[Politics] Brexit

[Baker lite]

At a price, of course you can.

A spare £39 billion should cover it.


On our way.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Baldseagull]

If you are going to argue, as you are, that he has two positions on one matter and that they are contradictory and at odds with each other, then you need to be able to show the circumstances or the “matter”are the same(they are not), for this context is vital, you shouldn’t avoid it or even disregard it so easily when you are having your opinion formed.
He has been quite clear that having a second referendum after negotiations for withdrawal are completed and after an initial referendum on an IN OUT question is not logical and is not democratically right, as the initial OUT decision(or even an IN one) negates the need for a follow up vote.
He has also said there can be two referendums where the second referendum can occur after renegotiations are completed.
There is nothing contradictory in these two stances as the circumstances around each “matter” are entirely different.
He is democratically right on his recent stance (although you will argue otherwise about another vote after withdrawal negotiations) and he is right about having two referendums in his first previous stance (the one in the video).
His first stance about two votes and the circumstances how it could occur is in fact what we have already done( in a round about way) and was supported by millions then and still supported by millions now. Its just both votes he refers to didn’t turn out to both be referendums.




Dont worry, i already had you down as irrelevant on this thread,i didnt want you to feel unloved, and also had you down as the gullible type ( as confirmed by your thumbs up with regard to a cherry picked video you dont understand)

Can you explain to me why it might make sense in the first instance, to have two referendums?

 

[pastafarian]

This conversation is veering towards slightly different people talking about slightly different things... AB group here, A group there, 0.1% here, 4% there. And a bit too much wholescale google-lifting perhaps. Do normal people, off the top of their heads, actually say things like... “This stratum, in England, traditionally uses Received Pronunciation natively... a typical Mosaic geodemographic type for this group would be cultural leadership”?

But may I mention the working class? Only because you did.

I really hadn’t realised that this thread has been dripping in contempt for it. In fact I can barely recall it being mentioned.

Certainly, the hard fact that the Leave vote contained a disproportionate number of less-educated people has been talked about. Perhaps you feel that “less-educated” is some sort of code for “working class”.

It is certainly used as code for “thick” although my impression is that for every Remain voter describing Leave voters as thick there are ten Leave voters leaping up and down in victim-shrouded joy at the very thought of it.

So if it’s not because they’re thick, why did more poorly-educated people vote Leave? You may have a view on this.

Can I offer two reasons? One, the lesser one, is that there might be some connection between people’s level of education and their interest in politics - and people with little interest in politics are, generally-speaking, more likely to be persuaded by the black and white clarion calls of the Leave campaign. If that sounds patronising it’s not intended to be - I’m poorly educated myself.

The greater reason for me is that people with lower educational qualifications tend to have fewer career and lifestyle opportunities . It was that lack of such opportunities, that sense of being left behind, that fuelled much of the Leave-vote. And older people in particular, less educated by tradition, looked back at their lives and felt a sense of being short-changed by circumstance.

And at that point a load of Eton-educated toffs rolled up on their doorsteps and invited them to vote for the status-quo...

I have often found during life that those who are now patronisingly and sneeringly labelled poorly educated thickos quite often have more common sense than the higher educated Eton-toffs.
It seems to me common sense in the increasingly globalized yet smaller world we now find ourselves in that people will want more devolved democracy, not less, and hence a return of more parliamentary accountability to Westminster, more national control over the say of immigration and border control and increased freedom to follow our own path in international trade.
Perhaps common sense is the factor you are desperately hunting for as an explanation as to why people had the audacity to disagree with your point of view.

 

[pastafarian]

Can you explain to me why it might make sense in the first instance, to have two referendums?

In makes sense (in comparison to his stance on a second one after withdrawal negotiations and an IN OUT initial one) because the circumstances he is talking about in the video are entirely different.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

The meaning of social class A as referenced in my post was taken from the same wiki link from [MENTION=35904]A1X[/MENTION] who is using it to support his view that the rich voted for leave. Which is nonsense.

