Forum menu
mattjg
I think those debating on here are more politically aware than the average STWer or member of the public and its clear that the more informed you are and the less xenophobic you are the more likely you are to oppose leaving the EU
Actually I think a lot of active forum posters aren't really very young. I'm 48. But that's not the only indicator of brexiteering. It's well known that cyclists are generally more intelligent and wealthier than average.
I think those debating on here are more politically aware than the average STWer or member of the public and its clear that the more informed you are and the less xenophobic you are the more likely you are to oppose leaving the EU
But we all get one vote. Smart or stupid, tolerant or closed, lazy or a grafter. We all get one vote.
Extrapolate it out and "democracy" is broken. When an issue comes up that actually gets the habitual non-voters out of bed and to the polling station, it gets ****ed up.
And sexier thecaptain. Don't forget sexier.
By the way "Bob" referred to above - can we export him?
Presumably if we're making Britain great again and establishing the second British empire, transportation is back on the cards?
More hardworking Poles fewer Bobs please - now that would make Britain great.
As I have said before, democracy relies on an informed electorate. I don't care too much if you believe the tories or labour will have the best policies, I care that you can put forward a coherent argument as to why you support those policies.
oldmanmtb, one of my issues, is that we need to pay more tax as a society to pay for pensions, nhs, roads, education etc etc.
But due to Brexit those in the middle will now have to pay more tax, will have to spend more to cover a multitude of tariffs, but gain nothing from it all. It will just mean more civil servants, more red tape, yet less investment in services that actually matter.
As I have said before, democracy relies on an informed electorate. I don't care too much if you believe the tories or labour will have the best policies, I care that you can put forward a coherent argument as to why you support those policies.
You cannot expect everyone to become informed and even less so to understand the complexities of politics, economics etc,.
So why ask them to vote, because it is democracy...
Indeed mrmo
One of the reasons the last scottish independence referendum was widely considered to be a great example of democracy - 'cos the voters certainly were well informed
contrast that to the EU referendum where they certainly were not.
Tell Bob, he wont be getting another job driving a fork truck as that sort of job is now done by a 'robot'. It's alright though as he'll recieve a (low) universal basic income, whilst being prescribed anti-depressants to manage his anxiety from not working and 'having no worth'.
whilst being prescribed anti-depressants to manage his anxiety from not working and 'having no worth'.
Thank god he has his world-striding English identity to fall back on.
You cannot expect everyone to become informed and even less so to understand the complexities of politics, economics etc,.
So why ask them to vote, because it is democracy...
which is why we live in a representative democracy and rely on politicians to make informed decisions on our behalf. Then again FPTP has in many ways created the situation we are in. When was the last time we had a government that received over half the electorates support. Yet look at the changes that have been forced through over the last 30 years. Now throw into the mix the claims that Brussels is the problem repeated time and time again.
Very simple question, if Brussels is the problem why is Germany, which has had to go through reunification, in a better place than the UK?
It's quite ironic that Brexit will mean more bureaucracy for the dUK than before
@mattjg... Democracy is a great concept. I am very happy that my vote carries the same weight as that of the PM and "Bob". What I am not happy with is a system of governance based on a first past the post system that offers no compromise for the (more often than not) 60% or so of the country that did not choose their representative in parliament. Very few things in life are black and white. Most fall into the grey areas in between. Politics and the effective running of a democracy should recognise this. Forcing people to make binary choices whether in referendums or in the election of their representatives is NOT good democracy. I think politicians should be elected to proportionally represent the views of the electorate and to then argue, debate, rant and rave on issues chosen by the electorate, and then to reach the most appropriate compromise possible within the prevailing social/political/economical/environmental etc framework.
That for me would be democracy.
But then that is a big ask and I have been up all night so brain a bit fuddled 🙂
Haha, beaten to the point by Mrmo by a minute 🙂
mind you, look at the slating the Lib Dems got for ditching the tuition fees promise.
If you have a coalition government by its very nature you have to compromise. You can put forward your manifesto, but if the parties don't match exactly....
Yes I agree completely re FPTP. It creates a binary winner takes all outcome that doesn't reflect the vote.
The 2015 GE:
Tory 37% vote 51% of seats
Labour 30% of vote 36% of seats
SNP 4.7% of votes 9% of votes
LDs 8% of votes 1% of seats.
