Forum menu
True but working to make this better does not include failing to accept what has happened
Can you define 'failing to accept'? I don't think anyone here is doing that.
You just have! 😉
Wtf are you talkng about?
I am not keen on the failing to accept angle. I imagine brexit will happen, I am hopeful I can find out if there is a plan, but I am just as hopeful that Parliament will have oversight of what ever we decide to do, not just deals but econmnomic plans etc as that is how the country runs. At the moment May thinks the referendum has given her carte blanche to be a dictator.
At the moment May thinks the referendum has given her carte blanche to be a dictator.
Hyperbole - May has the smallest governing majority since Harold Wilson/James Callaghan in 1974
I see May has mistakenly offered Gove an exposed flank
even though a normal person might keep silent over the laughable hypocrisy of it he's never one to miss an opportunity to inflict a wound in the back...
Hyperbole - May has the smallest governing majority since Harold Wilson/James Callaghan in 1974
Well if you refuse to put anything to the vote, this is irrelevant.
Well if you refuse to put anything to the vote, this is irrelevant
But she hasn't, there will be a vote on the "deal", the Great Repeal Bill etc.
That is the deal or no deal, hardly democracy is it.
5+ your previous questions seem simeoneaht diesnegoenous since you are clearly firmly of one mindset and happy to simply stay in hyperbole land
What is the alternative you propose?
^^ indeed, butvthe no-deal is a viable and workable option. It's the same option the US, China etc use to trade with the EU.
TMH I use trade balances as an approximation for the potential benefits. A lot of our trade is tariff free (or minimal) under WTO. If you look at those who pay substantial amounts into the budget they have big trade surpluses. We are the odd one out.
mrmo - MemberAnd if a large subset of native born are incapable of doing the work we need doing because they are too special. It is why the English keep on bringing in foreigners after all what do you propose?
Plenty of times i have heard people say would get out of bed to do his or that, they would rather sit around on the dole scrounging and blaming foreigners for taking jobs they refuse to do.
It's moronic comments like that ^ which is partly the reason why I generally avoid commenting on this thread. Yesterday we had "Britain is racist and xenophobic" today we have "we lost the referendum to dole scroungers"......obviously half the electorate are dole scroungers.
"Britain is a nation of racist dole scroungers"......... It all has the intellectual qualities of Donald Trump and the Daily Mail.
Certain internet trolls posts here, bear a distinct resemblance to the 45th president of United States
It's not a good approximation/proxy and our trade deficit is not caused by Membership of the EU. Leaving it will not help either. Many of our current WTO and other trade deals will also need to be renegotiated so trade will be more difficult, more uncertainand more costly.. None of this is a positive
We already have trade deals in plase with 90% of our trading partners and we are throwing some of this away. Very, very odd logic. Still chin up.....
teamhurtmore - Member
5+ your previous questions seem simeoneaht diesnegoenous since you are clearly firmly of one mindset and happy to simply stay in hyperbole landWhat is the alternative you propose?
I am not of one mindset, I am truly on the fence, I am not armed with enough information to be able to say brexit or staying in the eu are good or bad ideas. There is masses of info on how the eu works for us, I can see its flaws, but I have yet to see any info on how brexit works for us, and I have not seen much democracy since then. 75% of tories were pro eu, the tory party were pro eu at the last GE, but now they are the opposite. This is confusing, the statistics around the opinion polls are confusing, it is all bloody confusing.
I am not sure what you want me to propose - I have nothing to propose on brexit for the afore mentioned reasons, I guess I could propose something about the process- transparency, a decent white paper outlining trade, immigration, patent law, human rights etc, and then 3 or 4 bills in parliament to approve the various changed processes, then invoke art 50. ie redesign the parachute before jumping.
Plus hyperbole? What have I exaggerated? Reading between the lines you seem to agree that the vote on the deal is just deal or no deal. What else?
it is all bloody confusing
Not really. Yes, MPs are pro EU, as are most people who realise it's about more than the shape of bananas. But they are ingratiating themselves to the electorate and fighting each other to be the Brexit party. Which is a downside of democracy - you can't do what you think is right, you have to do what the electorate wants, even if they don't know what they are doing.
