[Closed] EU Referendum - are you in or out?

Context perdy: the government offered the people (they represent) the opportunity to vote on whether they wanted to remain members of the EU and promised to respect the result of the vote whatever the outcome. This was in writing and definitive. So

Right 1: to be able to participate freely in the democratic process offered to them *

Right 2: to have their decision respected and acted on as promised in writing

Right 3: to be respected as individuals - their vote counts as much as anyone’s - not derided generally as thickos and racists

*Remember the Indy debate? One side were lied to on a constant basis, they had no plan re basics of how a country works including what currency to use and how this would work, lied about their obligations and were about to cause economic self harm all in the name of faking control. Many years of lies about how their problems were caused by others.

Did we deprive them of the opportunity?

Did we say that they were too thick (despite evidence that they were accepting the deceitful lies willIngly)?

Did we threaten to ignore their rights?

No we didn’t. Because democracy doesn’t work like that. But note how some of the same people now want to deny others the rights that they were granted. That says a lot.

Chewkw - and one person with a pair of balls (the sober one) 😉 !!

Good interpretation - especially re the bully. Didn’t someone mention that you can judge a man by the company he keeps!! ;-)!

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

teamhurtmore - Member
Chewkw - and one person with a pair of balls (the sober one) !!

True, true. 😀

Edukator - Reformed Troll

All Nos (the sketch with No signs) mean a yes for being happy with our identity. 😀

Happy with your identity as a Brexiter:

[img] [/img]

The second cartoon portrays Europe as being without foundation and emphasises litlle beyond superficial “attractions”. Why would they want to stress that??

Perditus - based on the above you can see how some remoaners view

Right 3: to be respected as individuals - their vote counts as much as anyone’s - not derided generally as thickos and racists

You chose whose approach you wish to be associated with.

Edukator - Reformed Troll
Happy with your identity as a Brexiter:

To me that's their identity(s) and I ain't going to change them nor them changing me. That's the nature of life.

Chewkw - you did notice how the cartoon was intended to sneer and look down on people who had different views!?! Why would anyone want to post a copy?

teamhurtmore - Member
Chewkw - you did notice how the cartoon was intended to sneer and look down on people who had different views!?! Why would anyone want to post a copy?

Yes, that's the nature of news/media/social media/social engineering nowadays. They need to do that to ensure their own existence. 😛

Democracy requires an informed electorate. When th majority of the media has run a 20+ year campaign against the EU for there non UK owners own political ends then we do not have a functioning democracy.

I bet a fiver you wouldn't be arguing to ignore the outcome of the referendum on the basis of an ill-informed electorate if you had won

(Same goes for Scotchland referendum too, of course)

Only a fiver? The hypocrisy is breathtaking and informative to read and note.

I've found something to explain your recent travels:

[img] [/img]

Interesting that you also choose to post racist cartoons. Again very informative. True colours....

Ninfan no because it would have been [i]despite[/i] the bias press. BTW - stop with the petty racism about Scotland. You are better than that. Scotchland is a racist term.

Should we ban Racist food too?

[img] [/img]

But mostly it's:

[img] [/img]

Two sides to every story and the one you're hearing probably isn't the one the electorate of 27 heads of state is hearing.

(Same goes for Scotchland referendum too, of course)

650 page white paper vs the side of a bus.

We win.

Scotchland is a racist term.

Ninfan - you know the difference. Scotch is the produce, scots are the people. To do as you did is racist. and you know it. Windups are fine so long as they do not descend into cheap petty racism. Don't lower yourself to THM levels

We were then taken in to the EC, by the politicians, without asking us first, and remained bound by that until the EC no longer existed

We were then taken into the EU, by the politicians, without asking us first

The thing you're missing here, probably wilfully, is that [i]they don't need to ask us.[/i] How many other things has parliament done over the years without asking us first? How many times have we had a people's vote about individual policies? Not many.

Because of course, we all remember the referendum about poll tax, and the one about the snooper's charter, and... oh.

What you can see is an entirely consistent trait, we remain bound by decisions of the people, but not necessarily bound by decisions of the politicians. Surely that’s how a democracy should work?

No, it's entirely the opposite of how a parliamentary democracy works. What you're describing here is an ochlocracy, it's mob rule.

Politicians make decisions, at least in theory, based on what they believe to be in the best interests of the country and its people. The democratic bit is that we have a free vote to determine which people are making those decisions on our behalf. What some of us "want" or think we want is an irrelevance. I want a free Ferrari for everyone, shall we have a referendum? I reckon it'll be a landslide. Lets get rid of those pesky taxes whilst we're at it too.

