World Brexit: "Technical terms" agreed - Chequers minus, as feared, or Brexit in name only.

It allows people to make a more informed decision cause no matter the stance that people had in 2016, now they know exactly, what kind of deal they got and what it would mean for their country.
Do they? The one deal that was completed by the government and the EU was voted down multiple times in the commons and the government is now trying to work towards something else, so they still don't know exactly what's on offer.

Not to mention, let's say Leave win and that's it decided. Except no, the binary option still doesn't allow for anyone to know whether leave meant hard brexit, soft brexit, May's deal, new deal, no deal, and everything and anything in between. We'd be right back where we started with everyone arguing about what leave actually meant, at which point there'd be cries for a new referendum to make the decision, and the libdems insisting that we should still revoke the whole thing because they don't care what people actually want.

I never said it's a necessity, but I do not think it's illegitimate to reaffirm the public opinion on this matter. If the majority still wants out, that means the public (and leaver-politicians) can put more pressure on parliament to go through with it.
By unnecessary I mean it's adding another step to the process and still probably won't get us any closer to the goal.

Confirmatory vote sounds like the referendum was legally binding. A new referendum would be just that: another, new referendum.
I don't see why there should be any requirement to hold it with the "same set of people" or turnout rate or whatever.
No, confirmatory is just what it is. You're holding a second referendum to confirm the result of the first one. Even if you want to pretend that it's complete independent and separate, that's impossible because we're still in the shadow of the first.

I never said it needs to be legitimized by another one. It is legitimate as is. And in my eyes, just as legitimate as a new one would be.
If no one is listening to the first one, so you're having a second to make people listen to the first once, you're using one to legitimize the other.

I guess they want to retain the status quo, since they are most likely afraid that after an election, their influence might be reduced. That and they might fear that a general election would waste too much time with proceedings (which would be kind of ironic). I don't really care and I don't know why it matters tbh.
I'm was asking because it shows that the remain side are just as nervous and insecure as you think leavers are.

A referendum is asking the public for their opinion. If they changed their opinion, that old referendum no longer matters, since you can't go "This is what the people want", because of the people now evidently want something else.
If they want the same thing, the confirmation (and thus the original decision) still matters.
So now it is confirmatory?

What if they change their opinion in another few years? And again after that?

It's also kind of weird to argue in favor of something that I don't even want - it's just a matter of principle, I guess.
That is weird.

The UK parliament is doing a piss poor job and the people suffer for it. At this point, I hope October 31 rolls around and the EU just kicks the UK out. Any extension would be a waste of time.


May contain nuts.
True & Honest Fan
"You kids wanna eat Chinese or Pizza tonight?.....whoah, you guys voted for Pizza? Well let me tell you what, if you make me drive to a pizza place we are going through a car wash with the windows down. I'm going to pull into an alley and pay bums to jack off in your hair. And when we get there, all you'll have to eat is roach pizza which I will personally shit on the second it lands in front of you. Now, do you want to try voting again...the right way?"
And how does any of that change in the absence of another referendum? The UK just couldn't strike a better deal.
But in case you missed it, that precise accusation, that May made a deliberately shitty deal so people would jump ship in a 2nd referendum, is why I am opposed to another one (ie: EU lets you vote until you vote right).

So now it is confirmatory?
I was merely remarking on you coming up with requirements such as a similar turnout and all that jazz and made it sound a lot more official than it actually was.
I don't see a need for any of that and wouldn't know why any of it should matter. I still don't think that a 2nd referendum would be as illegitimate and undemocratic as it is being treated at times. That said, it would still be a convoluted process and the source of all stagnation is shitty politicians.
I just think in terms of justification (ie: "This is what the people want") another referendum would at least clear up that part, so there's no excuses either way.
I would call that a reassessment, but that's splitting hairs.

Gustav Schuchardt

Trans exclusionary radical feminazi.
The media warn of, and cause, Brexit triggered psychosis.

A doctor has warned that political upheaval can take a serious toll on mental health as he revealed details about the first reported case of Brexit-triggered psychosis.

The male patient suffered hallucinations and delusions when his mental state "deteriorated rapidly" shortly after the results of the EU referendum in the summer of 2016.

He also became increasingly worried about racial incidents and, after being admitted on to a psychiatric ward, said he felt ashamed to be British.

Dr Mohammad Zia Ul Haq Katshu, who treated the patient, said: "His wife reported that since the EU referendum results were declared on 24 June 2016, he started spending more time putting his thoughts across on social media.

"He found it difficult to reconcile with the political events happening around him. He became increasingly worried about racial incidents. His sleep deteriorated."

Once admitted, the unnamed patient was described as agitated, attempting to "burrow" through the hospital floor with his hands to "get the hell out of this place".

The man, in his forties, believed he was being spied on and that talks on the radio were directed at him.

He later said: "I was looking at the electoral map of voting for the EU. I am in a constituency that reflects an opinion that is not for me."

