[Politics] Brexit

[Berty23]

Once again Brendan O'Neill hits the nail well and truly on the head.

Another issue here is that some things are best decided by people with informed opinion rather than that gathered through the media with an agenda to push. This is what I think of as the ken Clarke point about us electing people to make difficult decisions on our behalf.

You can apply it to many other walks of life

Should we have a referendum on school funding? Everyone has been to school and many have kids in school so everyone thinks they know about it but many people don't appreciate that in real terms much more funding for schools now than 15 years ago. The media talk about a crisis but miss this point.

Should my wife pick the Brighton team for Saturday? She has been to a couple of matches and could name a few of the players so why not - it is comparable to how informed 95% of us are about the EU. Heck, she could also come up with the tactics. Again the same.

The referendum was held because or Tory backbenchers in an attempt to shut them up - now the people who made a decision for this reason will have power to do what they want. Do you really think that is how to run a country?

What else should we have referendum about? Funding NHS? Whether to buy more warships?

 

[Buzzer]

I was thinking that. The "Love Europe, Hate the EU" tag being a fine example.

Ha! Just in this last page Raleigh Chopper posted an angry rant at Theresa May - you agreed with him. Cheshunt Seagull explicitly says he's angry in another rant. You agree with him too. 2 other Remain supporters also agreed with him and you've somehow missed all this and instead construed "Love Europe. Hate the EU" is an example of someone being angry?

You are so in denial, matey.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

The EU's negotiation guidelines are starting to emerge - http://news.sky.com/story/european-union-to-reveal-its-brexit-negotiating-approach-10818836

Future trade deal talks can take place if 'sufficient progress' has been made on the divorce.

The EU also wants a transitional deal post 2019, before any new deal kicks in, but subject to EU rules - budget contributions and remaining under the jurisdiction of the ECJ. We know how important freedom from the tyranny of The ECJ is for Brexit voters and the editor of The Daily Mail, so that option is surely a non-starter.

The Security comment really has gone down well with the eu

 

[GT49er]

I find you a little angry

By reading today's posts? Strange, seeing as how apart from my very non-angry question to you, I haven't posted today! I refer you to posts30655 to 30660, and ask two very simple questions.
1). Are the posters angry?
2). Are they remainers or leavers?
For the record, I am very happy, and not angry at all. Today is a splendid day!

 

[wellquickwoody]

Hey everyone, I have finally realised a major advantage to Brexit, and it really is a positive which harks back to 'the good old days' which should make the hardcore Brexitiers happy too?

As part of our ongoing negotiations about trade terms, import duties and freedom of workers movement etc etc we have a TRUMP card, and it is genius, a real winner for British freedom. Right at the end of the deal making we can play our ACE card, just as those smug Eurocrats think they have got the better of us us we can hit them with our demand, nay our RIGHT, to the return of DUTY FREE when travelling around Europe, Take that Angela Merkel, Herr Junkers, Francois Mitterand, General de Gaul, Senor Belusconi, Lionel Messi and Leonardo da Vinci! Weren't expecting that were you! You can't keep the bulldog spirit down. Great news everyone, 200 Windsor Blue, or packets of Amber Leaf AND a litre of Vladivostock Vodka with no duty, oh that feels good, all been worth it now, sleep easy everyone.

 

[daveinprague]

By reading today's posts? Strange, seeing as how apart from my very non-angry question to you, I haven't posted today! I refer you to posts30655 to 30660, and ask two very simple questions.
1). Are the posters angry?
2). Are they remainers or leavers?
For the record, I am very happy, and not angry at all. Today is a splendid day!

Calm down, it was a light hearted post. You may have noticed the smiley .
Im in a very good mood thanks. My ticket to UK is much cheaper when I booked it. Suns out. Its Friday.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Hey everyone, I have finally realised a major advantage to Brexit, and it really is a positive which harks back to 'the good old days' which should make the hardcore Brexitiers happy too?

As part of our ongoing negotiations about trade terms, import duties and freedom of workers movement etc etc we have a TRUMP card, and it is genius, a real winner for British freedom. Right at the end of the deal making we can play our ACE card, just as those smug Eurocrats think they have got the better of us us we can hit them with our demand, nay our RIGHT, to the return of DUTY FREE when travelling around Europe, Take that Angela Merkel, Herr Junkers, Francois Mitterand, General de Gaul, Senor Belusconi, Lionel Messi and Leonardo da Vinci! Weren't expecting that were you! You can't keep the bulldog spirit down. Great news everyone, 200 Windsor Blue, or packets of Amber Leaf AND a litre of Vladivostock Vodka with no duty, oh that feels good, all been worth it now, sleep easy everyone.

Getting our blue passports back comes first, everyone knows that.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Hey everyone, I have finally realised a major advantage to Brexit, and it really is a positive which harks back to 'the good old days' which should make the hardcore Brexitiers happy too?

