Prague, you cannot accept my answer because you do not believe in national sovereignty, whereas most Leave voters do, as in control over laws, borders and money. It is a fundamental difference which there can be little or no compromise on, as we can see all the time by the ferocity of feelings over it.
No mate, I cannot accept that you have even tried to answer my question. But for some weird reason, I really want to get to the bottom of this, so I'll keep going. Let's say that Brexit will be a sign that the UK has, in your book, regained its sovereignty.
OK. Good.
Now please explain how that will in turn bring a materially (i.e tangibly) better life to examples of the British version of 'the Forgotten'. People who may be Charlton fans. A fireman. An NHS worker. A teacher. A fitter. Someone who has worked for M&S for 25 years. Someone who has worked in Greenwich Council for the same time. This kind of people. Absolutely not the elite. Quite possibly not a uni degree among them, although their kids may be on the way to getting one.
How will the restoration of sovereignty remove their feeling of having been forgotten?
How will kicking them in the teeth by overturning the Referendum result make people feel do you think? More belief that politics can work for them or less do you think? More likely to become more politically active or more demoralised do you think? More belief that you can make a difference by voting or less do you think?
I have now asked you twice how you would feel had the Referendum gone the other way and a Tory PM had decided to take us out of the EU anyway. Your silence speaks for itself.
Nearly spat my tea out when I read that this morning.
Either you have finally been cornered, or you've got more neck than a genetically modified giraffe.
You really are not going to answer my question, are you? One that I have been posing to you, directly, for around 2 years; and with the objective simply of understanding you, your outlook on life, how you came to this obdurate Brexit viewpoint, better.
Of course it's a classic deflection tactic to answer with an irrelevant counter-question. It's piss poor though, because my question concerns how you see the consequences of something which is going to happen, whereas your question is some academic one which does not even explain how the scenario you describe might come about.
You can't get away with it. On 23.6.16 you must have had some idea of the bright new dawn you envisaged for your 17 million friends. I'm just asking you to describe it in practical detail. Why is it so difficult? Up to you if you decline to do so, of course. But failure to do so might lead people to draw their own conclusions, which would be rather a waste of your years of consistent posting on this thread.
He has already stated on numerous occasions that it was to give a voice to the white working class - apparently all of his family are white working class, but not him. Very altruistic.
What he hasn't stated, and seems to avoid it like the plague, is what Brexit (his version which is hard - because that's what they all voted for) will actually do for his white working class.
He does state that he may benefit financially but didn't realise this at the time. So he does differ slightly from WRM who of course has known all along that he would personally benefit hugely from Brexit.
Exactly. In case anyone was in doubt about the question...
I suppose I should not really ask, but does it mean that everyone who is not white working class, is a member of Southbank's version of the "elite" ?
Whats this working class voice shite. The whole brexshite voice has been invented and driven by multi millionaires looking to secure more millions and more power and influence for themselves. Its been spun as some kind of working class rebellion against “the man” to conceal the fact and get people to vote against their own best interests. Its been a con trick from start to finish and guess who is going suffer most.
Prague, you cannot accept my answer because you do not believe in national sovereignty, whereas most Leave voters do, as in control over laws, borders and money. It is a fundamental difference which there can be little or no compromise on, as we can see all the time by the ferocity of feelings over it.
No mate, I cannot accept that you have even tried to answer my question. But for some weird reason, I really want to get to the bottom of this, so I'll keep going. Let's say that Brexit will be a sign that the UK has, in your book, regained its sovereignty.
OK. Good.
Now please explain how that will in turn bring a materially (i.e tangibly) better life to examples of the British version of 'the Forgotten'. People who may be Charlton fans. A fireman. An NHS worker. A teacher. A fitter. Someone who has worked for M&S for 25 years. Someone who has worked in Greenwich Council for the same time. This kind of people. Absolutely not the elite. Quite possibly not a uni degree among them, although their kids may be on the way to getting one.
How will the restoration of sovereignty remove their feeling of having been forgotten?
How will kicking them in the teeth by overturning the Referendum result make people feel do you think? More belief that politics can work for them or less do you think? More likely to become more politically active or more demoralised do you think? More belief that you can make a difference by voting or less do you think?
I have now asked you twice how you would feel had the Referendum gone the other way and a Tory PM had decided to take us out of the EU anyway. Your silence speaks for itself.
I would back another referendum if, subsequent to June 23rd I found out that the country was clearly going to be poorer in many ways (not just financially) as a result of remaining. That I had been lied to, and that many other people I had met had actually believed the lies and voted to remain as a result. That the remain campaign had actually broken electoral rules. If I found out that a great many of the people telling those lies had positioned themselves to be better of financially as a result of a vote to remain, knowing that the majority would be worse off, I would be angry at them and myself for not seeing through the bluff.
Yes - If the roles were reversed, I would want to see things played out properly.
Good quote from Isaac Asimov that rings even more true today than when he said it:
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
This idea that leaving is a white working class thing, is a misnomer, what got it over the line for now, is babyboomers in the home counties who had been groomed by the Daily Mail, safe in the knowledge that their pensions would be fine. Their the same people who slag off the young for being entitled, while enjoying all the benefits themselves when younger.
This idea that leaving is a white working class thing, is a misnomer, what got it over the line for now, is babyboomers in the home counties who had been groomed by the Daily Mail, safe in the knowledge that their pensions would be fine. Their the same people who slag off the young for being entitled, while enjoying all the benefits themselves when younger.
Totally agree - it's Southbank's white working class bollocks.
Prague, you cannot accept my answer because you do not believe in national sovereignty, whereas most Leave voters do, as in control over laws, borders and money. It is a fundamental difference which there can be little or no compromise on, as we can see all the time by the ferocity of feelings over it.