Dr Katshu warned that political events can act as "major psychological stressors" in the article published in BMJ Case Reports.

Previous surveys have shown that concerns over the future of the US after the 2016 presidential elections and the Brexit referendum were significant sources of stress.

Dr Katshu added: "His mental health had deteriorated rapidly following the announcement of the results, with significant concerns about Brexit.

"He presented as agitated, confused and thought disordered. He had auditory hallucinations, and paranoid, referential, misidentification and bizarre delusions."

The patient also reported experiencing family pressures and it is possible these and work-related stress also contributed to his illness.

The patient was diagnosed with acute schizophrenia-like psychotic disorder, a category of acute and transient psychotic disorder (ATPD) - the first case believed to have been triggered by Brexit.

The illness is characterised by an acute onset of symptoms and complete recovery within three months.

The patient described his experiences as "intense periods of accelerated thinking, of being distracted and consumed by my own thoughts, and of a series of theatrical episodes of which I am at the centre".

He recovered completely within a fortnight after a brief admission and treatment with olanzapine, an anti-psychotic.

While he had experienced a similar episode 13 years previously following work-related stress, he had no family history of mental health problems, history of alcohol or substance misuse, or physical health issues barring mildly impaired hearing in one ear.

He has remained well up to June 2019, when doctors last had contact with him.
Also BoJo zinged Michael Gove in his conference speech which was perfectly adequate, if not exactly full of policy.

And that is why we are recruiting 20,000 new police officers, and that is why we are committing now to rolling up the evil county lines drugs gangs, that predate on young kids and send them to die in, the streets to feed the cocaine habits of the bourgeoisie, and we will succeed.
'Cocaine habits of the bourgeoisie' must have made Gove wince.

BoJo is not Trump, but he has his moments. As far as Brexit goes it looks like he's going to offer Max Fac++ or some shit and then go for no-deal when the EU turn it down. Which they will

Because if we fail to get an agreement because of what is essentially a technical discussion of the exact nature of future customs checks, when that technology is improving the whole time, then let us be in no doubt that the alternative is no deal. That is not an outcome we want. It is not an outcome we seek at all. But let me tell you this conference it is an outcome for which we are ready. Are we ready? Are we determined to resolve this? Let's get Brexit done on October 31. Because we must get on and deliver on all the priorities of the people, to answer the cry of those 17.4 m who voted for Brexit, because it is only by delivering Brexit that we can address that feeling in so many parts of the country, that they were being left behind, ignored and that their towns were not only suffering from a lack of love and investment, but their views had somehow become unfashionable or unmentionable. And let's get Brexit done for those millions who may have voted remain but are first and foremost democrats and accept the result of the referendum. And when I say that I want us to work together, now, to bring this country together, you are entitled to ask yourselves about my core principles and the ideals that drive me and are going to drive me as your prime minister.
After that, it goes into some One Nation stuff that I'm sceptical of but I can accept might be the right policy to keep him in office in the upcoming General Election. And 'staying PM' is what his 'core principle and ideals' amount to. Right now that means Brexit on October 31st and then pivoting to centrist One Nation Toryism.

It could be worse. We could have Corbyn in power implementing manifesto that makes Labour's in 1983 seem positively moderate in comparison.

In fact, you could say that Cameron was 'Blair without the Iraq War'. Well, BoJo is 'Cameron without the EU membership'. I guess you could call this the Hold and Modify school of political ideology - take what your predecessor did, remove the least popular thing and do everything else.

Will he get away with it? I'm not so sure. If he can bait Labour into giving him an election he might well. Labour seems to know this though and want to keep him in office but with no majority to do anything and subject to the dreaded Benn Act which will force an extension onto him.

We may well be fucked as many people in this thread have gleefully posted. Still, at least it's interesting to watch both sides machinations. We've had more and better machinations from both sides in this battle over Brexit than anything I can remember in British politics. I mean, the Benn Act was a genius move by Team Remain. They told BoJo they'd allow an election if he let it get Royal Assent rather than blocking it in the Lords and then welched on the deal.
Last edited:

Also BoJo zinged Michael Gove in his conference speech which was perfectly adequate, if not exactly full of policy.
I've seen some news outlets making this criticism but I don't exactly know what new policy they expected. He inherited the party and manifesto from May, he's less than a month from his do or die brexit deadline, and the opposition are actively seeking to replace him. What exactly would be the point of bringing up new policy at a time like this?

Additionally Corbyn has stated that the new Brexit proposals undermine the Good Friday Agreement.

Perhaps he'd like to explain how consulting a joint Northern and Southern Irish council, and allowing Stormont a say in whether they want to continue using EU regulations undermines the Good Friday Agreement.

The bigger issue is whether Stormont would even be up and running to have the vote.

