h a l f b a k e r yThere's no money in it.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
| |
I can't understand why you'd want to have to listen to idiot
politicians in Brussels. Clearly you have your own? |
|
| |
On current evidence, the EU ones are better at it. |
|
| |
With a number of notable exceptions. |
|
| |
Can we not increase the number of axes so that voting is a simple matter of picking a position relative to a timecube? |
|
| |
That works until the cube starts rotating. |
|
| |
//Can we not increase the number of axes// Hear, hear!!
There's nothing wrong with politicians that an axe can't fix. |
|
| |
Can you add an option for: |
|
| |
[ ] Let's just continue to watch the UK parliament screw
this up, over and over |
|
| |
I rather enjoy a good Kafkaesque tragedy. |
|
| |
Like I said, [Ian Tindale]. |
|
| |
Do the MRL still put up candidates [hippo]? used to be a touch
of much needed light relief at elections but I've not seen any
for years :( |
|
| |
Rarely now - the party's gone into a steady decline since Lord Sutch died |
|
| |
Replaced with a more diverse spectrum of nut
jobs: ie Kremlin Corbyn; Dinosaur DUP; Morris
Dancing May; Fruit-cake Farage, and of course
Bonkers Boris. If the Monster's Party ran where I
don't vote, I would vote. |
|
| |
[bigsleep] - it's getting closer! |
|
| |
- Remain
- Leave
- Revert to primitive agrarian economy based on sheep-barter monetary system
|
|
| |
- Publicly execute all existing national and local politicians by a slow, painful and humiliating method, then adopt continuous semi-direct democracy as a replacement for representative democracy. |
|
| |
//why you'd want to have to listen to idiot politicians in
Brussels. Clearly you have your own?// |
|
| |
//On current evidence, the EU ones are better at it// |
|
| |
Better at being idiots or politicians? |
|
| |
Either way not a ringing endorsement, quite the
opposite in fact, the better they are at being either the less
anyone sane should want them. |
|
| |
//Publicly execute all existing national and local
politicians// |
|
| |
At the moment I'd probably vote for that, only one
problem, they'd delay implementing the result for three
years while they try to agree a deal. |
|
| |
Then the jokers will argue no one voted for a specific 'type'
of execution, should it be firing squad, hanging, lethal
injection? |
|
| |
"No one voted for 'this' type of execution, the pro-execute
vote is completely divided so obviously don't-execute won &
we should just forget it" |
|
| |
I don’t think I’d vote in favour of executing
anyone. But I’d support a public inquiry into how a
marginal, inconclusive and corrupt advisory show
of hands could lead to an abject squandering of
billions in public funds and destruction of the
economy. A terrorist attack would have done less
damage. |
|
| |
[Being serious, for a moment] |
|
| |
//marginal, inconclusive// |
|
| |
Now that's the kind of lie that has got us here & that I begin
to slide towards a pro-death penalty stance on, a
democratic first past the post vote (or referendum) with
only one question with only two diametrically opposed
options (leave or stay). |
|
| |
One side wins one side losses, even if it's by 1 vote which it
most certainly wasn't. So.. definitely neither "marginal" nor
"inconclusive"
then. |
|
| |
As for //advisory//, before the referendum every party said
they would respect & implement the result, every party
then went on to stand on a manifesto in the GE that
followed saying they would respect the vote. |
|
| |
As for //corrupt// I saw 'corruption' & lies on both sides,
but I saw far more on the remain side than leave, including
the government front loading the campaign spending for
remain with that £9 million pro-remain leaflet spend just b4
the start of the 'official' campaign period. |
|
| |
I've also seen just as much 'corruption' & lies in every GE
I've ever
witnessed & no one I remember has ever said it was grounds
to
overturn one of those, so it's disingenuous, hypocritical &
(on grounds of precedent) invalid to try & say it now. |
|
| |
[Being serious, for a moment/] |
|
| |
//& that I begin to slide towards a pro-death penalty
stance// |
|
| |
Consider for a moment the fact that I've always been
extremely anti-death penalty my entire adult life (which,
unfortunately, can't be said to have been a particularly
short period of time any more), & yet
have now been driven to a point where I can even say such
a thing. |
|
| |
[Being serious again, for a moment] |
|
| |
You might then begin to comprehend my anger at these lies
& those who use them in an attempt to overthrow the
result of as free & fair a democratic vote as any other we've
ever had. |
|
| |
So how about you let me pretend everyone here is still both
intelligent & uncorrupt by dropping any comments that can
be too easily used to identify you as a remoaner & a liar? |
|
| |
If you stay away from comments that can be unequivocally
attributed to one side or the other in future then so will I. |
|
| |
[Being serious again, for a moment/] |
|
| |
For other governments that don't have Brexit problems, does the country have a referendum prior to the election to decide what the referendum will be. To be sort of Brexit like? |
|
| |
I'd rather not talk about it any more, it just gets me angry ;p |
|
| |
Sorry [Skewed], I don't know how you can channel the anger, towards an outcome, on that one. [Max] would say. sharpen an axe. |
|
| |
[Skewed] needs to learn how to Give In To His Hate. |
|
| |
We suggest applying Thatcher's Principle; "In Defeat, Malice; In Victory - Revenge !" |
|
| |
The last time he did (more'n 3 decades ago now) the other
guy was lucky that a) the boss turned up b) the boss was big
enough to physically tear me off him, a few more seconds &
he'd have lost the thumb I was biting on. |
|
| |
The penultimate time (a couple of years b4).. that one
ended up in A&E, back a day or two later with a
lovely
swollen nose & two beautiful black eyes, I'd caught him
under the nose with a kick as two others hauled me off him. |
|
| |
I'm bigger, more muscle than I had as a teen, so no,
[Skewed] doesn't need //to Give In To His
Hate//, it's a very bad idea, it wouldn't be pretty. |
|
| |
But I like the //Thatcher's Principle// just couldn't let myself
indulge in it in any other state than that revenge is best
served in. |
|
| |
// it wouldn't be pretty. // |
|
| |
Yes, but it would bring in a mint of money on pay-per-view ... |
|
| |
You know I can't help but think you two have got your quotes
mixed up, surely //it wouldn't be pretty// is better suited to
[sleep]'s anno? |
|
| |
Why are Brexit people so angry? You’re not getting
what you wanted, however any of
this turns out, because handouts and unicorns can’t
be delivered, no matter how many people beg for
them. Brexit was advisory. The result was
inconclusive and becomes more inconclusive by the
moment. |
|
| |
It was certainly funded by people in bad
faith - and the difference between this and any
normal bit of democracy is that normally you can’t
do that much damage in 4 years. There’s checks
and balances that form an integral part of our
democratic system. Those hard won protections
against abuse of power have been chipped away by
people acting in bad faith. Leaving us where we
are now where people (seriously or otherwise?) are
threatening violence over an interpretation of an
ambiguous and contentious issue. That’s not
British. It’s not democratic and it’s frankly
worrying. |
|
| |
Now please, settle down and let democracy run its
course. Freedom and fairness will prevail despite a
few angry mobster snowflakes demanding
handouts. |
|
| |
Endless re-runs of The Dam Busters, Waterloo, The Battle Of Britain, Angels One-Five, The Cruel Sea, The Longest Day, and Armada. |
|
| |
Does that answer your question ? |
|
| |
// unicorns can’t be delivered, // |
|
| |
It's just a matter of building a longer horsebox, so you can get the horn in without it banging on the end, shirley ? |
|
| |
No, a hacksaw & a tube of super glue at the other end is much
cheaper than a bespoke horsebox. |
|
| |
//not getting what you wanted, however any of this turns
out// |
|
| |
A lie, WTO would suit me & very many other leavers just
fine & you know it. |
|
| |
Lots of that, all from remainers, just about every word
you've just typed qualifies, you're deliberately trying to
wind me up by repeating all the same lies. |
|
| |
//Freedom and fairness// ???? |
|
| |
You don't even know what the words mean. |
|
| |
What makes me angry is these lies from smug self satisfied
entitled lying pieces of [insert word] like you, now I asked
you nicely once to drop the subject, you haven't, kindly
[insert word] off [insert word]. |
|
| |
You don't get what you want just by being horrible. Sorry Skewed, call
me any names you like, get as cross as you want, feel whatever
emotion you want to feel. But democracy is here to stay. |
|
| |
I'm really not lying. I'm sorry if the truth offends you. Please. Take it a
bit easy. |
|
| |
// You don't get what you want just by being horrible. // |
|
| |
... Like Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Il-Sung, Napoleon Bonaparte didn't ... |
|
| |
// But democracy is here // |
|
| |
Oooh, where ? Show, show !
What you are told you have is "representative democracy" i.e. a system in which a tiny clique of notionally accountable but institutionally corrupt fat cats play musical chairs every few years at the expense of the general population. |
|
| |
It would be nice to try actual democracy. Twenty years ago, it wasn't possible. Now, it is - the technology exists. O Brave New World .... |
|
| |
Excuse us, the Five Minute Hate is about to start on our Telescreen ... |
|
| |
Enjoy - and remember comrade, war is peace, ignorance is strength
and freedom is slavery. |
|
| |
Thanks, we'll make a note of those. Very useful, and remarkably profound. |
|
| |
Wasn't there some other stuff about Strength Through Joy, and Work Makes You Free ? And there was another one ..
