Bob Rathbone
Screwfix Select
We already had one.
btiw2
Screwfix Select
You're comparing me to Brian of Nazareth?
An everyman surrounded by insane ideologues?
Thank you. I'll take that.
RS can be the "NAIL 'EM UP!" character in the dungeon.
I still only have your one strike against me.
I'm kinda surprised. I thought RS and JJ would have joined your call for me to gtfo.
But, whilst I have two strikes remaining, back to the point.
There are two questions here. Let's try not to confuse them.
1. Determining the will of the people.
2. Implementing the will of the people.
1. We had a referendum
We may not like or agree with the result, but we cannot just close our eyes to a 13:12 majority.
Were people misinformed? Were they ignorant on what they were voting for?
Sure, but aren't we all?
Before you (rightly) pull me up on the spectrum of misinformation - It's not a question of "how informed?", it's a question of "informed about what?"
I think I'm probably better than most when it comes to interpreting financial statistics, but I'm ignorant about what it's like to compete with immigrants for social housing.
I guess your missus isn't competing with young, keen immigrant labour for a low wage job. How do you encode that experience using statistics?
My priorities are different to yours, to RS's, to IIR's.
That's why we had a referendum[1].
If it was just a case of looking at statistics we wouldn't have asked the plebs, we'd have asked the mathematicians[2].
C'mon AS - you like freedoms. The freedom to participate in determining one's own political future is surely fundamental?
Should we have another referendum? Maybe. I can't see how more voting could be less democratic in principle, but that's not why people are calling for one, is it?
They just want another chance to win. That seems a bit cheaty.
I'm sure that if remain had won 13:12, the political class would have considered this discussion over. And then, once again, the British people can go 'k themselves.
2. Implementing the will of the people
This is where it becomes, dare I say, nebulous.
I don't know what we should do. I'm suspicious of anyone who says that they do.
Every option has massive problems.
But I don't think we should completely ignore 13 out of every 25 people. That'd be rude.
This is why I understand Mrs. May's plan. It listened to the people and implements a sensible compromise.
I hate it, but surely we can dispassionately separate what's personal from what's right?
My ideal implementation plan involves building a time machine, going back thirty years and fixing the economy - but I'm still waiting for flux capacitors in Screwfix's deal of the day.
[1] This is a lie. That's not why we had a referendum. Ideological fault lines in the Tory party, fault lines that have existed since the early 90s, is why we had a referendum. But it's a helpful lie.
[2] Although mathematicians aren't social creatures. Perhaps they were asked, but they just mumbled something at their shoes, and so it was decided to ask the people instead.
btiw2
Screwfix Select
Really?
I'd have said:
KIAB for PM
RS for home secretary
JJ for health
Chippie for defence (or possibly culture, media & sport).
Jord can be foreign secretary (he drinks wine and likes garlic)
Filly or GB for transport
IIR can be secretary for leaving the EU (until he resigns, like all the rest)
We'll kick Harry into the house of lords
And let's send AS to Northern Ireland.
Now all I need is a manifesto.
Perhaps "Let's send AS to Northern Ireland" is all I need in my manifesto.
A
Allsorts
Guest
[QUOTE="btiw2,
I still only have your one strike against me.
I'm kinda surprised. I thought RS and JJ would have joined your call for me to gtfo. Really? They see you as their right-hand sensible man. Anyhoo, 'GTFO' is not a suggestion to depart the forum, but to depart from your occasional BS.
But, whilst I have two strikes remaining, back to the point.
There are two questions here. Let's try not to confuse them.
1. Determining the will of the people.
2. Implementing the will of the people.
1. We had a referendum
We may not like or agree with the result, but we cannot just close our eyes to a 13:12 majority. That's true - but it shouldn't have happened in the first place; it was done for the crude political tool you suggested. It back-fired majorly and we are meant to accept this? Nope. It's too important, too critical.
Were people misinformed? Were they ignorant on what they were voting for?
Sure, but aren't we all? Yawn - to anywhere approaching the same degree?
Before you (rightly) pull me up on the spectrum of misinformation - It's not a question of "how informed?", it's a question of "informed about what?" Fair point - about all the wrong issues, only about misleading emotive ones.
I think I'm probably better than most when it comes to interpreting financial statistics, but I'm ignorant about what it's like to compete with immigrants for social housing.
I guess your missus isn't competing with young, keen immigrant labour for a low wage job. How do you encode that experience using statistics? Fair do's - but this didn't come down to someone people's personal experience in the job/NHS/school market; it came to lots of people's personal jingoism. 17 million people in this country have not been negatively or personally affected by an immigrant competing for their jobs of school/NHS place. Immigration has significantly contributed more to this country and it negatively impacts on. Given 'facts', why would so many people still vote the way they do? I know.