Greens and UKIP were both shafted too, should have dozens of MPs each.
Edit: UKIP 13% of vote no seats - would have in the 80s on strict PR, Greens 4% of vote, 1 seat, would be in the mid twenties.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results
Mattjg - you make the assumption that voting patterns in a FFTP system would continue in a PR system - maybe, maybe not.
Also extreme minorities can wield a lot of power in a PR system. Imagine 2 mainstream parties each getting 45% of the seats and a bunch of possibly we meaning nutters getting 10% - assuming they are astute, the 10% would have a disproportionate amount of power as king makers. (Yes reality is more complex, but you get the principle)
Sure thanks, I realise. For "illustrative purposes".
Tell Bob he's been shafted by the 'middle' once again
[url= http://www.runnymedetrust.org/projects-and-publications/employment-3/race-and-class.html ]http://www.runnymedetrust.org/projects-and-publications/employment-3/race-and-class.html[/url]
“Mainstream Brexit analysis tells us that it was the white working class alone that drove the Brexit vote, concluding that this group's needs are distinct and that they should take precedent over the needs of other groups. Apart from being untrue, with 59 per cent of the middle class voting for Brexit versus 24 per cent of the working class, this analysis and it's conclusions are turning the clock back on progress in our multi-racial community.
Average folk...
Watched Newsnight last night and they were in Pennsylvania talking about healthcare. One women they spoke to said that they should get rid of forcing companies to cover their employees insurance, as some couldn't afford it, and in the next breath said how they were dependent on it but it was fine because the company her husband worked for could afford it...
The reporter didn't ask her whether if they got rid of the obligation whether she thought her husbands company would still offer it, or anything awkward like that.
which is why we live in a representative democracy and rely on politicians to make informed decisions on our behalf.
So why has that not happened with the brexit vote?
The public were given a go, made an ill informed decision and the politicians are going along with it. So we basically cannot rely on politicians to make an informed decision as they are more worried about losing their seat/job than doing the right thing.
So why has that not happened with the brexit vote?
Probably this:
The 2015 GE:Tory 37% vote 51% of seats
Labour 30% of vote 36% of seats
SNP 4.7% of votes 9% of votes
LDs 8% of votes 1% of seats.
52% must seem a massive majority if you are used to forming a majority government on 37% of the votes.
This article sums things up nicely [url= https://umairhaque.com/the-case-against-brexit-that-should-have-been-made-but-wasnt-7e28e94b62cc#.yr8oh0c0l ]the argument against Brexit that should have been made but wasn't[/url].
Because even though they made the vote advisory, they also said they would implement the result...and they are scared shitless of the consequences if they don't.
Best outcome (and still most likely in my view) is that after a year of fruitless grandstanding and threatening on both sides of the supposed negotiation, together with an increasing stream of bad economic news and disinvestment, public opinion turns sufficiently hostile that the whole idea can be dropped. There will still be riots of course, and perhaps the second coming of the Nigel. But it beats the alternatives.
Lalala - fingers in ears - everything will be fine.
Tenuous, that article is really dumb. Any future tariffs on imports do not go to the EU! THey are tariffs imposed by our govt which therefore go into their own coffers.
Interesting theocb. They are approaching it from a racial equality standpoint not a Brexit standpoint, but nevertheless that quote runs counter to every dataset I've seen on the issue.
Do you know if they have new data, or are interpreting the same data differently?
thecaptain yes, there is no painless way back from where we are but that would be optimal. What I expect though is it to be pushed through, backed by Mail, Sun, Telegraph and Express and bleats of **"we won you lost get over it", regardless of the consequences. & there's unlikely to be a trade deal as it required 27 unanimity.
** not to forget "enemies of the people", and "we're going global!!!".
Yep in an import dominated economy the EU tariffs on us hurt our business because the EU can make it themselves or find other suppliers, where as UK tariffs still hurt us because we can't/don't make it ourselves. The UK tariffs are effectively a bit like raising VAT - except they act in the whole price.
Now over time we will learn to make things ourselves (because we can't afford them otherwise) and that position will change. But that will take years, maybe decades.
In the meantime - you're paying.
oh look the laws are the laws....
oh look the laws are the laws....
