Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

lawred2

devnull wrote: »

Democracy doesn't work very well when in a referendum one side decides that they are above the law, breaks electoral rules which are there to ensure fairness, confidence and legitimacy at an electoral event.

That's before we get onto the lies that were told during the campaign and the many politicians involved who have backtracked on what they have stated and claimed they never said it and the fact that there were many different versions of leave.

What we've seen from many people is the end justifies the means. They have no problem with their own side breaking the law or being dishonest if it achieves what they want, but the same people would scream blue murder if others did.

Why does the UK have laws that govern referenda but not plebescites? They are both as infrequently used. Why differentiate between the two?

Kermit.de.frog

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I can understand the point you make about not wanting to obstruct 'the will of the people' in a broad sense because of the disruption that might arise, but what of the more dangerous precedent it sets. Specifically, the idea that groups can campaign on deliberately vague and contradictory policies, squeeze out a narrow victory margin and employ that purported victory as a mandate for an arrangement which slices away some of many of those same campaign promises. More than that, I can't help but see the entire Brexit and Euro-scepticism fiasco as little more than the culmination of a long running campaign by the gutter media and marginal figures to finger the EU for just about any and all maladies.

My go-to on this point is immigration; now anyone would think from the Brexit campaign that migration into the UK was down exclusively to some Brussels diktat of the much absurd terms. It seems to have escaped the notice of these institutions that since 1992 non-EU migration has made up three-quarters of all migration into the UK, which has been entirely under the UK's control. And even the migration it has seen from the EU, which can be of the temporary seasonal variety or even medium term with an eventual return him, might be more easily reconciled with UK attitudes towards migration than say a more permanent migrant from the other side of the planet.

Now despite these realities, somehow the usual suspects in the UK manage to castigate EU as the chief conductor behind the type of mass migration they bemoan, and to be fair this is hardly the only area where emotionally charged rhetoric runs counter to reality. The economic arguments I hear in regards the EU are perhaps nothing short of a Nigel Farage style 'baffling' - the idea that the EU is to blame for the decline in UK fishing rather than the mass sell-off of fishing rights as well as the loss of the Icelandic fishing waters, the idea that the EU is responsible for both a de-industrializing globalization as well as stifling economic protectionism, the idea that the UK is going to break free from foreign domination by leaving the protection of a bloc of like-minded countries - these are all spectacularly contradictory ideas which have been sold to the UK public by what might be most generously described as an incompetent media and slice of the political intelligentsia eager to profit from said changes.

Surrendering to this enormous mania or treating as anything other than a bad idea, riven with contradictions and problems, is nothing short of an abdication of the principled responsibility of every citizen to try and defend the democratic system they live under. Now I see by your argument that you are perfectly au fait with the idea of such a deal going through and then making the counter argument. I might be inclined to go along with that but I would go a step further and argue that the specific choice of Brexit arrangement should be put to the people, be it Deal, No-Deal or No-Brexit in a single transferable vote. I'm not sure just how oppressed and maligned 'the people' can claim to be if they are the ones deciding what step is to be taken next, nor can they really complain if their chosen outcome fails to garner a majority. The choices are now crystal clear, the population is now actually well informed, and the only real argument against putting it back to the populace is that the Brexiteer's bag of shadows and snake oil wouldn't work twice.

But your rationale (and well articulated it is) runs aground when you consider that this was a vote for independence from the European Union.

So to pursue your own logic on how bad Brexit would be economically for people to it's conclusion then Ireland would never have gotten it's independence or any state dependent on a bigger power for that matter because people were going to be worse off immediately afterward.

The UK is a big confident resourceful country, well able to support itself inside or outside the EU.

I make that same argument of all countries big and small in the EU as well.

No matter what one thinks of the referendum (and lets be real there were lies and falsehoods on both sides) they voted to leave.

It does not get any simpler than that. To me that means they leave all the institutions of the EU.

The only people making it seem complicated are those who never accepted the result.

And that is my argument:

1. Accept the result
2. Once result is implemented then remainers can put forward a new debate to rejoin.

devnull

lawred2 wrote: »

Why does the UK have laws that govern referenda but not plebescites? They are both as infrequently used. Why differentiate between the two?

There has been talk that I cannot verify the legitimacy of that apparently the referendum may have been declared invalid if it was binding, but since it was advisory it cannot be.

hotmail.com

devnull wrote: »

The biggest hypocrite of the whole thing is Farage, saying a second referendum is undemocratic, despite the fact the very same person said if he lost by 52:48 then one should not be ruled out and it's a long way from being finished. That's before you even take into account the fact Leave cheated. 4% gap in a straight fight is a far bigger gap than 4% in a illegally manipulated one.

