[Politics] Brexit

[Mental Lental]

Your wield the term "undemocratic" as though it is shameful.

There's a lot of that going on on this thread. I don't see what's so good about democracy at all. Especially referendums. It allows a clueless uneducated nimrod who leaves school with no qualifications and only the barest standards of literacy as much of a say in who runs the country as someone like Stephen Hawking.

 

[Baldseagull]

Hasnt the PM said that wont happen there will be no further votes.

Well, what is said and what happens are often not the same, she may well not be Prime Minister by the end of negotiations.

 

[Baldseagull]

But we will be on our own, so should be easier as we don't need various countries to agree?

We do if we want a deal with the EU, and we do.

 

[Baldseagull]

You sound like a fan!Have you read his published diatribe 'Ruling Europe'?

Not a fan at all, but he was elected to his position.

 

[Baldseagull]

It's difficult for the EU because there are 28 ( soon to be 27 ) different parties that have to agree with any deal. When we negotiate there will only be two - us and the other country we're trying to do a deal with - far far we easier.

Not when we are after a deal with the EU, also, since the last time we doing our own negotiations, we now have a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly, I have no idea if this would make it possible for either one to veto an agreement, but I am sure we will find out, and it will cause ill feeling either way.

 

[El Presidente]

I doubt they know there is a correct way to hang it.

I suspect the EDL are very familiar with hangings.

 

[Captain Sensible]

No need to worry, we have decided to work on a rota system as agreed at our weekly neighbourhood Brexiteer meeting ..

You sad sad sad person.

 

[Captain Sensible]

Get your posts in now lads before it gets overrun by the likes of cunning fergus, Jc footy genius, beotherlem or whoever.

Here we go!

 

[pastafarian]

No need to worry, we have decided to work on a rota system as agreed at our weekly neighbourhood Brexiteer meeting ..

Didnt take long did it, one of the usual suspects equating a load of patriotic flags with the EDL.....haters gonna hate

 

[Captain Sensible]

Didnt take long did it, one of the usual suspects equating a load of patriotic flags with the EDL.....haters gonna hate

imagine .... why.
Right wing Tory voting Brexiters need to claim that flag back from the far right. Difficult thing to do. It's not for the left to do it, they didn't steal it or take it under false pretences. I wish some didn't take that flag to mean historic patriotism, with the patriotic values of the right, but then that is why JC footy responded with that picture, isn't it?

Still this thread is over to you guys now, to go back and forth saying the same thing over and over. Enjoy!

 

[Soulman]

I suspect the EDL are very familiar with hangings.

Why?. How many have been hung.

 

[pb21]

...production being moved to a Turkish plant paid for with EU taxpayers money...

...Are you saying the EIB is fully financially independent from any money from EU taxpayers?...

You are moving the goal posts.

You made your first statement, "paid for with EU taxpayers money" (I suspect deliberately incorrectly), to appeal to the Brexit mob mentality. That is the point of order I was raising and which formed the entire basis of the rest of your post.

You have since changed you tune, after being pointed out you were wrong, to question the financial independence of the EIB.

 

[Diego Napier]

OK, so let me get this straight, you don't like my habit of attaching factual links to support my comments, because you think they are biased?

It's not like I am going to stop doing it, is it? If you disagree with the facts then attach your own.

You keep missing the point, I'll spell it out. Facts can be dredged up to support any particular point of view. It's called selective use of facts. It's become known as confirmation bias. Google has greatly increased it's use. It's a cheap and easy way to win an argument with those who have less resolve or are easily won over. Your use of selective facts doesn't convince me because the force of your argument is so weak.

Take the Ford/EIB that I have attached some links to. Feel free to attach some facts of your own that disprove my point?

You are confused aren't you? In an earlier response to you I didn't dispute the Ford situation and agreed that the Ford workers would feel justified in voting for brexit.

As for your points on democracy and waste I can't think many remainers feel the way you evidently do.

I don't imagine many do, does that make my view less valid?

You don't value democracy generally, but you actively support the aims of the EU and you don't appear to care how they achieve them, and your point on waste sums it up doesn't it?