Democracy only works if the electorate understand the issues.
Which is a downside of democracy - you can't do what you think is right, you have to do what the electorate wants, even if they don't know what they are doing.
Yes I can see you would drop your principles if its single issue, but our membership of the eu is a massive group of issues, possibly the most important part of the political landscape.
2ndly, in a representative democracy I believe the MP's role is to lead thought, not follow it. Otherwise we should just let the Sun run the country.
Dictatorship - a wee bit OTT don't you think?
Our European friends would be lapping up your proposed A50 timetable - please excuse us for a few years while we decide what we are going to do, exciuse he uncertainly but well, we're worth it. You don't mind it we delay negotiations until 2025 do you?
There is nothing confusing in a government saying it will hold a vote, respect the result and execute it whatever the outcome. The confusion comes from the tactics now being used to deny this. Mol even pretends this is undemocratic. That is just odd.
Dictatorship - a wee bit OTT don't you think?
No, her rhetoric is terrifying.
There is nothing confusing in a government saying it will hold a vote, respect the result and execute it whatever the outcome. The confusion comes from the tactics now being used to deny this. Mol even pretends this is undemocratic. That is just odd.
This is shifting the goalposts, I am not confused by the events, I am confused about how it will work or why it is a good idea. You know that, because that is what I have been asking.
PS I am sure the referendum bill said the ref was advisory.
butvthe no-deal is a viable and workable option
Living with some terrible illness or disability is 'viable and workable' but not necessarily desirable. I am glad to see Jamabalaya has acknowledged that 'viable and workable' is the best we can aspire to.
THM - the vote is being represented as a landslide for leave of course, whereas you and I (and even Jamba) know it was half and half on a vote where the leavers were always going to get more excited (and actually get out of bed) than the remainers.
Orwell would love some of the democracy we're getting (actually as a socialist internationalist he probably wouldn't, but he'd recognise the plot).
PS - not criticising folk for working out you actually have to vote to win a vote.
igm - Member
THM - the vote is being represented as a landslide for leave of course, whereas you and I (and even Jamba) know it was half and half on a vote where the leavers were always going to get more excited (and actually get out of bed) than the remainers.
Indeed, someone (I think J Hartley Brewer) said it was the biggest electoral mandate for 50 years which at 17 million is true, Blairs best was 13 million, but with 16.9 million voting against, it was also the biggest electoral non mandate...
[i]Hyperbole - May has the smallest governing majority since Harold Wilson/James Callaghan in 1974 [/I]
Except she's got both of the largest parties voting for it, and a weak official opposition leader who's lost the plot.
"Britain is a nation of racist dole scroungers"......... It all has the intellectual qualities of Donald Trump and the Daily Mail.
Would you deny that 40years of DM headlines have poisoned the debate? Would you deny that demographically the old and the uneducated were more likely to vote out? Would you deny that those areas that will be hardest hit are now worrying about losing EU money? Or fishermen who were shafted by MR Farage voted Brexit?
Mol even pretends this is undemocratic.
I certainly don't.
I'm saying democracy isn't functioning well.
I met a very twitchy vet on the way back from the Alps. He was complaining the government hadn't put together a case for leaving therefore he felt bullied into voting remain and therefore voted leave.
I think he had a large animal practice and had just worked out what Brexit was likely to mean for a) farm subsidies in the long term and b) NZ lamb and US beef import prices.
Not guaranteed of course, but more than possible.
Yes you heard that right. Voted leave because the remain supporting government hadn't said enough positive things about leaving.
I wonder if he'll be able to afford to ski in a year or two?
Agreed. Hence my call - largely rejected here - than we now ALL have a responsibility to try to make this work rather than stick our heads in the sand and/or stand crying its not fair,
No.
the vote is being represented as a landslide for leave of course, whereas you and I (and even Jamba) know it was half and half on a vote where the leavers were always going to get more excited (and actually get out of bed) than the remainers.