Fog in the Channel, Europe cut off.
I have to say that the negotiating on both sides has the air of being rather petty & childlike..
Aren't there any adults available to handle this please??
It's too important to leave to the kindergarten to handle!
I have to say that the negotiating on both sides has the air of being rather petty & childlike..
Problem is that in many areas you have a framework established and that works, many of these are overseen by European courts. The UK wants out, so why would the EU rewrite the working framework to suit one country?
Air safety, this is the framework if you don't want to be a part of it that is your choice, but the framework is what it is.
To make a change is going to cost money, who is going to pay?
Now over time we will learn to make things ourselves (because we can't afford them otherwise)
Jolly good and once we've done that we can build a beautiful wall to rival Trumps.
To make a change is going to cost money, who is going to pay?
The consumer I imagine.
I have to say that the negotiating on both sides has the air of being rather petty & childlike..
Even more reason why it is bad for the UK as we have such a weak hand.
Airlines are just the start.
Jamby, ninfers and chewie - come in, need some reassurance, over.
Even if it Colonel Melchett style "if all else fails a pigheaded refusal to looks facts in the face will see us through" reassurance.
Jolly good and once we've done that we can build a beautiful wall to rival Trumps
Yes, a wall around the whole island. That would give British people jobs for years. The flaw is they wouldn't want the jobs so we would have to get those pesky immigrants to build it for us. That will play havoc with net immigration numbers for a few years.
Yes, a wall around the whole island.
Well no need to rush into it. We might be able to shortcut it along the Scottish border.
Well no need to rush into it. We might be able to shortcut it along the Scottish border.
No need for a wall, we have a big moat now, just need to deal with those pesky things that let foreigners in. Blow up the channel tunnel (owned by the french so no issue there) blow up dover, felistow, liverpool, etc etc
To be safe better make the runways unusable just incase anyone trys to sneak in.
More seriously ID cards, how long till they reappear because they are the only realistic way of proving who has right to remain?
What i read earlier about putting more controls in the hands of employers and landlords. Straight back to the days of no blacks no Irish no dogs. IF you're an employer it becomes very easy to say i won't employ foreigners in case i get fined.
Only one part of one of the islands I suspect
I don't see the EU as being petty. More realistic and hard headed.
The UK leaving the EU is a massive inconvenience and some cost to the EU. The EU hold all the cards. Why should they alter their rules to favour the UK at a increased cost to the EU?
I don't see the EU as being petty. More realistic and hard headed.The UK leaving the EU is a massive inconvenience and some cost to the EU. The EU hold all the cards. Why should they alter their rules to favour the UK at a increased cost to the EU?
Their starting negotiating stance is a very threatening one - I'd hardly call that realistic or hard headed, rather hot-headed & childish.
"They are my toys & if you won't play by MY rules I'm taking them away".....normally ends up with having no-body to play with.
Making threats, being bolshy & aggressive won't help anyone in the long run!
Pretty much everything the EU has come out with has been on this tone...the UK has not exactly been a model of restraint either....but hey-ho when you let the kids play on their own what do you expect?
I honestly don't see the EU stance as threatening, there has been all sorts of contradictory bluster from the UK side. It wasn't the EU that brought up war reparations and said that WTO terms would be just fine. The only way that leaving the EU would not be damaging to the UK would be if it was arranged to be membership-in-all-but-name, which May has repeatedly ruled out.
The EUs starting position is pretty much "these are the rules, why should we change them to your advantage when you are leaving the EU?"
Can any of the leavers on here point to one single concrete thing that is working to the UKs advantage to counter all the thngs going against
so far we have the most profitable 20% of financial services industry is going to relocate away from london, all new nuclear power station building including hinkley is going to have to stop, serious loss of NHS staff that are EU citizen, forecasts of serious losses to gdp ranging from a few % well into double figures just to name a few
Any concrete good news? After all its going to be such a success this leaving the EU that surely the good news must be rolling in just our biased press are not reporting it.
EU's behaviour has been entirely reasonable IMO.
But that won't stop the rabid press stoking up the enmity the next couple of years. They're sharpening their pencils right now.
We're not just winding back to 100 years ago when Germany was the enemy, we're going back 300 when it was everyone.