LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksThey may not be able to mitigate the effects of medicines and food according to the document. Particularly foods and medicines with short short expiry date as they're unable to stockpile them.Originally Posted by TeePee
They may not be able to mitigate the effects of medicines and food according to the document. Particularly foods and medicines with short short expiry date as they're unable to stockpile them.
I am a Remainer. I think voting to leave was one of the worse cases of self-harm any electorate has voted upon itself. I never bought the nonsense about how undemocratic the EU was. Not because I think it is democratic (it's not), but because in a country where there is an unelected Head of State, an unelected House of Lords, a FPTP system, and where donors are given peerages for donations, there was never any real democracy to begin with. I'm not particularly bothered by immigration, nor am I a racist. I've felt that, on balance, the EU has been a good thing for both member states, and Europe as a whole.
I do think that the only way to resolve this is for another referendum, but this time the options need to be leave with no deal, or remain. We have clearly seen that leaving with a deal, that would satisfy leavers, is impossible to attain (it always was in reality). It is pretty obvious that the majority of leave voters will not accept any kind of deal the EU is offering, and so a Brexit in name only goes no way at all to resolving the issue. Remainers also have a responsibility to acknowledge that, despite the obvious flaws in firstly offering such an irresponsible referendum and secondly, the lack of oversight of what was actually being said during that referendum, it was a vote to leave. If I had voted to leave, I would be pretty angry at what is being offered and being called Brexit. The country is very seriously split, and I think now the most pragmatic thing is to now mitigate what damage is being done, not so much in an economic way via Brexit, but to the social fabric of the UK. As a result, if there was another referendum, and leave with no Deal or remain were on offer, I would vote to leave. I think, in weighing up the 2 alternatives, remaining will only cause the divisions to grow greater, and more worryingly, with the help of a predominately right-wing media, it will be spun in such a way that will allow populism to really take a hold on the political discourse (more than it already has). That, for me, outweighs the economic turmoil of what is come from a no deal. I also happen to think, given the split of the vote in terms of age, with younger voters being far more pro-EU then the older generation, it won’t be long before we are having another discussion about the UK’s re-entry into the EU, presumably with an elected Government that has stood on a platform, and won a mandate, to do just that. The ironic thing is, if that if that does come to pass, it will be on far less favourable terms then we had.
neonplanet40 (15-09-2019),Zak33 (12-09-2019)
blimey... we agree on a lot of that. I was a remainer. But now...
"As a result, if there was another referendum, and leave with no Deal or remain were on offer, I would vote to leave. I think, in weighing up the 2 alternatives, remaining will only cause the divisions to grow greater, and more worryingly, with the help of a predominately right-wing media, it will be spun in such a way that will allow populism to really take a hold on the political discourse (more than it already has). That, for me, outweighs the economic turmoil of what is come from a no deal."
that is statement of the week. I salute you.
But just to clarify, whilst I would vote leave in another referendum, in no way whatsoever do I support leaving with no deal at this point. It needs to work both ways - people who originally voted leave need to accept that, given how the campaign was run and what was said by the overwhelming majority of leave campaigners regarding how we would be leaving with a deal, there is no mandate yet for a no deal Brexit and specifically what that entails economically.
atemporal (12-09-2019),neonplanet40 (15-09-2019),Zak33 (12-09-2019)
yup I get that.
Unlike Zak, I am not really convinced that it would really dampen populism. If anything I think that it would encourage them. Give an inch and they'll eat you whole.
I think one of the issue is that those on the far right are simply more relentless, less compromising, less likely to give up. Farage was one to say that at 52/48, it would be unfinished business. And I wouldn't expect any Brexit Party voters to vote for remain on a second referendum if our position was reversed. They would fight tooth and nail to try to win a second referendum.
Now, I am certainly not one to speak about fighting for a cause. As soon as the referendum result was announced I made plans to settle elsewhere and moved all my assets out of the UK. I have the privilege of multiple nationality and having lived long enough to apply for permanent residency in a number of places. Though until Brexit, I always thought of the UK as the home I would eventually go. Brexit though would be so damaging to my plans that I decided not to stick around.