No mate, I cannot accept that you have even tried to answer my question. But for some weird reason, I really want to get to the bottom of this, so I'll keep going. Let's say that Brexit will be a sign that the UK has, in your book, regained its sovereignty.
OK. Good.
Now please explain how that will in turn bring a materially (i.e tangibly) better life to examples of the British version of 'the Forgotten'. People who may be Charlton fans. A fireman. An NHS worker. A teacher. A fitter. Someone who has worked for M&S for 25 years. Someone who has worked in Greenwich Council for the same time. This kind of people. Absolutely not the elite. Quite possibly not a uni degree among them, although their kids may be on the way to getting one.
How will the restoration of sovereignty remove their feeling of having been forgotten?
How will kicking them in the teeth by overturning the Referendum result make people feel do you think? More belief that politics can work for them or less do you think? More likely to become more politically active or more demoralised do you think? More belief that you can make a difference by voting or less do you think?
I have now asked you twice how you would feel had the Referendum gone the other way and a Tory PM had decided to take us out of the EU anyway. Your silence speaks for itself.
I would back another referendum if, subsequent to June 23rd I found out that the country was clearly going to be poorer in many ways (not just financially) as a result of remaining. That I had been lied to, and that many other people I had met had actually believed the lies and voted to remain as a result. That the remain campaign had actually broken electoral rules. If I found out that a great many of the people telling those lies had positioned themselves to be better of financially as a result of a vote to remain, knowing that the majority would be worse off, I would be angry at them and myself for not seeing through the bluff.
Yes - If the roles were reversed, I would want to see things played out properly.
Good quote from Isaac Asimov that rings even more true today than when he said it:
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Our sopposedly balanced broadcast media has been infected with this, the Asimov quote, big time. Especially the BBC. The broadcast media have an important role in our democracy but they have badly let us down over Brexit. They have repeatedly, day after day, allowed outrageous falsehoods to be spouted by Brexiteers without any push back or basic fact checking.
This idea that leaving is a white working class thing, is a misnomer, what got it over the line for now, is babyboomers in the home counties who had been groomed by the Daily Mail, safe in the knowledge that their pensions would be fine. Their the same people who slag off the young for being entitled, while enjoying all the benefits themselves when younger.
I already provided Southbank with the analysis that showed neither being white nor working class was an indicator of voting intention and there was a fairly even split between Leave and Remain along these lines. If he chooses to continue this false narrative he is doing it to deliberately mislead.
not only that the country was clearly divided in the first place, the numpties who let the genie out of the bottle in a poor referendum in the first place are to blame.
A second referendum is not akin to overturning a decision either, it simply is a double check based on better knowledge of the outcome which lets face it was very hazy and as others have said accompanied by campaigns full of lies and in some cases for Leave criminality - letting a vote that close stand without checking it is more divisive in my view.
The problem with a second referendum is that, even if parliament could find a majority to support it (which I’m highly doubtful of), I’m not sure they could reach consensus on the question(s) that would be asked which would surely now have to be more nuanced than the original in/out question.
For me the best way out of this nonsense would be Norway, which I think I’ve been saying for ages but until now hasn’t looked likely but it may now.
Norway sucks, there really is no point leaving to get Norway.
Questions for a second referendum? It must simply be on Leave or Remain, if Leave wins and parliament still cant agree we go to an election.
Norway isn’t optimal (the only “optimal” outcome from my perspective is remaining in the EU) but it does technically allow us to honour the referendum outcome and leave the EU without obliterating our economy plus provides a solution to the Irish border question.
Iceland is an interesting example, part of EFTA but able to strike their own free trade deals, don’t know enough about that option or how it differs from Norway.
But it doesnt honour the referendum, it is Brexit in name only.
The truth sadly is the only Brexit really available is a hard Brexit. People need to realise that when they vote, that other deal is not and will never be on the table Norway and soft Brexit just give worst of all worlds, for example still allowing freedom of movement of labour, but losing all our influence, there is zero point in that.
I have to disagree with that - the question on the ballot paper was very simple, in or out, you’ve just invented additional nuance that didn’t exist.
But surely out means out? If in means in, then out must mean out. Surely any half measure is an additional nuance that didn't exist?
Norway are not in the European Union, you cannot be anymore “out” than that.
Technically they are out, but actually, due to the fact they have to abide some many of the EU rules, they are effectively in, but with no voice, which I think is probably worse than Teresa May's deal.
In any case what is a suitable arrangement for Norways economy cant in any way reflect the scale of complexity when compared with the UK. Its like comparing my affairs with those of Rolands.
not only that the country was clearly divided in the first place, the numpties who let the genie out of the bottle in a poor referendum in the first place are to blame.
A second referendum is not akin to overturning a decision either, it simply is a double check based on better knowledge of the outcome which lets face it was very hazy and as others have said accompanied by campaigns full of lies and in some cases for Leave criminality - letting a vote that close stand without checking it is more divisive in my view.
The problem with a second referendum is that, even if parliament could find a majority to support it (which I’m highly doubtful of), I’m not sure they could reach consensus on the question(s) that would be asked which would surely now have to be more nuanced than the original in/out question.
For me the best way out of this nonsense would be Norway, which I think I’ve been saying for ages but until now hasn’t looked likely but it may now.
Norway sucks, there really is no point leaving to get Norway.
Questions for a second referendum? It must simply be on Leave or Remain, if Leave wins and parliament still cant agree we go to an election.
Norway isn’t optimal (the only “optimal” outcome from my perspective is remaining in the EU) but it does technically allow us to honour the referendum outcome and leave the EU without obliterating our economy plus provides a solution to the Irish border question.