As part of our ongoing negotiations about trade terms, import duties and freedom of workers movement etc etc we have a TRUMP card, and it is genius, a real winner for British freedom. Right at the end of the deal making we can play our ACE card, just as those smug Eurocrats think they have got the better of us us we can hit them with our demand, nay our RIGHT, to the return of DUTY FREE when travelling around Europe, Take that Angela Merkel, Herr Junkers, Francois Mitterand, General de Gaul, Senor Belusconi, Lionel Messi and Leonardo da Vinci! Weren't expecting that were you! You can't keep the bulldog spirit down. Great news everyone, 200 Windsor Blue, or packets of Amber Leaf AND a litre of Vladivostock Vodka with no duty, oh that feels good, all been worth it now, sleep easy everyone.

You know what, whilst I admire your point, I honestly feel that there is a bit more to it than that. Well spotted though.

 

[GT49er]

Calm down, it was a light hearted post. You may have noticed the smiley .
Im in a very good mood thanks. My ticket to UK is much cheaper when I booked it. Suns out. Its Friday.

No problem - quite calm and light-hearted myself. I was just genuinely puzzled by your answer, "Already did". Enjoy your trip to the UK!

 

[Buzzer]

Another issue here is that some things are best decided by people with informed opinion rather than that gathered through the media with an agenda to push. This is what I think of as the ken Clarke point about us electing people to make difficult decisions on our behalf.

You can apply it to many other walks of life

Should we have a referendum on school funding? Everyone has been to school and many have kids in school so everyone thinks they know about it but many people don't appreciate that in real terms much more funding for schools now than 15 years ago. The media talk about a crisis but miss this point.

Should my wife pick the Brighton team for Saturday? She has been to a couple of matches and could name a few of the players so why not - it is comparable to how informed 95% of us are about the EU. Heck, she could also come up with the tactics. Again the same.

The referendum was held because or Tory backbenchers in an attempt to shut them up - now the people who made a decision for this reason will have power to do what they want. Do you really think that is how to run a country?

What else should we have referendum about? Funding NHS? Whether to buy more warships?

This is a spurious argument and for a couple of reasons. Voters make decisions at elections about which party will run the NHS, regulate banks, dictate foreign policy, set tax rates etc etc with very little technical knowledge or expertise about how the system works and the effect of what each party is proposing. Big macro-economic issues are effectively decided by which party we choose to put in power based on a few weeks of an election campaign. Is it therefore in this country's best interests, using your argument that an ignorant electorate has any say in it? Surely, we should just leave it to the experts and take out the general public element.

And on this point, I think there is no denying that the pre-referendum debate lasted a lot longer than any general election and we the public had a lot more information about what we were voting for and over a longer period and it was just focused on this single issue rather than a general election where dozens of different issues are discussed. The British public has probably never voted on anything with so much information at hand to assist them. If you feel that even with all that info given to us over all that time is insufficient for us to make an informed decision on this single issue then we should cancel democracy full stop and turn the UK into a technocracy.

And lastly, your post shows that you completely miss the point of O'Neill's argument. He was saying that experts have been making decisions for people for decades and whilst life has been good for the experts, there's a large part of the public that now feel disconnected and don't feel that they have enjoyed the benefits and don't feel that the experts and politicians are listening to them. It's perfectly reasonable for an electorate that feels disenfranchised to revolt against the status quo and demand change.

 

[Baldseagull]

Once again Brendan O'Neill hits the nail well and truly on the head.

If this is true, it somewhat demonstrates the stupidity factor in the leave vote.
It's like the teenager that necks 3 bottles of pills to get some attention from Mum and Dad.

 

[mikeyjh]

Once again Brendan O'Neill hits the nail well and truly on the head.

I agree but probably for slightly different reasons - In a nutshell, from the perspective of someone who voted to remain, he's captured everything I've heard from some of the emptier vessels on here. He mentions Brexit 10 times, uses it as a noun, a verb and even appears to refer to it in the third person but at no point does he mention what he actually wants. What is it that Brexit is going to do for him and the 'vast swathes' that he mentions? In terms of angry, empty, rhetoric, this is of an Olympian standard.

He is correct that there is dissatisfaction with the status quo and with the political landscape, he is entirely incorrect that this translates in to widespread support for whatever Brexit might turn out to be. As I've mentioned previously, Farage et al conned an awful lot of people when translating the ire of the 'ordinary working man' in to support for their cause.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Getting our blue passports back comes first, everyone knows that.

Id like a blue one....with 27 gold stars on it. Hopefully that kind man from Luxembourg will help me.

 

[ManOfSussex]

I think there are a few hoping it will fail JC.

Nigel Farage, Arron Banks and Paul Dacre to name but three.

 

[Buzzer]

If this is true, it somewhat demonstrates the stupidity factor in the leave vote.
It's like the teenager that necks 3 bottles of pills to get some attention from Mum and Dad.