As is your assertion that this thread isnt soaked with contempt for the working class, the racist thickos, the geriatric gammon faced little Englanders and knuckle dragging EDL supporters which are all euphimisms for the uneducated and politically uninterested as you more politely refer to them.

This particular matter is a wonderful example of just how contorted some people are to ignore facts in order to protect (in their view) the integrity of their argument.

By all means put up your supposition that the poor voted remain and the millions of darstedly Tory millionaire toffs voted leave, its a helpful benchmark to segregate the reasonsble from the bigots.

This makes little sense but the second paragraph is completely incoherent. You might be saying that 'racist thickos' is a euphemism for being uneducated. Or, alternatively, that the thread is soaked with contempt for EDL knuckle-draggers. Or that 'politically uninterested' is (bizarrely) my way of referring to the working classes.

In fact, my own post offered a thought on why people with lower levels of education apparently voted Leave in disproportionate numbers (given that, in my view, they are not 'thick'). I solicited your view because I thought it would be interesting, that we might have a point of agreement. I cannot fault your response to this for the simple reason that there wasn't one.

You preferred instead (last para) to refer to my 'supposition that the poor voted remain... and the Tory toffs voted leave'. Point me to where I said, or alluded to, or implied such a thing. You are correct in saying that this matter is a wonderful example of how people ignore facts. The contortions, I fear, are all yours.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

[tweet]1087811314616025088[/tweet]

And yet both Merkel and Macron have said the next step in European security is an EU army.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

I have often found during life that those who are now patronisingly and sneeringly labelled poorly educated thickos quite often have more common sense than the higher educated Eton-toffs.
It seems to me common sense in the increasingly globalized yet smaller world we now find ourselves in that people will want more devolved democracy, not less, and hence a return of more parliamentary accountability to Westminster, more national control over the say of immigration and border control and increased freedom to follow our own path in international trade.
Perhaps common sense is the factor you are desperately hunting for as an explanation as to why people had the audacity to disagree with your point of view.

Characteristically confrontational - I am not 'desperately hunting' for anything. I was merely offering a thought on why people with lower levels of education (like me) apparently tended to vote Leave, given the fact that they are not, in my view, thick.

I confess I don't really have a view on why some Leave supporters come across as red-faced and patronising shouters who'd start a fight in an empty room.

Be less angry.

 

[Baldseagull]

In makes sense (in comparison to his stance on a second one after withdrawal negotiations and an IN OUT initial one) because the circumstances he is talking about in the video are entirely different.

Forget what the circumstances are entirely different to, (or very similar to as I like to call it) and please explain the logic of JRM's case for a second referendum in the circumstances he was talking about.

 

[pastafarian]

Forget what the circumstances are entirely different to, (or very similar to as I like to call it) and please explain the logic of JRM's case for a second referendum in the circumstances he was talking about.

The circumstances are crucial to understanding the two different positions on second referendums, you cant just forget the circumstances when they are key.
They are not the same voting circumstances or even similar. You have been led to believe they are but they are not. He has been talking about two different scenarios.
What is it about the two different scenarios from the 1st referendum to how you could potentially arrive at a 2nd referendum question that makes both circumstances the same? Do you believe they are the same voting scenarios from start to finish?

 

[Baldseagull]

The circumstances are crucial to understanding the two different positions on second referendums, you cant just forget the circumstances when they are key.
They are not the same voting circumstances or even similar. You have been led to believe they are but they are not. He has been talking about two different scenarios.
What is it about the two different scenarios from the 1st referendum to how you could potentially arrive at a 2nd referendum question that makes both circumstances the same? Do you believe they are the same voting scenarios from start to finish?

So to make it simple, just explain why it made sense in the circumstances that Mr Rees-Mogg said it made sense. Just one scenario, the one in 2011.

 

[Triggaaar]

Whatever the final form of any eventual trade deal, one thing it definitely won’t be is better than entirely free.

The quote says that they'd have more access to European markets from Singapore than from the UK, which is made up, as we don't know what access the UK will have yet. Nothing to do with 'better than entirely free'.

My name isn't Andrew Adonis, and I don't sit in the House of Lords.