If I was somewhat less privileged and would be stuck with the consequences of Brexit though, I wouldn't give up on the remain cause until it is confirmed lost (and jump on the rejoin cause afterwards). Even if I can get onboard your view, I think that the most I could do is to abstain from voting on a second referendum. Farage et al. would take every leave vote as evidence that the country should further to the far right. No one will view your vote as a nod to respecting the first referendum.
I would also like to point out that there was a rise in hate crime right after the referendum, when half the nation was still stunned by the outcome and there wasn't yet any talk on a second referendum (or even how the referendum result would be implemented), so no one can even argue that it was a retaliation for not respecting the result and whatnot. Basically, some people took the result as a green light for being overtly xenophobic. It may well be that they will be incensed if they lost a second referendum and cause all types of trouble, but from what we've seen after the referendum, they will cause trouble either way. Might as well try not to give them what they want then.
I am not even sure what the outcome of a second referendum would be if there was one. For all I know, the number in favour of Brexit has increased despite the polls and changing demographics. But if there is a second chance, I think that remainers really shouldn't opt for sympathy vote (obviously it is your vote, but this is my 2p). For all we know, the first referendum might have been lost due to protest votes against Cameron.
jimborae (13-09-2019)
Well I think the neat thing about Opel's suggestion is that the mainstream could well vote to leave with no deal - which is really cunning actually since it means no single minority gets to claim the moral high ground and popularists with a further agenda beyond leaving what the EU is currently will lose any mandate they otherwise might feel they have if they were to get the outcome they want regarding leaving without it being clear the majority also wanted the same.
Too long a sentence, sorry, but yes, if that no deal/remain referendum was held it would make more people feel like they contributed to the outcome and would be more successful at uniting the country afterwards.
And prior to the referendum there ought to be a proper debate about values - what it means to be part of the EU or otherwise from a non-economical perspective - what our identity is etc.
Ferral (13-09-2019)
If there was another referendum I would still vote remain; the country is already split, doesn't matter which way the vote goes. And let's face it, if the polls are correct and it's mainly older voters who supported Leave, then eventually the Brexiteers will die off through natural wastage so disruption should wane.
Being serious though, what gets me are the claims of "but it's the will of the people" (eitherway) This is meaningless to my mind, both from the 2016 referendum and any possible future one, unless all registered voters actually turn out & vote.
How can anyone know what the will of people is when around 28% of eligible voters didn't bother in the 2016 referendum. Then add to that those who might be eligible to vote but for one reason or another weren't on the electoral role............ Effectively you end up with only just over half of the population voting & only around 28% of the population voting to Leave. So nobody has a true idea of what the so called "Will of the People" is. Anybody who spouts that line immediately gets culled from my list of people who's opinion I can respect on the subject. So that probably means about half of all elected MP's, including my own (who's now been stripped of the Tory party whip anyway).
If there was another referendum, peoples vote, whatever, much more needs to be done to get eligible voters out voting. Otherwise the result will be equally meaningless & divisive.
This Spiked podcast is worth a listen:
Remain voters might have a difficult time listening to it, but there's a treat for you at the end, where Brendan O'Neill (Spiked Editor) admits he believes Brexit isn't going to happen at least for the moment and this is just the first phase. I don't personally believe it's going happen either and I have been of that opinion since February this year, when Theresa May extended Article 50 deadline(not that I believed she was really going to honour the March 31st deadline) and Jeremy Corbyn u-turned on second referendum within 24 hours of each other which broke the zeitgeist of an inflexible deadline and there was real political will to make Brexit happen. Macron is simply posturing with his talk of refusing to extend the deadline, Merkel with Von der Leyen are really in charge and everyone knows it and they will extend Article 50 at the very least... possibly only though with an agreement on a second referendum.
Last edited by The Hand; 13-09-2019 at 06:43 PM. Reason: correction
https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/11...455976961?s=20
Urgh. No thanks.
I suppose the silver lining here is he's at least being up front about the vision. Although plenty of issues with his statements tying India, China, the USA and the EU.