Every campaign is full of lies. This isn't why Brexit won the referendum.

The UK has always been luke warm to Europe, not really seeing itself as truely continental. This goes back over 100 years to 'splendid isolation' which gave Britain peace and wealth. This policy, they believe, also created their Empire which they have more affection for than their European neighbours.

Tell me how

Varta wrote: »

Equally, why should remain get so many opportunities to frustrate Brexit?

What opportunities?

Mr.Nice Guy

hotmail.com wrote: »

It seems that the strongest support for Brexit is among the middle aged and older people, so I really can't see unrest/violence coming from them.

A politician was murdered by a nutter screaming 'Britain First'. Police foiled a threat on the life of another MP Rosie Cooper. There are numerous MPs who have tweeted threats sent to them in their offices. Police recently had to escort MPs out of the parliament buildings.

This is going to escalate massively if Brexit is thwarted, especially if Johnson is going to run his general election campaign on a basis of portraying parliament as the great villain of the piece.

Best thing now is an orderly withdrawal of the UK. It's a pity it looks like it will first require an election because that is going to stir up all sorts of unpleasantness, including north of the border.

GM228

The spin is out:-

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1187430924243406849?s=19

Note how he says he got Parliament to approve the deal (at least on the second reading) - the deal absolutely was not approved by Parliament.

Mentions December 12th again - a motion for a GE can not dictate when a GE will occur.

Apparently threatening to put the Government on strike if he does not get a GE.

Varta

devnull wrote: »

So what you are saying, is that if someone cheats at something and is found out to be cheating, then because of the fact that the cheats may be angry that they do not get their own way, we should just pretend that they never cheated?

You might think that kind of society is an acceptable one to be in, I certainly don't and would never want to be in a society in this country where cheats basically prosper. I don't want mob rule or to appease cheats who threaten to act like thugs.

The biggest hypocrite of the whole thing is Farage, saying a second referendum is undemocratic, despite the fact the very same person said if he lost by 52:48 then one should not be ruled out and it's a long way from being finished. That's before you even take into account the fact Leave cheated. 4% gap in a straight fight is a far bigger gap than 4% in a illegally manipulated one.

It is incumbent on every voter to seek the truth and vote accordingly. There will always be people trying to influence you by fair means or foul. Your vote is precious and you should give it only after great consideration. Once your vote is cast there is no going back. To seek to change the result of a referendum on the basis that people allowed themselves to be influenced is akin to opening the ballot boxes before the count has even happened. One man, one vote, and no one should judge or seek to dissolve the value of that vote. Otherwise democracy dies.

hotmail.com

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

A politician was murdered by a nutter screaming 'Britain First'. Police foiled a threat on the life of another MP Rosie Cooper. There are numerous MPs who have tweeted threats sent to them in their offices. Police recently had to escort MPs out of the parliament buildings.

This is going to escalate massively if Brexit is thwarted, especially if Johnson is going to run his general election campaign on a basis of portraying parliament as the great villain of the piece.

Best thing now is an orderly withdrawal of the UK. It's a pity it looks like it will first require an election because that is going to stir up all sorts of unpleasantness, including north of the border.

I suppose my point is that unrest is usually led by young people and young people seem to be more in favour of remain.

I can't see 80 year olds out looting.

GM228

GM228 wrote: »

Most voters believe violence against MPs ‘is price worth paying’ over Brexit



Seriously? I mean why would that even be a question on a poll?

https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/news/view/1709008-future-of-england-survey-reveals-public-attitudes-towards-brexit-and-the-union



Sad times we live in when people believe violence and injury are worth it to achieve the goal.

Same thing could have been said for what was happening in NI 50 years ago.

Tell me how

hotmail.com wrote: »

Every campaign is full of lies. This isn't why Brexit won the referendum.

The UK has always been luke warm to Europe, not really seeing itself as truely continental. This goes back over 100 years to 'splendid isolation' which gave Britain peace and wealth. This policy, they believe, also created their Empire which they have more affection for than their European neighbours.

Check out Carole Cadwalladr's work on uncovering the Leave campaign using almost its entire budget targeting individuals based on their FB profiles as part of the Cambridge Analytica project. That has been proven to have been illegal.