Peace Through Strength, or was it Peace In Our Time ? |
|
| |
Are you sure that wasn't Pisces? |
|
| |
//democracy is here to stay// |
|
| |
If democracy was here, we'd have left the EU already, you've
either no understanding of the word, are lying through your
teeth or are deliberately trolling to wind me up. |
|
| |
My money's on the latter with a large dose of the middle one
so for me my assessment of you is confirmed, I'll
ignore you from now on then. |
|
| |
1) The twelfth astrological sign in the Zodiac. |
|
| |
[Or, in accordance with less commonly
observed rules of dyslexia] |
|
| |
2) A portion of an
object or of material, produced
by cutting, tearing, or breaking the whole.
"a piece of cheese".. |
|
| |
Democracy has meant that over the last 3 years, we've all been paying hand over fist for the
government of the day to seriously look into what the true and practical implications would be for
delivery of one of the many different Brexits people formed a coalition to support. |
|
| |
That was the democratic result of the referendum - a very expensive, close look at all the options,
months of negotiations and finally a deal that the radical far right of the conservative party
rejected. |
|
| |
The process of choosing a single, actual Brexit is proving to be a contentious one - far from the
original all-things-to-all people Brexit smorgasbord that had initially been on offer. |
|
| |
If people had been asked to pick between the status quo and WTO with food shortages, national
unrest and a period of inescapable recession, the chances of getting a yes would have been a
great deal slimmer. |
|
| |
Of course, there would have been a fringe of who would have supported that - in any population
there's always going to be extremists, that's to be expected. |
|
| |
And today, with the continued grooming and radicalisation of these pockets of society, that
extreme pro-damage population has grown and normalised itself - indeed it's now actually in
government, but it is still a minority. |
|
| |
Nowhere in the rules of democracy does it say that a small minority can drag
everyone else into chaos because they're the only ones with the brass-neck to deliberately twist the
interpretation of an
inconclusive, advisory show of hands, far from what was initially promised, into the most extreme distortion of
the original proposition. |
|
| |
It's open to interpretation by all - and, if needs be, based on the findings of the last 3 years - i.e.
based on the revealed facts (despite the government's best efforts to suppress them) and the
clear and present dangers immediately ahead - perhaps a rethink is in order - especially
considering the vast majority would like to see an end to the chaos and pointless waste of time
and money. |
|
| |
But perhaps you think this reasoned, logical and considered response is more "lies" and written
entirely to cause you personal grief in an act of "trolling". You are entirely free to believe that if
you wish - equally - you're entirely free to ignore what I'm saying. It's really no big deal. But I
certainly don't wish you any ill will - and would defend your right to hold an opposing point of view,
and further argue against the idea that anyone with an opposing point of view should be put to
death for doing what they think is right. That's just a considered, thoughtful interaction we're
having - exchanging points of view, and critically evaluating them based on our own experiences
and emotional or logical resonances. |
|
| |
So, would a combined referendum/election be a reflection or
an erection? |
|
| |
It's clear, isn't it, that elections longer than 4 hours require
immediate medical attention? |
|
| |
//Nowhere in the rules of democracy does it say that a
small minority can drag everyone else into chaos// That's
true. But it can be done with only a small majority. Even
entire governments are sometimes elected by a majority,
despite the wishes of a large minority. |
|
| |
The problem with arguing for another referendum is that it's
not equally balanced. People are asking for another
referendum on the grounds that the last one was three
years ago and we're still stuck. But if the referendum had
come out 52% in favour of remaining, you can bet that there
would be no excuse, reason or tolerance for another
referendum 3 or even 10 years later. |
|
| |
In other words, we seem to have a system stacked heavily
against leaving. |
|
| |
So, if there is to be another referendum, it should be on the
guarantee that, in the event of a "remain" majority, there'll
be yet another referendum in three years. Fair? |
|
| |
// So, if there is to be another referendum, it
should be on the guarantee that, in the event of a
"remain" majority, there'll be yet another
referendum in three years. Fair?// |
|
| |
Completely fair - with the additional proviso that
any Brexit plan is fully fleshed our prior to the
vote. That way, the question can be asked, do you
want x or y? Without padding y with a vast range of
contradictory positions. |
|
| |
What we’re dealing with right now is the natural
consequence of allowing a broad spectrum of
opinion to be labelled as a single thing. Nobody*
can agree on what Brexit means, still, after 3
years. |
|
| |
As such, the original propositions have since
morphed into the very hardest and most damaging
option possible. An option which, if it had been
put to the people in the first place, would have
not had anywhere near the support. |
|
| |
So yes, let’s vote on it every 6 months if we have
to - as long as there’s a truthful and clear set of
real and deliverable choices to pick from. Or until
people actually realise there are better and more
interesting things we could be doing with our time
and collective resources. |
|
| |
* by which I mean, a clear majority |
|
| |
[Bigs] I share your frustration with Corbyn- he’s
actively kept the whole show on the road by giving
the hard-Brexit, loony right a false legitimacy.
Anyone else would have put forward a clear and
sensible stance 3 years ago. |
|
| |
The centre has been carved out of both main
parties, leaving only extremists running both. Not
a useful position to be in when you have a 2-party
tradition of Government and Opposition. |
|
| |
We’re headed, ironically, for a European Style
coalition system with 3 ongoing tribal identities
(the lefties vs the swivel-eyed loons vs generally
liberal centrists) - fingers crossed we keep the
keys away from the extremes on both sides - or
where they do get their hands on them, they are
prevented from doing too much harm. |
|
| |
If we're apportioning blame, lets be really real though:
Which party's internal politics is defined by warring
stances on Europe?
Which party's leader tried to resolve this *internal issue*
by putting an in/out referendum on
Europe in to their election manifesto because *they didn't
expect to win* the election?
Which party's fanaticism for cutting public services led to
discontent among the electorate?
Which party refused any no-deal planning once the
referendum was set to start?
Which party's prime minister upped and fucked off when
the referendum result came in?
Which party fannied about with an internal power
struggle instead of doing any planning?
Which party triggered Article 50 without carrying out any
sort of consultation or scoping exercise?
Which party called an election after triggering Article 50,
thus eating up the limited time for
preparation and negotiation?
Which party set out arbitrary "red lines" making the
present outcome to the negotiation with the
EU the only possible outcome?
Which party so wanted to cling to power that it was
willing to hock itself to the ugh DUP?
Which party send a parade of intellectually ill-equipped
shitehawks into negotiate with the EU?
Which party's swivel-eyed loons consistently blocked their
own party's negotiated settlement with
the EU?
Which party's un-elected prime minister's galaxy brain
plan is to go full Riggs on a no-deal Brexit?
Which party is looking take entirely cynical advantage of
the UK's completely shonky unwritten
constitution in furtherance of the "throw the steering
wheel out the car" approach to engaging
with the EU?
Which party has consistently demonstrated that they have
not the slightest understanding of how
negotiation works?
AND
Which party has consistently - and this is over decades -
pursued an agenda and policies which are
primarily beneficial to the rich and always at the expense
of the poor? <-- this is nothing to do with Brexit, I'd just
built up a head of steam. |
|
| |
Yes, you're right and I couldn't agree more -
getting played into criticizing the leader of the
opposition is a trap I just walked into without even
noticing. |
|
| |
It's one of those things where the Conservatives
have been so reckless, venal and deliberately,
cynically, criminally underhand, it's difficult to
remember that there are some people who haven't
seemed to notice and would continue to vote them in. |
|
| |
It's like a looming Iceberg outside your front door, if it's there for long enough,
you start to assume everyone knows it's there and stop noticing. |
|
| |
It is unfair to blame Corbyn, in the face of such a
monstrously clear and well documented charge-sheet. |
|
| |
Labour (Jesus Christ, anyone!) should be clearly polling in the
70%s right now. |
|
| |
Oh look, a hot iron pan -- can I touch it? Let's see what
happens when I do that... |
|
| |
Ok, I will play. The rich are fairly obviously a minority.
Someone has to represent them, as just as obviously, if no
one did, the majority will come and take all their toys
away. |
|
| |
//at the expense of the poor// |
|
| |
Has Britain had a shrinking or flat GDP? |
|
| |
The rich, unlike the poor, can take their wealth and put it offshore, where it's largely out of reach of governments
and their nation-building taxes. |
|
| |
The mega-rich in the UK dislike the EU, because the EU are introducing transparent taxation rules which would
encourage them to pay their taxes. |
|
| |
As a consequence, the rich have done a truly stirling job in convincing the poor that the EU doesn't serve their best
interests, and have now taken over control of the government, declaring proudly that they are enacting "the will of
the people" while squirreling their money offshore as fast as possible and consolidating their grip on power in the
process. |
|
| |
As you say - all's fair in the game of politics - but it is sad for the poor folk who wanted more equality, who were
groomed to vote against their best interests by a particularly skilled and unscrupulous group of back-room elites. |
|
| |
It's sad too for the middle-classes who can't send all their gold overseas to holiday in the Caribbean while this all
blows over. In addition to having to deal with footing the billionaire's bill with rising taxes, a falling pound, and
the trashing of long-respected institutions, as this particular smash-and-grab proceeds in plain sight - we are
routinely considered anti-patriots and traitors for trying to point it out. |
|
| |
//the rich have done a truly stirling job in convincing the
poor that the EU doesn't serve their best interests// Hang
on a second, [zen]. If I remember correctly, the argument
for remaining in the EU was put quite forcefully by the
banks, by big business, and in general by places that have
most of the money. |
|
| |
//sad too for the middle-classes who can't send all their
gold overseas// On the other hand, the combination of
US/China trade wars and Brexit has sent the price of gold
soaring, which is nice. |
|
| |
Yes, corporations are obviously for the status quo. Blaming
nativism on the multinationals rich is rich indeed. |
|
| |
To the extent there's an unholy alliance there, it's the nature
of politics. |
|
| |
It's quite stupefying, indeed frightening, how so many in the
US think the answer is somewhere in the European model. |
|
| |
//the argument for remaining in the EU// ... There's
a difference between businesses that are big and
well regulated that operate within the laws and
bounds of the economy, and super-rich individuals
who operate at the fringes, opting into and out of
whatever systems best suit themselves. |
|
| |
Retail banks, manufacturers, and the organisations
who *do the most stuff at scale* i.e. employ the
most people, produce the latest technology and
deliver
the most goods and services at the most competitive
prices - big social employers - who, in the great
majority of cases will undoubtedly have paid the
most taxes - will of course have been pro Europe -
because the establishment of a stable framework of
fair and principled laws provides the best and most
fertile ground for innovation, productivity,
progress, stability and sustained growth. They would
have further benefited from the overall reduction in
red-tape, and the smooth and homogenisation of
international laws and expectations. |
|
| |
Most of these companies are publicly listed - i.e.
