[Politics] Brexit

[dingodan]

This has been gone through on this thread before though, with various amusing analogies. If the situation has changed, and more information is available - then it is a new question, and worth asking about. The house survey analogy was my favourite in that if you agree to buy a house, but then the survey says it's falling down, you don't still just press on with the purchase because you had said you would.

Yes, but it's not really true.

The vast majority who voted remain and lost are saying that the situation has changed, we now know something different from before. They haven't changed their minds, they are just convinced for some reason that others must surely now agree with them.

Well the vast majority who voted leave and won say the situation hasn't changed, their minds haven't changed. The only "new information" is that remainers who said they would respect the outcome of the vote are now saying they won't and are trying everything they can to stop us leaving.

Don't kid yourself, the purpose of a second vote is to have one last try to change the result. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain, so why not? People who won the vote the first time see nothing in the suggestion of a second vote other than ungentlemanly conduct.

 

[The Clamp]

I keep hearing this kind of argument.

People voted to leave. If you don't leave but instead go back and ask them again, it undermines the trust people put in the vote in the first place. I

It has nothing to do with whether they would expect to win the vote or not, it has to do with the principle of honoring a promise they all made, and not going back on it.

That includes Labour.

For democracy to work the public have to be given facts. We must not be lied to and we must not be subject to misinformation and propaganda. We need to be able to vote with clarity.
The 2016 referendum broke all those criteria and therefore was not democratic.
You’re afraid of people voting when they are in possession of more information.

Personally, I think a second referendum run will yield a similar result as the first. Not because leaving is the right thing to do but because most of us are stupid.
Anyone with the gift of rational thinking knows that the only thing to do that will sort this mess out once and for all will be to revoke A50 and get the country back to a settled state.
I know you’ll throw your arms up but your outrage butters no parsnips with me.
Where were all the “leave the EU” threads and protests five years ago?
Most of your lot couldn’t have given a tinker’s curse about our EU membership before racism’s Nigel Farage started his campaign to appeal to the more base elements of humanity.


Scrapping Brexit would be the best thing for you. And you’ll never know it. I believe the enlightened have a duty of care to those who can’t make good decisions. We have a duty to revoke A50.

 

[dingodan]

For democracy to work the public have to be given facts. We must not be lied to and we must not be subject to misinformation and propaganda. We need to be able to vote with clarity.
The 2016 referendum broke all those criteria and therefore was not democratic.
You’re afraid of people voting when they are in possession of more information.

Personally, I think a second referendum run will yield a similar result as the first. Not because leaving is the right thing to do but because most of us are stupid.
Anyone with the gift of rational thinking knows that the only thing to do that will sort this mess out once and for all will be to revoke A50 and get the country back to a settled state.
I know you’ll throw your arms up but your outrage butters no parsnips with me.
Where were all the “leave the EU” threads and protests five years ago?
Most of your lot couldn’t have given a tinker’s curse about our EU membership before racism’s Nigel Farage started his campaign to appeal to the more base elements of humanity.


Scrapping Brexit would be the best thing for you. And you’ll never know it. I believe the enlightened have a duty of care to those who can’t make good decisions. We have a duty to revoke A50.

Oh, perhaps I have misjudged you.

I can't say I fully support your satirical pro-leave posts, because I think we should respect those who want to remain and not mock them.

But sorry for responding to your posts as though they are serious, I get it now.

 

[zefarelly]

Yes, but it's not really true.

The vast majority who voted remain and lost are saying that the situation has changed, we now know something different from before. They haven't changed their minds, they are just convinced for some reason that others must surely now agree with them.

Well the vast majority who voted leave and won say the situation hasn't changed, their minds haven't changed. The only "new information" is that remainers who said they would respect the outcome of the vote are now saying they won't and are trying everything they can to stop us leaving.

Don't kid yourself, the purpose of a second vote is to have one last try to change the result. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain, so why not? People who won the vote the first time see nothing in the suggestion of a second vote other than ungentlemanly conduct.

