INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

In or out?

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#161 Post by Alan H » June 27th, 2016, 6:09 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Tetenterre wrote:The point remains that over half of those who voted did so for something that I suspect none of us likes.
There's the rub. Did all those who voted no actually vote to leave the EU? It's not a stupid question: we know there are some at least who voted to regain our sovereignty; to give the Tories a bloody nose; to get £360 million a week spent on the NHS; to stop east Europeans; to stop all immigrants; to stop Muslims; to repatriate all immigrants... the list goes on but these are all reasons that have been given by various people over the last few days (possibly because that's what the media and politicians told them in the run up to the referendum) - and none of them really have much to do with actually leaving the EU. Now, these could be a minority, but we really know the numbers.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: In or out?

#162 Post by Dave B » June 27th, 2016, 7:35 pm

There have been a vouple of "ordinary people" on the radio who voted out because they were fed up with the politics and thought the in vote would be massive anyway. They now admitted to regretting it.

How many had similar silly motives I wonder?

I see the petition is pushing 4 000 000 now.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: In or out?

#163 Post by Tetenterre » June 27th, 2016, 8:11 pm

Alan H wrote:There's the rub. Did all those who voted no actually vote to leave the EU?
Assuming they could read the ballot paper, yes.
It's not a stupid question: we know there are some at least who voted to regain our sovereignty; to give the Tories a bloody nose; to get £360 million a week spent on the NHS; to stop east Europeans; to stop all immigrants; to stop Muslims; to repatriate all immigrants... the list goes on
True, but they believed (wrongly, I believe, but my belief should not diminish the vote of another) that leaving the EU would achieve their desires.
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#164 Post by Alan H » June 27th, 2016, 8:37 pm

Tetenterre wrote:
Alan H wrote:There's the rub. Did all those who voted no actually vote to leave the EU?
Assuming they could read the ballot paper, yes.
...on the basis of what they were told and believed they were voting for - and we know some of that at least was misinformation and lies.
It's not a stupid question: we know there are some at least who voted to regain our sovereignty; to give the Tories a bloody nose; to get £360 million a week spent on the NHS; to stop east Europeans; to stop all immigrants; to stop Muslims; to repatriate all immigrants... the list goes on
True, but they believed (wrongly, I believe, but my belief should not diminish the vote of another) that leaving the EU would achieve their desires.
So it may bot have been an accurate reflection of their views. As I said, we don't know the extent of this - oops! Just re-read what I said:
but we really know the numbers.
but had intended to write
but we really don't know the numbers.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Manuel
Posts: 184
Joined: October 29th, 2009, 8:59 pm

Re: In or out?

#165 Post by Manuel » June 27th, 2016, 9:14 pm

People voting for the wrong reasons is also my issue about the referendum. Not helped by the papers and TV debates constantly having immigration as the main topic of debate. I understand they do this because they want to reflect what people are concerned about, and immigration is often given as a concern by voters. However I feel it is self-perpetuating to keep debating an issue then say that it is the issue most discussed.

The debate should for me have been more focused on what it means to be in the EU as opposed to Europe the continent. What it means for your democracy, your trading and the economy and what it means regarding your place as a European citizen and our role within a European continent. Well that's my opinion on what should have been discussed anyway, but I fear it was sidelined in favour of a number of inflammatory immigration arguments, most of which are an irrelevance, or at least way down the list of important priorities when your voting for EU membership.

So in short I think you can blame Brexit on the media as much as anyone else.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#166 Post by Alan H » June 27th, 2016, 10:14 pm

Manuel wrote:People voting for the wrong reasons is also my issue about the referendum. Not helped by the papers and TV debates constantly having immigration as the main topic of debate. I understand they do this because they want to reflect what people are concerned about, and immigration is often given as a concern by voters. However I feel it is self-perpetuating to keep debating an issue then say that it is the issue most discussed.

The debate should for me have been more focused on what it means to be in the EU as opposed to Europe the continent. What it means for your democracy, your trading and the economy and what it means regarding your place as a European citizen and our role within a European continent. Well that's my opinion on what should have been discussed anyway, but I fear it was sidelined in favour of a number of inflammatory immigration arguments, most of which are an irrelevance, or at least way down the list of important priorities when your voting for EU membership.

So in short I think you can blame Brexit on the media as much as anyone else.
Yep.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: In or out?

#167 Post by Tetenterre » June 27th, 2016, 11:27 pm

Alan H wrote:
Tetenterre wrote:
Alan H wrote:There's the rub. Did all those who voted no actually vote to leave the EU?
Assuming they could read the ballot paper, yes.
...on the basis of what they were told and believed they were voting for - and we know some of that at least was misinformation and lies.
Yes, some of what they voted for was based on misinformation and lies. But both sides played that game. One of the things that annoyed me most about this has been the mind-numbing ineptitude of the Remain campaign. It deserved to lose.
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#168 Post by Alan H » June 28th, 2016, 12:53 am

Tetenterre wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Tetenterre wrote:Assuming they could read the ballot paper, yes.
...on the basis of what they were told and believed they were voting for - and we know some of that at least was misinformation and lies.
Yes, some of what they voted for was based on misinformation and lies. But both sides played that game. One of the things that annoyed me most about this has been the mind-numbing ineptitude of the Remain campaign. It deserved to lose.
But the lies don't somehow balance each other out and make the result a true reflection of views.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: In or out?