often largely owned by "small" people across the UK
as shareholders either directly or indirectly via
pension funds and other lifetime investments. |
|
| |
Their boards of directors will undoubtedly be well
paid, and I suppose, by any standards "rich", and
there's bound to be a few bad eggs. But largely
these
will be technocrats and corporate climbers who've
done their time in the company and genuinely have
some degree of integrity - their main duty and
position will have been democratically determined (if you
extend the concept of democracy to include the
ideals of shared ownership). If they were motivated
to
promote staying in the EU, it's because that's good
for the whole economy, and by extension, their
positions at the head of their business. Good
business
normally means more people going to work, doing a
good job, saving, paying for the kids to go to
after-school clubs, all that stuff that good, honest
and
decent people will tend to want to do. |
|
| |
Meanwhile, there are the properly *rich* wheelers
and dealers - the types who personally trade in
whole Gold Mines (e.g. Arron Banks) or who operate
small, personally owned investment funds (like Jacob
Rees-Mogg's hedge-fund Somerset Capital Management -
a company who famously encouraged their
investors to move their money out of the UK to
protect their assets) or those who otherwise have a
personal and direct benefit from decreasing
transparency and keeping open the grey-money
channels that allow the individually rich (and by
rich, I mean properly rich - I'm not talking having
nearly
paid off the mortgage on a suburban 3-bed and
looking forward to taking up golf - rich) These
folks, by means of their personal fortunes are
largely free
or at least less encumbered than most from the usual
nationally-associated obligations such as taxes,
abiding by local laws etc. |
|
| |
It's these millionaires who have promoted Brexit the
hardest, paid for the most advertising and
propaganda, and it's these rich folks who will
benefit the
most by being able to continue to freely operate
across borders by virtue of their established money-
flows, while the rest of us are increasingly limited
from doing so, or charged additional fees for things
that we'd have previously taken for granted. As our
asset-prices fall, they will be able to buy more
with their vastly boosted gold and foreign currency
holdings. Don't like the price of real estate? Just
put your money offshore and conduct a Brexit. When
asset prices collapse in line with inflation and a
crashing pound, bingo - it's clean-up time. |
|
| |
If you happen to own a couple of overseas gold-mines - happy days. You've quadrupled your money. |
|
| |
It will be they who will be squirreling away moneys
that would otherwise have been in the pockets of the
normal, regular folks like us, who would have
benefited from better wages, lower prices, stable
jobs, sustainable growth, increased long-term
opportunity, good local services, stable asset
prices and
all the other stuff that comes from running a free,
successful and modern economy within a principled
and stable framework of democratically agreed
international rules. |
|
| |
Yes, that's probably all true but it doesn't alter public
perception. |
|
| |
In the lead-up to the referendum, the Tories were arguing for
remain. Well, 50% of the population hate the Tories. Labour
was arguing for remain, and the other 50% hate Labour. And
all the banks and big businesses were arguing for remain, and
everybody hates them. Hence, to a large extent, the result. |
|
| |
It's been a very successful PR campaign - nobody can argue with that. |
|
| |
I hope (suspect at best) that campaign had a limited lifespan and some of those
public perceptions are now or will at some point be busted open by actual events.
Some fault-lines are beginning to show. But now of course, the narrative is moving
from actual benefits, to this more emotional identity politics line. It's shifted more to
how you identify, tribaly as a person, than any actual analysis. |
|
| |
Of course, you can't publicly state any analysis of what those events are likely to be because
the PR campaign (paid for by the list above) preempted all that with lines like
"nobody can predict what will happen", or "we've all heard enough from experts", or
"these people didn't predict the credit-crunch". |
|
| |
The fact is, many of these things can and regularly are simulated with very tight
margins of error - most notably by the sorts of people who run hedge-funds, buy
gold-mines, or have skin in political-communications companies. If you can steer the
debate, you can engineer some very, very profitable scenarios. |
|
| |
Quite simply, there is not going to be a deal, and - importantly - there was never ANY prospect of one. |
|
| |
Consider the four possibilities. |
|
| |
Scenario 0: Britain negotiates a good deal and leaves cleanly with the minimum of fuss. |
|
| |
Downside for EU: Other nations think "Oooh, we could do that". |
|
| |
Scenario 1: Britain negotiates a rotten deal and leaves in a messy and confused way with a lot of pain and expense. |
|
| |
Upside for the EU: Other nations think, "Oooo-err, better stay put". |
|
| |
Scenario 2: Britain leaves without a deal and has a horrible time. |
|
| |
Scenario 3: Britain leaves without a deal and actually does OK or even quite well. |
|
| |
Downside for EU: Other nations think "Oooh, we could do that". |
|
| |
Two of those scenarios are Very Bad for the EU - and Scenario 3 is catastrophic. But the upshot is that the EU dare not let Britain leave without a lot of grief. They dare not negotiate a "good" deal for fear of the domino effect. |
|
| |
The worst possible scenario is that Britain leaves without a deal, manages OK, and doesn't pay any more money, leaving them with a gaping hole in their budget and lots of nations thinking "Why are we paying ? Britain walked away and lived". |
|
| |
Thus there can be no "good deal". |
|
| |
There's another hugely important factor that no-one's openly discussed. |
|
| |
Britain is a sovereign nation with its own nuclear-armed forces. Forget the yanks and Trident and dual-key; the UK has a huge stockpile of weapons grade Plut, and if the order was given the first W35 could roll off the production line in a matter of weeks. |
|
| |
Oh, they're not big, and they're not clever, but they do absolutely work (tried and proven) and several of the aircraft in the inventory retain the hardpoints to deliver them. |
|
| |
The only other nuclear power in europe are the ghastly frogs, who would probably ponder on history (Agincourt, Crecy, Malplaquet, Waterloo) and wonder of they really wanted to get into another pissing contest with the Brits, given that most previous times they've tride it they've received a right drubbing. Sitting on the touchline puffing on a Disque Bleu is probably their preferred option. |
|
| |
It's less than 80 years since the RAF erased Dresden and quite a few other cities. That's well within living memory, and the people who do remember it recall being quite cheerful at the time on hearing that thousands of krauts had been incinerated. Then there was Hamburg, and Lubeck, and ... the list goes on and on. |
|
| |
Sooner or later, push will come to shove. Bog boys games, big boys rules. |
|
| |
[8th] I agree, there never was a prospect of
anything but a crap deal - but go back 3 years, and
that kind of talk was pooh-poohed as
project fear...no matter, we're where we are now. |
|
| |
That leaves the 5th option which you left out: |
|
| |
Scenario 5 - Britain considers the question based on
the facts and decides not to leave after-all. |
|
| |
Phew - We just averted thermonuclear apocalypse! |
|
| |
I don't think anyone used that as an argument
before, and while it does score reasonably high on
the
alarmist front, I'm fairly comfortable with the
general gist. |
|
| |
We could identify people on Facebook who are
naturally concerned about Nuclear War, have a
dislike of the
French, and whisper this line into their ears while
nobody is paying attention - if we lodge it between
pictures of nanobot augmented kittens, units might
just scroll over it, only subliminally registering
the
idea. |
|
| |
//busted open by actual events// |
|
| |
The "actual events" are that, since the referendum, vast
swathes of the government have been so opposed to Brexit
that they've stalled, wrecked and rejected. They are now
hoping that they've made such a mess of it that the public will
give up and give in. |
|
| |
It's almost as if no one really knew what the plan was when
this awfully exciting adventure started. |
|
| |
// decides not to leave after-all. // |
|
| |
That would be by far the best, in that it would be a total and blatant betrayal of the will of the people by their elected representatives, thus discrediting the entire parliamentary system and leading to the raise of a populist demagogue who will start shipping "undesirables" off to camps for "re-education". |
|
| |
Do you think [MB] will look good with a toothbrush moustache and a comb-over ? More practice with the straight-arm salute needed, too. |
|
| |
Watch out for the new West End hit, "Dial F For Fascism", opening soon. |
|
| |
Does any of this have to do with the timing of the release of
the upcoming Henry V movie? |
|
| |
// why the EU is not offering good permanent arrangements. // |
|
| |
What do you mean, "will"? |
|
| |
Our understanding of the social conventions of your species lead us to the conclusion that if you want to be a successful dictator you should wear some sort of uniform when harranguing the serried ranks of your loyal minions, not just a tootbrush moustache, a comb-over hairstyle, a pair of highly polished jackboots*, and a big smile. |
|
| |
What you do in the merciful privacy of your own homes is your own business, but recalliing (with a shudder, and a recurrence of nausea ) Sturton's meeting with that group of elderly nuns, something other than garments constructed of flesh-tinted translucent latex rubber adds greatly to your credibility as a leader,, and even if it doesn't, it helps keep the screams of horror and panic down to a bearable level. |
|
| |
* After further consideration, a low heel on the boots would have been much more suitable; the 100mm stilettos were a mistake. |
|
| |
I've heard "reflectendium". |
|
| |
[8th], did you get photos? |
|
| |
I've an aunt it would be amusing to horrify. |
|
| |
[Wanders off to sort out a fresh burner to send them from] |
|
| |
e Downing Street spokesperson said: ‘The
government will obey the law but the Prime
Minister will not be asking for an extension." |
|
| |
Boris is going to pretend he has nothing to do
with another extension...fingers in ears |
|
| |
Or, & this is just a wild surmise, they think they've found a
legal loophole. |
|
| |
////e Downing Street spokesperson said: ‘The
government will obey the law but the Prime Minister will
not be
asking for an extension."//// |
|
| |
//Or, & this is just a wild surmise, they think they've
found a legal loophole.// |
|
| |
BBC News seems to reckon Boris Johnson will send the
required letter asking for an extension, quickly followed
by a
second letter retracting it. |
|
| |
Assuming the EU is inclined to grant another extension, I
think the obvious solution would be to open letters from
the PM until they get one asking for an extension, then
stop until the extension officially passed. |
|
| |
If they arrive out of order they could of course throw the
first one away, commenting that it's too late to rescind
the previous extension. |
|
| |
The Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said at the weekend
that the government would "adhere to the law" but "test
to
the limit what it actually lawfully requires". But
apparently the law forcing the extension was very
specific,
including the text of the letter and everything.