Iceland is an interesting example, part of EFTA but able to strike their own free trade deals, don’t know enough about that option or how it differs from Norway.
But it doesnt honour the referendum, it is Brexit in name only.
The truth sadly is the only Brexit really available is a hard Brexit. People need to realise that when they vote, that other deal is not and will never be on the table Norway and soft Brexit just give worst of all worlds, for example still allowing freedom of movement of labour, but losing all our influence, there is zero point in that.
I have to disagree with that - the question on the ballot paper was very simple, in or out, you’ve just invented additional nuance that didn’t exist.
But surely out means out? If in means in, then out must mean out. Surely any half measure is an additional nuance that didn't exist?
Norway are not in the European Union, you cannot be anymore “out” than that.
Technically they are out, but actually, due to the fact they have to abide some many of the EU rules, they are effectively in, but with no voice, which I think is probably worse than Teresa May's deal.
You are either out or you are in. If there was some additional definition of what saying “no” to the question “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?“ then they should have included it on the ballot paper.
I would say Norway is better than May’s deal (which still leaves us tied into EU rules that we have Monday in, particularly in NI) as it means we don’t carve off NI, it would dampen down the SNP and we would retain freedom of movement, however it’s not as good as remaining.
not only that the country was clearly divided in the first place, the numpties who let the genie out of the bottle in a poor referendum in the first place are to blame.
A second referendum is not akin to overturning a decision either, it simply is a double check based on better knowledge of the outcome which lets face it was very hazy and as others have said accompanied by campaigns full of lies and in some cases for Leave criminality - letting a vote that close stand without checking it is more divisive in my view.
The problem with a second referendum is that, even if parliament could find a majority to support it (which I’m highly doubtful of), I’m not sure they could reach consensus on the question(s) that would be asked which would surely now have to be more nuanced than the original in/out question.
For me the best way out of this nonsense would be Norway, which I think I’ve been saying for ages but until now hasn’t looked likely but it may now.
Norway sucks, there really is no point leaving to get Norway.
Questions for a second referendum? It must simply be on Leave or Remain, if Leave wins and parliament still cant agree we go to an election.
Norway isn’t optimal (the only “optimal” outcome from my perspective is remaining in the EU) but it does technically allow us to honour the referendum outcome and leave the EU without obliterating our economy plus provides a solution to the Irish border question.
Iceland is an interesting example, part of EFTA but able to strike their own free trade deals, don’t know enough about that option or how it differs from Norway.
But it doesnt honour the referendum, it is Brexit in name only.
The truth sadly is the only Brexit really available is a hard Brexit. People need to realise that when they vote, that other deal is not and will never be on the table Norway and soft Brexit just give worst of all worlds, for example still allowing freedom of movement of labour, but losing all our influence, there is zero point in that.
I have to disagree with that - the question on the ballot paper was very simple, in or out, you’ve just invented additional nuance that didn’t exist.
But surely out means out? If in means in, then out must mean out. Surely any half measure is an additional nuance that didn't exist?
Norway are not in the European Union, you cannot be anymore “out” than that.
Technically they are out, but actually, due to the fact they have to abide some many of the EU rules, they are effectively in, but with no voice, which I think is probably worse than Teresa May's deal.
You are either out or you are in. If there was some additional definition of what saying “no” to the question “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?“ then they should have included it on the ballot paper.
I would say Norway is better than May’s deal (which still leaves us tied into EU rules that we have Monday in, particularly in NI) as it means we don’t carve off NI, it would dampen down the SNP and we would retain freedom of movement, however it’s not as good as remaining.
In any case, I think May's deal will clear parliament. I think when push comes to shove, leaver MPs and waverers will back the PM for fear of the alternative consequences, be that a no deal scenario, a second referendum or indeed another general election.
I tell you what. If I had voted remain and this goes to a second bloody referendum then I would vote leave in the name of democracy.
A f****** g joke the lot of it.
People bleating on about having more information now than when the vote took place is complete bunkum. I don't doubt there wasn't enough information but this government decided there was enough to make an informed decision. Same as they do before you go to the polls for an election.
In future, will we be given the option of a general election as soon as the government in power flunks on one of its manifesto promises? If this goes to a second referendum then I should bloody well hope so.
As a body of people the decision was made. Informed or not you're just going to have to swallow it.
I respectfully disagree. Democracy is not an irreversible snapshot in time, it is able to react to change and shift to public opinion.
There are 3 approaches to look at here:
1) the legal approach. Would it be legal to hold a second referendum before we left the EU? The answer is undoubtedly yes.
2) the historical/conventional approach. Would it be fitting in with our political history to have a later vote to undo an earlier vote? This is actually one of the founding principles of our democracy: that no vote can bind a future one. So yes, our political conventions allow it.
3) the philosophical approach. Is it right/fair to have a second vote that supercedes the first? As shown in an earlier post, there is not a single branch of political theory where having another vote would be in any way anti-democratic. It can also be argued that due to the electoral fraud that corrupted the first referendum, that a second vote would not be a second vote at all, it would be a rerunning of the first which has lost all legitimacy due to the activities of the leave campaigners.
In short there is not a single legitimate argument to denying the people a binding democratic and legal vote on the matter.
The only argument I have seen so far from the likes of Southbank is that he recognises he is now in the minority and he is terrified of his precious Brexit being taken away from him through a legitimate democratic exercise. Which isn't really much of an argument at all.
not only that the country was clearly divided in the first place, the numpties who let the genie out of the bottle in a poor referendum in the first place are to blame.
A second referendum is not akin to overturning a decision either, it simply is a double check based on better knowledge of the outcome which lets face it was very hazy and as others have said accompanied by campaigns full of lies and in some cases for Leave criminality - letting a vote that close stand without checking it is more divisive in my view.
The problem with a second referendum is that, even if parliament could find a majority to support it (which I’m highly doubtful of), I’m not sure they could reach consensus on the question(s) that would be asked which would surely now have to be more nuanced than the original in/out question.
For me the best way out of this nonsense would be Norway, which I think I’ve been saying for ages but until now hasn’t looked likely but it may now.
Norway sucks, there really is no point leaving to get Norway.
Questions for a second referendum? It must simply be on Leave or Remain, if Leave wins and parliament still cant agree we go to an election.
Norway isn’t optimal (the only “optimal” outcome from my perspective is remaining in the EU) but it does technically allow us to honour the referendum outcome and leave the EU without obliterating our economy plus provides a solution to the Irish border question.
Iceland is an interesting example, part of EFTA but able to strike their own free trade deals, don’t know enough about that option or how it differs from Norway.
But it doesnt honour the referendum, it is Brexit in name only.
The truth sadly is the only Brexit really available is a hard Brexit. People need to realise that when they vote, that other deal is not and will never be on the table Norway and soft Brexit just give worst of all worlds, for example still allowing freedom of movement of labour, but losing all our influence, there is zero point in that.
I have to disagree with that - the question on the ballot paper was very simple, in or out, you’ve just invented additional nuance that didn’t exist.
But surely out means out? If in means in, then out must mean out. Surely any half measure is an additional nuance that didn't exist?
Norway are not in the European Union, you cannot be anymore “out” than that.
Technically they are out, but actually, due to the fact they have to abide some many of the EU rules, they are effectively in, but with no voice, which I think is probably worse than Teresa May's deal.
You are either out or you are in. If there was some additional definition of what saying “no” to the question “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?“ then they should have included it on the ballot paper.
I would say Norway is better than May’s deal (which still leaves us tied into EU rules that we have Monday in, particularly in NI) as it means we don’t carve off NI, it would dampen down the SNP and we would retain freedom of movement, however it’s not as good as remaining.
In any case, I think May's deal will clear parliament. I think when push comes to shove, leaver MPs and waverers will back the PM for fear of the alternative consequences, be that a no deal scenario, a second referendum or indeed another general election.
We’ll see, I certainly don’t think it will clear ok the first pass, she might be able to squeeze it through second time round but if I was a betting man I’d bet against it passing.
not only that the country was clearly divided in the first place, the numpties who let the genie out of the bottle in a poor referendum in the first place are to blame.
A second referendum is not akin to overturning a decision either, it simply is a double check based on better knowledge of the outcome which lets face it was very hazy and as others have said accompanied by campaigns full of lies and in some cases for Leave criminality - letting a vote that close stand without checking it is more divisive in my view.
The problem with a second referendum is that, even if parliament could find a majority to support it (which I’m highly doubtful of), I’m not sure they could reach consensus on the question(s) that would be asked which would surely now have to be more nuanced than the original in/out question.
For me the best way out of this nonsense would be Norway, which I think I’ve been saying for ages but until now hasn’t looked likely but it may now.
Norway sucks, there really is no point leaving to get Norway.
Questions for a second referendum? It must simply be on Leave or Remain, if Leave wins and parliament still cant agree we go to an election.
Norway isn’t optimal (the only “optimal” outcome from my perspective is remaining in the EU) but it does technically allow us to honour the referendum outcome and leave the EU without obliterating our economy plus provides a solution to the Irish border question.
Iceland is an interesting example, part of EFTA but able to strike their own free trade deals, don’t know enough about that option or how it differs from Norway.
But it doesnt honour the referendum, it is Brexit in name only.
The truth sadly is the only Brexit really available is a hard Brexit. People need to realise that when they vote, that other deal is not and will never be on the table Norway and soft Brexit just give worst of all worlds, for example still allowing freedom of movement of labour, but losing all our influence, there is zero point in that.
I have to disagree with that - the question on the ballot paper was very simple, in or out, you’ve just invented additional nuance that didn’t exist.
But surely out means out? If in means in, then out must mean out. Surely any half measure is an additional nuance that didn't exist?
Norway are not in the European Union, you cannot be anymore “out” than that.
Technically they are out, but actually, due to the fact they have to abide some many of the EU rules, they are effectively in, but with no voice, which I think is probably worse than Teresa May's deal.
You are either out or you are in. If there was some additional definition of what saying “no” to the question “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?“ then they should have included it on the ballot paper.
I would say Norway is better than May’s deal (which still leaves us tied into EU rules that we have Monday in, particularly in NI) as it means we don’t carve off NI, it would dampen down the SNP and we would retain freedom of movement, however it’s not as good as remaining.
In any case, I think May's deal will clear parliament. I think when push comes to shove, leaver MPs and waverers will back the PM for fear of the alternative consequences, be that a no deal scenario, a second referendum or indeed another general election.
The fascinating thing about May's deal is that if it doesn't add up to remain, it looks a lot like brexit in name only. I have no better definition of brexit than anybody else, the only word we can agree on is 'leave'. In the context of leave it means the establishment of borders of some kind or another between the UK and whatever it it the UK has left. So. How does that reconcile with the common travel area on the island of Ireland?