Count me out. 100%. Wouldn't trust you to govern an 'empire' at all. For starters, building your empire on lies is no way to build unity.
Then again, if this guy is looking at China with admiration and what they're getting away with, it's no wonder they think they can lie.
That ssme criticism applies to every general election in modern history, and the further you go back, the fewer Representation of the People Acts there have been reducing the "eligible'pool even further.If there was another referendum I would still vote remain; the country is already split, doesn't matter which way the vote goes. And let's face it, if the polls are correct and it's mainly older voters who supported Leave, then eventually the Brexiteers will die off through natural wastage so disruption should wane.
Being serious though, what gets me are the claims of "but it's the will of the people" (eitherway) This is meaningless to my mind, both from the 2016 referendum and any possible future one, unless all registered voters actually turn out & vote.
How can anyone know what the will of people is when around 28% of eligible voters didn't bother in the 2016 referendum. Then add to that those who might be eligible to vote but for one reason or another weren't on the electoral role............ Effectively you end up with only just over half of the population voting & only around 28% of the population voting to Leave. So nobody has a true idea of what the so called "Will of the People" is. Anybody who spouts that line immediately gets culled from my list of people who's opinion I can respect on the subject. So that probably means about half of all elected MP's, including my own (who's now been stripped of the Tory party whip anyway).
If there was another referendum, peoples vote, whatever, much more needs to be done to get eligible voters out voting. Otherwise the result will be equally meaningless & divisive.
So by that logic, if a referendum doesn't represent "the will of the people" then nor does any elected government .... including the one that took us into tbe EEC in the first place.
The requirement in this country isn't, and never has been, that every eligible person does vote - merely that they have the opportunity. What they do with that opportunity is up to them, including (for whatever they regard as good reason) an active decision to not vote.
Even if you somehow managed to get every single person that's eligible to gote to do so, there's a distinct possibility that those that actively decided to not vote would vote by, one way or another, spoiling their ballot paper.
Given that the referendum wasn't exactly a surprise wasn't sprung on the population with little notice but followed about two years of campaigning and pretty much non-stop TV coverage, anyone unaware it was coming was spectacularly uninformed. Oh, and not forgetting, of course, that the government sent an information booklet to every household in the country. Or that electoral law requires every household to fill in a form once a year specifying who resides in that household on that specified date, or that electoeal offices up and down the country went into overdrive trying to get everybody eligibke onto the electoral roll, and up-to-date with address info.
If your logic invalidates the referendum, then it also invalidates general electiob results, so no government in decades has actually had a valid mandate to govern. Which means there was no mandate to go in, no "will of the people" to either joun, or stay in in the '70s referendum", so we should get out.
The phrase "will of the people" should perhaps include the implicit but silent caveat "according to current democratic processes". Are those processes perfect? Hell, no. But they're all we've got. Even Blair's huge 1997 majority (of nearly 180 seats) didn't have the backing of even a straight majority of those that voted, never mind those eligible to vote. in fact, he didn't even have a third of the electorate vote for him, yet he got 418 seats out of 659 on under 31% of the electorate.
We have a system, and that system gives us a government with a massive majority on under a third of the electorate and it's accepted as the will of the people. Yet a straight binary question in a referendum doesn't with a clear majority of the vote doesn't? Hmmm.
Hmmmm......"The phrase "will of the people" should perhaps include the implicit but silent caveat "according to current democratic processes". Is about the only part we will agree on I think.
Quite how you can equate & thus the criticism of a one man, one vote, (on the eltoral role), non legally binding, single issue referendum with a legally binding, FPTP system that disenfranchises the electorate but has been accepted by the population for God knows how long is bit beyond me. They're two completely different things with completely different outcomes. Voter turn out in one is much more important than in the other.
My logic doesn't invalidate the referendum result, never said it did. Just said it makes the result meaningless to me and anyone who states that its the "Will of the People" has no idea what they are spouting off about. With your caveat (why silent & implied?) would be more acceptable but then it doesn't sound so good saying that the "Will of the People, according to current democratic processes" when that actually means that only 28% of the population have voted to take us out of the EU.