These Remain analogies about what Brexit is about get even more ridiculous. Someone should do a montage of them: "Brexit is like rollerskating over a cliff into a plate of jelly. But it's not jelly, it's concrete. And the person roller-skating is thick. And racist."

Apparently, voter disenfranchisement is just attention-seeking and the electorate are the kids and the politicians the grown-ups in this relationship.

 

[Soulman]

Maybe you should read through all the posts posted today and then re-assess your analysis of exactly which side of the leave/remain argument has the angry ones!

I am fairly happy, Friday, nice full English at tea break, get stuck in, early get away, football tomorrow washed down with a few beers.

 

[Baldseagull]

This is a spurious argument and for a couple of reasons. Voters make decisions at elections about which party will run the NHS, regulate banks, dictate foreign policy, set tax rates etc etc with very little technical knowledge or expertise about how the system works and the effect of what each party is proposing. Big macro-economic issues are effectively decided by which party we choose to put in power based on a few weeks of an election campaign. Is it therefore in this country's best interests, using your argument that an ignorant electorate has any say in it? Surely, we should just leave it to the experts and take out the general public element.

And on this point, I think there is no denying that the pre-referendum debate lasted a lot longer than any general election and we the public had a lot more information about what we were voting for and over a longer period and it was just focused on this single issue rather than a general election where dozens of different issues are discussed. The British public has probably never voted on anything with so much information at hand to assist them. If you feel that even with all that info given to us over all that time is insufficient for us to make an informed decision on this single issue then we should cancel democracy full stop and turn the UK into a technocracy.

And lastly, your post shows that you completely miss the point of O'Neill's argument. He was saying that experts have been making decisions for people for decades and whilst life has been good for the experts, there's a large part of the public that now feel disconnected and don't feel that they have enjoyed the benefits and don't feel that the experts and politicians are listening to them. It's perfectly reasonable for an electorate that feels disenfranchised to revolt against the status quo and demand change.

There was plenty of opportunity for the UK public to make an informed and reasoned decision, but quite a lot of them did not bother to think but still voted.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I think there are a few hoping it will fail JC.

I'm not sure if the rubbishing virtually everything our government says and does/going big on any negative news while ignoring the flaws on the EU side plus more positive data is just a tactic or a pathological desire to be proved right.

 

[Buzzer]

There was plenty of opportunity for the UK public to make an informed and reasoned decision, but quite a lot of them did not bother to think but still voted.

In other words, the electorate should know its place and do as its told. Yes, that approach to politics is working so well at the moment.

 

[Berty23]

This is a spurious argument and for a couple of reasons. Voters make decisions at elections about which party will run the NHS, regulate banks, dictate foreign policy, set tax rates etc etc with very little technical knowledge or expertise about how the system works and the effect of what each party is proposing. Big macro-economic issues are effectively decided by which party we choose to put in power based on a few weeks of an election campaign. Is it therefore in this country's best interests, using your argument that an ignorant electorate has any say in it? Surely, we should just leave it to the experts and take out the general public element.

And on this point, I think there is no denying that the pre-referendum debate lasted a lot longer than any general election and we the public had a lot more information about what we were voting for and over a longer period and it was just focused on this single issue rather than a general election where dozens of different issues are discussed. The British public has probably never voted on anything with so much information at hand to assist them. If you feel that even with all that info given to us over all that time is insufficient for us to make an informed decision on this single issue then we should cancel democracy full stop and turn the UK into a technocracy.

And lastly, your post shows that you completely miss the point of O'Neill's argument. He was saying that experts have been making decisions for people for decades and whilst life has been good for the experts, there's a large part of the public that now feel disconnected and don't feel that they have enjoyed the benefits and don't feel that the experts and politicians are listening to them. It's perfectly reasonable for an electorate that feels disenfranchised to revolt against the status quo and demand change.

This Is where we disagree. During a general election the parties publish a manifesto and that is effectively a promise of what they will do. That is why Cameron called the referendum - manifesto commitment. If parties break their manifesto then generally it will either get killed in the commons or the lords. Sometimes by the media - see national insurance a few weeks ago.

The referendum was different. The whole campaign from both sides was based on guesses and lies. No one knows what they were voting for and anyone who says they did is completely deluded. 350 million for NHS? Gone. Massive reduction in immigration? Gone. Will we be in her single market? Looks like not but the only people who said this were on remain side! What about the areas that voted leave and then said "we still want all that money the EU used to give us? Did they know what they were voting for? On the remain side it was just as bad with guesses about what would happen immediately whereas that was never going to happen (apart from the rise in racist hate crime).

9 months on we still don't know what we will get. We are all aware of WTO rules but what does this mean? How many people know the ins and outs? You could probably fit them on a double decker bus! The there are loads of polls about what is better? A bad deal or no deal? What does this even mean? It is impossible to answer without knowing what a bad deal is and whether better than no deal. The media lap it up and whip the public into a frenzy. It is nuts.

If you believe that we had more information about what we were voting for on the referendum than in a general election then it is pointless us carrying on the discussion!