My priorities are different to yours, to RS's, to IIR's.
That's why we had a referendum[1].
If it was just a case of looking at statistics we wouldn't have asked the plebs, we'd have asked the mathematicians[2].
C'mon AS - you like freedoms. The freedom to participate in determining one's own political future is surely fundamental? Yes, that's way we have a half-decent political system and half-decent politicians. I agree with D Davis on the value and risk of Refs - they are crazy. At least not without an overwhelming top bar to cross.
Should we have another referendum? Maybe. I can't see how more voting could be less democratic in principle, but that's not why people are calling for one, is it?
They just want another chance to win. That seems a bit cheaty. Yes and no. I don't 'want' the situation to be here for a 2nd ref, but I sure as hell want one now as a chance to fix this insane and damaging issue. It is increasingly looking like the only realistic fix. If the public vote 'Leave' again, I promise I will not say a word; the country will have fully deserved what it will get. The first time was an utter cheat imo, the 2nd would be close to 'informed'.
I'm sure that if remain had won 13:12, the political class would have considered this discussion over. And then, once again, the British people can go 'k themselves.
2. Implementing the will of the people
This is where it becomes, dare I say, nebulous.
I don't know what we should do. I'm suspicious of anyone who says that they do.
Every option has massive problems.
But I don't think we should completely ignore 13 out of every 25 people. That'd be rude.
This is why I understand Mrs. May's plan. It listened to the people and implements a sensible compromise.
I hate it, but surely we can dispassionately separate what's personal from what's right? I hate her plan too, but also accept that it does provide a compromise that does pretty much answer the the ref. Which is ironic since very very few who voted 'Leave' find it answers what they really want either. That does not surprise me, but I am pleased about it since it makes the chance of it being accepted nigh-on zero.
My ideal implementation plan involves building a time machine, going back thirty years and fixing the economy - but I'm still waiting for flux capacitors in Screwfix's deal of the day.
[1] This is a lie. That's not why we had a referendum. Ideological fault lines in the Tory party, fault lines that have existed since the early 90s, is why we had a referendum. But it's a helpful lie.
[2] Although mathematicians aren't social creatures. Perhaps they were asked, but they just mumbled something at their shoes, and so it was decided to ask the people instead.[/QUOTE]
[3] This is about the calibre of reasoning of the hardened Leave voters on here - you asked if they demonstrate 'ignorance' and 'stuff' as I supposedly claim of all (GTFO...), and I say 'yes' - of the u-s on here, they do.
I still only have your one strike against me.
I'm kinda surprised. I thought RS and JJ would have joined your call for me to gtfo. Really? They see you as their right-hand sensible man. Anyhoo, 'GTFO' is not a suggestion to depart the forum, but to depart from your occasional BS.
But, whilst I have two strikes remaining, back to the point.
There are two questions here. Let's try not to confuse them.
1. Determining the will of the people.
2. Implementing the will of the people.
1. We had a referendum
We may not like or agree with the result, but we cannot just close our eyes to a 13:12 majority. That's true - but it shouldn't have happened in the first place; it was done for the crude political tool you suggested. It back-fired majorly and we are meant to accept this? Nope. It's too important, too critical.
Were people misinformed? Were they ignorant on what they were voting for?
Sure, but aren't we all? Yawn - to anywhere approaching the same degree?
Before you (rightly) pull me up on the spectrum of misinformation - It's not a question of "how informed?", it's a question of "informed about what?" Fair point - about all the wrong issues, only about misleading emotive ones.
I think I'm probably better than most when it comes to interpreting financial statistics, but I'm ignorant about what it's like to compete with immigrants for social housing.
I guess your missus isn't competing with young, keen immigrant labour for a low wage job. How do you encode that experience using statistics? Fair do's - but this didn't come down to someone people's personal experience in the job/NHS/school market; it came to lots of people's personal jingoism. 17 million people in this country have not been negatively or personally affected by an immigrant competing for their jobs of school/NHS place. Immigration has significantly contributed more to this country and it negatively impacts on. Given 'facts', why would so many people still vote the way they do? I know.
My priorities are different to yours, to RS's, to IIR's.
That's why we had a referendum[1].
If it was just a case of looking at statistics we wouldn't have asked the plebs, we'd have asked the mathematicians[2].
C'mon AS - you like freedoms. The freedom to participate in determining one's own political future is surely fundamental? Yes, that's way we have a half-decent political system and half-decent politicians. I agree with D Davis on the value and risk of Refs - they are crazy. At least not without an overwhelming top bar to cross.
