services but the Government won't have to worry about Eu interference if they decide to go after the most vulnerable people in our society again.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

This is what happens when you take the comments section of the Daily Mail as gospel.

You are proving me right, the mere mention of immigration has caused you to gloss over the Human Rights abuse in an attempt to blame them for our current issues. Just like I said in the post you quoted.

The only thing you and any Leaver achieved by voting Leave was making our Human Rights more open to abuse. Immigration won't change, we won't get more funds for public services but the Government won't have to worry about Eu interference if they decide to go after the most vulnerable people in our society again.

Bingo.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Most of the Tory government were remainers, including Osborne and Cameron, so don't understand how your hypothesis that the government wanted a Brexit works.

Also if the government are being investigated for human rights abuse and you offer this up as a reason why they can't be trusted then why should we be more concerned about that than the hypocrisy of the EU who are supposed to be the experts on human rights. I think is it very relevant. Why would we want to be in the EU based on that? Supporters of human rights only when it suits it seems. No thanks.

Most of the politicians that were in the Leaver camp have jumped ship now that it's come to pass. Allignments and Alliances in politics are rarely set in stone. Most of the government were on the remain side of things so, if they really WANTED to remain it would have been easy to whip the votes to stop Brexit when it went to the floor recently but it still went through. That's telling in itself.

The conversation is about the UK's Human Rights abuse and the EU investigation, Greece is a separate issue that has little to nothing to do with it and mentioning doesn't change the facts of the UK case, it's just an attempt to muddy a debate that you can't win.

You can talk about Greece until you are blue in the face but it won't change the facts about the EU investigation into the UK's human rights abuse.

I've only spoken about the EU investigation into the UK, I'm not saying that the EU is perfect (I don't speak in absolutes) only that your argument doesn't change the facts which is true. Your unsubtle attempt to paint me as a hypocrite in your last sentence has fell on it's arse because you've misunderstood what I've been saying.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

This is what happens when you take the comments section of the Daily Mail as gospel.

You are proving me right, the mere mention of immigration has caused you to gloss over the Human Rights abuse in an attempt to blame them for our current issues. Just like I said in the post you quoted.

The only thing you and any Leaver achieved by voting Leave was making our Human Rights more open to abuse. Immigration won't change, we won't get more funds for public services but the Government won't have to worry about Eu interference if they decide to go after the most vulnerable people in our society again.

I disagree - I think immigration will change. You keep stating this as fact but it is just your opinion. Mine is different. If you feel you have proof of this then feel free to present it because as far as I am aware no-one can state that as a fact at this point.

It just seems to me that you are attempting to influence the views of those who are unsure into believing there isn't/was no point in voting for Brexit as immigration won't change. Unless you claim to know those in the know and are privy to information unknown to the rest of us then it is simply speculation.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Ditto. If you are constantly going to attempt to undermine those with an opposing view then your posts need to be better informed and more accurate.

Better informed! I dont even think you understand what a vote to leave ever meant!

Spoiler:

Evidence

Originally Posted by Brillopad

I disagree - I think immigration will change. You keep stating this as fact but it is just your opinion. Mine is different. If you feel you have proof of this then feel free to present it because as far as I am aware no-one can state that as a fact at this point.

Brexit is less EU migrants and more asian/american/australian/african migrants its painful that this is the first you knew of this because i feel like less migrants was at least 80% of your reasoning for wanting brexit - there will be no difference in over all mass of migrants. Just google things, honestly

Your entire posts in this thread just seems like a few confused blurts of brexit buzzwords but your odd combination of 'everything is being done wrong' and 'no boris is very clever, we're very lucky' on top of harping on about migrants and the nhs whilst whining your way through any sensical argument has just made this entire thread turn into something that it should have never been. I think a lot of your information is based on preconceived ideas, and not actual news outlets tbh, and id put a hell of a lot of money on your internet history being the definition of confirmation bias

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Withano

Better informed! I dont even think you understand what a vote to leave ever meant!

Spoiler:

Evidence

Brexit is less EU migrants and more asian/american/australian/african migrants

Your entire posts in this thread just seems like a few confused blurts of brexit buzzwords but your odd combination of 'everything is being done wrong' and 'no boris is very clever, we're very lucky' on top of harping on about migrants and the nhs whilst whining your way through any sensical argument has just made this entire thread turn into something that it should have never been. I think a lot of your information is based on preconceived ideas, and not actual news outlets tbh, and id put a hell of a lot of money on your internet history being the definition of confirmation bias

Just about every post on here is based on personal views and related perception so you can take yourself off your self-imposed pedalstool now.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Just about every post on here is based on personal views and related perception so you can take yourself off your self-imposed pedalstool now.