Sad, but true, for a significant proportion. However many people have changed their minds, and the electoral demography must have changed somewhat in the last 4 years.

If only one of the ****wits in charge had done some homework beforehand.

An advisory vote needed an appropriate response and debate. . . . . Or alternatively they could have said its binding BUt needs to to be a clear majority, as is normally done in cases of fundamental constitutional change.

Which ever way, everyone should have been forced to vote.

 

[The Clamp]

Oh, perhaps I have misjudged you.

I can't say I fully support your satirical pro-leave posts, because I think we should respect those who want to remain and not mock them.

But sorry for responding to your posts as though they are serious, I get it now.

You really don’t get it. You don’t like facts. Well, they don’t change no matter how unpalatable to the likes of you.

 

[daveinplzen]

I keep hearing this kind of argument.

People voted to leave. If you don't leave but instead go back and ask them again, it undermines the trust people put in the vote in the first place.

It has nothing to do with whether they would expect to win the vote or not, it has to do with the principle of honoring a promise they all made, and not going back on it.

That includes Labour.

The 'trust' given by voters for the first vote was given based on complete and utter bullshit. As you know.

 

[Wardy's twin]

Yes, but it's not really true.

The vast majority who voted remain and lost are saying that the situation has changed, we now know something different from before. They haven't changed their minds, they are just convinced for some reason that others must surely now agree with them.

Well the vast majority who voted leave and won say the situation hasn't changed, their minds haven't changed. The only "new information" is that remainers who said they would respect the outcome of the vote are now saying they won't and are trying everything they can to stop us leaving.

Don't kid yourself, the purpose of a second vote is to have one last try to change the result. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain, so why not? People who won the vote the first time see nothing in the suggestion of a second vote other than ungentlemanly conduct.

Tell me what you voted for and why...a brief 5 point summary is enough.

 

[dingodan]

The 'trust' given by voters for the first vote was given based on complete and utter bullshit. As you know.

[tweet]661200566304047104[/tweet]

 

[dingodan]

Tell me what you voted for and why...a brief 5 point summary is enough.

It only took a couple of pages before I'm asked to justify myself again.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you weren't here for that.

From a few pages ago:

The principle is what is important. I have explained this so many times on here, but it never matters. But Ok, I want to be constructive so I'll do it again, but I have a feeling in 10-15 pages time it won't matter and I'll be asked again to explain myself.

The EU could have only 100% laws which I personally agree with. But that doesn't make it Ok that laws are not made by people I (or you) have the power to elect or remove. An EU which has laws I 100% agree with today, may have laws I don't agree with (or you don't agree with) tomorrow. Who makes the law is more important than what the law currently is.

I don't know what your personal politics are, but I want you to be able, if you elect a government, to determine what the laws in this country are, even if I don't personally agree with them. The point is that if the laws are not what you feel they should be, or what I feel they should be, we can debate, we can campaign, we can elect and through that we can decide. That is what I want. It is short sighted to say that the current laws of the EU are good and the current laws of the UK Government are bad. Tomorrow the UK Government might be your prefered choice, and the EU might be under the direction of people with whom you don't agree. Inside the EU you won't be able to change the laws made by people who don't share your values, even if you have the UK government of your choice.

It's not about this or that law, and it shouldn't be about the makeup of the current EU or UK governments. It is only about whether our elected officials decide our laws or not. And it is important that they do.

 

[The Clamp]

[tweet]661200566304047104[/tweet]

Can you contextualise that email? What survey are they referring to?

 

[daveinplzen]

[tweet]661200566304047104[/tweet][/QUOTE
... and this shows the public were not fed bullshit? You're having a laugh.

 

[clapham_gull]

Sad, but true, for a significant proportion. However many people have changed their minds, and the electoral demography must have changed somewhat in the last 4 years.

If only one of the ****wits in charge had done some homework beforehand.