No shit. But you are claiming that his quote is the answer, which it is not, as we don't yet know what trade agreement we'll have.

We haven't got a free trade agreement (which can take months, even years to negotiate) with the EU, after March 29th, which is just 66 days away.

Right now we have a free trade agreement. We don't know what we'll have after the 29th of March.

 

[pastafarian]

So to make it simple, just explain why it made sense in the circumstances that Mr Rees-Mogg said it made sense. Just one scenario, the one in 2011.

Oh come on, its not that hard.
Im sure you can understand one scenario gives a definitive answer and therefore a decision on a binary IN/OUT question at the first vote and one scenario does not.
How are those two voting scenarios/circumstances therefore the same?

 

[Triggaaar]

According to Dyson it doesn't matter what the final trade deal is because he predicts the EU is a dying trade block (pfft). Clearly it does matter to him as he has relocated his business affairs to have better access to the EU trade block.

We don't yet know if they'll have better access to the EU trade block. They will, however, have better access to their large Asian market, which is probably the driving factor in this move.

 

[Baldseagull]

Oh come on, its not that hard.
Im sure you can understand one scenario gives a definitive answer and therefore a decision on a binary IN/OUT question at the first vote and one scenario does not.
How are those two voting scenarios/circumstances therefore the same?

If it's not that hard, why can't you explain what the logical argument for a second referendum was, in the first circumstance? Why did Mogg say, it might make more sense to have 2 referendums in that circumstance?

 

[pastafarian]

If it's not that hard, why can't you explain what the logical argument for a second referendum was, in the first circumstance? Why did Mogg say, it might make more sense to have 2 referendums in that circumstance?

Let me try it again.
One scenario gives a definitive answer to the IN/OUT choice question in a binary question at the first vote, negating the need for a follow up referendum.
And one scenario does not give a definitive answer to the IN/OUT choice question via a binary question at the first vote and therefore allows scope, in the circumstances he is talking about, for there to be a follow up referendum.
Its not hard to work out which of the two scenarios is the current scenario we find ourselves in and which is the different scenario he is talking about in the video.
So how are these two voting scenarios the same?

 

[The Clamp]

We don't yet know if they'll have better access to the EU trade block. They will, however, have better access to their large Asian market, which is probably the driving factor in this move.

His company is now registered in Singapore. Singapore has a free trade deal with the EU. Dyson will have access to that free trade deal.

 

[Baldseagull]

Let me try and avoid the question again.
One scenario gives a definitive answer to the IN/OUT choice question in a binary question at the first vote, negating the need for a follow up referendum.
And one scenario does not give a definitive answer to the IN/OUT choice question via a binary question at the first vote and therefore allows scope, in the circumstances he is talking about, for there to be a follow up referendum.
Its not hard to work out which of the two scenarios is the current scenario we find ourselves in and which is the different scenario he is talking about in the video.
So how are these two voting scenarios the same?

Let me try again, I am not asking for a comparison of the two scenarios, just a point about the first one in 2011, before the 2016 referendum was set, so it had no affect, why did Mogg think that two referendums might make more sense?

 

[pastafarian]

Let me try again, I am not asking for a comparison of the two scenarios, just a point about the first one in 2011, before the 2016 referendum was set, so it had no affect, why did Mogg think that two referendums might make more sense?

You might not want the comparison but i am giving you the comparison because you have claimed they are the same voting scenario, ie a two way IN/OUT vote on membership of the EU as it stands.. Obviously they are not the same.

 

[Baldseagull]

You might not want the comparison but i am giving you the comparison because you have claimed they are the same voting scenario, ie a two way IN/OUT vote on membership of the EU as it stands.. Obviously they are not the same.

You might not want to say what the reason two referendums seemed a good idea to Mogg were in 2011, because the same logic would apply today i.e. in the first scenario, there would be a negotiated outcome that would be unpredictable at the time of the first referendum, and so a second referendum would make sense, on whether to accept the negotiation outcome or keep the status quo. Is that not the case?

 

[Klaas]

Dont worry, i already had you down as irrelevant on this thread

The time must fly round yours.