So what other things might Boris be planning to do? |
|
| |
Write the letter in disappearing ink, or just with really
bad handwriting?
Write the letter but send it misaddressed, or without
sufficient postage, or write it after handling some TNT, or similar, so it gets delayed?
Kill himself in a ditch before sending it? (he's actually stated that
he'd prefer this) |
|
| |
//BBC News seems to reckon Boris Johnson will send the
required letter asking for an extension, quickly followed by
a
second letter retracting// |
|
| |
LOL, amusing as that sounds & as much as I'd enjoy it if he
did
I can't see it happening. |
|
| |
Do we know if Berkow's ruling regarding the need for
Queens Consent is definitely binding? |
|
| |
Because if not that can still be
applied retroactively after Royal Assent. |
|
| |
They could send a first letter saying to ignore the second
letter. |
|
| |
I'm pretty sure that anything said under duress does not have
force of law. |
|
| |
//I'm pretty sure that anything said under duress does not
have force of law// |
|
| |
A nice idea but I'm pretty sure any rules about anything done
under duress (signatures on contracts & such) not having the
force of law doesn't apply when the duress in question is the
application (or threat to do so) of the law itself. |
|
| |
Well, if the duress thing won't work, there's always the "fuck
'em" approach. |
|
| |
How about if Bojo writes to the EU saying "I'm about to ask
for an extension, so that the UK can have time to formulate
its plan to cripple Italy's economy and then sell France back
to the Germans?". This letter should arrive a day or two
before his extension request. |
|
| |
Or we offer Bulgaria £500 to veto the extension request? I
mean, even the French are up for it and all we've offered
them is a vague undertaking not to invade them. |
|
| |
Or, I know this sounds like a radical proposal, but what if
people actually considered the possibility of taking the
referendum result at face value? |
|
| |
//I know this sounds like a radical proposal, but what if
people actually considered the possibility of taking the
referendum result at face value?// |
|
| |
I've been saying that for years, no one seems to be listening,
no one in parliament anyway, well, not enough of them to
matter. |
|
| |
I'm secretly hoping they cancel Brexit. If they do, you will
have about half of the UK population being unhappy. This,
of course, is normal (in any general election, at least half
the people are unhappy), but in this case they'll be unhappy
*and cheated*, and that will lead to immense chaos and
disaster, which I'll enjoy watching. |
|
| |
Of course, if we *do* Brexit, you will still have about half of
the UK population being unhappy. But they will not have
quite the same moral justification for their unhappiness,
and it will all degenerate into quiet whingeing. Very dull. |
|
| |
This reminds me - referendums (yes, "referenda" - I know) should, like perishable food, have a "use by" date on them after which the result is no longer valid. |
|
| |
Nobody gets cheated by cancelling the clearly corrupt and illegitimate interpretation of a 50/50 advisory poll where one side
collected at least 5 contradictory positions, and the other represented the status quo. When you look at the referendum like that, at
face value - it's clear that it split people into 3 clear camps. Remain, Leave (of different types, with two separate campaigns -
but which were temporarily and artificially counted as a cohesive unit) and those who didn't care enough either way to express an
opinion. |
|
| |
What's happening now is that the result is being reinterpreted as if it were unequivocally in favour of one very extreme outcome -
far from the mean of either of the two Leave camp's positions - and that's simply, clearly and very criminally a case of *cheating*,
leaving the vast majority capable of expressing a single, unified view reeling at the unconstitutional and illegal behaviour of those
whos sole qualification is to have the bare-faced cheek to pretend it was ever otherwise. |
|
| |
Yes, of course let's leave the EU if someone (anyone!) can show there's any practical benefits, and can rally enough people together to agree a
sensible and practical way of achieving that. What let's not do is pretend there's overwhelming support for something that doesn't
have overwhelming support in order to keep a few schemers in jobs who never had a coherent plan on how to deliver on the inflated
promises they made in the first place. You can't deliver something that doesn't exist. Brexit still doesn't have a credible
definition. I know it's easy to say "just leave", but it's also easy to say "the sky is pink". Just saying something doesn't make it
real. Even if you can temporarily get a majority to agree with you, it's still fluff. That's the main and overwhelming problem. The
fantasy element. |
|
| |
You assume, [zen], that all leavers were swayed by untruths
in the leave campaign; and that no remainers were swayed
by the scaremongering of the remain campaign. |
|
| |
Please, [zen], you and I have both been here long enough to
know we're not total idiots. So please don't suggest that I
(or anyone else in general) was duped into my vote. |
|
| |
And let me ask again: if it had come out 52% remain/48%
leave, do you seriously think anyone would be entertaining
arguments that we should leave after all, and that the 52%
were duped? |
|
| |
But I'd put it more strongly. |
|
| |
Plenty of people
have given plenty of examples of "practical benefits", that
you don't like
them is your problem & I've no intention of rehashing
arguments that have already been made ad nauseum. |
|
| |
Your
claim that none have been given by anyone is one of the
most
egregious, repetitive & insulting lies of the remain camp. |
|
| |
I
see
enough of
these lies on other platforms & I don't come here for them. |
|
| |
So
if you can't control yourself & stick to the truth or at least
something that vaguely resembles it kindly fuck off. |
|
| |
Nicely please [Skewed] - we don't all agree with
you, that's fair enough - nobody is forcing you to
read, think or do anything you don't want to do. |
|
| |
But it is the case that not everyone agrees with
your point of view. Getting upset about that isn't
going to do anything other than make you feel
unhappy. And that's your choice too. As it is my
choice not to kindly "fuck off" as you so graciously
put it. |
|
| |
However, the truth remains. You can't pretend
otherwise, however much you might wish it so. |
|
| |
//if it had come out 52% remain/48% leave, do you seriously think anyone would be entertaining arguments that we should leave after all// - yes, if this had happened, the 'leave' camp would be grumbling about the illegitimacy of the referendum campaign, saying it was too close to call, that it should be re-run with a clearer question, etc. |
|
| |
There we go again, more lies & personal insults 'your
opinion
is based on ignorance & you don't read', there is no nice
when
faced with constant personal abuse from someone & that's
very much what your remain argument boils down to,
personal
insults & abuse seated in lies. |
|
| |
So again, kindly stop it, I come here to escape that
so find a way to say what you want
without making personal insults or fuck off. |
|
| |
[hippo] can do it so there's no reason you can't. |
|
| |
//if this had happened, the 'leave' camp would be
grumbling about the illegitimacy of the referendum
campaign// However, no major party would entertain any
of those grumbles. You know they wouldn't, and there
would be no prospect of another referendum for at least
ten years because the people had given the "right" answer
the first time. |
|
| |
In the run-up to the referendum, *all* the major parties;
*all* the major industries; *all* the bankers were
campaigning for remain. So, to say that the leave campaign
only succeeded because it had some sort of unfair
advantage is simply an error. |
|
| |
[Skewed] I don't see anywhere that I said anything like that - but if your sensitivities are so offended because I hold a
different view to yours,
one that's based on experience, information and the law of the land. Then, I'm sorry. People don't all agree with you. But still
the evidence
remains in play - and until that changes, it's everyone's duty who believes in honesty to keep pointing that out. I really am
genuinely sorry
you find that so offensive. |
|
| |
Max - It doesn't need to be the case that everyone who voted Leave were duped. Who knew back in 2016 that the result would cause
this much
chaos and consternation? That information, being from the future was not in the public domain. It's perfectly factual you can see
it on the
news - it's real, and it's going on right now - and now it's known, it may well inform some people's opinions. That's a single
example of how,
after having democratically looked very seriously at the problem for 3 years - in direct response to the result of the referendum,
new
information has come to light. I didn't know that would happen - you didn't know that would happen, nobody knew that would happen.