An advisory vote needed an appropriate response and debate. . . . . Or alternatively they could have said its binding BUt needs to to be a clear majority, as is normally done in cases of fundamental constitutional change.

Which ever way, everyone should have been forced to vote.

After telling Scotland it would have to leave EU during their referendum you'd think it would be sensible to get a majority in all the regions.

As for not doing their homework on the border either.

Imagine this regime taking us to war. It's frightening. I'll never vote for Corbyn, but whatever damage the right wing on here think he will do to his country....

... Look what the Tories have done. Smashed it in two in a way Thatcher would never have even attempted.

Shame on them.

 

[dingodan]

Can you contextualise that email? What survey are they referring to?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...rganisation-investigation-fiddled-pro-EU-poll

 

[daveinplzen]

Brexiteers talk about the 'people' but it's bullshit. They know it is, but the thought of not 'winning' scares the crap out of them.

 

[The Clamp]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...rganisation-investigation-fiddled-pro-EU-poll

And that proves your argument how?

 

[clapham_gull]

Can you contextualise that email? What survey are they referring to?

Behind it was a spat between disaster capitalist Dominic Cummings and those Marxist agitators the CBI.

It turned out there was nothing wrong with the poll results but they should have been published more background information regarding how it was compiled.

It was corrected very quickly. It's really clutching at straws to compare that the bollocks Vote Leave were spouting.

But you've been proved wrong on the border, wrong that a deal would be easy, swallowed the lie that there will be less immigration - where do you turn ?

Twitter and the Daily Express.

http://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/tag/complaint/

 

[dingodan]

And that proves your argument how?

I wasn't making an argument.

I just shared the tweet with someone I assumed might be interested.

(Turns out he's not)

 

[Thunder Bolt]

What?

"A policy is a statement of intent, and is implemented as a procedure or protocol."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy

Policy = Intention (we propose to do X)

Legislation = Implimentation (passing a law to do X)

All I am doing is rightly arguing that in the EU the people who propose (move) legislation (i.e. the people who write the laws) are not accountable to an electorate, they are not voted in by the people who have to live under the laws, and they can't be removed by them either.

That is just the truth. If you are Ok with that, just say so, but at least be honest. I am personally not comfortable with that, I prefer lawmakers to be answerable to the people through the ballot box.

If you feel uncomfortable being straight forward about the fact that you are defending a system of lawmaking without proper accountability maybe you should think about whether you really even do support that system, or whether you are just so entrenched in your position that you refuse to acknowledge the legitimate arguments against it.

I can only vote for my local MP so I have no say in what any party executive proposes as policy. I can email my local MP & ask them not to vote or to vote for a particular legislation, but they are subject to party whips.
I can also email my MEPs in the same way.

 

[The Clamp]

I wasn't making an argument.

I just shared the tweet with someone I assumed might be interested.

(Turns out he's not)

All a bit bootless really.

 

[dingodan]

Behind it was a spat between disaster capitalist Dominic Cummings and those Marxist agitators the CBI.

It turned out there was nothing wrong with the poll results but they should have been published more background information regarding how it was compiled.

It was corrected very quickly. It's really clutching at straws to compare that the bollocks Vote Leave were spouting.

But you've been proved wrong on the border, wrong that a deal would be easy, swallowed the lie that there will be less immigration - where do you turn ?

Twitter and the Daily Express.

http://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/tag/complaint/

The BPC’s principal aim is to ensure that its member companies are as transparent as possible about the methods that they use to conduct their polls. It does not adjudicate on the merits of the methodologies that are used in polls — and consequently it has not done so in this case. Our findings do not represent in any way a judgement on the merits of the methodology used by YouGov in the CBI poll.

I swear pretty much everyone is bullshitting everyone in this debate, just to try to win the argument.

I want lawmakers elected by the people who live under the laws they make.

I look forward to hearing someone argue that there is anything wrong with wanting that, or anything incorrect about finding that principle undermined by EU membership.