This whole business of a second referendum being undemocratic is not exactly what the Brexiteers were saying before the first one. Back then they were actually quite keen on getting a second bite of the cherry, as these three quotes from senior leavers make clear:
“In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way". Nigel Farage, May 2016
"It is difficult to guarantee the EU question will be settled forever by the referendum given how the body is changing". Boris Johnson, May 2016
"You would be naïve to suggest that [a second referendum] wouldn’t become a factor and one element in that [the next leadership contest.] I think the sensible thing, if it’s very close – within a couple of points – would be to take pause, respect the verdict of the British people and effectively shelve this debate until that point, which I hope is going to be as close to the 2020 election as possible". Dominic Raab, June 2016
Of course, their plan was to keep coming back until they got what they wanted, at which point they'd pull up the drawbridge. As it turned out, that happened first time out, but we shouldn't be under any illusions that they'd have given up or that they are putting democracy first. They aren't. In a big game of Brexit Pontoon they have just decided that it suits them to stick. And it's not just the politicians who saw things differently back in 2016. The quote below is the text from a record-breaking Parliamentary petition which (even after 77,000 fraudulent names had been removed) gained the support of 4 million people. Its author? A Brexiteer and member of the 'English Democrats':
"We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the Remain or Leave vote is less than 60%, based on a turnout less than 75%, there should be another referendum."
This whole business of a second referendum being undemocratic is not exactly what the Brexiteers were saying before the first one. Back then they were actually quite keen on getting a second bite of the cherry, as these three quotes from senior leavers make clear:
“In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way". Nigel Farage, May 2016
"It is difficult to guarantee the EU question will be settled forever by the referendum given how the body is changing". Boris Johnson, May 2016
"You would be naïve to suggest that [a second referendum] wouldn’t become a factor and one element in that [the next leadership contest.] I think the sensible thing, if it’s very close – within a couple of points – would be to take pause, respect the verdict of the British people and effectively shelve this debate until that point, which I hope is going to be as close to the 2020 election as possible". Dominic Raab, June 2016
Of course, their plan was to keep coming back until they got what they wanted, at which point they'd pull up the drawbridge. As it turned out, that happened first time out, but we shouldn't be under any illusions that they'd have given up or that they are putting democracy first. They aren't. In a big game of Brexit Pontoon they have just decided that it suits them to stick. And it's not just the politicians who saw things differently back in 2016. The quote below is the text from a record-breaking Parliamentary petition which (even after 77,000 fraudulent names had been removed) gained the support of 4 million people. Its author? A Brexiteer and member of the 'English Democrats':
"We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the Remain or Leave vote is less than 60%, based on a turnout less than 75%, there should be another referendum."
They might have said that, of course they would but if Brexit had lost there is no doubt in my mind that that would have been the end of it. Of course they would have castigated. But gaining the chance of a second go would never have happened. Not a chance.
The very fact that they said it, underlines the fact that in their minds, there is no conflict in wanting a second vote. It also raises the question, why on Earth would they mention it, if there was never a chance of it happening?
Whats this working class voice shite. The whole brexshite voice has been invented and driven by multi millionaires looking to secure more millions and more power and influence for themselves. Its been spun as some kind of working class rebellion against “the man” to conceal the fact and get people to vote against their own best interests. Its been a con trick from start to finish and guess who is going suffer most.
Would you prefer the term lumpenproletariat?! Whatever the nomenclature used, they all have votes and have clearly been missold a prospectus based upon dividing the working class by blaming immigrants. This was conflated with absolving the Tory austerity programme as well as leveraging the effects by blaming the EU. And of course blaming immigrants for using services and pushing up house prices.
Were they voting against their best interests because many of us distinctly remember being told that the EU contribution was going to go to the NHS! The irony of course is that it was Cameron and Osbourne (with support from the Lib Dems for five years) who held down NHS spending increases to 1%. And it is only in the last month after eight years that the NHS is at last receiving an above inflation increase.
Naturally the likes of @Southbank spin it as an anti-establishment cry for this is part of the design which then leads to attacks on experts, professionals and of course the judiciary. We can use whatever terminology we like but we need to be precise and we need to find a way to collectively pull back from the precipice. And that is NOT one and the same thing as stopping Brexit. Nowhere near!
not only that the country was clearly divided in the first place, the numpties who let the genie out of the bottle in a poor referendum in the first place are to blame.
A second referendum is not akin to overturning a decision either, it simply is a double check based on better knowledge of the outcome which lets face it was very hazy and as others have said accompanied by campaigns full of lies and in some cases for Leave criminality - letting a vote that close stand without checking it is more divisive in my view.
The problem with a second referendum is that, even if parliament could find a majority to support it (which I’m highly doubtful of), I’m not sure they could reach consensus on the question(s) that would be asked which would surely now have to be more nuanced than the original in/out question.
For me the best way out of this nonsense would be Norway, which I think I’ve been saying for ages but until now hasn’t looked likely but it may now.
Norway sucks, there really is no point leaving to get Norway.
Questions for a second referendum? It must simply be on Leave or Remain, if Leave wins and parliament still cant agree we go to an election.
Norway isn’t optimal (the only “optimal” outcome from my perspective is remaining in the EU) but it does technically allow us to honour the referendum outcome and leave the EU without obliterating our economy plus provides a solution to the Irish border question.
Iceland is an interesting example, part of EFTA but able to strike their own free trade deals, don’t know enough about that option or how it differs from Norway.
But it doesnt honour the referendum, it is Brexit in name only.
The truth sadly is the only Brexit really available is a hard Brexit. People need to realise that when they vote, that other deal is not and will never be on the table Norway and soft Brexit just give worst of all worlds, for example still allowing freedom of movement of labour, but losing all our influence, there is zero point in that.
I have to disagree with that - the question on the ballot paper was very simple, in or out, you’ve just invented additional nuance that didn’t exist.
But surely out means out? If in means in, then out must mean out. Surely any half measure is an additional nuance that didn't exist?
Norway are not in the European Union, you cannot be anymore “out” than that.
Technically they are out, but actually, due to the fact they have to abide some many of the EU rules, they are effectively in, but with no voice, which I think is probably worse than Teresa May's deal.
