Brexit Referendum Superthread

embraer170

whatever_ wrote: »

The STG330M / NHS argument was well understood by everybody that took an interest in the debate

Indeed, it was so well understood that even Farage had to come out and admit that it was a mistake for the Leave campaign to make that claim. :rolleyes:

And it is factually wrong (and probably deliberately untruthful) to say that the UK pays £350 million/week to the EU Budget. The Thatcher rebate is instant and does not leave the UK. The cost of the UK's membership is at most £248 million but even this exclude subsidies the UK receives such as agricultural subsidies and cohesion funds.

Independent fact-checking organisation Full Facts:
https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

ancapailldorcha

Bit cynical wrote: »

I got the impression that Hannon was always on the moderate side of the of the Brexiteers, favouring close ties with the EU, something along the lines of the Norway model but not necessarily identical to it. Can you point out specific promises he made along with the retractions of those promises.

The campaign, like any campaign consisted of many different people. However, controlling immigration and sovereignty were the defining themes of the Leave campaign. Hannan himself was quite quiet on the subject of immigration and his main comment came the day after the referendum:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJlirUiAg-s

A Dub in Glasgo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

whatever_ said "Nobody in their right mind", and that is a picture of Boris, so...

Fair point

The battle bus


What people thought

Bit cynical

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The campaign, like any campaign consisted of many different people. However, controlling immigration and sovereignty were the defining themes of the Leave campaign. Hannan himself was quite quiet on the subject of immigration and his main comment came the day after the referendum:

Sure but I don't think Hannan himself has ever been particularly anti-immigrant. This is from an article written last year:

"In consequence, Switzerland has most of the benefits of full membership, but few of the costs. It is wholly covered by the four freedoms of the single market – free movement, that is, of goods, services, people and capital – but it is spared the regulatory burden of Brussels directives. When it harmonises its standards with those of the EU, it does so through bilateral agreement and following a deliberate act of the Federal Assembly in Bern." URL="http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/10/daniel-hannan-mep-norways-relationship-with-the-eu-is-better-than-being-a-member-but-we-could-do-even-better-than-that.html"]source[/URL

From this it would appear that Hannan regards movement of people as one of the benefits of EU membership. True, he may have toned down his views during the latter phases of the campaign but this is different to making promises and then retracting them.

Once the campaign is over it is to be expected that the different individuals who made up the campaign with start promoting their individual views on what Brexit means. It was always apparent that the likes of John Redmond, for example, had different views on Brexit than Hannon.

It is no different really to the Remain campaign. Had they won, the individuals and groups making up that campaign would have pursued their differing agendas on how the country was to be run within the EU, whether reforms were necessary and what sort of reforms and so on.

Jaggo

whatever_ wrote: »

The STG330M / NHS argument was well understood by everybody that took an interest in the debate .. it is completely legitimate to say that this is the amount of money that Britain hands over to the EU every week, even if some of it comes back in CAP, regional aid and the rebate. Nobody in their right mind thinks that it would be a good idea to spend this amount of money on the NHS (on top of current spending).

The only "lie" was the one peddled by Enda Kenny, Tony Blair and yes Theresa May .... that there would have to be a hard border:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0613/795120-brexit/

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/irish-border-controls-are-inevitable-after-brexit-may-warns-1.2693758

This has now been exposed as scaremongering. Yes the "Remain" side were poor - peddling nonsense such as this
led many of us to conclude that they were just scared of change and had nothing to say.

I am sorry but you are wrong here. The Brexit were telling the greatest fibs regarding the boarder. The hard boarder will come in if certain events happen. Boarders are there to control population (ie. immigration) and tax revenue.

If the UK starts losing money to the South across the boarder - smuggling, agriculture subsidises, tax avoidance, etc; the UK population will wonder why they are spending billions to subsidize Northern Ireland while the north is not paying their dues. If the lost of money gets significant and the boarder will reduce the loss, then the boarder will happen. Same for the South too.

If organised crime gets into business on the boarder, particularly republican elements, how quickly will the Unionist be demanding a boarder?

I am sorry, the boarder issue is another case of the Brexit side spoofing away.

