Nigel Farage warns 'Brexit betrayal' would thrust Britain into crisis - Polidicks

[QUOTE]LONDON (Reuters) - If Prime Minister Theresa May allows Brexit to be watered down or halted by supporters of European Union membership, then Britain will be thrust into the gravest constitutional crisis since World War Two, Brexit campaigner Nigel Farage said. Farage, who as UKIP leader convinced Prime Minister Theresa May’s predecessor, David Cameron, to call the Brexit referendum and then helped lead the campaign to leave the EU, said Brexit was now in danger of being stopped by the establishment. The 53-year-old former commodities trader cast May, who voted to stay in the EU, as “Theresa the appeaser” for giving in to the EU on almost every part of the Brexit negotiation and said Britain was being humiliated by the EU. “The best case scenario right now under our current pathetic leadership is Brexit in name only - that is about as good as it gets,” Farage told Reuters in his office just a few meters from Westminster Abbey. “At worst they are going to make us fight the whole thing again,” said Farage. “That is a significant betrayal of what many millions voted for.” In the United Kingdom’s 2016 referendum, 51.9 percent, or 17.4 million people, voted to leave the EU while 48.1 percent, or 16.1 million people, voted to stay. Farage dismissed worries from major banks such as Goldman Sachs that the City of London could lose business as a result of Brexit and cast the European Union as a doomed German-dominated experiment in European integration.[/QUOTE] [URL="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-farage/nigel-farage-warns-brexit-betrayal-would-thrust-britain-into-crisis-idUSKBN1FW1HN?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social"]Reuters.[/URL]

It would be a show of loyalty what a near exactly equal number of millions voted for tho... Farage can fuck off back to America where he so happily abandoned us after he got his win.

I'm not even British and I want this cunt to fuck off.

Betrayal similar with you and your promise to the NHS, or how you left the country shortly after winning?

[QUOTE=GlebGuy;53126972]Betrayal similar with you and your promise to the NHS, or how you left the country shortly after winning?[/QUOTE] Wrong campaign, that was Boris and his bus.

[QUOTE=Boilrig;53127070]Wrong campaign, that was Boris and his bus.[/QUOTE] sorry i didn't realise there were individual leave campaigns are you also admitting that was a lie and are you also admitting that a vast majority of leave voters truly believed that the figure of money printed on that bus wasn't a lie and was all going to be put to the NHS which is exactly not the case and is completely and deliberately misleading and disingenuous but yeah huh, all for the sake of that democracy you keep on talking about what is democratic about following through with people voting for lies and disinformation?

[QUOTE=Instant Mix;53127283]are you also admitting that was a lie[/QUOTE] Wow, that was fast, I don't believe so, but if you've got that from my 8 word response, go on right ahead. [QUOTE=Instant Mix;53127283] and are you also admitting that a vast majority of leave voters truly believed that the figure of money printed on that bus wasn't a lie and was all going to be put to the NHS which is exactly not the case and is completely and deliberately misleading and disingenuous but yeah huh, all for the sake of that democracy you keep on talking about what is democratic about following through with people voting for lies and disinformation?[/QUOTE] Not sure what you want out of me, but I don't believe there has ever been an informed population especially surrounding politics.

Boy, a Brexit thread! I sure hope nobody known for bailing out of threads as soon as the going gets tough show u- [QUOTE=Boilrig;53127428]Wow, that was fast, I don't believe so, but if you've got that from my 8 word response, go on right ahead.[/QUOTE] Oh hi! Nice to see that you can't even admit the most blatant of lies. Say, would you mind continuing our conversation from earlier? I'm pretty sure it's relevant to this thread.

Hes not wrong. The majority of voters in the UK voted for Brexit, plain and simple. At least the Yanks have the excuse of the electoral college and the fact that Trump lost the popular vote. Theres no excuse for backing out of Brexit.

[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;53127960]Hes not wrong. The majority of voters in the UK voted for Brexit, plain and simple. At least the Yanks have the excuse of the electoral college and the fact that Trump lost the popular vote. Theres no excuse for backing out of Brexit.[/QUOTE] Leave won with less than a 2% majority. Considering the massive scope of this referendum (which was non-binding, by the way), it should at least have been a 60%/40% majority.

Jeez, when I see Brexit thread - even before I open it, I know Boilrig's 1 man army is here. Would be better if when vote comes for such a big decision - vote results should have much higher margin. Clearly pro-brexiter votes didn't think it through.