What I am saying is that it needs be a much more convincing majority with much more of the electorate particpating because in a one man, one vote system every vote counts..........unlike a General Election FPTP system...........
Sorry that's the best I can do on a hungover Sunday morning. Hmmm.
I'm not equating them, though .... beyond that they are both part of our (highly flawed) democratic process.
But it's sauce for the goose.
If the problem with one is that not everybody voted, it's equally true of the other. If the criticism is that not everybody that should be on the electoral role actually is, then it's as true for the one as the other.
Either those issues relate to both, or neither.
I would agree tgat vote turnout is more important in one than one than the other but not, I syspect, whuch one.
Vote turnout is more important in general elections than a referendum for several reasons.
First, a referendum is a single issue question whereas a general election selects who makes critical judgements on q whole range of issues, from the economy to crime and policing, to welfare, the NHS, hoysing polucjng, education and so on. And, for (typically) five years.
Second, a small number of individual votes can have a far more significant impact on the result in a general election than in a referendum. In any highly marginal constituency, and handful (literally) of votes could change which candidate wins. In a government with a tiny majority, a few of those could change which party is in government. It could certainly significantly affect the size of that majority, or make a coalition necessary, and we've recently seen how that changes a legislative program.
With a constituency size ranging broadly from about 60,000 to 100,000 with a few outliers, a handful of votes are more likely, mathematically, to affect the result than the impact on an overall majority out of an electorate of, what, 35 million.
Also, pointing out that only 28% of the people voted to take us out if the EU, under your criticisms, also leaves silent that by your own logic, an even smaller percentage voted to remain in.
The only thing we know about those eligible ti vote but didn't vote is solely that they didn''t vote and there is no justification for assuming they would have voted this way or that.
The reason the caveat is silent but implied is that is it and always has been a feature of our d3m8cratic processes, such as they are, and should be obvious because they're implicit in that system. Short of mandatory voting and serious penalties fir not doing so, you cannot force people to vote. And even when you do force them with such penalties, you can't firce them to vote either seriously ir responsibly, and you certainly can't force then to even try to understand the issue they're voting on. I've tried, with several friends, to engage and try to get them to vote and they simply aren't interested. And that is not about Brexit, as it goes back way, way before that. Nor is it me trying to convince them which way to vote. It's merely that I regard even our flawed demcracy as much better than people in many countries get, and that there us therefore a moral duty on us all to at least twke modest steps to understand what it's about, and to take part.
I would much prefer a scenario where, as you say, everybody that should be on the electoral roll was, and that everybody on it gave some consideration to the issues and at least watched a debate or two, and the voted.
I'd prefer that, even if the result had then been Remain, however much I personally disagee with it.
I'd also like a cure for cancer, an end to all wars and a solution to world poverty and famine, but I'm not holding my breath there either.
What I don't agree with is that our system, imperfect as it is, is invalid in the result simply because it gave the 'wrong' result.
Well, the podcast was cleared aimed a particular demographic of which I am not part of.
At the end of it I couldn't help but think "And they (brexiters, but also the podcasters) call us (re)moaners".
I will just make two comments:
1. Given that it is clearly a hard brexit podcast, providing a very one sided view, the fact that they refers to brexiters as brexiters (brexitier?) I think that it confirms the term as neutral (given that they haven't once condemned a single thing on their side).
2. They seem to take an issue with the ruling of the Scottish court, ruling it as a decision made by "three old men or women". Well, why bother with trials when you can just let the people decide right. More democracy and all that. Or should I call it mob justice?
Frankly, I am not sure what the correct ruling ought to be (I am also fine that different courts have different outcome and believe it should go to the surpreme court). It would be an understatement to say that I consider the prorogation an underhanded political maneuver to dodge parliament scrutiny, with everything there acting as just an excuse (*). But whether it is unlawful or not is something that, unlike those podcasters, I see as something for the court to decide.