Should we have another referendum? Maybe. I can't see how more voting could be less democratic in principle, but that's not why people are calling for one, is it?
They just want another chance to win. That seems a bit cheaty. Yes and no. I don't 'want' the situation to be here for a 2nd ref, but I sure as hell want one now as a chance to fix this insane and damaging issue. It is increasingly looking like the only realistic fix. If the public vote 'Leave' again, I promise I will not say a word; the country will have fully deserved what it will get. The first time was an utter cheat imo, the 2nd would be close to 'informed'.
I'm sure that if remain had won 13:12, the political class would have considered this discussion over. And then, once again, the British people can go 'k themselves.
2. Implementing the will of the people
This is where it becomes, dare I say, nebulous.
I don't know what we should do. I'm suspicious of anyone who says that they do.
Every option has massive problems.
But I don't think we should completely ignore 13 out of every 25 people. That'd be rude.
This is why I understand Mrs. May's plan. It listened to the people and implements a sensible compromise.
I hate it, but surely we can dispassionately separate what's personal from what's right? I hate her plan too, but also accept that it does provide a compromise that does pretty much answer the the ref. Which is ironic since very very few who voted 'Leave' find it answers what they really want either. That does not surprise me, but I am pleased about it since it makes the chance of it being accepted nigh-on zero.
My ideal implementation plan involves building a time machine, going back thirty years and fixing the economy - but I'm still waiting for flux capacitors in Screwfix's deal of the day.
[1] This is a lie. That's not why we had a referendum. Ideological fault lines in the Tory party, fault lines that have existed since the early 90s, is why we had a referendum. But it's a helpful lie.
[2] Although mathematicians aren't social creatures. Perhaps they were asked, but they just mumbled something at their shoes, and so it was decided to ask the people instead.[/QUOTE]
[3] This is about the calibre of reasoning of the hardened Leave voters on here - you asked if they demonstrate 'ignorance' and 'stuff' as I supposedly claim of all (GTFO...), and I say 'yes' - of the u-s on here, they do.
btiw2
Screwfix Select
I don't think that's true. I'm neutral - like the Swiss, but without the Nazi gold or euthanasia[1].
I also don't think that I want to be anywhere near JJ's right hand. He's told us about his working day.
Hey!
It's only occasional because I don't post as much as other people.
You must know that I'll remember you posted this.
Gotta be honest - if there is another referendum then I'm very tempted to vote leave this time.
Not because it's the sensible decision, but just out of curiosity. A bit like egging a mate on to do something stupid (whilst he's driving, and I'm in the passenger seat).
The problem is that they called it "a cliff edge", and jumping off a cliff edge sounds like an adrenaline rush! Much more fun than remaining (formatted grey monospace for boredom).
But afterwards, I'd tell everyone that I voted remain, because I wouldn't want the blame.
You're nice, aren't you?
[1] But who knows what 2019 will bring.
I
Isitreally
Guest
Btiw2 said
My ideal implementation plan involves building a time machine, going back thirty years and fixing the economy - but I'm still waiting for flux capacitors in Screwfix's deal of the day.
If like ever other Deal of the day they'll never be any in stock.
My ideal implementation plan involves building a time machine, going back thirty years and fixing the economy - but I'm still waiting for flux capacitors in Screwfix's deal of the day.
If like ever other Deal of the day they'll never be any in stock.
I
Isitreally
Guest
I
Isitreally
Guest
D
Deleted member 11267
Guest
Is Google allowed at PM'S question time.
I
Isitreally
Guest
I've bought us a prezzy cause it's Crimbo.
A
Allsorts
Guest
a) Every time you diss' me, Bt, there is a collective orgasm in the u-s camp. They cannot believe their bigoted little cheeks that someone considered as sensible and balanced as you actually tries to understand their side and give them credence. You have read the list of comments I pulled from the first page of this thread, haven't you? That's the calibre we are dealing with in the hardened Leave camp on here.
b) Yes, please remember I posted that I'd accept the next result; I don't want you to think I'm taking this tooooo seriously. In 'real' life I can and have 'forgiven' (in my head) everyone I know who voted Leave, even tho' I've had to gently take a couple of them to task about the carp they have posted on Facebook (ie when it's blatant utter 'locks). But (and I haven't actually told them this - I'll keep it to myself) I will personally not forgive anyone I know who would vote Leave again now that the evidence of who it would most directly affect is as clear as a clear thing, and their reasons for doing so as obvious as an obvious thing. See? Not at all 'serious'. I say this even tho' I can personally only score a 'biggie' from this Brexit debacle should it happen. I'm actually quite nice in real life, me.
c) Oops - 'Nice' again? Me? You haven't a clue what I'm like in real life. I could say stuff, but it might come across a bit RS-y. I'll content myself with the fact that this forum is an unrepresentative microcosm, that's all, and as long as there's folks like RS and Deleted member 11267 and Longsie on here, I am bludy well nice.