[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;53127960]Hes not wrong. The majority of voters in the UK voted for Brexit, plain and simple. At least the Yanks have the excuse of the electoral college and the fact that Trump lost the popular vote. Theres no excuse for backing out of Brexit.[/QUOTE] A good percentage of people didn't vote. Many who voted brexit regret their vote. Specially those stupid fools who believed that NHS lie. An untold number of people want a second referendum. I think there are plenty of excuses for backing out.

[QUOTE=The Jack;53128194]A good percentage of people didn't vote. Many who voted brexit regret their vote. Specially those stupid fools who believed that NHS lie. An untold number of people want a second referendum. I think there are plenty of excuses for backing out.[/QUOTE] 71% voted, higher than a general election. Yes, there will always be regret, and unfortunately, lies. It is not enough reason to backout, if they wanted to do that, Cameron should've stated that immediately.

Loving how far Boilrig's line of argumentation has crumbled. There's no argument to be made on the so-called economic benefits of Brexit because every credible prediction says it's going to suck short- and long-term. But Boilrig is holding out for the ultra-beneficial mystery deal that he can't articulate what it is or how it would be achieved but you can't prove it won't happen! Unsurprisingly that failed to convince anyone who's even done the slightest bit of research. So he fell back to the democracy via majority argument but has been completely unable to consolidate that with the massive amount of disinformation spewed by the Leave campaign and the fact that a majority of people have seen the wolf in sheep's clothing for what it is and want a second referendum. Suddenly when people don't agree with Boilrig it's undemocratic to ask their opinion.... somehow. Not to mention his hilarious ignorance of how representative democracy even works in the UK. So left with no other credible argument he's started praising the "resolve" of these slimy, dishonest politicians who wanted this result in the first place and are repeatedly ignoring the pleas of the people they allegedly represent because god forbid they have to steer this bus away from the massive cliff they've set it towards. Can't let a little thing like democracy or financial ruin get in the way of the Brexit train. Boilrig is exactly the same as those politicians: He got what he wanted so nothing else matters. The repeated demolishing of his arguments and opinions and his resulting backpedaling and disappearance from threads where he's obviously outclassed in every conceivable angle just serves as continued proof of how Brexit has never had any solid reasoning or logic behind it, and requires a detachment from and denial of reality to purport. It's just pure narcissism. There is no circumstance under which Boilrig would reject Brexit because that's what he wanted. Feels before reals.

Can someone please explain how having a second referendum is [i] less[/i] democratic? Now that we have asserted that Brexit is a terrible idea and there's no positive reason to go through with it, a lot of leave supporters seem to have fallen back on this line of reasoning that it doesn't matter how stupid an idea is, if a majority of people support it, no matter how slim that majority might be- then it's crucial to the [b] very survival of democracy itself that we go through with the idea a[i]nd isn't that emotional bulls[u]hit more important than any negative repercussions in reality?????[/b][/i][/u] So if democracy is the most important issue regarding brexit, and any judgement upon ideas should be based first and foremost on how democratic they are; Isn't having a second opportunity to form a more refined democratic consensus objectively the best option? wouldn't that make the whole thing [i] twice as democratic!![/i] And further more, shouldn't we also have a [b] DEMOCRATIC[/b] vote on whether Nigel Farage should be fired out of a fucking massive cannon, preferably into the sun?

[QUOTE=fulgrim;53128535]Can someone please explain how having a second referendum is [i] less[/i] democratic?[/QUOTE] Good luck getting an actual answer.

[QUOTE=fulgrim;53128535]Can someone please explain how having a second referendum is [i] less[/i] democratic? Now that we have asserted that Brexit is a terrible idea and there's no positive reason to go through with it, a lot of leave supporters seem to have fallen back on this line of reasoning that it doesn't matter how stupid an idea is, if a majority of people support it, no matter how slim that majority might be- then it's crucial to the [b] very survival of democracy itself that we go through with the idea a[i]nd isn't that emotional bulls[u]hit more important than any negative repercussions in reality?????[/b][/i][/u] So if democracy is the most important issue regarding brexit, and ideas should be based first and foremost on how democratic they are; Isn't having a second opportunity to form a more refined democratic consensus objectively the best option? wouldn't that make the whole thing [i] twice as democratic!![/i] And further more, shouldn't we also have a [b] DEMOCRATIC[/b] vote on whether Nigel Farage should be fired out of a fucking massive cannon, preferably into the sun?[/QUOTE] Sorry, mate, no backsies :^)