#169 Post by Dave B » June 28th, 2016, 6:49 am

Alan H wrote:
Tetenterre wrote:
Alan H wrote:...on the basis of what they were told and believed they were voting for - and we know some of that at least was misinformation and lies.
Yes, some of what they voted for was based on misinformation and lies. But both sides played that game. One of the things that annoyed me most about this has been the mind-numbing ineptitude of the Remain campaign. It deserved to lose.
But the lies don't somehow balance each other out and make the result a true reflection of views.
Confusion reigned and we all got shafted.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#170 Post by Alan H » June 28th, 2016, 10:01 am

How to stop Brexit: get your MP to vote it down
Our democracy does not allow, much less require, decision-making by referendum. That role belongs to the representatives of the people and not to the people themselves. Democracy has never meant the tyranny of the simple majority, much less the tyranny of the mob (otherwise, we might still have capital punishment). Democracy entails an elected government, subject to certain checks and balances such as the common law and the courts, and an executive ultimately responsible to parliament, whose members are entitled to vote according to conscience and common sense.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: In or out?

#171 Post by Tetenterre » June 28th, 2016, 10:43 am

(Caveat: I self-identify as politically naïf - and probably naff as well...)

Alan & Dave, I don't fundamentally disagree with any of that. I don't think we can ever really know what "a true reflection of views" of the nation would have been if politicians had done a volte face and restricted themselves to the truth.

I'm coming around to the view that the best way forward, since I think it is (a) likely that stark reality is rapidly bringing many (specifically those with enough functioning neurones to form at least one synapse) who voted for Brexit to the opposite view and (b) unlikely that the referendum will be re-run, is a general election where the manifestos have the parties'/candidates' stance on Brexit as a "headline" clause.

Yes, that may mean that the two main parties have to fragment. Damned good thing if it means that we never again have to suffer the tyranny of a single-party government.
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: In or out?

#172 Post by Tetenterre » June 28th, 2016, 11:30 am

Just been sent this; I think it's worth reading: The People Have Spoken, the Bastards

Begins:
How to think about Thursday’s vote if you were a Remainer

I voted Remain, I feel sick about this result and its implications for what’s to come. But I’m a believer in democracy. This post is about how to reconcile those two things (it’s a bit unstructured because I’m working it out as I go, and I’m not sure I agree with all of it).
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#173 Post by Alan H » June 28th, 2016, 12:43 pm

Tetenterre wrote:Just been sent this; I think it's worth reading: The People Have Spoken, the Bastards

Begins:
How to think about Thursday’s vote if you were a Remainer

I voted Remain, I feel sick about this result and its implications for what’s to come. But I’m a believer in democracy. This post is about how to reconcile those two things (it’s a bit unstructured because I’m working it out as I go, and I’m not sure I agree with all of it).
I can't see much to agree with in that.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Gottard
Posts: 1306
Joined: October 3rd, 2008, 3:11 pm

Re: In or out?

#174 Post by Gottard » June 28th, 2016, 3:49 pm

On the record: At the European Parliament this morning, convened on plenary, to Mr Smith's open request for the EU to pay benign attention to Scotland' remain vote, the whole House rose in a standing ovation.
The only thing I fear of death is regret if I couldn’t complete my learning experience

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: In or out?

#175 Post by Tetenterre » June 28th, 2016, 5:34 pm

Alan H wrote:I can't see much to agree with in that.
Ah. We disagree. But damned if I'm arguing this on a forum; takes too long and misunderstandings/misinterpretations become rife.
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#176 Post by Alan H » June 28th, 2016, 7:03 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: In or out?

#177 Post by Dave B » June 28th, 2016, 9:45 pm

Anotger video with a network (400) error, Alan.

Can't remember if I fixed the last one somehow.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#178 Post by Alan H » June 28th, 2016, 9:48 pm

Dave B wrote:Anotger video with a network (400) error, Alan.

Can't remember if I fixed the last one somehow.
My fault - I missed a minus sign from the youtube ID. Now fixed.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

stevenw888
Posts: 694
Joined: July 16th, 2010, 12:48 pm

Re: In or out?

#179 Post by stevenw888 » June 30th, 2016, 9:29 am

The debate continues - found on Google+
Attachments
2016 - 1.png
2016 - 1.png (610.58 KiB) Viewed 1562 times
"There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots." - From the film "Top Gun"

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#180 Post by Alan H » June 30th, 2016, 9:42 am

:hilarity:
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#181 Post by Alan H » June 30th, 2016, 1:14 pm

Now Boris isn't standing for leader of the Tories, someone quipped that Private Eye staff have been told to take six months off.

If anyone isn't following any of this... here's what someone else posted:
So. let me get this straight... the leader of the opposition campaigned to stay but secretly wanted to leave. so his party held a non-binding vote to shame him into resigning so someone else could lead the campaign to ignore the result of the non-binding referendum which many people now think wasjust angry people tryingto shame politicians into seeing they'd all done nothing to help them.

Meanwhile. the man who campaigned to leave because he hoped losing would help him win the leadership of his party accidentally won and ruined any chance of leading because the man who thought he couldn't lose. did - but resigned before actually doing the thing the vote had been about. The man who'd always thought he'd lead next. campaigned so badly that everyone thought he was lying when he said the economy would crash - and he was. but it did. but he's not resigned. but. like the man who lost and the man who won. also now can't become leader. Which means the woman who quietly campaigned to stay but always said she wanted to leave is likely to become leader instead.

Which means she holds the same view as the leader of the opposition but for opposite reasons. but her party's view of this view is the opposite of the opposition‘s. And the opposition aren't yet opposinganything because the leader isn't listening to his party. who aren't listening to the country. who aren't listeningto experts or possibly payingthat much attention at all. However. none of their opponents actually want to be the one to do the thing that the vote was about. so there's not yet anything actually on the table to oppose anyway. And if no one ever does do the thingthat most people asked them to do. it will be undemocratic and if any one ever does do it. it will be awful.

Clear?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Post Reply