Any argument for a second referendum could just as easily be used for a third, and a fourth. Although in the event of a second one we know it will be a Final Say (Unless Leave Wins Again) Vote
yeah it's like asking for a repeat election in america after trump won because "did people really know that they were voting for terrible orange man? we must have another round of voting to make sure!"

their plan is very transparent: block and sabotage any attempt to see brexit through at the parliament level, simultaneously use their complete control over state institutions and the media to drive public opinion towards remain as hard as possible, then repeat the referendum until remain eventually comes out ahead

Gustav Schuchardt

Trans exclusionary radical feminazi.
Perhaps he'd like to explain how consulting a joint Northern and Southern Irish council, and allowing Stormont a say in whether they want to continue using EU regulations undermines the Good Friday Agreement.
When Remainers say 'A hard border contravenes the Good Friday Agreement' just point them at the text of it and ask them 'Where?'

And then link them to this article from the heavily pro-Remain BBC

What does the Good Friday Agreement say about a hard border?

A lot less than you might think. The only place in which it alludes to infrastructure at the border is in the section on security.

During the Troubles there were heavily fortified army barracks, police stations and watchtowers along the border. They were frequently attacked by Republican paramilitaries.

Part of the peace deal involved the UK government agreeing to a process of removing those installations in what became known as "demilitarisation".

The agreement states that "the development of a peaceful environment... can and should mean a normalisation of security arrangements and practices."

The government committed to "as early a return as possible to normal security arrangements in Northern Ireland, consistent with the level of threat".

That included "the removal of security installations". That is as far as the text goes.

There is no explicit commitment to never harden the border, and there is nothing about customs posts or regulatory controls.
Also, point out that during the foot and mouth outbreak the Irish government did impose border controls and no one claimed it was contravening the GFA.

This sort of thing is a weakness for the Remain side. Because their media is a circle jerk bad arguments like 'The GFA prohibits a hard border' get passed around and it's not really in anyone's interest to point out they're bogus. And yet the GFA is pretty readable for an international agreement, presumably because it was between two friendly democratic states rather than being written by obscurantist multinational bureaucrats incentivized to make the documents only comprehensible by other obscurantist multinational bureaucrats. I think Remainers repeat the lie that the GFA prohibits a hard border because they heard it repeated on the news, never read the document and never met anyone who disputed it.

Incidentally, none of this means a hard border is desirable - it most certainly is not. Of course, it depends on what you mean by 'hard border'. If you mean 'barbed wire, watchtowers, armed men patrolling with Alsatians' then that is clearly undesirable, but then no one wants that. If you mean 'we aim for Canada+ tariff and quota-free trade but in the interim electronic customs declarations away from the border may be needed' I'd say that is not a 'hard border'. What the EU want to do is to force the UK to stay in the customs union and single market and they're using the specter of a hard border and a return to The Troubles as a way to do that, while at the same time claim they're working to prevent a hard border. The UK government really needs to call their bluff on that. If the EU won't agree on something like Max Fac, we need to leave on WTO terms and have electronic customs declarations along with the existing cross border electronic VAT declarations.

In fact, here's the GFA attached. It's a ~200KB 35 page PDF.


Last edited:

Slimy Time

Rape Face #3
Farage reacts to Boris's speech

You can see his wit and political knowhow in that quick breakdown at the end, and I think he's right that the issues Boris faces means he has to do one of these really shit, run of the mill speeches to appease all in the party. I like Boris, but god was that speech the most standard speech he could have given for a Conservative Party Conference. Anyone could have given it.

Any argument for a second referendum could just as easily be used for a third, and a fourth. Although in the event of a second one we know it will be a Final Say (Unless Leave Wins Again) Vote
Ultimately there isnt a majority in Parliament to fix the current mess constitutionally. they need a new election. BUT if their is a new election Remain is not comfortable the new Parliament will be on board with changing the will of the voters

God you brits. The head of the largest empire in human history reduced to eurocock sucking twats.
The fact this has taken so long is laughable.
Why can't you guys handle your shit?
Well if you bothered to read the preceding pages you'd know it is because of a load of obstructionist politicians, lawyers and judges who're all just getting high on the smell of their own farts. You know the exact same shit the US is stuck with all the time.


Osama bin Ladkin
So PMs Beta Catlady and Fat Turkish exceptional individual didn't work out. Who's next? Epic Count Dankula to own remainers by their own logic in epic SJW cringe compilation 217.5?

Anglos suck so much
Last edited:


Human behavior is exceptional behavior.
It'd probably lead to a dangerous precedent of the Queen doing things.
I don't see that as more dangerous than the courts outright interfering with Parliament's business. In fact, what's the point of a head of state that isn't allowed to do anything? Yeah, monarchs that do everything are bad, but monarchs that do nothing are worse. Either let the Queen do her job, or get her out of the entire process once and for all. Somebody has to sign off on Parliament's doings, and it may as well be somebody allowed to tell Parliament when it needs to get out of its own asshole. Call that somebody a queen, a president, a tard wrangler. Just really anything other than a judge, because fuck legislating from the bench in all circumstances. Never impartial, never fair, never apolitical.

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino