Brexit

[march]

And the BBC want to stop the free licences for the over 75's now. It's about time we were given the option not use the BBC services and not pay the licence fee!

 

[Chillidoggy]

We do already have that option, though. My son doesn't watch terrestrial TV, he subscribes to pay TV like Netflix etc, and he hasn't had a licence for some time.

[march]

21 minutes ago, Chillidoggy said:

We do already have that option, though. My son doesn't watch terrestrial TV, he subscribes to pay TV like Netflix etc, and he hasn't had a licence for some time.

Unfortunately we watch terrestrial TV (News , weather mainly) so need a licence, I would be more than willing to ditch all BBC services (don't watch much of it any more as it seems to be mainly TV for 4 year old's).

[Chillidoggy]

28 minutes ago, march said:

Unfortunately we watch terrestrial TV (News , weather mainly) so need a licence, I would be more than willing to ditch all BBC services (don't watch much of it any more as it seems to be mainly TV for 4 year old's).

Maybe you could use the web for weather etc? In my business (maritime) I find that much more useful than BBC reports. I also tend to use Internet news channels, and if it weren't for the odd BBC drama, and that shite that the wife watches which appears to be a load of botoxed mutton dressed as lamb women shouting at each other about not being invited to some dinner party or other, I could probably ditch the licence fee.

[Andyww]

Accuweather is much better than BBC weather. In fact the BBC recently got slated because they constantly were predicting much worse weather over the summer than actually happened, so people were staying away from major events.

A friend used to work at the Met Office which the BBC used to use until they switched to some other provider.

[Bassman]

This brilliantly articulated monologue sums up the situation perfectly.........

[Andyww]

Spot on.

This perfectly illustrates the situation because he is representative of the huge numbers of ordinary, but sensible people who are usually silent and rarely make this kind of statement. 

We need to speak out more!

[C8RKH]

6 hours ago, Chillidoggy said:

We do already have that option, though. My son doesn't watch terrestrial TV, he subscribes to pay TV like Netflix etc, and he hasn't had a licence for some time.

If he watches anything live, or downloaded from iplayer then he needs a licence. Otherwise I believe you are fine as long as you do not watch ANY terrestial TV live (e.g.BBC or ITV etc through SKY; Web browser; Vigin Media etc then you n need a TV licence).  They will find you.....   lol....

[Royal]

The guy hit the nail on the head.

All those who voted to remain need to read Christopher Booker’s “The Great Deception”.

[Chillidoggy]

1 hour ago, C8RKH said:

If he watches anything live, or downloaded from iplayer then he needs a licence. Otherwise I believe you are fine as long as you do not watch ANY terrestial TV live (e.g.BBC or ITV etc through SKY; Web browser; Vigin Media etc then you n need a TV licence).  They will find you.....   lol....

He doesn’t watch any terrestrial TV. He hasn’t got a TV aerial!

[LotusFella]

7 hours ago, Bassman said:

This brilliantly articulated monologue sums up the situation perfectly.........

As you say spot on.  I was on turn turn back to voting in when I was out because of the shitiest deal they are trying to give us,  But no F**k them we will triumph. We wil continue and we will prosper! Because, well because we are GREAT Britain.

in the Second World War we needed a leader specifically to win the war. Churchhill.  He may not have been a perfect politician, but he won us the war!  

That person today is Boris Trump.  He would do the hard nose negotiating that we need.  Even if he just gets us the deal.  Then we can have another election and vote in a more moderate leader!

[Barrykearley]

Sadiq Khan being prove to be an utter hypocrite on the bbc this morning 

[LotusFella]

Yep.  What a c**t as if he thinks the question could be 

 Absolute terrible deal 

Or

 Reverse the majority vote and stay in!

 

Thats the problem if there is a vote and I don’t think there should be. But if there is it should be

deal or no deal but leaving either way!

[LotuStuart]

I'm not clear about this.

Are you all saying that we voted on the matter once, and that is enough? That we should now stick with that result?

How do you reconcile this with the vote to remain in the EEC?

And can we now just keep Sadiq Khan as the Mayor because he was voted for once?

I'd just like to understand your position-I'm not batting for or against you.

Also, that cumt in the video has such vitriol and bias it was difficult to listen to more than 2 minutes of his strawman arguments.

