[Politics] Brexit

[beorhthelm]

So 'the people' only include those who voted and those who didn't vote don't count as people? Righto.

As I said, I have no argument that the majority of people that did vote voted to leave. What I do argue is, how it can be claimed to be the 'will of the people' when the majority of the electorate didn't vote for it.

deliberatly miscasting what i said doesnt make your argument any better. those that didnt vote literally are not counted, because they didnt cast their ballot. if you still dont see the problem try this: how when 65% of the people didnt vote for remain could it be called the will of the people to stay in EU?

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

deliberatly miscasting what i said doesnt make your argument any better. those that didnt vote literally are not counted, because they didnt cast their ballot. if you still dont see the problem try this: how when 65% of the people didnt vote for remain could it be called the will of the people to stay in EU?

I wouldn't call that the will of the people either. But I'm not the one bandying about such a rediculous phrase.

 

[larus]

Again, I reiterate, I'm not contesting the outcome of the vote just the tag line of 'will of the people'.

OK. I will say that this is "The percentage will of the percentage of the population of voting age who either bothered to vote, or were able to vote". No one is saying that it was over 50% of the population, but those of voting age know the voting system in this country and should have know that for the referendum. I don't see what point you are trying to make. It is the democratic will of those who bothered to vote. The others must be discounted as no-one knows what the outcome would have been if everyone had been FORCED to vote.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

OK. I will say that this is "The percentage will of the percentage of the population of voting age who either bothered to vote, or were able to vote". No one is saying that it was over 50% of the population, but those of voting age know the voting system in this country and should have know that for the referendum. I don't see what point you are trying to make. It is the democratic will of those who bothered to vote. The others must be discounted as no-one knows what the outcome would have been if everyone had been FORCED to vote.

I never contested that it was the will of the people that did vote, something I have repeated several times now. I am disagreeing with the semantics some people choose to use. I also spoke about the people who use said tag line and their dismissive attitude towards valid points against May's strategy (or apparent lack there of) and genuine concerns of those of us who voted to remain.

 

[Buzzer]

Er, no. Wrong again. Spain will block any application from Scotland because of the issue with Catalan wanting independence. If you're going to quote things, at least have a basis for your opinions.

I do love this quaint idea too that the EU would welcome another basket case economy to its fold that would further weaken the Euro just to spite the UK. It has just lost its second largest net contributor meaning an already significantly cut EU budget will have to be carved even thinner to make way for a country that will clearly always be a net taker from the EU coffers. The 10 net contributors won't like it and the 16 current net takers won't like it either. "With open arms" isn't exactly the phrase I'd use.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

"criticism, suggestion or thought is not allowed". Are you having a laugh, I think having over 2500 pages of moaning and crying and trying to change the democratic vote, proves that "criticism, suggestion or thought IS allowed".

Obviously free speech is not LITERALLY being banned... the point being made was that 'criticism, suggestion and thought' by people they disagree with is invariably dismissed by NSC Brexiters and others as 'moaning and crying'. A point you reinforce above. It all seems a bit North Korean.

 

[Buzzer]

I wouldn't call that the will of the people either. But I'm not the one bandying about such a rediculous phrase.

Your mate Jeremy Corbyn doesn't seem to have a problem using that phrase.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

Your mate Jeremy Corbyn doesn't seem to have a problem using that phrase.

I'm not a labour supporter so not bothered what JC says. I still disagree with the phrase regardless of who says it.

 

[BigGully]

I'm not a labour supporter so not bothered what JC says. I still disagree with the phrase regardless of who says it.

So you are neither Tory nor Labour, I am guessing you have a particular grudge against any phrase that might represent at any democaratic process that might have happened within your lifetime, its not the phrase its being a perennial loser that you find frustrating .....

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

So you are neither Tory nor Labour, I am guessing you have a particular grudge against any phrase that might represent at any democaratic process that might have happened within your lifetime, its not the phrase its being a perennial loser that you find frustrating .....

God you're right. Thank you for helping me realise that because my political affiliation isn't with two parties and I just keep voting for losers it's impacting my ability for form my own opinions... thank you for your deep insight.

 

[Buzzer]

I'm not a labour supporter so not bothered what JC says. I still disagree with the phrase regardless of who says it.

Really? I'm genuinely surprised by that given this and other similar defences you've made of him.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

Really? I'm genuinely surprised by that given this and other similar defences you've made about him.

So? I respect his political views that doesn't mean I'm a labour supporter.

 

[Buzzer]

So? I respect his political views that doesn't mean I'm a labour supporter.

So someone you respect uses a phrase that's pretty much universally understood and accepted except by you. That's what.

 

[BigGully]

So? I respect his political views that doesn't mean I'm a labour supporter.

How else do you decide whom to vote for ??

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

So someone you respect uses a phrase that's pretty much universally understood and accepted except by you. That's what.

So because I respect him I have to agree with everything he says? I accept it's the will of those who voted. It's the will of some of the people. For the umpteenth time it's the semantics and the attitude of some brexiters I take issue with. I think I've been quite clear on this point.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

How else do you decide whom to vote for ??

Usually the policies of a political party. In the last few elections my vote has gone to the Green Party. Not because of the person who was the helm but because I agreed with the majority of their policies.

 

[Buzzer]

So because I respect him I have to agree with everything he says? I accept it's the will of those who voted. It's the will of some of the people. For the umpteenth time it's the semantics and the attitude of some brexiters I take issue with. I think I've been quite clear on this point.

Of course not but it does seem that it's only you that has a problem with this common phrase, universally understood and used, therefore I suggest that it's you that's indulging in semantics.

 

[larus]

I do love this quaint idea too that the EU would welcome another basket case economy to its fold that would further weaken the Euro just to spite the UK. It has just lost its second largest net contributor meaning an already significantly cut EU budget will have to be carved even thinner to make way for a country that will clearly always be a net taker from the EU coffers. The 10 net contributors won't like it and the 16 current net takers won't like it either. "With open arms" isn't exactly the phrase I'd use.

And that doesn't even take into account the fact that the ECB is, in all but name, propping up certain countries (by buying their debt). After all, who would be buying Greek, Italian, Spanish or Portuguese debt on the open market at the current interest rates? This whole pack of cards will collapse and sadly, we will also be impacted severely when it does. The EU/EURO are a disaster, yet so many seem to be hood-winked by the illusion of free-travel/open-borders and standardisation of rules.

The EU does do a lot of good, but it keeps trying to be what it's not. It's not a single country (as per the US/UK - the hint might be in the word united ), but is an amalgamation if nation states who wanted to trade without tariffs/quotas and have some degree of co-operation. Now, all that is bloody good, it's so much of the other crap which is not needed.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

Of course not but it does seem that it's only you that has a problem with this common phrase, universally understood and used, therefore I suggest that it's you that's indulging in semantics.

I know I have a problem with the phrase. In fact I even said I did

 

[Soulman]

Obviously free speech is not LITERALLY being banned... the point being made was that 'criticism, suggestion and thought' by people they disagree with is invariably dismissed by NSC Brexiters and others as 'moaning and crying'. A point you reinforce above. It all seems a bit North Korean.

No you carry on moaning etc, my point was that "criticism, suggestion or thought is allowed", has been allowed and has been allowed since the vote over 6 months ago.
I daresay it will still go on/be "allowed"long after we leave the EU.