Parliament has a duty of care to look after its citizens. It has failed in that duty.

I bet a fiver you wouldn't be arguing to ignore the outcome of the referendum on the basis of an ill-informed electorate if you had won

I'd be thankful that we'd won but I'd still be arguing that it was a bloody stupid idea in the first place for exactly that reason. The electorate - whether ill-informed or not, I'm sure some were well informed but they're surely a minority - should never have been put in a position where they had to bear that responsibility.

I said all this back on like page 2 or something. It's good to see we've progressed in the last thousand pages.

The thing you're missing here, probably wilfully, is that they don't need to ask us.

Who said they did?

they didn't [u]need[/u] to ask us

The thing is that on each of those occasions they [u]promised[/u] to ask us in an election manifesto, [u]and were voted into power on that basis.[/u]

That's democracy surely?

Sure. It's a well-documented fact that throughout all time political parties have always stuck to the very letter of their manifesto pledges after being elected, that's clearly an anomaly.

This doesn't seem to be flying off the shelves:

[img] [/img]

53% off at The Book Depository.

Sure. It's a well-documented fact that throughout all time political parties have always stuck to the very letter of their manifesto pledges after being elected, that's clearly an anomaly.

So, your defence against Brexit is that parliamentary democracy only works if the politicians lie to the people 😆

Enigmatic= emotionless? Lol

No, try again.

tjagain - Member
Scotchland ... .

If you did not quote that term I wouldn't have known it. But now that you have I just want to let you know that I am [b]NOT[/b] going to use that term. Bet that description must be copy righted by someone.

But let me tell you this that's a very creative term which is also very funny too. Make me laugh for a while this afternoon. 😆

Poopscoop - Member
Enigmatic= emotionless? Lol

You want animated emotion? Have you seen one of sketch (can't remember who posted now) on the bloke using very emotional tone on reporting football results? Is that where we are heading with emotional passionate animated expression? 😆

There doesn't appear to be a German cartoon portraying a British banker as anything other than a (white) toff, so I suppose you could consider it racist. Likewise all the people depicted in the British pub are (white) ignorant pub-going trash so you could consider that racist too. But most reasonable people wouldn't consider the cartoons intentionally or even casually racist as the humour is not at the expense of a white racial stereotype but ignorant pub-going trash and toff bankers.

You have an odd idea of democracy ninfan I would say in a democracy the people get to chose what they want and the British voters of 2018 should be free to chose what ever they want EU membership hard brexit or brexit fudge. It ain't democracy to say you are stuck with a choice made by a different pool of voters 2 years ago.

As even a lot of Brexiteers are likely to be unhappy with the final EU deal how about this. A three way vote come the end of negotiations?

1) Leave the EU in its entirety trading on wto rules with no ECJ oversight or £40 billion payment.

2) Accept the deal as agreed by parliament/ EU.

3) Remain in the EU.

Whatever the final deal is.

Wording is a little primitive but you get the idea.

Not looking to create an argument, just wondering what people think.

Not having some sort of say on the final deal seems a bit mad to me whether you voted Leave or remain?

Parliament has a duty of care to look after its citizens. It has failed in that duty.

Parliament voted overwhelmingly to file the Article 50 notice. Parliament has had a say too.

Enigmatic= emotionless? Lol

I would say in a democracy the people get to chose what they want and the British voters of 2018 should be free to chose what ever they want EU membership hard brexit or brexit fudge.

Well, You’re welcome to form a political party and campaign for election on the manifesto of giving them that choice.

I was wondering what the enigma is.

Sadness? A return to innocence maybe?

crankboy - Member
You have an odd idea of democracy ninfan I would say in a democracy the people get to chose what they want and the British voters of 2018 should be free to chose what ever they want EU membership hard brexit or brexit fudge. It ain't democracy to say you are stuck with a choice made by a different pool of voters 2 years ago.

Essentially what you saying is that we need to change things every 2 to 3 years in a massive ways. 😛

Remember, you need two sides (or many) to play the game. 😀 Like I said in my many older postings the only constant is change, but it sounds like you want change to move even faster. You just proof me right (go search my views on this). Also if what you say is right then you are opening the gateway to winner(s) take all concept. Think about it ... 😆

Right 1: to be able to participate freely in the democratic process offered to them *

Right 2: to have their decision respected and acted on as promised in writing

Right 3: to be respected as individuals - their vote counts as much as anyone’s - not derided generally as thickos and racists

Well, 1 and 3 are correct though no one has the 'right' not to be called thick or otherwise derided unless that itself constitutes some breach of the law. In fact, I have more of a right to call brexiteers thick than they have of any expectation that the results of the referendum should be carried through.