Did it get any better? I suspect it was just satire, because it was so badly crafted.

 

[Neal H]

26 minutes ago, LotuStuart said:

And can we now just keep Sadiq Khan as the Mayor because he was voted for once?

Once in a lifetime opportunity to settle the matter once and for all was how it was sold to us. Quite different to mayoral or general elections, which is why it was called a referendum.

[LotuStuart]

 

53 minutes ago, Neal H said:

Once in a lifetime opportunity to settle the matter once and for all was how it was sold to us. Quite different to mayoral or general elections, which is why it was called a referendum.

Understood: so as long as someone who voted in it has died,  that is the end of their lifetime and there can be another vote. 

Also:

1 hour ago, LotuStuart said:

How do you reconcile this with the vote to remain in the EEC?

(1975) or was that a lifetime ago, so we can vote against that now? 

 

Also: "which is why it was called a referendum." Is this a definition of a referendum as a once in a lifetime vote? Where is that definition from? And I may or may not harp on about the definition of "lifetime".

 

Edited September 19, 2018 by LotuStuart
Being a pedant

[Neal H]

You're arguing semantics now, that wasn't the spirit of the vote.

1975 was 43 years ago and I believe that vote was membership of a Common Market, not a political union. I agree though that in 43 years time it would not be unreasonable to revisit the subject.

Referendum - "a vote by a country's electorate on a single political issue". Agreed there is no time limit on when to hold another, but again it's a trust issue. Politicians can't keep calling them until they get the result they want, it just undermines the democratic process. The vote was held, the majority voted to leave. Our politicians need to now implement their mandate, not work to undermine it.

[JG220]

Yeah that @LotuStuart

 

Edited September 19, 2018 by JG220

[Barrykearley]

Makes two of us @Buddsy.

we are probably the two mad swivel eyed loons the remoaners keep moaning about

[C8RKH]

Former head of Euro Central Bank said quote below. Genuine question can someone tell me what emerging markets with single currencies he is referring to?  I only know of one, the Eurozone.

 

Jean-Claude Trichet added the break-up was "totally contrary to the new world" of large emerging economies, with single currencies and single markets.

[Barrykearley]

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story 

[C8RKH]

I get that Barry but what pisses me off is the journo who wrote the piece never even questioned the quote or the guy. It's just such lazy journalism. So sad to see how far standards have fallen. 

Still, if anyone knows what I've missed I am genuinely keen to understand.

Also rather an ironic quote given that the two largest trading entities are in a tit for tat tariff war.

[Barrykearley]

Chap - the BBC are just as bad.

ive little doubt now that May will either get what she wants or we will “crash” out. USA free trade deal I would expect within days of any negative news - as Trump seems keen to stick it up em 

[oilmagnet477]

20 hours ago, LotuStuart said:

Are you all saying that we voted on the matter once, and that is enough? That we should now stick with that result?

We actually ONLY voted in June 2016 - one of, if not the largest, popular votes in modern history - sadly, the result was deeply unpopular within the establishment. That doesn't mean we need another vote - what happens then if the result is the same? I suspect the minority will say again that it the result is somehow wrong. As someone said above - what would a second vote ask? If it is "do you want to leave on these terms or accept a no deal' I wouldn't necessarily care but it would be a massive waste of public money. We could have (and should have IMO) left 2 years ago with an immediate 'no deal'. The last 2 years could then have been spent doing something constructive like reconstituting trade deals based on 'need' not 'politics'.

If, however, a second vote is an attempt to weedle out of leaving at all, all bets are off. I voted to remain but the result was what it was - the sooner we leave now the better. The 'shock' of the result has exposed the EU Bureaucrats and a large % of UK Politicians as useless expensive w**kers. The last 2 years has cost the UK a large fortune, never mind the economy, how much has all the legal wrangling cost?

Why do we need another vote? If we say no to any approved deal, that IMO will largely be down to those who voted to leave not feeling that the deal goes far enough. Any deal that is agreed between the PM and Brussels will be so watered down that it can't possibly get any better for the re-moaners?

[Neal H]

I'm curious what say Parliament has on the final outcome. I know that Parliament gets a vote on the final deal agreed, but if they vote it down does that mean we automatically "crash" out or can they veto that as well leaving us in limbo?