"I don't care about UK Government waste, there's nothing I can do about it." Quite.

I have plenty of my own doubts and complaints about UK democracy, however I understand I have a say on who will govern the country and broadly the policies they will apply.

I repeat from an earlier post, democracy does an excellent job in keeping the population quiescent whilst delivering the illusion of power to the individual. I support any move such as the establishing the EU or UN that helps move us away from our primitive tribal roots towards a common world humanity. I accept that there are down sides to the EU but believe that there is more good than bad.

If Trident was a very big deal to me then I would vote for a Green candidate, I have expressed my view.

Again you miss my point, if Trident was a very big deal to me but I despised every other Green policy then what?

The EU and its institutions are set up to confound any democratic mandate. This is not by accident but by design, so that the law making arm isn't even directly elected by the European people, so I don't even get a say. If I don't agree with aspects of the new European General Data Protection Regulation that is now on the UK statute book without any UK parliamentary debate, who do I hold accountable? This new legislative development to this country's long parliamentary history is why people with as diverse political beliefs as Tony Benn and Enoch Powell could agree that the UK Parliament's supremacy had been sold out to unelected EU institutions.

As for "labouring under the misapprehension that the EU is in cahoots with global business whereas Britain is somehow immune or deliberately shuns their advances" where did you get that from?

I clearly stated the UK, EU and global capitalism were all in cahoots with the decision to burn EU workers jobs in favour of those in Turkey. Again who is accountable for this decision?

The one thing that happens to UK politicians is ultimately those we don't like we eventually bin off, from Portillo to Balls to Cameron to Blair. Typically their arrogance ends up being the precursor to their political demise. This is good and it is not consistent with how the EU works. Despite the chaos of the euro and its consequences who has gone?

Exactly.

And yet you still don't get it. The circumstances surrounding and the reasons for the demise of Portillo, Balls, Cameron & Blair were multitudinous and varied. To lump them together and suggest they were binned off as a direct result of your or my efforts is just simplistic and crass.

I suppose it's good that your such an ardent supporter of your belief system. A person who believes in catholicism goes to mass each week and, through the power vested in the priest and the strength of the individual's belief, they know that the wafer and wine they consume turn into the body and blood of a god who once lived on earth. Equally, you too visit your own temple once every five years and believe through the ceremony of administering the cross ensure that you personally influence the momentous events of the day. To compensate for the five year hiatus between you personally affecting the course of the country you can be comforted by the knowledge that your own high priests meet frequently in the Westminster temple and their elaborate ceremonies and gowns cannot mask the fact that they are carrying out your very own personal mandate. Such power you wield. And in either scenario how comforting it must be to know that you can even go and speak to your priest if something is troubling you and he/she has the power to resolve your problem.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Didnt take long did it, one of the usual suspects equating a load of patriotic flags with the EDL.....haters gonna hate

The Thornberry effect?

You sad sad sad person.

Sense of humour failure (assuming you have one) ?

 

[ditchy]

There's a lot of that going on on this thread. I don't see what's so good about democracy at all. Especially referendums. It allows a clueless uneducated nimrod who leaves school with no qualifications and only the barest standards of literacy as much of a say in who runs the country as someone like Stephen Hawking.

Then it is up to those who wish to stand to represent you and these nimrods to do a good job of explaining what their vote will do , so as to influence the outcome . So in your view if someone has a low IQ they are not deserving of a vote ?

 

[yxee]

There's a lot of that going on on this thread. I don't see what's so good about democracy at all. Especially referendums. It allows a clueless uneducated nimrod who leaves school with no qualifications and only the barest standards of literacy as much of a say in who runs the country as someone like Stephen Hawking.

That is precisely why it is essential that everyone has a vote- because it is the only way of fixing the lack of education. If the uneducated and impoverished have not right to vote, then why would any government bother trying to improve failing schools or fixing poverty?

The short-sightedness of this argument is really astounding.

 

[Gwylan]

. This is not by accident but by design, so that the law making arm isn't even directly elected by the European people, so I don't even get a say. If I don't agree with aspects of the new European General Data Protection Regulation that is now on the UK statute book without any UK parliamentary debate, who do I hold accountable?