But it has
happened, and having happened, it may well have an effect on people's views regards continuing the enterprise. It's not something
to get
tetchy about - it's just fact. |
|
| |
Meanwhile, there are plenty of other facts (aka "scaremongering") that were raised prior that have since come about to be true in
the last 3
years. Most of the scaremongering of the two Leave campaigns in contrast (the real originators of project "Fear") have fallen by
the wayside,
largely forgotten in the ongoing chaos. Of course, those things never got a soundbite label but we've not been overrun by Syrian
terrorists,
Turkey hasn't joined the EU, the EU army hasn't been formed against our will, bendy bananas are still a Euro myth, agreeing a deal
has not
been "the easiest deal in History", "Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market" turned out to
be false, as
were all the talk about Norway, Switzerland etc. There were lots of options people were offered - some people in hindsight would
have felt
differently if they knew that all that was guff, and we're instead getting...what exactly? We *still* don't know. |
|
| |
So, there is no shame in having another look. People get upset about not being precognisant - but it's not about not predicting
the next 3
years, it's about the difference between what was offered, and what we're getting. It's not about calling people stupid,
absolutely nobody is
talking about calling anyone stupid - if people feel that way, that is unfortunate - but it's not the fault of the people who are
trying to
keep things in the realm of the real and tangible. |
|
| |
There is shame in continuing this pretense that *everyone* wanted a hard Brexit. It is patently clear, amongst all the conflicting
views that
they did not - and continue - not to want such a result. |
|
| |
If the vote had gone the other way, and the government declared that they had been given a blank-cheque mandate in favour of
joining the Euro,
signing up to Shengen, making it compulsory to speak French in schools and to ban/start selling bendy bananas (depending which
version of that
Euro myth you wanted to promote today) then I would hope and expect a similar level of consternation, yes. |
|
| |
I'm not suggesting that you or anyone is an idiot. That kind of over-sensitivity isn't necessary, and if we want to look
objectively and
factually at how to solve the issue - it's unhelpful and polarising. The vote was close to 50/50 - new information is in the
public domain,
and clearly the response shouldn't be to drive headlong into the nearest cliff. What should the response be? Either a wishy-washy
compromise
that nobody is enthusiastic about, or some method by which the deadlock can be resolved. For me, wishy-washy just kicks the
problem down the
road - leaving resolution. That resolution should be some process that shifts the debate away from a 50/50 deadlock to something
that (say) 60
percent of the population can stomach. I'd prefer we used facts and objective information to help arrive at that conclusion - can
we at least
agree on that? |
|
| |
//Who knew back in 2016 that the result would cause this
much chaos and consternation?// Yes, but that chaos is due
to all the parties in-fighting and trying to remain. What
you're saying, in effect, is that the public were offered two
options, but the major parties would sabotage any attempt
to implement one of those options. Which is exactly what
has happened. |
|
| |
The fact is that the odds were - and still are - heavily
stacked against leaving. Viz: (a) almost everyone except
the general public was for 'remain' (b) elements of all
parties have worked to prevent leaving, thereby creating a
chaotic Brexit and (c) there was no reciprocal option to try
to sabotage a 'remain' process, had that been the
referendum result - there would have been no process to
sabotage. |
|
| |
Arguing that "we've torpedoed Brexit so badly that we'll just
have to remain" isn't really fair and isn't really English. |
|
| |
So I think you and I ascribe different reasons to this resistance. |
|
| |
For me, it sounds like people doing their jobs. |
|
| |
On the MP side, if they believe that their constituents would be adversely affected by a
particular flavour
of
Brexit - then of course, they should act with integrity and do the right thing. Many MPs on
the Leave side
voted in
favour of terrible legislation despite having overwhelmingly Remain constituencies. We either
have to
accept the
well-known problems inherent in this Representational Democracy of ours, or decide to change
it for
something
better. |
|
| |
For the accusation when laid at the feet of the Civil Service, if you're supposed to
objectively produce an
industry
sector analysis, you want to do your best to objectively tell the truth. But when truth
becomes a political
matter,
what do you do? Many have done the honorable thing and resigned - or continued to tell the
truth in the face of a hostile minority
government - that's their job. |
|
| |
You might continue with the argument that all the banks, the civil service, the employers,
the MPs, the
judiciary
and anyone else in the "establishment" are corruptly and deviously filtering those facts or
editing them to
suit the
biased remain case. Or, it might just be that all those experts, the people who deal with
legislation,
trade, the
economy, government and administration might be dutifully doing their jobs and presenting the
factual
information
that they are professionally bound to analyse. |
|
| |
No doubt errors are made, no doubt problems overlooked - but I don't buy the idea that all of
these people
are cynically trying to subvert something based *only* on their uninformed opinion. Facts
remain facts - we just live in a society
where it's become acceptable to politicise and undermine the most objective of information
sources - labeling them routinely as
untrustworthy whenever they don't support the populist line. |
|
| |
I suspect there really is data that supports problems raised, scenarios proffered, and risks
investigated. |
|
| |
I believe these people are, just like you or I, honest and reasonable people. I don't think
they're stupid.
And I
don't think they're lying, or making these things up. I think they're acting in good faith
and trying to be
as
unbiased and objective as they can be. The difference is they have access to the raw data -
and in most
cases, in
publishing or releasing that same raw data - so do we. We're free to analyse it and come to
our own
conclusions, but
it seems that whenever anybody does that - their conclusions are immediately poo-pooed as
biased. |
|
| |
What's wrong with looking into the data, calmly drawing logical conclusions and acting
accordingly? That
seems exceedingly English
to me. |
|
| |
But again, that goes back to the question of what is Englishness and Identity. Is it to look
at the facts,
or to passionately go off on one based on the loosest of analyses? It seems it's currently
kind of 50/50. |
|
| |
// //Who knew back in 2016 that the result would cause this much chaos and consternation?// Yes, but that chaos is due to all the parties in-fighting and trying to remain.// - I disagree - the chaos is partly caused by politics; it's not caused by "all the parties ... trying to remain" (otherwise, when there was a vote in parliament to hold a second referendum, this would have passed); it is chiefly caused by the architects of Brexit going into it with no plan at all for resolving all the boring, but difficult and important, technical issues which were raised during the referendum campaign and thereafter. MPs' response to this abysmal lack of planning has been to fall back on their principal responsibility, of doing what they think is in the best interests of their constituents and for the most part this means going into Brexit in an orderly way, with a plan, and an acceptable deal and with some of the consequences de-risked and mitigated, none of which has been put on the table by any of the Brexit cheerleaders thus far. |
|
| |
Well, given that the multiple leave campaigns didn't agree about much, and what they did agree on didn't include any conception of the issues
which have become paramount - let alone a plan, sabotage is probably overstating it. It's just plain incompetence by the brexit side. |
|
| |
//The fact is that the odds were - and still are - heavily stacked against leaving. Viz: (a) almost everyone except the general public was for
'remain' (b) elements of all parties have worked to prevent leaving, thereby creating a chaotic Brexit and (c) there was no reciprocal option to
try to sabotage a 'remain' process, had that been the referendum result - there would have been no process to sabotage.// |
|
| |
(a) Just under half the general (voting) public, you mean. This distinction is important because it only needs a small percentage to swing the
balance. I want to go into this some more below.
(b) Even the brexiteers themselves couldn't get on-side. e.g. voting against the agreed ("Theresa May's") deal. That's because they couldn't
even agree what they wanted.
(c) That is counterfactual, and I'm not sure I get the point. The implication is that this was a once in forever chance, and if it had failed it
couldn't ever be asked it again. But there had already been a referendum about staying in the EU before, so this is not the case. |
|
| |
re. (a) above, and also:
//You assume, [zen], that all leavers were swayed by untruths in the leave campaign; and that no remainers were swayed by the
scaremongering of the remain campaign.// |
|
| |
It's obviously unnecessary for /all/ leave voters to be swayed by untruths. Even a 4% excess[1] would have moved the slim margin the other way. |
|
| |
With this in mind, I remember brexiteers complaining about scaremongering. But I didn't really see any evidence of that.
I mean, whatever anyone said would be accused of scaremongering, even if it seemed pretty sober and respectable.
On the other hand, the brexiteers scaremongered their arses off, for example saying that EU contributions would go up massively, that there could be a risk
of sex attacks on women by migrants if Britain stays in the EU and so on. |
|
| |
[1] I realised later that this is a percentage of the total voting population. If you only consider 'leave' voters, then this value needs to be approximately
doubled.
|
|
| |
//I'm not sure I get the point. The implication is that this
was a once in forever chance// No, I think I failed to be
clear. What I meant was that, if the vote had been 52% for
remain, then it would not have been possible to sabotage
that course, since almost nothing needed to be done in
order to remain. |
|
| |
My overall point is that it's very easy to remain, but very
difficult to leave. I agree, the tories in particular should
have had a plan in case of a leave result, and they didn't.
But just because Westminster is incapable of delivering
something difficult, it doesn't nullify the fact that they are
there to represent the majority (unwashed, brainwashed,
misled, unthinking or unintelligent as they may be) - that's
what democracy is about. The same unwashed,
brainwashed, misled, unthinking or unintelligent people
gave them their jobs. |
|
| |
Sometimes it sucks but, as they say, the only good thing
about democracy is that the alternatives are all worse. |
|
| |
//My overall point is that it's very easy to remain, but very difficult to leave. I agree,
the tories in particular
should have had a plan in
case of a
leave result, and they didn't. But just because Westminster is incapable of delivering
something difficult, it
doesn't nullify the fact that
they are
there to represent the majority (unwashed, brainwashed, misled, unthinking or
unintelligent as they may be) -
that's what democracy
is about.
The same unwashed, brainwashed, misled, unthinking or unintelligent people gave
them their jobs.// |
|
| |
I don't disagree with any of that.
However, regarding 'representation', zen_tom and hippo have made the point that -
that is what the MPs have
actually been trying to
do. |
|
| |
Given that what Brexit actually meant wasn't well defined, it meant different things
to different people.
That isn't a great start, and I don't think the conservatives did very well at any stage
of the process to date.