Bit cynical

Bit cynical wrote: »

Sure but I don't think Hannan himself has ever been particularly anti-immigrant. This is from an article written last year:

"In consequence, Switzerland has most of the benefits of full membership, but few of the costs. It is wholly covered by the four freedoms of the single market – free movement, that is, of goods, services, people and capital – but it is spared the regulatory burden of Brussels directives. When it harmonises its standards with those of the EU, it does so through bilateral agreement and following a deliberate act of the Federal Assembly in Bern." URL="http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/10/daniel-hannan-mep-norways-relationship-with-the-eu-is-better-than-being-a-member-but-we-could-do-even-better-than-that.html"]source[/URL

From this it would appear that Hannan regards movement of people as one of the benefits of EU membership. True, he may have toned down his views during the latter phases of the campaign but this is different to making promises and then retracting them.

Once the campaign is over it is to be expected that the different individuals who made up the campaign with start promoting their individual views on what Brexit means. It was always apparent that the likes of John Redmond, for example, had different views on Brexit than Hannon.

It is no different really to the Remain campaign. Had they won, the individuals and groups making up that campaign would have pursued their differing agendas on how the country was to be run within the EU, whether reforms were necessary and what sort of reforms and so on.

That's the problem with there having been two very different leave campaigns.

The 'Moderate' Leave was to retreat from the Political element of the EU into an EEA arrangement, which in the main would have meant very, very little day-to-day change for anyone in the UK. I'd have thought that Hannan and Boris (pre-campaign trail) would have been prime examples of people interested in this change.

The 'All Out' Leave was to retreat away from the Political and also the Economic Union. Farage's campaign was along those lines (and an awful, awful lot of backbench Tory MPs would be in agreement).

A big problem now is how do they actually interpret the Leave vote. I don't think that the Leave was won on the back of the moderate argument, and I wouldn't want to be the person who tries for the EEA style 'Brexit' and disenfranchises even further those who followed the 'All Out' message if they were indeed the majority of impassioned voters.

FWIW, Boris' article for which he was roundly criticised by keen 'All Out'ers following the referendum result would also suggest that he was more interested in EEA, and imo it actually reads as someone trying to put the genie back in the bottle.

Clearlier

Jaggo wrote: »

I am sorry but you are wrong here. The Brexit were telling the greatest fibs regarding the boarder. The hard boarder will come in if certain events happen. Boarders are there to control population (ie. immigration) and tax revenue.

If the UK starts losing money to the South across the boarder - smuggling, agriculture subsidises, tax avoidance, etc; the UK population will wonder why they are spending billions to subsidize Northern Ireland while the north is not paying their dues. If the lost of money gets significant and the boarder will reduce the loss, then the boarder will happen. Same for the South too.

If organised crime gets into business on the boarder, particularly republican elements, how quickly will the Unionist be demanding a boarder?

I am sorry, the boarder issue is another case of the Brexit side spoofing away.

Ach, it's not definitive one way or the other.

Brexit increases the likelihood of a border being put in place however it's far from definite that it will happen. Neither Britain nor Ireland will want it. Aside from immigration the opportunities for crime that you refer to aren't going to markedly increase compared to now when Britain actually leaves the EU.

The immigration question is key but Britain could address it by having strict border checks from Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK. It's a question of what the most politically acceptable solution is in the end. I expect that a majority of unionists would prefer to have a border than strict internal checks but I suspect that a majority of the north would prefer to have the internal controls and that's before we get to more creative solutions that I haven't considered off the top of my head.

The EU could of course play hardball but the potential costs are possibly even greater than they would like to bear. In the end I think that Ireland and the UK will work out the least damaging arrangement that can be conceived given the reality of Brexit.

Bit cynical

Deleted User wrote: »

The 'All Out' Leave was to retreat away from the Political and also the Economic Union. Farage's campaign was along those lines (and an awful, awful lot of backbench Tory MPs would be in agreement).

A big problem now is how do they actually interpret the Leave vote. I don't think that the Leave was won on the back of the moderate argument, and I wouldn't want to be the person who tries for the EEA style 'Brexit' and disenfranchises even further those who followed the 'All Out' message if they were indeed the majority of impassioned voters.