2. cannot possibly be a 'right'. Political parties make all sorts of pledges in their GE manifestos for instance. These confer no 'rights' on me because there is no correlative 'duty' on the party making those pledges to deliver them - they are not legally enforceable.

I couldn't pitch up at the High Court seeking an order of mandamus requiring the gov't to honour their pledge to electrify the railway to Swansea. No one could have sought such and order requiring Art 50 to be triggered otherwise there would have been a queue of head-bangers a mile long down the Strand on the 24th June. This might have been different if the referendum had been expressed to be binding but it wasn't.

The decision to actually leave the EU was an act of pure political expediency/self-interest and nothing more. What it wasn't was compliance with anyone's 'right' pursuant to an enforceable duty.

When you say the brexiteers have a 'right' to expect there decision to be acted upon because it was promised in writing then that is nonsense because there is no such 'right' - It does not exist. They may have an expectation but nothing more and given all of the lies and misinformation put about before the referendum whether that expectation is legitimate is dubious.

Even if it were legitimate then that expectation can be outweighed by something like, for instance, hmm I don't know, a competent decision maker undertaking something like impact assessments and coming to the conclusion that the greater harm would be caused by following through on that expectation (as a public law exercise you would wonder whether the decision to trigger Art 50 would pass the test of Wednesbury unreasonableness being a decion [i]'so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.[/i])

A 'right' is a legal concept so what is happening now is not as the result of any legal obligation but just what a bunch of political chancers have chosen to do pushed along by a mob - 'the will of the people'.

See Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld's analysis for further details on the concept of rights if you're interested.

Not looking to create an argument, just wondering what people think.

I'd come to pretty much the same conclusion. But 2) is essentially to remain in the EU in all but name for all practical purposes, but relinquish our right to have any say in or control over the EU's decisions. Which surely is an option that pleases absolutely no-one on either side of the debate? We're "taking back control" by actually having less control, which is insane.

So really we're left with "crash out with the square root of geoff all" or "remain and reform our policies from within." Remind me again why we're doing this?

is an option that pleases absolutely no-one on either side of the debate?

It pleases my French me no end. No more trouble from the Brits but they carry on paying and have to abide by the rules. The british me comes to the same conclusion as you, Cougar.

Britain has become so inward looking that it can't see what is about to happen as trade talks start. I've posted a few cartoons to demostrate how French and German cartoonists see things and portray them humourously. If you take the trouble to read papers from around Europe you'll find that initial dismay that Britain is leaving the union is being replaced with how to avoid being dragged into Britain's race to the bottom and how to further each nation's own agenda. Each of these countries has objectives and a veto to use if they aren't reached.

2. cannot possibly be a 'right'. Political parties make all sorts of pledges in their GE manifestos for instance. These confer no 'rights' on me because there is no correlative 'duty' on the party making those pledges to deliver them - they are not legally enforceable.

Of course they’re not legally enforceable

But that’s not to say that failure to honour a manifesto pledge does not have political implications at the ballot box that, in and of themselves make the honouring of manifesto pledges an unavoidable fact. Break the promise and it may be a very, very long time before the public ever trust your party again

[img] [/img]

brexit fudge

What a lovely idea, though as a Scot I prefer Brexit tablet and I guess their will be a few votes for Brexit toffee.

https://www.pollstation.uk/are_you_happy_with_the_deal_ensure_sufficient_progress_brexit/

Only a couple of thousand votes so far, but the result is currently standing with "no" at 91%.

The will of the people. Roflcopters.

By the way, did we do Gove this morning suggesting that if he doesn’t like the eventual deal he’s going to try and persuade people not to stick to it.

At least that’s what he seems to be saying.

Interesting in the context of “you have to stick to the referendum “.

But that’s not to say that failure to honour a manifesto pledge does not have political implications at the ballot box that, in and of themselves make the honouring of manifesto pledges an unavoidable fact. Break the promise and it may be a very, very long time before the public ever trust your party again

as you say, political expediency and no more.

Right 4: the right to change their mind, as new evidence appears.

Forcing something on the Brtish people, simply because in the past that voted against something else, will not end well… the matter will stay open… political parties will continue to be riven with infighting… a new relationship, without democratic support, will not be stable… how it changes will remain the most important political pivot point, and years and years of time and money will be wasted by everyone involved, holding this country back, and causing division within in. Get a deal that you think the majority of the people prefer to membership, put it to the public to make that choice. You can't just force a deal with minority support on the public by threatening the no deal scenerio as the only alternative. That looks nothing like democracy.