However, the brexiteers
did much worse, by promising that it would be 'easy'. |
|
| |
I'd like to see a referendum with many questions, nailing down exactly what people
actually want to happen,
based on the actual
political
policies. It would be quite involved, and would need some time to get right -
involving input from remainers,
brexiteers, Northern
Ireland,
Republic of Ireland and the EU. |
|
| |
The advantage is that laws could be passed ahead of time to do exactly what it said
it would. |
|
| |
For example, part of it might be:
(Note I quickly banged this together and it's not going to hold up to much scrutiny -
it's just to indicate the
level of detail I'm proposing.) |
|
| |
Would you like to stay part of the European Single Market?
Keeping this retains freedom of movement of people, goods, services and money.
If we remain, we can have a soft border between Northern Ireland and the Irish
Republic as currently exists.
If we leave, we will need to make special arrangements, which may change the
relationship of Britain and NI. |
|
| |
*remain in the single market
*leave the single market |
|
| |
If we were to remain part of the European Single Market, would you like to leave the
EU's Common Agricultural
or Fisheries policies?
Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are in this state - while still having access to the
single market, although
they have less say on the
standards
prescribed. |
|
| |
*leave both
* leave agricultural policy only
* leave fisheries policy only
* remain in both |
|
| |
If we leave the European Single Market, what should happen to Northern Ireland?
* Form a hard border between NI and RoI
* keep NI in the single market. There would be a hard border between NI and Great
Britain
* Hand it all over to the Republic of Ireland in as orderly a manner as possible
* Secede NI from the United Kingdom and let it decide what it does from there.
* Don't leave the single market until technological measures to form a
straightforward border have been
established. |
|
| |
Hygiene aside, as you say, Brexit is, counter to both Leave campaign suggestions to the contrary in 2016, "something difficult". |
|
| |
It's especially difficult because there's not a clear and unequivocal majority in favour. If there were 60% or 70% then that might be
different - but because it is so difficult, it's natural to expect more than a marginal mandate to proceed. |
|
| |
It would be extremely difficult to lift the British Isles up on stilts to combat the effects of global warming - we could have a
referendum on doing that - and maybe the population would return a 51/49 result in favour of going ahead. |
|
| |
It would be extremely difficult to add a new chromosome to the genetic profile of everyone in the UK, coded to store their entitlement
to usage of the NHS - we could have a referendum on doing that - and if there were a 51/49 result in favour - then off we go. |
|
| |
If the cost of doing either of these things turns out to be excessive - having put them to referendum and getting a result - what do we
do? Should we continue marching blindly on, because
democracy, or should we allow reasoned, fact-based decision making to continue, even where it might suggest a change of course? |
|
| |
//they are there to represent the majority// - indeed, "represent the majority", not "do what the majority tell them". We elect MPs to act on our behalf in parliament and do not control how they act or what their consciences lead them to do. This is a good thing in the case of a single-issue referendum as the MP can take the outcome of that referendum and also a host of other factors (risks and impacts on the economy, the supply of goods and services, opportunities for young people, health outcomes, etc.) and weigh up these things together before deciding, on their own, how to best represent the interests of the people they serve. |
|
| |
I dunno, folks. The question that was asked was 'leave or
stay'. It may have been a naive question. But given that it
_was_ the question, with no nuances, you have to take it at
face value. |
|
| |
No remainers, as far as I know, are arguing that we should
only remain "subject to certain conditions". Maybe
(probably) the public would have voted to "remain subject
to certain conditions" but, again, they weren't asked. |
|
| |
The remainers just seem incapable of getting their head
around the idea that they lost the referendum as it was
actually referendized. "Shirley some mistake", they say;
"these people didn't know what they were doing", they say;
"we, the experts, will decide on their grateful behalf", they
say; "shirley people will have changed their minds, so let's
assume they have", they say. |
|
| |
I think the remainers should pause a little and reflect on
what it means to have a vote, and what it means to be on
the losing side of a vote, even by two percent. |
|
| |
I think the best course for the UK is to remain in the EU. However there was a vote to leave which the Government said would be honoured and so we should probably leave. And yet leaving rashly with no deal and no planning would be stupid and a disaster and would only put off until after leaving having to deal with all the problems which should be addressed before leaving - a "no deal" Brexit doesn't make any problems go away. Also, since the referendum, the very severe probable impacts and costs of Brexit have become clearer so it might be a good idea to spell these out *before* leaving. |
|
| |
//leaving rashly with no deal and no planning would be
stupid// Yes. But Westminster has spent three years
failing to negotiate a deal. They now say "we will leave,
but only with a deal", which effectively chops us off at the
knees. "Dear EU, you want us to remain, and we will
remain unless we get a deal; now
let's hear your deal." |
|
| |
//put off until after leaving having to deal with all the
problems// Exactly! I have argued here and elsewhere
that the leaving date is not some endpoint after which
nothing can be negotiated. If endless delays don't motivate
our politicians or the EU to arrive at a deal, the necessity of
making one after departure will at least make it happen.
And we will be in no weaker a position than we are now
(stronger in fact, see above) in those negotiations. The EU
exports more to us than we do to them (not across all
sectors, but overall), and they will not cut off the noses of
their member states to spite their face. |
|
| |
//Exactly! I have argued here and elsewhere that the leaving date is not some endpoint after which nothing can be negotiated.// - sitting down to negotiate after a 'no deal' exit is too late - you need to sort things out before Brexit because leaving without a deal has serious impacts. Data exchanges with the EU which will cease in the case of a 'no deal' Brexit could damage national security. |
|
| |
//The remainers just seem incapable of getting their head around the idea that they lost the referendum
as it
was actually referendized. "Shirley
some mistake", they say; "these people didn't know what they were doing", they say; "we, the experts, will
decide on their grateful behalf", they say;
"shirley people will have changed their minds, so let's assume they have", they say.// |
|
| |
I think you're making a few mistakes there.
Most egregiously, you're putting words in remainers mouths. No-one said that. [edit ~ Correction: very few people, and no-
one of consequence said that]
|
|
| |
//But Westminster has spent three years failing to negotiate a deal.// |
|
| |
Pay attention. A deal was successfully negotiated, ages ago.
But Why, oh, why haven't we left the EU already?
Well, because most brexiteers wouldn't vote for said good-faith deal, arranged to leave the EU in an orderly
manner. Many remainers figured it was the best they could to make it work as well as it was ever likely to,
and voted for it. The Brexiteers didn't. |
|
| |
//I think the remainers should pause a little and reflect on what it means to have a vote, and what it
means to
be on the losing side of a vote, even
by two percent// |
|
| |
I think brexiteers should reflect on how people feel aggrieved when they lie through their arses, and revoke
campaign statements immediately after
the result is in. |
|
| |
Vote Leave said we'd negotiate a deal before initiating the legal process. Well, that didn't happen.
That's Theresa May's fault, but maybe the brexiteers should pause and reflect on how even people who
voted
'leave' might not be happy about not
following the promised process. |
|
| |
If what you are looking for is duplicity, look no further than Jacob Rees-Mogg, who was all for having two
referendums : "We could have two
referendums. As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the
renegotiation
is completed."
Who changed his mind: "The problem with that is that would overturn the result that we’ve already had." |
|
| |
The other point that seems to be constantly overlooked is that the vote *was* and still *is* being
respected. We have diverted
billions into very seriously looking at leaving the EU. That's democracy in action - that's what the Brexit
vote has delivered. A
very real, very expensive exercise that is continually revealing things we didn't know before. Each new
revelation seems to suggest
that Brexit wasn't a good idea after all. But it's been going on and continues to go on, for 3 years. We're
still leaving. |
|
| |
There's a great deal of manufactured outrage out there - lots of straw-men arguments - lots of strong
emotions being stirred up. The
only thing any of us want is a respect of the law, and some honesty and integrity. |
|
| |
It's not political or biased to encourage fact-based decision making. Democracy didn't end in 2016. Nor did
it end in 2017 when May's
majority was reduced to shreds in another democratic event. She wanted a strong mandate to deliver the
"will of the people", but she
was roundly rebuked by the very same people - losing her majority in the process. |
|
| |
Brexit might have been popular once, but it was never a blank cheque, though many who are fighting for it
have shown form in behaving as
though it were. |
|
| |
Actually, those things have been said, near enough. |
|
| |
For example, A C Grayling's book, Democracy and its Crisis, is
full of sentiments like those |
|
| |
We have to be careful with that being the standard
of proof, because if we allow the "individual-speaks
-for-the-whole" arguments, then we
also have to include the natural conclusions you'd
arrive at from the "I wanted straight/bendy
bananas", "I'd rather not live next door to
Romanians", "Unelected EU", "Sunlit uplands", "Now
we can send home all the immigrants", "go back to
where you came from" types of
documented comments from Brexit supporters. It's
incumbent on all of us to understand that in any
population there are extremists, and
those who hold abhorrent, or ill-conceived views
without extrapolating to assume the entire
population holds the same views or shares the
same level of intelligence. That game doesn't
reflect well on the Brexit side of the fence, and
naturally we should all try to avoid
stooping to that kind of emotional delinquency. |
|
| |
You can't buy my vote..hang on ...conservatives
said lower duty on fags and booze at duty
frees..(starts waving "Boris, we love you" flag). |
|
| |
//it was never a blank cheque// No, but nor was it offered with
conditions, any more than remaining was offered with conditions. Let's be
honest with each other here - both sides of the argument twisted things to
make their case; either the benefits of leaving, or the dire consequences
of leaving. It's now the latter that are being mostly bruited around by the
remainers. The Lib Dems have actually promised to revoke Article 50 if
they get into power, period. |
|
| |
//in any population there are extremists// Yes, there are. But please
don't assume that 52% of those who voted are extremists - almost by
definition, they can't be. |
|
| |
//W35 could roll off the production line.... several of the
aircraft in the inventory retain the hardpoints to deliver
them.// |
|
| |
No we don't! The last air-drop nuke was the WE.177. They
were gone from Tornados in the 90's and the arming
electronics stripped out when I was a wee work
experieince lad at Cottesmore ~2001. I mean I reckon we
could cobble something together pretty quickly but the
RAF is in a shocking state atm. |
|
| |
[[ "Shirley some mistake", "these people didn't know what they were doing", "we, the experts, will decide on their grateful behalf", "shirley people
will
have changed their minds, so let's assume they have" ]] |
|
| |
//Actually, those things have been said, near enough.