I'm happy to knock the EU and its many limitations but that's not to say that it can't get things right occasionally.

Having written three papers in the last year on GDPR, this is one EU regulation that I know very well and it is one of those areas where it's got it spot on, giving far more protection to individuals (that's you and me) and compelling businesses to take data protection seriously. Nor is it true to say that it was passed by law makers without any input from directly-elected representatives - it was passed by the European Parliament in April this year (and MEPs are directly elected). And there was a lot of debate about this, with plenty of input from all sides. It's also not quite true to say that individual states have been sidelined by this: the GDPR provides for national Information Commissioners to interpret the rules according to their national concerns eg the level of fines inflicted on transgressors.

Interestingly, I've spoken to several lawyers and representatives of security companies about this and the overwhelming belief is that the European GDPR will be enshrined in British law, even though we'll no longer be members of the EU.

Although I'm an out voter (and would still vote out today), I am a bit worried by this tendency of fellow Brexiters to make up a load of nonsense about the EU. The EU provides plenty of ammunition through the things that's actually done without talking about things that the EU hasn't done. I think we should also accept that not every single thing that comes from the EU is bad or against our interests.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I'm happy to knock the EU and its many limitations but that's not to say that it can't get things right occasionally.

Having written three papers in the last year on GDPR, this is one EU regulation that I know very well and it is one of those areas where it's got it spot on, giving far more protection to individuals (that's you and me) and compelling businesses to take data protection seriously. Nor is it true to say that it was passed by law makers without any input from directly-elected representatives - it was passed by the European Parliament in April this year (and MEPs are directly elected). And there was a lot of debate about this, with plenty of input from all sides. It's also not quite true to say that individual states have been sidelined by this: the GDPR provides for national Information Commissioners to interpret the rules according to their national concerns eg the level of fines inflicted on transgressors.

Interestingly, I've spoken to several lawyers and representatives of security companies about this and the overwhelming belief is that the European GDPR will be enshrined in British law, even though we'll no longer be members of the EU.

Although I'm an out voter (and would still vote out today), I am a bit worried by this tendency of fellow Brexiters to make up a load of nonsense about the EU. The EU provides plenty of ammunition through the things that's actually done without talking about things that the EU hasn't done. I think we should also accept that not every single thing that comes from the EU is bad or against our interests.

Another [MENTION=12825]cunning fergus[/MENTION] argument blown out of the water. I'll add this to the list is supplied yesterday

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Why?. How many have been hung.

Just for the record, it is not usually an offence to have hung someone. To have hanged them is far more serious.

(On the same subject I saw an interesting piece of politically-neutral Referendum research last week, on the subject of 'predictors'. Predictors are the things that help you make a guess. If you tried to guess the way the next person you met in the street voted on 23 June you would have a 52 (or 48) per cent chance of being right. If you knew their gender the figure would be about the same. If you knew their age and education and what they did for a job you would be able to make a more accurate guess. But knowledge of two things in particular would really really help you get it right. They were "attitude to immigration" (as expected) and "attitude to capital punishment" (slight surprise). So there you are - if someone is in favour of 'bringing back hanging' you can guess that they are in favour of Brexit and will be right three times out of four.

 

[GT49er]

Just for the record, it is not usually an offence to have hung someone. To have hanged them is far more serious.

(On the same subject I saw an interesting piece of politically-neutral Referendum research last week, on the subject of 'predictors'. Predictors are the things that help you make a guess. If you tried to guess the way the next person you met in the street voted on 23 June you would have a 52 (or 48) per cent chance of being right. If you knew their gender the figure would be about the same. If you knew their age and education and what they did for a job you would be able to make a more accurate guess. But knowledge of two things in particular would really really help you get it right. They were "attitude to immigration" (as expected) and "attitude to capital punishment" (slight surprise). So there you are - if someone is in favour of 'bringing back hanging' you can guess that they are in favour of Brexit and will be right three times out of four.

So if you 'just meet someone on the street' there will be what percentage chance that they will have the information you require to make a wild guess printed on their T-shirt?