Meanwhile the New Right continues to fan the flames of conflict in the Middle East.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-42291071 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-42291071[/url]

Oh, where is the Lee Harvey Oswald for this generation?

Good posts perditus and Kelvin.

You can't just force a deal with minority support on the public by threatening the no deal scenerio as the only alternative. That looks nothing like democracy.

That’s why MP’s can propose a motion of no confidence at any time

But MPs feel bound by the referendum, even though it does not inform them as to what people want from the replacement for membership, nor, once the replacement is know, whether the public support what is proposed.

"Essentially what you saying is that we need to change things every 2 to 3 years in a massive ways. " no I'm saying if you trust plebiscites for major decisions it is hypocritical to try and say one plebiscite with a binary question should bind the country even if the situation becomes more complex and more facts and choices become apparent. And disingenuous to try and argue it is anti democratic for people to seek to challenge/change the old flawed vote.

But MPs feel bound by the referendum, even though it does not inform them as to what people want from the replacement for membership, nor, once the replacement is know, whether the public support what is proposed.

All the political parties had a chance to put their vision of Brexit to the public in the election.

And disingenuous to try and argue it is anti democratic for people to seek to challenge/change the old flawed vote.

Again. We had an election, more than one of the parties ran on a platform of reversing the referendum. They didn’t win.

Was this the vision the tories put to the public?

Essentially what you saying is that we need to change things every 2 to 3 years in a massive ways.

Frankly I think that's the problem with British politics. No long term vision.

Hence the Tories mad rush to throw the country through Brexit, no matter how much it ****s the country before Labour get in

Was this the vision the tories put to the public?

Hence the Tories mad rush to throw the country through Brexit, no matter how much it **** the country before Labour get in

No, the tory vision was collapse of the economy the day after a leave vote shortly followed by the Europeans stuffing each other in ovens again. Didn't you get the pamphlet?

I do recall something about a coalition of chaos.

kelvin - Member

But MPs feel bound by the referendum, even though it does not inform them as to what people want from the replacement for membership, nor, once the replacement is know, whether the public support what is proposed.

Its not just that. Labour MPs in the north of England are afraid to make the case against incase their voters turn against them. Its pathetic. See Andy Burnham playing the race card in the manchester mayoral elections.

Politicians should be leaders. Not afraid to speak out for what they believe in. Blairs fault

Theresa May’s hopes of securing a unique post-Brexit trade deal with the EU were under threat on Saturday night as Brussels said it was coming under international pressure to deny Britain special treatment.

After a week that saw May reach a deal with the EU that will allow Brexit talks to move forward on to future trade relations, EU officials insisted a bespoke deal more favourable to the UK than other non-EU nations was out of the question.

grauniad

Labour MPs in the north of England are afraid to make the case against incase their voters turn against them. Its pathetic. See Andy Burnham playing the race card in the manchester mayoral elections.

Politicians should be leaders. Not afraid to speak out for what they believe in. Blairs fault

Blair led us into the EU. Handed back a third of the rebate, refused to set safeguards in place on immigration, because they wanted to [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html ]Rub our noses in multiculturalism [/url] (he would have led us into the Euro if Gordon hadn’t stopped him) and his little minions silenced anyone who raised concern about the wave of child rapes sweeping across our towns by [url= https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/30/rotherham-girls-could-have-been-spared-ann-cryer ]accusing them of racism[/url]

I think Labours core vote in the North have had quite enough of that sort of leadership for a lifetime

"A former Labour adviser at the centre of claims that the government secretly encouraged mass immigration to turn Britain into a "truly multicultural society" and undermine the Tories today made clear "there was no such plot".

The shadow home secretary, Chris Grayling, challenged ministers in the Commons today over remarks by Andrew Neather, a former speechwriter to Tony Blair and special adviser to Barbara Roche when she was immigration minister.

But Neather, now comment editor of the London Evening Standard, said an article he wrote in the aftermath of the television appearance of the BNP leader, Nick Griffin, had been twisted out of all recognition.

"Multiculturalism was not the primary point of the report or the speech. The main goal was to allow in more migrant workers at a point when – hard as it is to imagine now – the booming economy was running up against skills shortages," Neather wrote in the Standard."