For example, A C Grayling's book, Democracy and its Crisis, is full of sentiments like those// |
|
| |
A C Grayling, who are they?
"Anthony Grayling is Master of the New College of the Humanities, and a Supernumerary Fellow of St Anne's College, Oxford. " |
|
| |
...And he's certainly anti-brexit.
But eyeballing a few of his articles and blog entries on the page I found, I don't see that. |
|
| |
I see repeated pointing out democratic indications that there is no mandate for a hard brexit, such as May's loss of majority at election.
I see many concerns about flaws in the process, all the way through.
I didn't find anything particularly condescending and elitist.
In effect, it's not "these people didn't know what they were doing" so much as "you're not giving the people what they were promised".
[edit - I still didn't read all of it, but in his article "Parliamentary Sovereignty and the EU Referendum" I see a hint of the inclination you mention] |
|
| |
Perhaps his book is different. If you have a particularly convincing quote, I'll believe it.
But for the sake of argument, let's assume he was saying that. If that's the worst example, I honestly don't think that's particularly bad. I amend my
statement to "Hardly anyone said that." |
|
| |
You can see some random minor activist to be saying that on one side, while big-wigs on the other have gone beyond claiming that it's
undemocratic to vote, and have got to the point of explicitly saying that the people actually have changed their minds, so it's better not to ask
them
again? |
|
| |
Question: "do you still think the referendum is relevant considering all the new information we’ve got now?
"Or whether a public vote wouldn’t just clear up the air? – All the information is out, we can make an informed decision now." |
|
| |
Rees-Mogg: "The problem with that is that would overturn the result that we’ve already had." |
|
| |
//Let's be honest with each other here - both sides of the argument twisted things to make their
case; either the benefits of leaving, or the dire consequences of leaving. It's now the latter that
are being mostly bruited around by the remainers.// |
|
| |
One side took the truth, added best-effort predictions, some of which was unpalatable to the other
side, and as far as I could see presented it directly, perhaps with some chinese burns from the
more excitable members. |
|
| |
The other side splintered into several groups, which each made up whatever contradictory crap
they thought would be attractive to voters, didn't worry about what was actually feasible, and
repeatedly accused the other side of scaremongering whenever they pointed out issues. |
|
| |
It's the latter approach which won, and that got us where we are. |
|
| |
yellowhammer doc linky....we're all doomed |
|
| |
//One side took the truth, added best-effort predictions,
some of which was unpalatable to the other side, and as far
as I could see presented it directly, perhaps with some
chinese burns from the more excitable members.// |
|
| |
So, you really didn't see anything wrong with the way
Remain was sold? Truthfully? I mean, I saw lots wrong with
the Leave campaign. But you didn't see anything except the
presentation of some "unpalatable best-effort predictions"?
I hadn't realized the remainers were so squeaky clean. I
shall be sure to hang on their every word from here on. |
|
| |
//didn't worry about what was actually feasible// So,
you're saying that, almost 4 years ago, we should have
known that negotiating a withdrawal from the EU over a
period of three years was "unfeasible"? Welcome to the
Hotel California. |
|
| |
//So, you really didn't see anything wrong with the way Remain was sold? Truthfully? I mean, I saw lots wrong with the Leave campaign.
But you didn't see anything except the presentation of some "unpalatable best-effort predictions"?// |
|
| |
I actually didn't see much wrong with the remain campaign. There may have been some of the typical political annoyances, but I've
forgotten those. I didn't find the unpalatability of the economic predictions to the brexiteers dubious at all. The question was rather
whether they were accurate, and at the time ... I think I thought they seemed essentially to be what you'd expect - with the additional
proviso that I probably didn't pay too much attention. I mean it's pretty obvious that trade and particularly exports will take a hit if you
add more legal barriers, and practically the point of the single market is to remove legal barriers.
Your impression was very different, that I accept, but I don't know why that was. Could you give an example? What was the most
egregious? |
|
| |
//So, you're saying that, almost 4 years ago, we should have known that negotiating a withdrawal from the EU over a period of three
years was "unfeasible"?// |
|
| |
No, negotiating a deal wasn't unfeasible. It was done. It was as reasonable as could be expected given the circumstances. But the
brexiteers wern't happy with it, and voted against, so it didn't pass. |
|
| |
The issue which rose to prominence was the NI border. It's not the only thing, but it's essentially what stymied everything. And that is an
issue around leaving the single market, which the brexiteers were pretty definite on. |
|
| |
What did the brexiteers say was the plan for dealing with that? I don't think they mentioned it /at all/ in the referendum campaign.
It wouldn't have needed to be much, just definitive and made as a clear part of the campaign. |
|
| |
So I think that yes, they should have known that it would be a problem, and had a plan for it. They didn't have one, I think because it
hadn't even occurred to them. So it came as a terrible shock when the deal wasn't exactly what they wanted.
I say that's entirely a failure of their own making. |
|
| |
//But the brexiteers wern't happy with it, and voted against, // If I remember correctly,
remainers also voted against it. It was a fairly crappy deal, perhaps due in part to the
ambivalence of the UK politicians who were negotiating it. The fact that the EU were made
so aware of the splits in all the major parties did not help our negotiating position at all. |
|
| |
If all politicians had said "right; whether we like it or not, this is the referendum result so
let's get on with the job", things might well have gone better. Much of the problem (not all,
I agree) was due to a refusal amongst large parts of all parties to throw their hearts and
minds into brexiting as well as possible. Perhaps it was too much to ask remainers to get
behind a process they'd argued against, but that's what needed to happen. Those that
couldn't or wouldn't should have stepped aside. In that sense, Cameron did the right thing
(and the only credible thing) in stepping down; but then we got May, who has all the
ferocity and force of a damp rabbit. |
|
| |
As far as I can see, advocates of Brexit have had three years now to come up with a plan for Brexit which is (a) consistent with the constraints the EU warned us about prior to the referendum (not cherry-picking the 'four freedoms, etc.), and (b) not a disaster for the country - and they've failed. |
|
| |
// If I remember correctly, remainers also voted against
it. It was a fairly crappy deal, perhaps due in part to the
ambivalence of the UK politicians who were negotiating
it. The fact that the EU were made so aware of the splits
in all the major parties did not help our negotiating
position at all.//
If I were to compile a list of things
not to do before and during a negotiation just for general
consumption, it would definitely include:
1. Ensure
you have thought about the likely counterparty reaction
to your positions.
2. Ensure that your negotiators are not morons.
3. Ensure that you do not paint yourself into a corner by
revealing the areas where you are not prepared to move
in advance of negotiating.
4. Think about where you want to get to.
5. Think about how you are going to get there.
6. Carry out an analysis of what the alternatives are for
each side if no agreement is reached.
7. Ensure that any stakeholders on whose support you
count are kept informed and are brought and remain on
side as your primary negotiations progress.
The Conservatives either did not do these things or did
not pay attention to the people who they were paying to
do these for them. The current Brexit impasse - which is
just on the Withdrawal Agreement, not the future
relationship - does not exist because Parliament is
subverting the will of the people (ugh) just as it does not
exist because politicians are not trying hard enough. The
impasse exists because at every single step of the way the
Conservatives have made the wrong choices. Every single
rake in the field has been stepped on. From bean to cup,
they fuck up. |
|
| |
//From bean to cup, they fuck up.// There you have the new
motto of the [insert name of any current party here]. |
|
| |
//It was a fairly crappy deal, [...].// |
|
| |
Well of course it was a crappy deal. Why would you expect a Brexit deal to be anything else? |
|
| |
Economically, well, it couldn't possibly be better than actually remaining, in terms of trade with the EU. Or
even just as good. Regarding trade deals with other countries - well, they have to come later, and this has
nothing to do with them.
Legally - parts of the establishment want rid of human rights legislation, so it would be a win for them and a
loss for everyone else. They'd have probably managed that eventually.
Diplomatically - obviously we lose influence within the EU, and are unlikely to improve relationship with
many other countries by increasing our isolation.
For people just going about their own lives (and disregarding costs), leaving potentially leads to more hassle
at customs for going on holiday or emigrating to Europe. Or just travelling across the NI-RoI border. There
may be some short-term consumer confusion due to inability to use familiar standards, e.g. the CE mark.
For those wanting to restrict immigration, well, it likely will decrease immigration from the EU - if that's
the immigrants they cared about, that's success; of course, immigration from elsewhere might well go up to
compensate.