Yet it was always going to end in compromise of some sort. I remember saying some time ago that Farage's vision of brexit wasn't likely to be the one that was implemented. The compromise was always going to have to take into account the views of moderate Brexiters and indeed those who voted remain.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Like this?
[/url]

Out of curiosity, did Boris Johnson ever actually endorse the £350 million for the NHS? He's obviously guilty of being photographed in proximity to their posters, but speaking as a Tipp man who was standing under a Kilkenny banner at the last All-Ireland, I'd be slow to implicate him by association.

In fact, in a statement with Michael Gove and Gisela Stuard, Boris Johnson said this:

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/statement_by_michael_gove_boris_johnson_and_gisela_stuart_on_nhs_funding

After we Vote Leave on 23 June, the Government should use some of the billions saved from leaving the EU to give at least a £100 million per week cash transfusion to the NHS.

So there seems to be some conflict about who within the Campaign made this claim, and it seems that these three politicians were keen to distance themselves from the claim.

embraer170 wrote: »

Indeed, it was so well understood that even Farage had to come out and admit that it was a mistake for the Leave campaign to make that claim. :rolleyes:

Whatever about Boris Johnson, Farage had nothing to do with the Vote Leave campaign.

I know it was only a loose alliance, but Farage wasn;'t part of it. At all.

There was very misleading reporting on Hangover Friday (morning of the results) when the media seemed confused about the origins of the £350 million promise. It was nothing to do with Farage, and Boris Johnson & Michael Gove didn't seem to endorse it either.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Out of curiosity, did Boris Johnson ever actually endorse the £350 million for the NHS? He's obviously guilty of being photographed in proximity to their posters, but speaking as a Tipp man who was standing under a Kilkenny banner at the last All-Ireland, I'd be slow to implicate him by association.

In fact, in a statement with Michael Gove and Gisela Stuard, Boris Johnson said this:

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/statement_by_michael_gove_boris_johnson_and_gisela_stuart_on_nhs_funding

After we Vote Leave on 23 June, the Government should use some of the billions saved from leaving the EU to give at least a £100 million per week cash transfusion to the NHS.

So there seems to be some conflict about who within the Campaign made this claim, and it seems that these three politicians were keen to distance themselves from the claim.
Whatever about Boris Johnson, Farage had nothing to do with the Vote Leave campaign.

I know it was only a loose alliance, but Farage wasn;'t part of it. At all.

There was very misleading reporting on Hangover Friday (morning of the results) when the media seemed confused about the origins of the £350 million promise. It was nothing to do with Farage, and Boris Johnson & Michael Gove didn't seem to endorse it either.

Johnson was on the Vote Leave campaign committee and the £350m lie and give it to the NHS was on all their literature and campaign bus and somehow you are trying to make out it was nothing to do with Johnson

Stuart was Chairman of the Vote Leave board and Co-convener of the campaign committee

[/url]

Gove was also co-convener of the Vote Leave campaign committee

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Johnson was on the Vote Leave campaign committee and the £350m lie and give it to the NHS was on all their literature and campaign bus and somehow you are trying to make out it was nothing to do with Johnson

Stuart was Chairman of the Vote Leave board and Co-convener of the campaign committee

[/url]

Gove was also co-convener of the Vote Leave campaign committee

Gisela Stuart described her personal preference, which is fair. Leo Varadkar wants to see a united Ireland, but that doesn't make it a political promise.

Gisela Stuart seems to have qualified her 'preference'in a joint statement with Boris Johnson and Gove, in which they committed to spending £100 m per week in an NHS 'transfusion'. They don't seem to have offered £350 million.

Did anyone on the Remain side quiz Boris Johnson about the division within the Leave Camp?

If not, why on earth why not? Seems like an obvious question

A Dub in Glasgo

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Gisela Stuart described her personal preference, which is fair. Leo Varadkar wants to see a united Ireland, but that doesn't make it a political promise.

Gisela Stuart seems to have qualified her 'preference'in a joint statement with Boris Johnson and Gove, in which they committed to spending £100 m per week in an NHS 'transfusion'. They don't seem to have offered £350 million.

Yet the campaign group they evidently were leading says it and it is plastered all over their posters, billboards and campaign bus and it has nothing to do with them?

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Yet the campaign group they evidently were leading says it and it is plastered all over their posters, billboards and campaign bus and it has nothing to do with them?