Well I mean, a higher fact ratio, but I understand where you were going with it.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

I disagree - I think immigration will change. You keep stating this as fact but it is just your opinion. Mine is different. If you feel you have proof of this then feel free to present it because as far as I am aware no-one can state that as a fact at this point.

It just seems to me that you are attempting to influence the views of those who are unsure into believing there isn't/was no point in voting for Brexit as immigration won't change. Unless you claim to know those in the know and are privy to information unknown to the rest of us then it is simply speculation.

It won't change because, despite what Theresa May says, we are likely going to have a soft brexit and forge a deal to remain in the Single Market and if that's the case then EU immigration isn't likely to change much and leaving the EU won't affect immigration from non-EU states thus my statement that immigration will not be affected by Brexit, thus voting for Brexit based on immigration was pointless.

I've not stated anything that is opinion as fact, must I sign everything with 'in my opinion' despite the fact that it should be obvious? Was I wrong to assume you could tell the difference between fact and opinion?

It doesn't matter what you believe, the people voted leave so trying to influence opinions is pointless now. You and the rest of the Leave voters have got to live with your mistakes.
I'm simply stating my opinion, some facts about the UK's Human Rights abuse and my informed thoughts on those facts which is more than the 'IMMIGRANTS ARE TO BLAME FOR EVERYTHING, THEY TOOK MY DOG AND DESTROYED MY HARVEST' stance you're taking.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Most of the politicians that were in the Leaver camp have jumped ship now that it's come to pass. Allignments and Alliances in politics are rarely set in stone. Most of the government were on the remain side of things so, if they really WANTED to remain it would have been easy to whip the votes to stop Brexit when it went to the floor recently but it still went through. That's telling in itself.

The conversation is about the UK's Human Rights abuse and the EU investigation, Greece is a separate issue that has little to nothing to do with it and mentioning doesn't change the facts of the UK case, it's just an attempt to muddy a debate that you can't win.

You can talk about Greece until you are blue in the face but it won't change the facts about the EU investigation into the UK's human rights abuse.

I've only spoken about the EU investigation into the UK, I'm not saying that the EU is perfect (I don't speak in absolutes) only that your argument doesn't change the facts which is true. Your unsubtle attempt to paint me as a hypocrite in your last sentence has fell on it's arse because you've misunderstood what I've been saying.

For the record, That very last sentence of my post you quoted was not about you but about the EU if that's what you mean by 'attempting to paint you as a hypocrite'. It was not aimed at you.

Other than Farage what other leavers have jumped ship - as I am unaware of who you mean?

Personally I don't agree that the Greece issue is irrelevant. It may not have been directly related to your points but was relevant to the general discussion as it pointed out the hypocrisy of the EU.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

For the record, That very last sentence of my post you quoted was not about you but about the EU if that's what you mean by 'attempting to paint you as a hypocrite'. It was not aimed at you.

Other than Farage what other leavers have jumped ship - as I am unaware of who you mean?

Personally I don't agree that the Greece issue is irrelevant. It may not have been directly related to your points but was relevant to the general discussion as it pointed out the hypocrisy of the EU.

Most of the leadership of the Brexit ship have abandoned the issue now that their chance at Downing Street has come and gone. They didn't have a plan for Brexit despite pushing for it endlessly and as soon as it was time for them to step up they passed the buck for damage limitation purposes.

The EU is not perfect (never said it was) but comparisons like that only serve a purpose if they change the facts of the discussion and Greece doesn't do that which is why I don't see it as something worth discussing as it takes the focus off of why we were discussing Human Rights in the first place rather than enhancing the discussion as a whole.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

It won't change because, despite what Theresa May says, we are likely going to have a soft brexit and forge a deal to remain in the Single Market and if that's the case then EU immigration isn't likely to change much and leaving the EU won't affect immigration from non-EU states thus my statement that immigration will not be affected by Brexit, thus voting for Brexit based on immigration was pointless.

I've not stated anything that is opinion as fact, must I sign everything with 'in my opinion' despite the fact that it should be obvious? Was I wrong to assume you could tell the difference between fact and opinion?

It doesn't matter what you believe, the people voted leave so trying to influence opinions is pointless now. You and the rest of the Leave voters have got to live with your mistakes.
I'm simply stating my opinion, some facts about the UK's Human Rights abuse and my informed thoughts on those facts which is more than the 'IMMIGRANTS ARE TO BLAME FOR EVERYTHING, THEY TOOK MY DOG AND DESTROYED MY HARVEST' stance you're taking.

If she does that she will do a lot of damage to peoples' faith in the public vote and will likely be out at the next election. People did not vote for a 'soft Brexit' and this would be a complete misrepresentation of their votes. I think it would damage politics as people will lose trust in the whole system.

Some People were trying to get a second vote and may still attempt to do this out of sheer desperation which is why I put isn't/was in case you were one of those.

And yes clearly immigration has had a considerable effect on various issues currently faced in Britain and on the Brexit vote. All the denial in the world will not change that.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

If she does that she will do a lot of damage to peoples' faith in the public vote and will likely be out at the next election. People did not vote for a 'soft Brexit' and this would be a complete misrepresentation of their votes. I think it would damage politics as people will lose trust in the whole system.

Some People were trying to get a second vote and may still attempt to do this out of sheer desperation which is why I put isn't/was in case you were one of those.

And yes clearly immigration has had a considerable effect on various issues currently faced in Britain and on the Brexit vote. All the denial in the world will not change that.

I doubt she cares about a second term since it's not likely that anyone could tackle Brexit and reach a deal that satisfies enough people to stay in office. There's a reason why Downing Street was considered a poisoned chalice after Cameron left. As Brexit proved, people are ultimately controlled through their fears so their 'faith' is pointless, just mention a few buzzwords about immigrants and you'll have them back onside again so I doubt any of the realists in the government care about upsetting anyone like that.

No, I believe people should live and (hopefully) learn from their mistakes. A second referendum is dumb. The bed has been made and now people have to lie in it.

Immigration was a key motivation for people voting Brexit but that won't translate into action. Immigration won't be majorly affected even if we don't stay in the Single Market, never mind if we do.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jaxie

It was arrogance, Cameron and Osborne didn't think they could lose.

For 30 years politicians had been avoiding letting public vote on anything EU related because they were afraid the public would vote against. I think so much time has passed without giving us any say that Cameron either forgot that or thought we'd just vote remain because we were so used to being in. He seriously miscalculated.

I disagree I think it was a double bluff, besides how could the PM and the secretary of state of a European country be seen to personally back brexit?
It would've annihilated European confidence in the UK whichever way the vote went.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I doubt she cares about a second term since it's not likely that anyone could tackle Brexit and reach a deal that satisfies enough people to stay in office. There's a reason why Downing Street was considered a poisoned chalice after Cameron left. As Brexit proved, people are ultimately controlled through their fears so their 'faith' is pointless, just mention a few buzzwords about immigrants and you'll have them back onside again so I doubt any of the realists in the government care about upsetting anyone like that.

No, I believe people should live and (hopefully) learn from their mistakes. A second referendum is dumb. The bed has been made and now people have to lie in it.

Immigration was a key motivation for people voting Brexit but that won't translate into action. Immigration won't be majorly affected even if we don't stay in the Single Market, never mind if we do.

I don't think voters care whether so called 'realists' care about upsetting 'anyone like that' but if they are seen to disrespect voters/votes simply because they don't like the reasons for their vote they could be seen as unprofessional and incapable of doing their job properly if they allow their personal opinions to affect the decisions they make.

They are public servants after all and have a duty to respect a majority vote like it or not.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

I don't think voters care whether so called 'realists' care about upsetting 'anyone like that' but if they are seen to disrespect voters/votes simply because they don't like the reasons for their vote they could be seen as unprofessional and incapable of doing their job properly if they allow their personal opinions to affect the decisions they make.

They are public servants after all and have a duty to respect a majority vote like it or not.

They are and as such have to respect the law also #supremecourt

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

They are and as such have to respect the law also #supremecourt

You sound very confident the court ruling will go in favour of the MP's getting their vote.

If this happens it will still undermine faith in British politics and the extent that sore losers will go to to get their own way and ignore the majority vote. Who knows what may happen in the future and such behaviour could turn full circle and bite them in the bum. Karma and all that!

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

I don't think voters care whether so called 'realists' care about upsetting 'anyone like that' but if they are seen to disrespect voters/votes simply because they don't like the reasons for their vote they could be seen as unprofessional and incapable of doing their job properly if they allow their personal opinions to affect the decisions they make.

They are public servants after all and have a duty to respect a majority vote like it or not.

There's as many people who would be happy with a soft Brexit as there are people who would want a complete Brexit. The was barely anything in it in the votes so you're basically going to alienate one half of the country or the other either way. If it was me, I'd choose to alienate the side that are easily won back by simply mentioning immigration. Let's face it, the public voted for four more years of the Tories after a horrific four years of a Tory led coalition. They have short memories.

As long as there is a Brexit, the government will have fulfilled their end regardless of whether it's a complete or soft Brexit.

Also remember that the referendum was just a choice of leaving or staying, not, if in the case of a Leave victory, whether or not we should completely break it off or go for the softer option.