Oh for god's sake this is absolute bollocks, it is commonly accepted that the status quo has a very significant advantage in referendums add to that the much greater resources available and used by the Government to influence the campaign and there is no doubt that Leave were significant underdogs.
I'm saying democracy isn't functioning well.
Oh Whoopie Doo another redefinition of democracy because the vote didn't go your way - have you mentioned you losing your rights on this page yet? Better get that in too.
igm - there's nowt as thick as folk...
Oh Whoopie Doo another redefinition of democracy because the vote didn't go your way
Now that's bollocks.
You may like to imagine me as a petulant whiney remainer, but perhaps you should consider the arguments rather than simply raving slightly about me.
For what it's worth (not much, I expect) but I've always said that democracy doesn't function well. Even when we had government for which I voted. I've always said it because it's blatantly obvious to anyone who thinks about it a bit.
I doubt you'd be as cocky if remain had won, or if we had a Green government or something.
Oh for god's sake this is absolute bollocks, it is commonly accepted that the status quo has a very significant advantage in referendums add to that the much greater resources available and used by the Government to influence the campaign and there is no doubt that Leave were significant underdogs.
Both sides had access to greater resources as you put it, as both sides were from the ruling party. And as the ruling party they also had access(in the pockets of) to certain news corporations who have spent the last couple of decades poisoning the EU well.
El-Bent Remain had a massive rescource advantage, including the entire Civil Service which was explicitly prevented from answering Leavers questions or doing anything to help. Remain spent more money and that even excludes the £9m leaflet. Then you have all the global political interference from Obama to IMF, OECD etc.
TMH Not being in the EU won't "fix" our trade deficit but it will help.
I'm new to this thread: anyone care to summarise the plot and main characters? 😉
Democracy functions fine, but people are finding the liberal democratic consensus is not quite as widely held as they thought. You will be pleased to know our Democracy Index (compiled by the Economist) improved during the year. So Brexit improves democracy, who would have thought it.
I doubt you'd be as cocky if remain had won, or if we had a Green government or something.
I would be much cockier I voted remain and frankly with a fair wind I should do very well in the unlikely event that the Green's came to power - although I would never vote for it - every cloud and all that.
El-Bent Remain had a massive rescource advantage, including the entire Civil Service which was explicitly prevented from answering Leavers questions or doing anything to help. Remain spent more money and that even excludes the £9m leaflet. Then you have all the global political interference from Obama to IMF, OECD etc.
But leave had a bigger resource. The newspapers.
Democracy functions fine, but people are finding the liberal democratic consensus is not quite as widely held as they thought. You will be pleased to know our Democracy Index (compiled by the Economist) improved during the year. So Brexit improves democracy, who would have thought it.
As said further up the thread , democracy only works if the population have access to all the relevant information, that wasn't going to happen when you have newspaper organisations like the ones this country has. Democracy has been perverted.
jambalaya - MemberEl-Bent Remain had a massive rescource advantage, including the entire Civil Service which was explicitly prevented from answering Leavers questions or doing anything to help. Remain spent more money and that even excludes the £9m leaflet. Then you have all the global political interference from Obama to IMF, OECD etc.
I'll show this to a mate of mine just to wind him up. He'll have been one of those that was explicitly prevented from answering questions filtering the info, just for your info.
#Bullcrap
Democracy functions fine
So you think it's fine that people with no idea about a particular subject are allowed a direct vote in what the country does regarding it?
Maybe I should set up a STW poll on whether or not I should use a finite state machine or simply temporal reasoning over events in this demo I'm working on. That would be democratic, wouldn't it?
Democracy has been perverted.
It's been like this for decades, if not forever.
But leave had a bigger resource. The newspapers.
TV is far more important than the newspapers which were split anyway - Telegraph, Express, Sun and Mail were Brexit. Mirror, Guardian, Independent, Times and FT were remain. The former have more readers, the latter drive TV's news agenda more.
Leave definitely campaigned better.
So we ended up with the result that had the best campaigners, not the result that's best for the country. Is that 'functioning' democracy? Yes and no....
So you think it's fine that people with no idea about a particular subject are allowed a direct vote in what the country does regarding it?
Absolutely, Tetlock's research does not indicate any significant difference in decision making ability to the well informed/experts vs the uninformed.
One of Tetlock's best findings is that there is an inverse correlation between the accuracy of the forecast and the fame of the forecaster.
jambalaya - Member
El-Bent Remain had a massive rescource advantage... Remain spent more money...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39075244A total of more than £32m was spent on the campaign - with the Leave side funded by donations totalling £16.4m, outgunning the Remain side's £15.1m.
Easy now Jamba, we all know leave spent £350m a week...
No fibs unless they're big ones
Tetlock's research does not indicate any significant difference in decision making ability to the well informed/experts vs the uninformed.
I'm not sure you're interpreting that research correctly in this situation.
But even if you are, and uninformed people are as likely to get it wrong as informed people, then we should have just tossed a coin, shouldn't we? The fact the result wasn't 50/50 would indicate that it was the quality of the campaign that won it. THEREFORE the result is simply the wishes of the group who had the better campaign. And that smaller group got their way. Doesn't sound very democratic...
Think you've just torpedoed your own argument.
TV is far more important than the newspapers which were split anyway - Telegraph, Express, Sun and Mail were Brexit. Mirror, Guardian, Independent, Times and FT were remain. The former have more readers, the latter drive TV's news agenda more.The daily mail both in newspapers and online readership absolutely trumps all the others...I wonder which side they were on?
Absolutely, Tetlock's research does not indicate any significant difference in decision making ability to the well informed/experts vs the uninformed.Thats rather lifting a single line out of Tetlock's research results.
Brexit is all about the non-experts being right after all
there will be no downsides 🙄
Think you've just torpedoed your own argument.
You shouldn't judge others based on your own abilities, you asked, to paraphrase, whether I was happy the uninformed could vote, which I am, especially because there is alot in Tetlock's work about the failure of "experts" to be better than average forecasters.
But you see I don't care what the "thereotically right" decision is - because in a democracy the right decision is the one the majority voted for - or to use a management phrase, bought into - and that in this case is Leave.
because in a democracy the right decision is the one the majority voted for - or to use a management phrase, bought into - and that in this case is Leave.
I'd worry if a manager bought into something and then didn't try and change it once they realised that they'd been duped. But that's just me.
alot in Tetlock's work about the failure of "experts" to be better than average forecasters.
But in Tetlock are the uninformed being campaigned at?
If knowledge makes no difference to outcome of an election then what's the point?
because in a democracy the right decision is the one the majority voted for - or to use a management phrase, bought into - and that in this case is Leave.
But why do we have democracy? It exists as an attempt to create a good system of government. And in this case, I do not believe it is in the country's best interests; but more importantly I do not believe most people would consider it in their best interests if they understood the issues.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08gx81y ]BBC Radio 4 - Analysis[/url]
Def worth listening to this programme
How do the SNP sell a second referendum?
AnalysisCould a second referendum on Scottish independence yield a different result? In September 2014 when Scotland voted against becoming an independent country it seemed like the question had been settled for the foreseeable future. All that changed on June 23rd 2016 when the UK voted to leave the EU. Just a few hours later - before she'd even been to bed - Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon was already talking about the prospect of another vote on independence. Ever since she has been ramping up the rhetoric. But what would the SNP's strategy be second time around?
There's a massive complication once you include this in the Brexit mix
1. Another Scottish Referendum, Scotland leaves, UK no longer exists and England/Wales lose power and political stature in the world - and probably wealth as we lose investment attractiveness
2. Another Scottish Referendum, Scotland stays in UK and therefore forced to leave EU - cue decades of resentful Scottish Nationalism as Scots, who voted in c60% are furious with Little Englanders who forced them out of EU. Let's not forget how dangerous motivated Nationalism is...
3. No Scottish Referendum, Scotland stays in UK and forced to leave EU - see pt 2
Another aspect, just like the Northern Ireland question which absolutely was not mentioned in the campaign, and was absolutely not a known quantity at the time we were at the polling booths. Both are potential tinderboxes given the social and political histories of both situations...