All those concerns people had relating to increasing scope of the EU had already been dealt with by David
Cameron, so none of those are relevant. |
|
| |
The UK does pay some net money towards the EU. That can stop, so that's great, right? It seems obvious
that the EU would want payment for commitments already made; that's just fair enough. And unfortunately
other costs may more than outweigh this so we lose money on net, but nevermind that eigh? |
|
| |
So yeah, it was crappy. That's just the best it can be. |
|
| |
There's only been one party in government throughout this entire time. A single party who took on responsibility for
delivering the result of the referendum they themselves drafted - and got signed off on the condition of it being advisory
- only later to shift the goalposts (in what appears to be a classic, oft-repeated move) and unilaterally announce it would
be binding after-all. A single party who when they thought they didn't have the numbers, called a GE and lost their
majority - only to purchase it back off the DUP for a billion pounds of our money - then hid reports they did to
objectively identify likely outcomes, bodged a deal together before sacking their own leader on the grounds that she wasn't
forceful enough, before finally anointing the current joker - who's managed, in the first week of him sitting, to put
forward plans so heinous, he forced a great chunk of his own party to rebel in the face of threats of expulsion. With
numbers now dwindled by a further 21, he's lost control altogether and been found out (to be fair, pending appeal) to have
*lied to the Queen*. The story goes on. Even with the most Brexit-tinted lenses, this is not the result of some kind of
remainer conspiracy - this is a litany of failure paraded by a single and identifiable group of individuals who, in siezing
the opportunity, have hijacked the referendum result and perfidiously misinterpreted it as a blank-cheque for their own
ends. Thankfully, their incompetence has been somewhat ring-fenced. |
|
| |
Having been largely found-out, now all they have left is this "parliament are traitors" line - and yeah, there will be
people who will lap that up - but if you look at the evidence - the deliberate steps to avoid scrutiny - the moving of
goalposts, the shady backroom deals, continued shirking of responsibility, this abject mess can only be lain at the feet of
the government and the Brexit cheerleaders. |
|
| |
That doesn't solve the problem of what to do next - but a criminal inquiry might be a good starting point. |
|
| |
Of course many would now just write off that assessment as "remainer bias" but if one is so driven by ideology such that they immediately default
to discrediting objective assessments that don't support the delivery of one's wishes - then that is something one should reflect
carefully upon. |
|
| |
//If you have a particularly convincing quote, I'll believe it.// |
|
| |
Opening the book at a random page, I find this: "Most of those
who have thought about the matter simply accept Plato’s
assumption that the demos will ever be unfit". And Grayling
makes it abundantly clear elsewhere that he agrees with that
view. |
|
| |
And if you think I'm placing too much weight on one
commentator, then consider Ron Aronson's book "We", published
in response to both Brexit and Trump. Aronson is interesting as
a former protegé of Marcuse, who was seen at the time as the
godfather of the student revolts of the 1960s, and the key phrase
in Marcuse's work was "introjected heteronomy", meaning "Your
opinions aren't really your own, so we're justified in ignoring
them". |
|
| |
//"Most of those who have thought about the matter simply accept Plato’s assumption that the
demos will ever be unfit"// |
|
| |
//"introjected heteronomy"// |
|
| |
Well okay, but I hope you understand the great respect I'm giving you in taking your word that
these quotes are complete, and mean what you say they mean - I did kind of want a quote in
comprehensible English, not philosowank. |
|
| |
I complain a lot about Rees-Mogg, but I do respect the fact that he manages to be
understandable. |
|
| |
..also:
//If I remember correctly, remainers also voted against it.//
I seem to remember that a pretty significant number of remainers /did/ vote for it.
But I'm not sure why you think remainers should have voted for it when brexiteers wouldn't. Why
on Earth would they have a higher duty to deliver brexit than the people who wanted it at any
cost? |
|
| |
//Why on Earth would they have a higher duty to deliver
brexit than the people who wanted it at any cost?// Given the
result of the referendum, all politicians had a duty to deliver
the best Brexit they could. |
|
| |
//Given the result of the referendum, all politicians had a duty to
deliver the best Brexit they could.// |
|
| |
No. It was an advisory referendum. People have been over this.
But.. if you don't believe us, perhaps you'd believe the High Court?
Or if not them, maybe Nigel Farage?
So they had a duty to investigate the possibility, but were/are still free
to vote for what they think is best for their constituents, the country
etc. |
|
| |
If the effects would be so bad that even campaign-leading brexiteers
didn't vote for it, this should probably tell you something. |
|
| |
Let us think again on the initial point at which it went wrong for Brexit -
when the campaign promise : "We will negotiate the terms of a new deal
before we start any legal process to leave" was broken. Maybe the
Brexiteers should have piped up right then. |
|
| |
(...slips quietly into the room...) er, hello? Sorry
i’m late. |
|
| |
Hmm. We have got ourselves into a bit of a pickle.
To the extent that a conceivable course of action
for our PM is to ask for his own government to vote
no-confidence in him. Goodness! |
|
| |
I’m not going to argue for one side or the other.
Just commenting that we’re exploring the limits of
currently defined democracy. |
|
| |
It appears we’ve found a discontinuity between
representative democracy and direct democracy. |
|
| |
We seem to have broken the system. We’re either
going to have to fix it, or come up with a new one. |
|
| |
Still, it was beginning to look a bit worn out
anyway. A bit like my dishwasher. |
|
| |
I will be very happy when this is over, and all the
zeros and ones used can be burnt
ceremonialy... |
|
| |
I think it's inevitable that there will be burning by one lot or
the other. Mobs with pitchforks roaming the streets putting
bricks through windows, cars set ablaze, "peaceful" protests
ending in bloodshed, stabbings and bludgeonings. And that's
just the MPs. |
|
| |
//understand the great respect// |
|
| |
Yes, thank you, this is much appreciated. |
|
| |
Please bear in mind that I am no enthusiast for Brexit; on
balance, I think it's probably a bad idea. However, the
deployment of "philosowank", to use your word, against its
supporters, is a symptom of a long-standing overlooked
problem. I'm not saying Brexit's going to solve that problem, just
that the problem itself is real. |
|
| |
//Mobs with pitchforks roaming the streets putting bricks through windows, cars set ablaze, "peaceful" protests ending in bloodshed, stabbings and bludgeonings. |
|
| |
Surely that's the House of Parliament tea trolley staff, they can do terrible things with a sharpened macaroon... |
|
| |
// However, the deployment of "philosowank", to use your word, against its supporters, is a symptom of a long-standing
overlooked problem. I'm not saying Brexit's going to solve that problem, just that the problem itself is real.// |
|
| |
Hold on. Your meaning is unclear to me.
Grayling isn't a supporter of Brexit. Presumably you mean supporters of 'benevolent rule by an elite' (which is what I interpreted
his comments to mean after some investigation). The second sentence in that quote confused me for a while, because I don't
see how it's relevant to that.
So I'm not sure what you think the overlooked problem is. |
|
| |
To clarify myself - I think there's a certain type of literary scholar who could charitably be described as writing books suitable
only for the benefit of a very select audience of a similar nature. Very much in an 'ivory tower'. The concept would obviously be
very appealing to that group, and I conceded that.
However, the nature of the word I coined was very much due to the overly obscure (and apparently deliberately obfuscatory)
nature of the two quotes, which put me in mind of the Sokal affair. |
|
| |
I'm just about to go away for a few days, so if I don't come back in good time to any response please don't be offended, I'm not
disregarding it, and barring incident will be back. |
|
| |
//Your meaning is unclear to me.// |
|
| |
Ah, yes; my bad: my use of quotation marks was ambiguous. I
did *not* mean to refer to the use of the *word* "philosowank"
by one side against the other. I meant to refer to the use of that
dialectical style by Remainers against Leavers. |
|
| |
I only put the word in quotation marks because it was not
originally my word. |
|
| |
Your reference to "benevolent rule by an élite" is apropos, the
problem being that its underlying attitude has spread a long way
beyond the ivory tower where it originated, and its effects have
been a lot less benign than they were supposed to be. |
|
| |
Does that clarify things at all? |
|
| |
in the sense that people are not bees and shouldn't be
treated as such, yes. In the sense that when the bear comes
for the honey, you need a lot of bees to stop him, no. |
|
| |
The isms that challenge us are an evolutionary force that
our intellect challenges in return, creating permanent
tension. Tough battle. |
|
| |
I think some decisions need to be made on a local
scale, because they’re dependant on local context.
But I also think there are decisions which are just
too complex and have such far-reaching
implications, which need detailed expert analysis
(and ideally impartiality) - and a transparent
decision making process - to deliver the most
beneficial solution for the nation and it’s citizens
in the long term. |
|
| |
Thank you pertinax, I understand now.
As an attitude, I think it's not new (it probably predates
democracy), and I'm not convinced it's increasing in
prevalence.
I also don't think the attitude is limited to one side,
although the embodiment differs - it's basically cliche now
for the lead brexiteers to claim something they don't like is
"undemocratic" - even when it's literally exactly how our
democracy has worked since its inception. |
|
| |
From my simple view from the other side of the world, everyone voted on an idea and it's future possibilities. Now that the real years of protoyping has started, no one wants to stump up and wear the true damage it takes to leave. The due diligence has been done after the fact. |
|
| |
Working together will always out weigh the go it aloners even if they have a rare starring moment. |
|
| |
//don't think the attitude is limited to one side,// |
|
| |
I absolutely agree that there's fault on both sides. Some Leavers
appear to be racist morons. Some Remainers appear to be anti-
democratic wankers. |
|
| |
A recent comment thread in the Financial Times, a Remainer
newapaper, was full of references to "the mob", as if the
annotators were stout eighteenth-century gentlemen with red
faces, powdered wigs and a nasty case of the gout. |
|
| |
Meanwhile, the attitudes to be found in the Daily Mail, a Leaver
newspaper have been both stupid and vicious for years. |
|
| |
Let's acknowledge that both exist, but try not to let them
dominate the debate. |
|
| |
//Democratic voting must be banned// - I think we
need a referendum on this |
|
| |
Title read as "Combined Electron Referendum". |
|
| |
The Monster Raving Looney Party sounds nice.
What is their agenda? |
|
| |