No idea. It was a fairly loose association, after all, and not a political party.

Surely any competent debater would have challenged it?

They did challenge it, right? I mean, that's their responsibility in a debate. Who asked Johnson?

Patser

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

So there seems to be some conflict about who within the Campaign made this claim, and it seems that these three politicians were keen to distance themselves from the claim.
Whatever about Boris Johnson, Farage had nothing to do with the Vote Leave campaign.

I know it was only a loose alliance, but Farage wasn;'t part of it. At all.

There was very misleading reporting on Hangover Friday (morning of the results) when the media seemed confused about the origins of the £350 million promise. It was nothing to do with Farage, and Boris Johnson & Michael Gove didn't seem to endorse it either.

You're bang on here, and it's something that needs to be made clearer. Farage's comments the morning after the Brexit result, about the £350 million claim being a mistake was not an admission of a lie. He never made that claim, it was the official Leave campaign, which he was not allowed join, that made if.

Similarly Gove said he shuddered at Farage's immigration poster, because in this case it wasn't the official Leave campaign making this promise but Farage's Out campaign.

And this is now part of the post-Vote problem. Pledges were made by various Leave groups, that had no cohesive single plan between them, and anyway no authority to implement them when Brexit won - but could be conveniently denied by whichever faction didn't make the pledge. However all the promises did combine to swing the vote.

So you now have a UK population that wants different pledges fulfilled, that were never made by a single, organised political group.

Patser

whatever_ wrote: »

Two year drip of bad news ? Markets hate uncertainty, and there will be some ups and downs, but the steady drip of good news is palpable : vis a vis the employment figures, the long overdue devaluation of sterling, the FTSE 100, the progress on trade deals etc

The PMI report us terrible news, it shows that demand has plunged across all sectors and that future economic activity looks to be declining. That'll translate into poorer employment figures over time.

Sterling's devaluation would be great if the UK's manufacturing sector was better and they had more exports to produce. It will help stimulate this sector a lot. But currently the UK is importing a hell of a lot more, and those imports cannot be replaced. Instead they've all just become a lot more expensive, so their deficit is now higher.

What progress on trade deals? Yes a few key trading nations -China, Australia - have said they'd be keen on trade deals. That makes sense, the UK remains a big market. But while they're in the EU they can't negotiate new deals, so there's no progress there. And there's no guarantee these new deals by a smaller,isolated UK market will be in anyway better than those already in place as part of an EU wide deal.

House prices in the UK are starting to rocket, as building firms slow down production rapidly. This means an incoming housing shortage, with large price rises soon.

The UK 's most valuable industry - the financial services sector - is under intense pressure. Why on earth would the EU allow London remain the central European banking centre outside the EU. Have banks jumped yet, like it was predicted just before the vote - no. But that's possibly due to the complexity and cost in relocating a whole business - where, new staff, transferring staff, deals to be signed, leases to be run down. I can see banks moving out over the next 2 years (or from whenever artic 50 is started), that'll be devastating for the UK economy

Very interesting stuff.

Brexit rewrites UK budget rules as borrowing set for first big rise since 2010

Britain could borrow nearly 65 billion pounds more than planned in the next couple of years as new Chancellor Philip Hammond seeks to 'reset' government budget policy to ease the shock of last month's vote to leave the European Union.

Theresa May won't be happy about this

He calls it austerity. I call it living within our means. He talks about austerity, but it is actually not about saddling our children and grandchildren with debt.

embraer170

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

There was very misleading reporting on Hangover Friday (morning of the results) when the media seemed confused about the origins of the £350 million promise. It was nothing to do with Farage,

There's at least one debate where Farage said the money that goes to the EU should instead be spent on "schools, hospitals, GPs".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-nigel-farage-nhs-350-million-pounds-live-health-service-u-turn-a7102831.html

As for Gove and Johnson, they may not have promised 350 million but they certainly promised at least 100 million (as you yourself pointed out):

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36450749

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/statement_by_michael_gove_boris_johnson_and_gisela_stuart_on_nhs_funding

"After we Vote Leave on 23 June, the Government should use some of the billions saved from leaving the EU to give at least a £100 million per week cash transfusion to the NHS."

Still doesn't explain why they had 350 million painted on the side of their campaign bus.:rolleyes:

molloyjh

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Out of curiosity, did Boris Johnson ever actually endorse the £350 million for the NHS? He's obviously guilty of being photographed in proximity to their posters, but speaking as a Tipp man who was standing under a Kilkenny banner at the last All-Ireland, I'd be slow to implicate him by association.

That's a very odd stance to take. Original though, I'll give you that. He was a leading figure in the group that published it and he was photographed next to it multiple times yet he never actually believed it. I've seen people reaching before, but this is almost Inspector Gadget type reaching.

embraer170

embraer170 wrote: »

There's at least one debate where Farage said the money that goes to the EU should instead be spent on "schools, hospitals, GPs".

Gosh no, he didn't say that. This is what he said:

I would like the ten billion to be spent helping communities in Britain that your Government damaged so badly by opening up the doors [inaudible] former Communist countries. What people need here are schools, hospitals, GPs. That's what they need"

Surely you can understand the difference between saying we will spend the EU contribution on the NHS alone, as opposed to delcaring that people need schools, hospitals, GPs, and that the EU contribution should be spent "on communities".

Now clearly some buffoon somewhere must have promised to spend £350 million on the NHS, but Farage did not. And as my earlier link showed, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove sent out a press statement which clearly contradicted that, and said the felt less than 30% of that figure should go to the NHS.

molloyjh wrote:

He was a leading figure in the group that published it and he was photographed next to it multiple times

You can't be any clearer than sending out a press statement saying you support spending less than 30% of that amount on the NHS, and not what the ad says.

The Leave side should have been attacked on that point. That should have been raised. That should have been publicised as a major weakness.

So surely the Remain side took them to task?

Nope. Because Remain ran an absolutely dire camapaign. This was an internal division in the Leave side, and most Remain people are totally oblivious to it. You guys deserve to have lost. So lets stop this whining.

View

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

... speaking as a Tipp man who was standing under a Kilkenny banner at the last All-Ireland, I'd be slow to implicate him by association.

Presumably, though, unlike Johnson, you didn't lead the "Victory for Kilkenny" fan campaign, did you? :-)

ancapailldorcha

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You guys deserve to have lost. So lets stop this whining.

Em.... 16 million people voted to remain, most of whom had nothing whatsoever to do with that campaign so I don't see how that leads you to this conclusion. It's not whining to be frustrated when the Leave side's BS is proved to be just that. It's legitimate grounds to be upset IMO.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Em.... 16 million people voted to remain, most of whom had nothing whatsoever to do with that campaign

Of course I'm not addressing some Beryl and Bill voting Remain in Plymouth. I'm talking about those involved in the Remain campaign.

Having said that, if Beryl wants to complain about the campaign, she'd be better placed looking at the people who were paid and organised to challenge the Leave side, and indeed to make the better argument. Criticising Leave for doing their job has something of the crybaby about it. Blame the people who didn't do their job properly.

ancapailldorcha

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Of course I'm not addressing some Beryl and Bill voting Remain in Plymouth. I'm talking about those involved in the Remain campaign.

Having said that, if Beryl wants to complain about the campaign, she'd be better placed looking at the people who were paid and organised to challenge the Leave side, and indeed to make the better argument. Criticising Leave for doing their job has something of the crybaby about it. Blame the people who didn't do their job properly.

Criticising Leave will be perfectly valid once the myths they peddled are disproven and their promises aren't kept.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Criticising Leave will be perfectly valid once the myths they peddled are disproven

It's too late! You might get some petty satisfaction from it, but everyone else is moving on. The time to disprove the argument is over, the Prime Minister intends to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

If you want to wallow, wallow in the causes of the Referendum's outcome: as we have seen on this thread in relation to the NHS debacle, the Remain side failed to challenge the Leave side on the most basic arguments. The Remain side did a woeful job, and many of its main figures weren't very convincing, probably because of their own Euroscepticism, including Corbyn and Cameron.

ancapailldorcha

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It's too late! You might get some petty satisfaction from it, but everyone else is moving on. The time to disprove the argument is over, the Prime Minister intends to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

Petty satisfaction? Article 50 hasn't been triggered yet and won't be without Nicola Sturgeon's approval. Will everyone else move on once immigration isn't cut to tens of thousands? Or when the promised £10 billion isn't delivered to the NHS? What about when farmers lose their subsidies? What about net beneficiaries like Cornwall who'll lose out when their subsidies aren't matched by the government?

Dismissing these concerns as whining is pathetic IMO. The whole country is facing a period of economic uncertainty and there's no sign of article 50 being invoked.

molloyjh

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You can't be any clearer than sending out a press statement saying you support spending less than 30% of that amount on the NHS, and not what the ad says.

But the problem with that ad was the amount, not the amount of it going to the NHS?????

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The Leave side should have been attacked on that point. That should have been raised. That should have been publicised as a major weakness.

So surely the Remain side took them to task?

Nope. Because Remain ran an absolutely dire camapaign. This was an internal division in the Leave side, and most Remain people are totally oblivious to it. You guys deserve to have lost. So lets stop this whining.

That's some wonderful goal post moving. But back to the initial point you made, either he agreed with using the £350m figure or he didn't. Given his role in the campaign and his appearances alongside the figure I can't see how you could possibly argue that the latter is true. Would you still try to contend that it is?

molloyjh

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It's too late! You might get some petty satisfaction from it, but everyone else is moving on. The time to disprove the argument is over, the Prime Minister intends to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

If you want to wallow, wallow in the causes of the Referendum's outcome: as we have seen on this thread in relation to the NHS debacle, the Remain side failed to challenge the Leave side on the most basic arguments. The Remain side did a woeful job, and many of its main figures weren't very convincing, probably because of their own Euroscepticism, including Corbyn and Cameron.

So let me get this straight, we should not look back at what the Leave side did wrong but we should look back at what the Remain side did wrong?

Why is it too late to do one and not the other?

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Petty satisfaction? Article 50 hasn't been triggered yet and won't be without Nicola Sturgeon's approval. Will everyone else move on once immigration isn't cut to tens of thousands? Or when the promised £10 billion isn't delivered to the NHS? What about when farmers lose their subsidies? What about net beneficiaries like Cornwall who'll lose out when their subsidies aren't matched by the government?

Dismissing these concerns as whining is pathetic IMO. The whole country is facing a period of economic uncertainty and there's no sign of article 50 being invoked.

No, you're confusing things again. I'm not criticising anybody for engaging in that far more interesting conversation about future Government policy as a result of Brexit. What's next for the NHS? What will happen with British farming? These are very interesting questions that ought to be asked.

The 'whining' refers to the crybaby antics on this thread and in some of the media, where people are re-running the campaign, as if caught in a time warp, and making all sorts of outlandish statements about the Leave side, including yourself.

molloyjh wrote: »

But the problem with that ad was the amount, not the amount of it going to the NHS?????

Maybe you haven't been reading the thread, but the conversation was about the amount
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100466497&postcount=4290

molloyjh wrote: »

So let me get this straight, we should not look back at what the Leave side did wrong but we should look back at what the Remain side did wrong?

Of course, because the Leave side WON.

If Lord Scoundrel beats Road to Riches, in the Galway Plate tomorrow, the winning owner and trainer are not going to be holding a post mortem, are they? They'll have got their win, which is the bottom line.

If Road to Riches loses the race, and loses badly when he ought to win, then there will have to be questions asked of the strategy, and the people who pay the price for the loss would be quite right to demand answers.

They certainly don't have any business accosting the winning trainer and jockey, like petulant crybabies, not even in a dirty race.

Like horseracing, politics is a rough and tumble sport. If you lose, take it on the chin and learn from it. But please don't whine.

ancapailldorcha

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

No, you're confusing things again. I'm not criticising anybody for engaging in that far more interesting conversation about future Government policy as a result of Brexit. What's next for the NHS? What will happen with British farming? These are very interesting questions that ought to be asked.

The 'whining' refers to the crybaby antics on this thread and in some of the media, where people are re-running the campaign, as if caught in a time warp, and making all sorts of outlandish statements about the Leave side, including yourself.

What antics are you referring to exactly? You've accused everyone on the remain side of whining earlier and now you're saying there are valid concerns.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You guys deserve to have lost. So lets stop this whining.

mickoneill31

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The 'whining' refers to the crybaby antics on this thread

Posted without a hint of irony. Whining about people whining.