(*) Until the prorogation announcement, I really doubted that the remain alliance was going to agree to anything before October if at all (lots of talk but nothing happening). I think that the government's shenanigans forced the alliance to finally act with some urgency.
Re: Empire.
I, for one don't give three flying monkeys about an empire. And I have the same regard for an empire build on lies as much as I do a referendum result with campaigns built on lies and bait and switch.
Even if we say that the lies on both side cancel each other out (debatable, and require more analysis than I am able to spend time on), going from how easy it would be to get a deal, talk of Norway model etc. only to flip it all around and claiming that no-deal is the only acceptable brexit is the most incredible case of bait and switch that I have ever seen.
And with how close the result were, it is a big deal. If campaigning for a hard brexit from the get go would have caused 5% of people who voted for brexit to vote to remain, or 10% to abstain, the results may have ended differently. Given how different the Norway model is to no-deal, one can not deny a real likelihood that it there might have been a measurable influence.
Stolen from elsewhere:
"Oxford University researchers have discovered the densest element yet known to science.
The new element, Governmentium (symbol=Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.
These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called pillocks.
Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact.
A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete.
Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2 to 6 years.
It does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganisation in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.
In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganisation will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.
This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as a critical morass.
When catalysed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium (symbol=Ad), an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium, since it has half as many pillocks but twice as many morons."
I haven't watched the podcast, and as I have as much interest in idoing so as I have of watching TV news, Newsnight, etc, Brexit coversge, I won't be bothering.
But on this one point ....
QUOTE=TooNice;4134119]Well, the podcast was cleared aimed a particular demographic of which I am not part of.
At the end of it I couldn't help but think "And they (brexiters, but also the podcasters) call us (re)moaners".
I will just make two comments:
1. Given that it is clearly a hard brexit podcast, providing a very one sided view, the fact that they refers to brexiters as brexiters (brexitier?) I think that it confirms the term as neutral .....[/QUOTE]
No, it doesn't confirm that, and for several reasons.
1) Like many other political groupings, Brexit supporters are not a homogenous group. Nor are Remainers. Nor, for that matter, are the Labour party, as we've seen by the schisms between the corbn wing and the more centrist "Blairite" wing.
Remainers, for instance, can cover everybody fr8m those voting remain and not giving it much thought since, to the (to use yoyr term) "hard" Remainers that have spent the last nearly two years complaining about the referendum and trying to reverse it.
Brexiters similarly covers everyone from those that voted Leave and haven't given it much thought since, to what you described as "hard".
2) Whether offence is given by a given word or phrase, or not, is a complex matter depending, at a minimum, on the intent of the person using it and the intent perceived by the person on the receiving end, and these may not be the same. Offence can be taken when none was intended, or missed when it was intended.
Case in point. Many African Americans (or whatever the current unliaded generic reference term is) are quite content to use the n-word with respect to each other without giving offence but I very much doubt a white person could ro that without givng offence, with the possible exception of when the white person and the B-A are well known to each other and it is known that word was not meant. It is not an area I would experiment in.
The point is that offence often comes from either what the person using it meant, or what the person it is directed at perceives the intent to be, which may or may not be correct. The best, and perhaps only guide to what is intended may be the context, or past context, inclyding from that user.
"Hard" Brexiters are no more a valid judge arbiter of whether the term causes offence as whether the Corbyn camp are of whether "Blairite" is meant offensively or not.
It seems to me that the most neutral, and unloaded, terms would be Remainer and Leaver, by virtue of that being what we were asked to vote on, yet we have some that object to Remoaner but are fine calling others Brexit(e)ers, despite being told that it can be offensive. I can only conclude from that that those people are either exhibiting serious double standards, or offense is exactly what they intended.
Either it's fine for both sides, or neither.
Do we want an actual discussion of the issues, like Corky and I have had many times, or do we want to have little digs? As someone on the receiving end of insults up to an including racist, for very many years, for having the temerity to believe we shiuld Leave, I can tell you categorically that part of that non-homogenous group called Remainers are absolutely not above just about any insult going, if it helps deflect from actual discussion.
Which is why I stopped taking part in threads like this, and am about to do so again.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