Bringing the Eastern European countries in to the EU was led by (Conservative) Brits, and that, along with the economic case, was reason enough to not close the door to their citizens when other countries did. The backlash to that move was indeed one of the main reasons we are where we are. Plenty of opportunists jumped on that to their own ends… Banks and Farage more nakedly than others… but lots of people in the big two parties as well. May has used it to build her support in her party, for example.

refused to set safeguards in place on immigration

A trend which our current government continues to this day.

We have the ability to impose stricter rules on immigration and choose not to use them. Why is that? And how is it the EU's fault?

So if there is a final vote it will not be about membership. It will be on the deal or no deal.

I know you like to think you're clever for a public school geography teacher who is somewhat jealous of the cars your pupils' parents drive, but you're not Nostradamus.

And again, if you're such a democrat, what's your beef with a second referendum, or do you think we should still have Blair as PM as he win such an overwhelming victory in 1997?

And besides,

Our immigration desire has little to do with Blair, it's a WWII thing. After the war we were desperate for skilled labour, doctors and such. That's where "multiculturalism" started.

his little minions silenced anyone who raised concern about the wave of child rapes sweeping across our towns by accusing them of racism

Really? Do you want to have a think about that and try again? Because it really doesn't reflect well on you.

Are you calling Anne Cryer a liar?

I’ve given you a reference, draw your own conclusion as to whether she, and others, were being called racist for speaking out .

Ninfan, self-pwning again?

Where did she say she was accused of being racist in your reference?

Ignored yes, police repeatedly failing to act in those cases tragic.

Racial concerns a factor, as was the police writing this women off as 'loose'

Horrendous behaviour and you could even say that cultural blindness made it worse but these were second gen immigrants, which means they mustve been kids for people Thatcher allowed in and we know that the Thatch is sacred...

Where in that article does is state that minions of Blair accused Cryer of racism?

😐

Does she mention Blair in that snip or that it was organised by his minions? No thought not.

Tony Blair was leader of the Labour Party, you appear to be offended by the prospect of people under his leadership being referred to as his minions.

Maybe it was as Jezza and his mates? 🙄

This warped view of a horrible bit of recent history has what exactly to do with membership, or otherwise, of the EU?

This warped view of a horrible bit of recent history has what exactly to do with membership, or otherwise, of the EU?

I was wondering myself how we’d arrived at hordes of rapists sweeping through northern towns being the fault of the EU.

To be fair to Zulu, it’s not like he ever tries to sidetrack discussions like this. Very unusual behaviour.

In fact, I have more of a right to call brexiteers thick than they have of any expectation that the results of the referendum should be carried through.

Sums up the behaviour of remoaners. As disingenuous as it is shameful. But again thanks for the honesty.

Of course child abuse in Rotherham is all the fault of Tony Blair & the EU !

At least jhj has a stream of consciousnesses!

Rather than just stringing together a couple of things that Guido/breitbart tells him are evil !

Meanwhile the Tory brexiteers* are getting antsy about the deal, something to do with the Brexie voters** on twitter getting very frothy about May's betrayal

* Note brexiteers Thm, that usually means Gove, Mogg & co.

** Those lot definitely not thick thm 😉

Of course child abuse in Rotherham is all the fault of Tony Blair & the EU

However, the Brexit vote, whether you like it or not, [b]was[/b] massively tied up with all three

Really people voted Brexit coz of Tony Blair (or indeed abuse in Rotherham*) ?

* Coz if they thought that leaving the EU would mean the hated ****stanis living in Rotherham would be expelled then they deserve to be called thick

Yep another one where people were told every bad thing was the fault of the eu and without the eu they could just throw the foreign criminals onto the sea.

However, the Brexit vote, whether you like it or not, was massively tied up with all three

Sure. That's spin and propaganda for you.

it's heartbreaking, really. Let's leave the EU because a dozen or so (evidently European) brown people got away with grooming and rape for a very long time. Totally the EU's fault.

Are you suggesting that people were misled by those three things, are justified by them?

As for the BS that this is a Tory issue - although the (mis)framing explains much of the BS - let’s see what Sir Keir Starmer thought

Although we are fiercely internationalist and fiercely pro-European, [b]we in the Labour party are, above all, democrats. Had the outcome been to remain, we would have expected the result to be honoured, and that cuts both ways. [/b]A decision was made on 23 June last year to leave the EU. Two thirds of Labour MPs represent constituencies that voted to leave; one third represent constituencies that voted to remain. This is obviously a difficult decision. I wish the result had gone the other way—I campaigned passionately for that—[b]but as democrats we in the Labour party have to accept the result.[/b] It follows that the prime minister should not be blocked from starting the article 50 negotiations.