Your second paragraph is true, both if the above had not happened, it is very possible that we'd have spent 3 years talking about them nearly having voted to Leave.

devnull

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

No matter what one thinks of the referendum (and lets be real there were lies and falsehoods on both sides) they voted to leave.

Leave who won, broke the law, remain didn't. FACT.

I think it's disgraceful that you say that the end justifies the means, what you are essentially saying is that if someone cheats then we should just brush this to one side, because it might annoy the people who cheated if they are actually made to pay for their actions.

It does not get any simpler than that. To me that means they leave all the institutions of the EU.

Except for the fact that many of the key brexiteers were not saying that, instead they were all painting various different types of Brexit, some of which were not possible in reality. It has been widely documented that this is the case, I know people personally who voted leave but wanted a deal, some who didn't, some wanted customs union and some wanted single market. Are you calling me a liar?

If only there was a way to ask them what they voted for, we could solve this argument for good, but the powers that be don't want that to happen as it might expose the ruse which they got away with by their cheating, outright lies and complete dishonesty.

The only people making it seem complicated are those who never accepted the result.

If you are cheated in a sport, in a game or in a bet, if you found out the whole thing was manipulated and you lost because of cheating, would you be happy if the people who cheated told you to simply accept the result and get over it?

Why should people who played by the rules accept a result which was the result of breaking the law? Should we just shrug our shoulders and say, someone broke the law and cheated, but who cares, lets ignore that and just shout loudly that CHEATS PROSPER and law abiding people lose? What a statement that is to send out to the public. No wonder society is screwed in the UK and you have a Prime Minster with zero moral compass who is a pathological liar.

Tell me how

Varta wrote: »

It is incumbent on every voter to seek the truth and vote accordingly. There will always be people trying to influence you by fair means or foul. Your vote is precious and you should give it only after great consideration. Once your vote is cast there is no going back. To seek to change the result of a referendum on the basis that people allowed themselves to be influenced is akin to opening the ballot boxes before the count has even happened. One man, one vote, and no one should judge or seek to dissolve the value of that vote. Otherwise democracy dies.

The efforts in the last 3 years to find a Brexit which can be delivered, and the failure to do so should be sufficient to prove that democracy is not being railroaded.

Why should May have gotten 3 opportunities to pass a deal but the electorate cannot get a 2nd choice to confirm its desire?

Spanish Eyes

Not sure that voter involvement reaches the nuances of this storm now, and maybe that’s what they rely on. Not demeaning anyone, but honestly the FPTP system really means engagement locally results in nothing if the constituency is a safe seat does it?k

GM228

Posted this a few days ago, but worth posting again as the topic has come up again:-

https://twitter.com/IanCLucas/status/1185962901368168449?s=19

devnull

Varta wrote: »

It is incumbent on every voter to seek the truth and vote accordingly. There will always be people trying to influence you by fair means or foul. Your vote is precious and you should give it only after great consideration. Once your vote is cast there is no going back. To seek to change the result of a referendum on the basis that people allowed themselves to be influenced is akin to opening the ballot boxes before the count has even happened. One man, one vote, and no one should judge or seek to dissolve the value of that vote. Otherwise democracy dies.

So just to confirm, you are saying that if someone cheated and broke the law and we punish them, then they are a bigger victim than the people who were cheated if we do nothing? That's quite frankly outrageous and just tells people to cheat and break the law, because nobody will stop you and you'll prosper.

It's one thing to try and influence someone, it's a completely different thing to break the law. If you cannot see the difference then honestly I don't know what else I can say to you, other than saying that I'm a law abiding person and I have respect for the law and that it something that a lot of people in the UK in the leave campaign could learn, as they've spent the last few years and even recent weeks and months basically thinking they can do what they like and the law and the rules don't apply to them .

It's times like this when I'm glad that we're in Ireland.

hotmail.com

Tell me how wrote: »

Check out Carole Cadwalladr's work on uncovering the Leave campaign using almost its entire budget targeting individuals based on their FB profiles as part of the Cambridge Analytica project. That has been proven to have been illegal.

Your second paragraph is true, both if the above had not happened, it is very possible that we'd have spent 3 years talking about them nearly having voted to Leave.

Again that may be true, but the Leave side was merely capitalising on the anti European feeling that has been around for hundreds of years. It's far too simplistic to just look at the campaign.

The remain side fails to recognise that a lot of Britons do not like the European Union and don't really view themselves as European. The outcome of the referendum was a manifestation of those feelings, held for a long long time.

devnull

hotmail.com wrote: »

Again that may be true, but the Leave side was merely capitalising on the anti European feeling that has been around for hundreds of years. It's far too simplistic to just look at the campaign.