You are either out or you are in. If there was some additional definition of what saying “no” to the question “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?“ then they should have included it on the ballot paper.
I would say Norway is better than May’s deal (which still leaves us tied into EU rules that we have Monday in, particularly in NI) as it means we don’t carve off NI, it would dampen down the SNP and we would retain freedom of movement, however it’s not as good as remaining.
In any case, I think May's deal will clear parliament. I think when push comes to shove, leaver MPs and waverers will back the PM for fear of the alternative consequences, be that a no deal scenario, a second referendum or indeed another general election.
The fascinating thing about May's deal is that if it doesn't add up to remain, it looks a lot like brexit in name only. I have no better definition of brexit than anybody else, the only word we can agree on is 'leave'. In the context of leave it means the establishment of borders of some kind or another between the UK and whatever it it the UK has left. So. How does that reconcile with the common travel area on the island of Ireland?
Of course it's Brexit in name only, because in general, there is little appetite in parliament to leave the EU.
This whole business of a second referendum being undemocratic is not exactly what the Brexiteers were saying before the first one. Back then they were actually quite keen on getting a second bite of the cherry, as these three quotes from senior leavers make clear:
“In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way". Nigel Farage, May 2016
"It is difficult to guarantee the EU question will be settled forever by the referendum given how the body is changing". Boris Johnson, May 2016
"You would be naïve to suggest that [a second referendum] wouldn’t become a factor and one element in that [the next leadership contest.] I think the sensible thing, if it’s very close – within a couple of points – would be to take pause, respect the verdict of the British people and effectively shelve this debate until that point, which I hope is going to be as close to the 2020 election as possible". Dominic Raab, June 2016
Of course, their plan was to keep coming back until they got what they wanted, at which point they'd pull up the drawbridge. As it turned out, that happened first time out, but we shouldn't be under any illusions that they'd have given up or that they are putting democracy first. They aren't. In a big game of Brexit Pontoon they have just decided that it suits them to stick. And it's not just the politicians who saw things differently back in 2016. The quote below is the text from a record-breaking Parliamentary petition which (even after 77,000 fraudulent names had been removed) gained the support of 4 million people. Its author? A Brexiteer and member of the 'English Democrats':
"We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the Remain or Leave vote is less than 60%, based on a turnout less than 75%, there should be another referendum."
They might have said that, of course they would but if Brexit had lost there is no doubt in my mind that that would have been the end of it. Of course they would have castigated. But gaining the chance of a second go would never have happened. Not a chance.
Can just see Farage et al packing up their stall and saying "Fair play all, you won, I'm moving to Germany anyway so not my problem." as he departed the political stage.
Anyway how much is a castigation in Bank's vaults?
As I've said on here before, us UK citizens living in the EU remain worried about how this will affect us and our families. The letter below seeks to clarify the situation and is generally reassuring, apart from two concerns:
1. The reference to having 'broadly' the same access to healthcare and pensions is ambiguous and potentially a bit worrying.
2. Those of us who have a non-EU spouse whose right to be here and to access healthcare is dependent on being married to an EU citizen continue to face uncertainty of the impact of this no longer being the case.
While most of Brexit seems extremely frivolous and full of meaningless bluster about intangible concepts like sovereignty, it is worth remembering that there are some pretty life-changing things at stake for those of us in the EU. Thankfully I feel supported in this by statements by the Spanish government, though sadly more so than the UK one.
Prague, you cannot accept my answer because you do not believe in national sovereignty, whereas most Leave voters do, as in control over laws, borders and money. It is a fundamental difference which there can be little or no compromise on, as we can see all the time by the ferocity of feelings over it.
No mate, I cannot accept that you have even tried to answer my question. But for some weird reason, I really want to get to the bottom of this, so I'll keep going. Let's say that Brexit will be a sign that the UK has, in your book, regained its sovereignty.
OK. Good.
Now please explain how that will in turn bring a materially (i.e tangibly) better life to examples of the British version of 'the Forgotten'. People who may be Charlton fans. A fireman. An NHS worker. A teacher. A fitter. Someone who has worked for M&S for 25 years. Someone who has worked in Greenwich Council for the same time. This kind of people. Absolutely not the elite. Quite possibly not a uni degree among them, although their kids may be on the way to getting one.
How will the restoration of sovereignty remove their feeling of having been forgotten?
How will kicking them in the teeth by overturning the Referendum result make people feel do you think? More belief that politics can work for them or less do you think? More likely to become more politically active or more demoralised do you think? More belief that you can make a difference by voting or less do you think?
I have now asked you twice how you would feel had the Referendum gone the other way and a Tory PM had decided to take us out of the EU anyway. Your silence speaks for itself.
I would back another referendum if, subsequent to June 23rd I found out that the country was clearly going to be poorer in many ways (not just financially) as a result of remaining. That I had been lied to, and that many other people I had met had actually believed the lies and voted to remain as a result. That the remain campaign had actually broken electoral rules. If I found out that a great many of the people telling those lies had positioned themselves to be better of financially as a result of a vote to remain, knowing that the majority would be worse off, I would be angry at them and myself for not seeing through the bluff.
Yes - If the roles were reversed, I would want to see things played out properly.
Good quote from Isaac Asimov that rings even more true today than when he said it:
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Our sopposedly balanced broadcast media has been infected with this, the Asimov quote, big time. Especially the BBC. The broadcast media have an important role in our democracy but they have badly let us down over Brexit. They have repeatedly, day after day, allowed outrageous falsehoods to be spouted by Brexiteers without any push back or basic fact checking.
Which is why I think none of the major Brexiteers or high ranking Govt ministers engage with C4 news, they seem to be the only ones pushing back and now they’re avoided.