G
Gringo28
Guest
Not small. 1.5 million people. If 1.5 million people stood on a battle field it would be formidable.
Absolutely formidable.
Probably nothing like it in history.
snowflake remoaners certainly wouldn't stand against it.
Over 17million voted leave. Largest turn out ever.
R
retiredsparks
Guest
- a small majority voted to "leave" the EU. AS per the long standing legal requirements for a referendum and general election...did you not understand these rules ? Did you complain about the previous 10 elections ?
- the vote was advisory.... both party manifesto wordings were agreed and was an IN or OUT choice. NOWHERE was the word ADVISORY.
- no one voted for what they wanted, only for what they did NOT want. ??? they voted IN or OUT, I think it could not have been made more simple that that ? Do you not understand the words IN and OUT ?
- so we have no idea, none, what arrangements people want instead..... there is no "instead"...it was IN OR OUT. Are you grasping this now ?
- leaving the EU is not in the national interest (show me evidence that leaving the EU is beneficial for the country)
The National Interest is NOT having a bunch of corrupt undemocratic criminals with an army led by Germany telling us what to do. Has being members of the EU been beneficial to Greece, Holland, Italy, Eire....where their democratic decisions were overuled or their economies destroyed.
The people who understand 'democracy'... also probably want to control their borders (like USA, Canada, NZ, Australia etc) and want to keep the Mother of Parliaments as the final say on our country....and retain our culture, way of life, religion.
RS
- the vote was advisory.... both party manifesto wordings were agreed and was an IN or OUT choice. NOWHERE was the word ADVISORY.
- no one voted for what they wanted, only for what they did NOT want. ??? they voted IN or OUT, I think it could not have been made more simple that that ? Do you not understand the words IN and OUT ?
- so we have no idea, none, what arrangements people want instead..... there is no "instead"...it was IN OR OUT. Are you grasping this now ?
- leaving the EU is not in the national interest (show me evidence that leaving the EU is beneficial for the country)
The National Interest is NOT having a bunch of corrupt undemocratic criminals with an army led by Germany telling us what to do. Has being members of the EU been beneficial to Greece, Holland, Italy, Eire....where their democratic decisions were overuled or their economies destroyed.
The people who understand 'democracy'... also probably want to control their borders (like USA, Canada, NZ, Australia etc) and want to keep the Mother of Parliaments as the final say on our country....and retain our culture, way of life, religion.
RS
A
Allsorts
Guest
As if I needed more evidence, along come Gringe and RS.
Btiw2 - tell me you are not feeling a teeny bit hot under the collar
Btiw2 - tell me you are not feeling a teeny bit hot under the collar
Odd Bodkin
Active Member
The link refers to polls taken over the last 12 months by YouGov, not the referendum of two years ago.
A great deal has changed since then.
I know, lies, damn statistics and polls but you can't ignore the changing mood since the details of a deal were put forward and the choices became clearer.
Nobody really wants to leave the EU on these terms and nobody wants to leave without a deal and throw ourselves at the mercy of WTO trade rules.
However; i fear the government will push the deal to the point where anyone voting against it will be accused of letting a no-deal scenario become reality, making them own it lock-stock---and two smocking barrels. This is where Labour have to be very careful, otherwise the Tories will shamelessly throw it all over the opposition and make it look like Corbyn is not only defying 'the will of the people' but actively trying to make sure we stay in the EU after all.
I think Labour will force a vote of no-confidence in the government as soon as the vote on the deal is made. If it takes an election to throw the question back to the electorate, so be it...
...trouble is; people still don't trust Corbyn with the keys to #10 and an election could end up backfiring on him, bringing Labour centerists into control of the party once more. He's going to have to move like a ninja in this matter and i'm afriad he's not that nimble. A good committee man; yes. A future Primeminister, not so much.
G
Gringo28
Guest
If the result on a losers vote second referendum is leave you would accept it?
G
Gringo28
Guest
corbyn is the best thing that has happened to the labour party.
Should keep them out of office for quite some time.
A
Allsorts
Guest
Yes.
G
Gringo28
Guest
So the second referendum to you would be more legitimate than the first.
Im happy to see a second referendum.
On two conditions....
1 - Every home in the land receives a leaflet explaining the benefits of leaving.
2 - And leave receives nearly double the funding.
In the interests of equality.
On second thoughts, let remain have those advantages again.
Leave will still win.