[QUOTE=Boilrig;53127428]Wow, that was fast, I don't believe so, but if you've got that from my 8 word response, go on right ahead. Not sure what you want out of me, but I don't believe there has ever been an informed population especially surrounding politics.[/QUOTE] Why are you insistent on quibbling about which lie was most blatant? a lie deliberately engineered to get people to vote a certain way is a subversion of democracy no matter which source it comes from. Whether or not people did so based on being informed or otherwise is moot. Also here's the fun part: this whole referendum, with all the shitstorms going on behind it, was also [i]non-binding[/i] and one side didnt even get a 2/3 majority, which should've triggered another referendum until you got the necessary vote. But the Tories don't want, and aren't interested, in proper Democratic process.

[QUOTE=fulgrim;53128535]Can someone please explain how having a second referendum is [i] less[/i] democratic? Now that we have asserted that Brexit is a terrible idea and there's no positive reason to go through with it, a lot of leave supporters seem to have fallen back on this line of reasoning that it doesn't matter how stupid an idea is, if a majority of people support it, no matter how slim that majority might be- then it's crucial to the [b] very survival of democracy itself that we go through with the idea a[i]nd isn't that emotional bulls[u]hit more important than any negative repercussions in reality?????[/b][/i][/u] So if democracy is the most important issue regarding brexit, and any judgement upon ideas should be based first and foremost on how democratic they are; Isn't having a second opportunity to form a more refined democratic consensus objectively the best option? wouldn't that make the whole thing [i] twice as democratic!![/i] And further more, shouldn't we also have a [b] DEMOCRATIC[/b] vote on whether Nigel Farage should be fired out of a fucking massive cannon, preferably into the sun?[/QUOTE] A second referendum would be a pretty horrible idea, people are still so rilled up from the last one it would just make the current situation more toxic. There never should have been an initial referendum to begin with, it should have been left up to the government but Cameron was too much of a coward to do that. If they want to cancel Brexit then the MPs should do it. Though most won't entertain the thought because it's political suicide.

Let's have a referendum to force Nigel Farage to change his name to Nigglesworth Fromage, and if the referendum wins and Nigglesworth asks for a second referendum we'll tell him it's undemocratic and he should get busy with updating his business cards and billing details. 50% + 1 vote should be enough, according to his criteria.

[QUOTE=Boilrig;53128196]71% voted, higher than a general election. Yes, there will always be regret, and unfortunately, lies. It is not enough reason to backout, if they wanted to do that, Cameron should've stated that immediately.[/QUOTE] I do love how you've had to give up every shred of argumentation that would lead us to believe this is for the best, like you used to argue. Now you just scramble to call anyone who disagrees with you an antidemocratic type.

[QUOTE=Duskin;53128650]A second referendum would be a pretty horrible idea, people are still so rilled up from the last one it would just make the current situation more toxic. There never should have been an initial referendum to begin with, it should have been left up to the government but Cameron was too much of a coward to do that. If they want to cancel Brexit then the MPs should do it. Though most won't entertain the thought because it's political suicide.[/QUOTE] it should never have been left to a simple majority, nor should the scottish refferendum have been either

[QUOTE=Sableye;53128806]it should never have been left to a simple majority, nor should the scottish refferendum have been either[/QUOTE] Oh, that's another juicy one that Boilrig literally hasn't been able to parse out If the Brexit referendum has to be honoured to have a democracy, then shouldn't the same be true of the scottish referendum that people like Boilrig handwave away as fast as they can? It's pretty funny the level of dissonance some people talk themselves into.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53128804]I do love how you've had to give up every shred of argumentation that would lead us to believe this is for the best, like you used to argue. Now you just scramble to call anyone who disagrees with you an antidemocratic type.[/QUOTE] Honestly wouldn't be shocked if he spends his time on the BBC Have Your Say comment section tbh, that kind of shit has run rampant over there for a while now. A bunch of old fucks or young """"reactionaries""""""" calling everything they disagree with "undemocratic" or insisting that Corbyn is a hardcore communist (despite the fact he doesn't necessarily disagree with Brexit but hey! He's a ~loony lefty~~~~!!). Nothing Boilrig has ever posted in these stands out as an original thought or something that's had a mote of actual research put into it. Just soundbites from whatever right leaning news source of the week he decides to cite. Again, for emphasis. [B]Farage and his band of goobers insisted they could call referendums until they got the result they wanted.[/B] Sure sounds like they're trying to ~subvert democracy~ there huh guys?