This is what happens when you take advantage of fear and parochical ignorance - all kinds of consequences which were obvious except to the people making the decision...
But why do we have democracy? It exists as an attempt to create a good system of government.
Not really, we have democracy because it is representative which should mean it is reasonably stable and fair and that in itself is a good thing.
The daily mail both in newspapers and online readership absolutely trumps all the others...I wonder which side they were on?
More tripe
[url= https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/77222/News-2015-report.pdf ]Read page 16 of this slide pack[/url] - BBC 1 has nearly 5 times the reach of the Daily Mail and Mail Online.
I guess all that the SNP need to succeed is to get Theresa May to refuse to have a second referendum.
Mefty - diffence with the BBC is they try and present both sides of the argument to the point of trying to give them equal air time. Even when one side is blatantly cobblers.
Well you know, b r, time and indeed postings on this thread aren't exactly linear. Sometimes they loop back
[i]Mefty - diffence with the BBC is they try and present both sides of the argument to the point of trying to give them equal air time. Even when one side is blatantly cobblers. [/I]
We've done this, probably 100 pages back - creationism vs evolution
Anyway, good to see the anti-Brexit campaign has started in earnest this week. Been too long coming but they seem to be settling in for a long fight - years maybe decades from what I'm hearing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/06/anti-brexit-billboards-appear-across-uk/
Mefty - diffence with the BBC is they try and present both sides of the argument to the point of trying to give them equal air time. Even when one side is blatantly cobblers.
As do all TV broadcasters, their combined reach is so much greater that people who blame the newspapers are throwing stones at David rather than Goliath.
He's got a point, UKIP only have one MP.
The BBC gives them far far far more air time than the lib dems..
As do the tabloids.. BBC political reporting is rapidly becoming a joke.
Mefty - Either you're missing the point or you're making a point at cross purposes to me.
The Mail prints a piece of blatant cobblers and the BBC treats it as a valid representation of one side of the argument.
Whereas is they were truly balanced they'd say the Mail printed cobblers and here is a balanced view.
The issue is that in trying to be balanced they end up giving credence to a bunch of quasi-religious fanatics like the Mail, Express and occasionally Telegraph (the last of whom should know better).
The post above gives a very good example of the kind of thing I mean.
BBC political reporting is rapidly becoming a joke.
Watch ITV, they hardly ever mention UKIP, and they give the LibDems loads of air time.
Sadly it's becoming a case of the tail is wagging the dog.
The BBC gives them far far far more air time than the lib dems..
Because it is not based on just the number of MPs -[url= https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/media-releases/2016/review-ofcoms-party-election-broadcast-regulations ] see Ofcom statement on party election broadcasts[/url] which shows the basis of their thinking.
The Mail prints a piece of blatant cobblers and the BBC treats it as a valid representation of one side of the argument.
I must admit I don't watch TV news very often, but I have never seen this at all, and certainly don't hear it on the Radio. They go to primary sources, not secondary sources for news. On the Today programme, there is a one minute review of the papers every hour (?) - that is it.
Mol, you really are struggling with democracy aren't you?
Why don't you just admit you don't like the result, it has SFA to do with democracy other than you are not prepared to accept that it doesn't always give you the results tha you don't want.
You know better, the winners didn't understand the issues - bravo!
C4 News is where its at imo.
C4 News is where its at imo.
I tried it a few times, but its self regard which is even worse than the others channels made me switch off quickly - for me TV news is too much about the presenters and the correspondents - I prefer news without ego - Sarah Montagu on the Today programme is a very good interviewer.
Because it is not based on just the number of MPs - see Ofcom statement on party election broadcasts which shows the basis of their thinking.
I'm not talking about party political broadcasting, I'm talking general sentiment, and who they have on news night..
UKIP got 50% more votes than the LibDems last general election.
I'm not talking about party political broadcasting, I'm talking general sentiment, and who they have on news night..