Prague, you cannot accept my answer because you do not believe in national sovereignty, whereas most Leave voters do, as in control over laws, borders and money. It is a fundamental difference which there can be little or no compromise on, as we can see all the time by the ferocity of feelings over it.
No mate, I cannot accept that you have even tried to answer my question. But for some weird reason, I really want to get to the bottom of this, so I'll keep going. Let's say that Brexit will be a sign that the UK has, in your book, regained its sovereignty.
OK. Good.
Now please explain how that will in turn bring a materially (i.e tangibly) better life to examples of the British version of 'the Forgotten'. People who may be Charlton fans. A fireman. An NHS worker. A teacher. A fitter. Someone who has worked for M&S for 25 years. Someone who has worked in Greenwich Council for the same time. This kind of people. Absolutely not the elite. Quite possibly not a uni degree among them, although their kids may be on the way to getting one.
How will the restoration of sovereignty remove their feeling of having been forgotten?
How will kicking them in the teeth by overturning the Referendum result make people feel do you think? More belief that politics can work for them or less do you think? More likely to become more politically active or more demoralised do you think? More belief that you can make a difference by voting or less do you think?
I have now asked you twice how you would feel had the Referendum gone the other way and a Tory PM had decided to take us out of the EU anyway. Your silence speaks for itself.
I would back another referendum if, subsequent to June 23rd I found out that the country was clearly going to be poorer in many ways (not just financially) as a result of remaining. That I had been lied to, and that many other people I had met had actually believed the lies and voted to remain as a result. That the remain campaign had actually broken electoral rules. If I found out that a great many of the people telling those lies had positioned themselves to be better of financially as a result of a vote to remain, knowing that the majority would be worse off, I would be angry at them and myself for not seeing through the bluff.
Yes - If the roles were reversed, I would want to see things played out properly.
Good quote from Isaac Asimov that rings even more true today than when he said it:
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Our sopposedly balanced broadcast media has been infected with this, the Asimov quote, big time. Especially the BBC. The broadcast media have an important role in our democracy but they have badly let us down over Brexit. They have repeatedly, day after day, allowed outrageous falsehoods to be spouted by Brexiteers without any push back or basic fact checking.
Which is why I think none of the major Brexiteers or high ranking Govt ministers engage with C4 news, they seem to be the only ones pushing back and now they’re avoided.
I'm not a BBC apologist, but for me they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Just a week or so ago one of the BBC fact checkers was accused by a former cabinet minister (Peter Lilley I think) of debating opinion rather than fact checking.
The answer is to use as many sources as possible to attempt to identify some semblance of truth, but regrettably very few people do and base their opinions on their usual sources - be that the BBC, Channel 4, Sky News (sic), or print media e.g. Mail versus Guardian. The truth, as in most cases, is somewhere in the middle but polarisation of views is now the norm.
"The BBC has pulled out of holding a Brexit debate between Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn.
Both the broadcaster and ITV offered to air a debate between the two leaders on Sunday - two days ahead of Parliament's vote on the proposed Brexit agreement.
But the BBC confirmed it "could not reach an agreement" on its proposal.
Earlier, Labour said the PM was "running away from the scrutiny" of a head-to-head with Mr Corbyn by accepting the BBC's format over ITV's.
The BBC wanted to include "a range of voices" as part of a panel debate, as well as a head-to-head between the leaders.
Several other parties have said they should be included in the debate - including the SNP, Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru and Greens.
ITV says "invitations remain open" to both leaders to hold a debate on the channel this Sunday".
Prague, you cannot accept my answer because you do not believe in national sovereignty, whereas most Leave voters do, as in control over laws, borders and money. It is a fundamental difference which there can be little or no compromise on, as we can see all the time by the ferocity of feelings over it.
No mate, I cannot accept that you have even tried to answer my question. But for some weird reason, I really want to get to the bottom of this, so I'll keep going. Let's say that Brexit will be a sign that the UK has, in your book, regained its sovereignty.
OK. Good.
Now please explain how that will in turn bring a materially (i.e tangibly) better life to examples of the British version of 'the Forgotten'. People who may be Charlton fans. A fireman. An NHS worker. A teacher. A fitter. Someone who has worked for M&S for 25 years. Someone who has worked in Greenwich Council for the same time. This kind of people. Absolutely not the elite. Quite possibly not a uni degree among them, although their kids may be on the way to getting one.
How will the restoration of sovereignty remove their feeling of having been forgotten?
How will kicking them in the teeth by overturning the Referendum result make people feel do you think? More belief that politics can work for them or less do you think? More likely to become more politically active or more demoralised do you think? More belief that you can make a difference by voting or less do you think?
I have now asked you twice how you would feel had the Referendum gone the other way and a Tory PM had decided to take us out of the EU anyway. Your silence speaks for itself.
I would back another referendum if, subsequent to June 23rd I found out that the country was clearly going to be poorer in many ways (not just financially) as a result of remaining. That I had been lied to, and that many other people I had met had actually believed the lies and voted to remain as a result. That the remain campaign had actually broken electoral rules. If I found out that a great many of the people telling those lies had positioned themselves to be better of financially as a result of a vote to remain, knowing that the majority would be worse off, I would be angry at them and myself for not seeing through the bluff.
Yes - If the roles were reversed, I would want to see things played out properly.
Good quote from Isaac Asimov that rings even more true today than when he said it:
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Our sopposedly balanced broadcast media has been infected with this, the Asimov quote, big time. Especially the BBC. The broadcast media have an important role in our democracy but they have badly let us down over Brexit. They have repeatedly, day after day, allowed outrageous falsehoods to be spouted by Brexiteers without any push back or basic fact checking.
Which is why I think none of the major Brexiteers or high ranking Govt ministers engage with C4 news, they seem to be the only ones pushing back and now they’re avoided.