I don't have a problem with them capitalising on that, even though I disagree with it, what I have a problem with is them doing it illegally.

Mr.Nice Guy

hotmail.com wrote: »

I suppose my point is that unrest is usually led by young people and young people seem to be more in favour of remain.

I can't see 80 year olds out looting.

Young people are more in favour of remain but I'm not sure why you think the only people who support Brexit are Last of the Summer Wine fans.

woohoo!!!

schmittel wrote: »

Woohoo!
General Election, this will be very exciting!!

You called

GM228

Varta wrote: »

It is incumbent on every voter to seek the truth and vote accordingly.

Those seeking the truth were given untruths by those who had the ability to easily pass what they liked as the truth, when you have great wealth and high profile faces backing you it's not hard to pass off what you say as the truth even to those who wish to dig deeper.

devnull

GM228 wrote: »

The spin is out:-

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1187430924243406849?s=19

Note how he says he got Parliament to approve the deal (at least on the second reading) - the deal absolutely was not approved by Parliament.

Mentions December 12th again - a motion for a GE can not dictate when a GE will occur.

Apparently threatening to put the Government on strike if he does not get a GE.

The usual tactics, threats, scaremongering, and more pathological lying and the belief that rules, laws and parliamentary procedures do not apply to him and if he cannot get his own way he will throw his toys out of the pram.

I read this article this morning, which sums it up rather well
https://news.sky.com/story/why-the-normal-rules-dont-apply-to-boris-johnson-11843361

hotmail.com

devnull wrote: »

I don't have a problem with them capitalising on that, even though I disagree with it, what I have a problem with is them doing it illegally.

It's done, it's over. They weren't the first to lie and confuse during a campaign and they won't be the last.

The illegal behaviour on Facebook didn't win the campaign.

GM228

hotmail.com wrote: »

Again that may be true, but the Leave side was merely capitalising on the anti European feeling that has been around for hundreds of years.

Remind me how old the EU is?

hotmail.com

GM228 wrote: »

Remind me how old the EU is?

European? Did you read what I wrote?

Strazdas

hotmail.com wrote: »

Again that may be true, but the Leave side was merely capitalising on the anti European feeling that has been around for hundreds of years. It's far too simplistic to just look at the campaign.

The remain side fails to recognise that a lot of Britons do not like the European Union and don't really view themselves as European. The outcome of the referendum was a manifestation of those feelings, held for a long long time.

I'm not convinced there was much anti-European feeling 100 years ago. Britain fought two world wars alongside France as a very close ally and would hardly have done so if there was a anti-European thing going on.

British Europhobia and Euroscepticism seems much more recent.....perhaps from the 60s/70s onward.

devnull

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Young people are more in favour of remain but I'm not sure why you think the only people who support Brexit are Last of the Summer Wine fans.

Indeed, one of the most pro remainers I know is a 60 year old who works in education in a senior position and she's far from the only person I know in that camp. Yes age is a factor but polls have shown that education and income among other things is also a factor.

The leavers tend to fall into different categories, even with age groups, you have the middle class people who mostly read the Mail and the Express and then you have the working class who read the comic, sorry I mean newspaper which is The Sun who also take things at face value.

hotmail.com

hotmail.com wrote: »

Again that may be true, but the Leave side was merely capitalising on the anti European feeling that has been around for hundreds of years. It's far too simplistic to just look at the campaign.

The remain side fails to recognise that a lot of Britons do not like the European Union and don't really view themselves as European. The outcome of the referendum was a manifestation of those feelings, held for a long long time.

For most of those hundreds of years, Europe was a group of competing empires with frequent wars between all of them.

hotmail.com

Strazdas wrote: »

I'm not convinced there was much anti-European feeling 100 years ago. Britain fought two world wars alongside France as a very close ally and would hardly have done so if there was a anti-European thing going on.

British Europhobia and Euroscepticism seems much more recent.....perhaps from the 60s/70s onward.

This isn't true.

They viewed their neighbours with scorn for having them got involved in two world wars. If it weren't for their cultural cousins, America, Britain was screwed. It wasn't Europe that saved Britain in the wars, it was America.

GM228

hotmail.com wrote: »

European? Did you read what I wrote?

Smiley face? Did you read what I wrote?

Seriously though what 100s of years anti European feeling, are some in the UK now against their geographical location aswell?