That's why I said it shows the basis of their thinking, it was illustrative of how they do balance analysis, and as Ernie points out UKIP got a lot more votes in the last election and a vast amount more in the last Euro Election, but my guess becuase I can't be bothered to look, less in Council elections. All these things are taken into account.
UKIP got 50% more votes than the LibDems last general election.
Good job the lib dems didn't get through PR then eh...
The SNP got a million votes less than the LibDems, but 7 times more MPs than the LibDems.
More scots voted to stay part of the UK than the EU* - not that this forms part of the narrative!!
* canny folk despite the BS that surrounds them everyday
they seem to be settling in for a long fight - years maybe decades from what I'm hearing.
Where did you hear that?
It's a sensible strategy IMO given the insane ad hominem that spews from Duncan Smith whenever anyone publicly stands up and makes a balanced Remain case (Blair, Major) - just keep stringing out the process, let it get ever more complicated and confusing, let the deal we're offered look weak, sew seeds of doubt that we'll be better off out, let us slip into lower living standards so people feel it in their pockets for real... falling pound = inflation, raise interest rates just a little to defend the pound and put a dent in house prices... none of it overt or obvious enough for Brexiteers to be able to attack without sounding like conspiracy theorists... a few years of this and we'll find a shift in public opinion.
My parents haven't changed their mind but they know I'm furious with them. Not just on my account but my nephews (their grandsons) who live in Ireland and so could well be disadvantaged by Brexit. Enough private conversations like this and we'll see the less hardline Brexiters think more deeply about what they really want...
Not ignoring the impact of a fair chunk of the Out vote dying off...
More scots voted to stay part of the UK than the EU* - not that this forms part of the narrative!!* canny folk despite the BS that surrounds them everyday
I'm no fan at all of the SNP, or Nationalism of any sort, nor politicians telling lies but we still have to acknowledge that the Scottish question and the various alternative scenarios are an additional level of complexity which were never included in the Brexit campaign nor discussed at the time of the vote - just another unintended consequence which looks likely to leave England worse off because of the Brexit vote - and one which I contend most Out voters did not think of... what a stupid mess
More Scots voted to leave the UK union in 2014, than voted to leave the European Union in 2016, not that this forms part of your narrative THM
It is complicated brooess, very true, especially now as people who claim to want independence are now seeking to surrender monetary, fiscal and political sovereignty to Frankfurt. Under mols defintion they should all be disqualified from voting for not understand the basics of the issues at hand.
What did most vote for Gordi? The real forgotten narrative....
...spreading down south too. Sad days for "democracy", unless you want to keep redefining the word.
should all be disqualified from voting for not understand the basics of the issues at hand.
TBF, so should I. I had no idea about the Northern Ireland thing or the Scottish Thing, or the £60bn bill, or the Article 50 process etc etc. Funnily enough, no-one felt it necessary to tell us what it was all about, hence a bunch of people have voted against their own best interests without knowing they were doing it at the time.
It's worrying seeing my manager at work (supposedly a Senior Marketing Strategy Manager) who voted out because she doesn't like immigrants, and against the expressed interests of her employer, flail around trying to claim the economy's ok and consumer confidence isn't falling when it plainly is... she's just had her fears of the outside world manipulated...
Clearly a lot of folk don't like immigrants (or hide behind mypoic nonsense about what gov priorities should be) and make false claims about their impact on the economy. We had a chance to correct their views but failed, badly.
Who's to blame? The ignorant or the intelligent ones who can't get a simple message across? Which groups should be eliminated from the "democratic" process?
More scots voted to stay part of the UK than the EU
Maybe before, I'd think they'd be sensible to arbitrate thier own EU membership given the current circumstances, I'm not Scottish so I can not speak for them, but I wouldn't blame them for doing the right thing for their country.
I'm sure it would be just a rubber stamp exercise to keep Scotland in the EU as they already operate as an EU nation under the UK.
Edit CBA
Pretty sure the Scottish can look after themselves in the EU, if I was Scottish I would like to leave the UK and fast track into EU.
I'm pretty sure the EU would be receptive to the idea.