[QUOTE=thisguy123;53126915]It would be a show of loyalty what a near exactly equal number of millions voted for tho... [/QUOTE] Im fairly sure that in a democracy, majority rule is the law. Near equal is close but no cigar. [QUOTE=Trebgarta;53127981][URL="http://www.businessinsider.de/poll-second-brexit-referendum-deal-bmg-theresa-may-2018-1?r=UK&IR=T"]Majority of Brits want a second referendum if May fails to get a deal. [/URL] Which seems likely.[/QUOTE] I would say this is extremely unlikely especially based on a single poll. Even with multiple polls it is damn near improbable. [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-wont-happen-eu-jean-claude-juncker-commission-president-a8148146.html[/url]

[QUOTE=DeadWar;53128907]Im fairly sure that in a democracy, majority rule is the law. Near equal is close but no cigar.[/QUOTE] So 51% vote to have slavery. Now that's the rule of the land forever. Can't change it or you're going against democracy, amiright? Same thing. Votes being decided by a fractional percentage of the population to make a decision that effects everyone, that's stuck forever if you're taking the Boilrig approach to democracy.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53128913]So 51% vote to have slavery. Now that's the rule of the land forever. Can't change it or you're going against democracy, amiright? Same thing. Votes being decided by a fractional percentage of the population to make a decision that effects everyone, that's stuck forever if you're taking the Boilrig approach to democracy.[/QUOTE] Strawman argument, we didn't vote for slavery. Id argue that we voted against slavery in this instance. Choosing to ignore the majority is a form of dictatorship. If you do that, then you are no better than Putin. You mention stuck forever but we decided to Remain in the ECC in 1975 and that wasn't forever. So I guess in 30 years time will tell. Also I see you complain about fractional decisions and yet I bet I would never hear you complain if the party you voted for won a fractional election. Then you would laud it as a victory of the people right?

[QUOTE=DeadWar;53128922]Strawman argument, we didn't vote for slavery. Id argue that we voted against slavery in this instance. Choosing to ignore the majority is a form of dictatorship. If you do that, then you are no better than Putin. You mention stuck forever but we decided to Remain in the ECC in 1975 and that wasn't forever. So I guess in 30 years time will tell. Also I see you complain about fractional decisions and yet I bet I would never hear you complain if the party you voted for won a fractional election. Then you would laud it as a victory of the people right?[/QUOTE] Yes, slavery is an extreme meant to point out, and highlight the ridiculousness of the situation, but you just acted like staying in the EU means being slaves to the EU? No, that's not true, that is a baseless assertion based on your fears and misinformation. The "Vote lasts forever" thing is a side effect of the mindset of people like Boilrig, another pro brexit poster around here. At least you're not using the same baseless scale of time. It isn't the "fractional" portion that is the issue. It's the scale of that decision. Elections in Canada aren't decided on a 51-49% basis, and I frankly think that no decision should ever be made 51-49. So, please attempt to have your "Gotcha" moment, but it's baseless assumptive trash.

[QUOTE=DeadWar;53128922]Strawman argument, we didn't vote for slavery. Id argue that we voted against slavery in this instance. Choosing to ignore the majority is a form of dictatorship. If you do that, then you are no better than Putin. You mention stuck forever but we decided to Remain in the ECC in 1975 and that wasn't forever. So I guess in 30 years time will tell. Also I see you complain about fractional decisions and yet I bet I would never hear you complain if the party you voted for won a fractional election. Then you would laud it as a victory of the people right?[/QUOTE] sorry just to clarify, are you trying to argue that not going through with a misinformed and untrue shitshow of a referendum that had a 2% majority to massively change how our country worked, we're as bad as the Russian dictatorship? Who are you and what have you been smoking, that line of thinking is laughably ridiculous. I still don't trust you at all

[QUOTE=DeadWar;53128922]Strawman argument, we didn't vote for slavery. Id argue that we voted against slavery in this instance. Choosing to ignore the majority is a form of dictatorship. If you do that, then you are no better than Putin. You mention stuck forever but we decided to Remain in the ECC in 1975 and that wasn't forever. So I guess in 30 years time will tell.[/QUOTE] So 49% of people should just get shafted? That's not an insignificant number. Is that good and fair? Democracies run on representation and currently, only the Lib Dems have the balls to fight for that 49% (good fucking luck to them). Note I am NOT saying the result should be overturned, only that Remainers get an equal say in Brexit talks. This hasn't happened, at all, and therefore I feel is very undemocratic.