I'm not a BBC apologist, but for me they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Just a week or so ago one of the BBC fact checkers was accused by a former cabinet minister (Peter Lilley I think) of debating opinion rather than fact checking.
The answer is to use as many sources as possible to attempt to identify some semblance of truth, but regrettably very few people do and base their opinions on their usual sources - be that the BBC, Channel 4, Sky News (sic), or print media e.g. Mail versus Guardian. The truth, as in most cases, is somewhere in the middle but polarisation of views is now the norm.
Comments
I suppose I should not really ask, but does it mean that everyone who is not white working class, is a member of Southbank's version of the "elite" ?
Yes - If the roles were reversed, I would want to see things played out properly.
Good quote from Isaac Asimov that rings even more true today than when he said it:
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
I would say Norway is better than May’s deal (which still leaves us tied into EU rules that we have Monday in, particularly in NI) as it means we don’t carve off NI, it would dampen down the SNP and we would retain freedom of movement, however it’s not as good as remaining.
There are 3 approaches to look at here:
1) the legal approach. Would it be legal to hold a second referendum before we left the EU? The answer is undoubtedly yes.
2) the historical/conventional approach. Would it be fitting in with our political history to have a later vote to undo an earlier vote? This is actually one of the founding principles of our democracy: that no vote can bind a future one. So yes, our political conventions allow it.
3) the philosophical approach. Is it right/fair to have a second vote that supercedes the first? As shown in an earlier post, there is not a single branch of political theory where having another vote would be in any way anti-democratic. It can also be argued that due to the electoral fraud that corrupted the first referendum, that a second vote would not be a second vote at all, it would be a rerunning of the first which has lost all legitimacy due to the activities of the leave campaigners.
In short there is not a single legitimate argument to denying the people a binding democratic and legal vote on the matter.
The only argument I have seen so far from the likes of Southbank is that he recognises he is now in the minority and he is terrified of his precious Brexit being taken away from him through a legitimate democratic exercise. Which isn't really much of an argument at all.
So.
How does that reconcile with the common travel area on the island of Ireland?
“In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way". Nigel Farage, May 2016
"It is difficult to guarantee the EU question will be settled forever by the referendum given how the body is changing". Boris Johnson, May 2016
"You would be naïve to suggest that [a second referendum] wouldn’t become a factor and one element in that [the next leadership contest.] I think the sensible thing, if it’s very close – within a couple of points – would be to take pause, respect the verdict of the British people and effectively shelve this debate until that point, which I hope is going to be as close to the 2020 election as possible". Dominic Raab, June 2016
Of course, their plan was to keep coming back until they got what they wanted, at which point they'd pull up the drawbridge. As it turned out, that happened first time out, but we shouldn't be under any illusions that they'd have given up or that they are putting democracy first. They aren't. In a big game of Brexit Pontoon they have just decided that it suits them to stick. And it's not just the politicians who saw things differently back in 2016. The quote below is the text from a record-breaking Parliamentary petition which (even after 77,000 fraudulent names had been removed) gained the support of 4 million people. Its author? A Brexiteer and member of the 'English Democrats':
"We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the Remain or Leave vote is less than 60%, based on a turnout less than 75%, there should be another referendum."
Of course they would have castigated. But gaining the chance of a second go would never have happened. Not a chance.
Were they voting against their best interests because many of us distinctly remember being told that the EU contribution was going to go to the NHS! The irony of course is that it was Cameron and Osbourne (with support from the Lib Dems for five years) who held down NHS spending increases to 1%. And it is only in the last month after eight years that the NHS is at last receiving an above inflation increase.
Naturally the likes of @Southbank spin it as an anti-establishment cry for this is part of the design which then leads to attacks on experts, professionals and of course the judiciary. We can use whatever terminology we like but we need to be precise and we need to find a way to collectively pull back from the precipice. And that is NOT one and the same thing as stopping Brexit. Nowhere near!
Anyway how much is a castigation in Bank's vaults?
1. The reference to having 'broadly' the same access to healthcare and pensions is ambiguous and potentially a bit worrying.
2. Those of us who have a non-EU spouse whose right to be here and to access healthcare is dependent on being married to an EU citizen continue to face uncertainty of the impact of this no longer being the case.
https://elpais.com/elpais/2018/12/04/inenglish/1543932877_593086.html?id_externo_rsoc=FB_CM_EN
While most of Brexit seems extremely frivolous and full of meaningless bluster about intangible concepts like sovereignty, it is worth remembering that there are some pretty life-changing things at stake for those of us in the EU. Thankfully I feel supported in this by statements by the Spanish government, though sadly more so than the UK one.
https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46446694
The answer is to use as many sources as possible to attempt to identify some semblance of truth, but regrettably very few people do and base their opinions on their usual sources - be that the BBC, Channel 4, Sky News (sic), or print media e.g. Mail versus Guardian. The truth, as in most cases, is somewhere in the middle but polarisation of views is now the norm.
Both the broadcaster and ITV offered to air a debate between the two leaders on Sunday - two days ahead of Parliament's vote on the proposed Brexit agreement.
But the BBC confirmed it "could not reach an agreement" on its proposal.
Earlier, Labour said the PM was "running away from the scrutiny" of a head-to-head with Mr Corbyn by accepting the BBC's format over ITV's.
The BBC wanted to include "a range of voices" as part of a panel debate, as well as a head-to-head between the leaders.
Several other parties have said they should be included in the debate - including the SNP, Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru and Greens.
ITV says "invitations remain open" to both leaders to hold a debate on the channel this Sunday".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46444061
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46446694
I would go further and now say that May has not got a snowball's chance in hell of getting the WA through parliament.
😀