Democracy and Brexit

[RingoMcCartney]

Remoaners- petrified of the 2016 Peoples Vote being implemented because they'll be shown up as the economic armageddon doomsday peddling charlatans that they always have been.

BRING OUT YER DEAD.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I think Siddo is not far off the mark about No deal and the Irish border.
Whether I think those observations warrant another re-look in the form of a 2nd referendum I'm not as sure.
For me, it's no longer a question of leave/remain but a question of giving those 17.4 million people what they want . And that is to leave the EU.
If Parliament doesn't support their wish then the law will have to.
My hope is that some new deal can be agreed with the EU which Parliament will accept.

We don't actually need a deal though, legally we can leave with no deal if the EU won't accept one and they don't want to extend the deadline again.

[Imploding Turtle]

So what's the reason you've argued against the result for so long if you're fine with leaving?
Wasn't the will of the people good enough first time?..

Oh wait, they're stupid and don't know what they're voting for, silly me for forgetting that.

I'm not against a 2nd referendum, my issue is the result of the first hasn't actually been implemented.

I never said i'm fine with leaving. I said i had accepted the result and that we shouldn't reverse it unless we reverse it by the same means by which we made the decision - a referendum. If you can't understand that then that's your problem.

And i'll continue arguing against leaving the EU no matter what the result of any second referendum until i'm proven right or wrong.

[Elizabeth]

I know, that's what the law says.
I'd much rather have a deal with the EU.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I never said i'm fine with leaving. I said i had accepted the result and that we shouldn't reverse it unless we reverse it by the same means by which we made the decision - a referendum. If you can't understand that then that's your problem.

And i'll continue arguing against leaving the EU no matter what the result of any second referendum until i'm proven right or wrong.

Ha, utter horseshit that you've accepted the result.
Ah that's the funniest thing you've ever put on here.

You've accepted the result about as much as you've accepted Trump being president.

As for being proven right or wrong, it could take a number of years for Brexit to bare fruition and if you're going to drone on for years about it, along with trump nif he wins another election, then I suspect I won't be the only person to leave this place.

[Imploding Turtle]

Ha, utter horseshit that you've accepted the result.

I knew that it didn't matter to you what I said.

You're already created this narrative and you refuse to accept any information that contradicts the narrative you've created for me.
You did this a couple of weeks ago. You asked me a question, i gave you an answer, and then you refused to accept the answer i gave you and substituted in your own, proving that you weren't really interested in the answer unless it reinforced what you already believed.

You're full of bad faith. You should sort that out.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I knew that it didn't matter to you what I said.

You're already created this narrative and you refuse to accept any information that contradicts the narrative you've created for me.
You did this a couple of weeks ago. You asked me a question, i gave you an answer, and then you refused to accept the answer i gave you and substituted in your own, proving that you weren't really interested in the answer unless it reinforced what you already believed.

You're full of bad faith. You should sort that out.

Bad faith or years of watching you whinge your tits off....

You can decide, you seem to know all the answers.

[Imploding Turtle]

Bad faith or years of watching you whinge your tits off....

You can decide, you seem to know all the answers.

I have all the answers regarding my own opinions. Yes.

[AndyClaret]

Ha, utter horseshit that you've accepted the result.
Ah that's the funniest thing you've ever put on here.

He's got a point.....

[AndyClaret]

https://twitter.com/davidschneider/stat ... 45/photo/1

Sums things up nicely

Aahh, him of super injunction fame.

[JohnMcGreal]

We don't actually need a deal though, legally we can leave with no deal if the EU won't accept one and they don't want to extend the deadline again.

Erm, the EU have accepted a deal, and it's been endorsed by the leaders of all 27 nation states.

It's us that won't accept one, unless it contains all the unicorns Boris and his pals promised 3 years ago.

I think it's important to make that distinction.

[dsr]

Erm, the EU have accepted a deal, and it's been endorsed by the leaders of all 27 nation states.

It's us that won't accept one, unless it contains all the unicorns Boris and his pals promised 3 years ago.

I think it's important to make that distinction.

All 27 EU leaders have accepted the deal, and the leaders of all 8 parties represented in the House of Commons have rejected it. That should tell you something about the quality and fairness of the deal. It's all for the EU, very little for us.

(And that's before you get to the unrepresented UKIP and Brexit parties.)

[Falcon]

The real world couldn't operate like that, every action has a reaction.
In a referenda the country would double the police, increase pensions, create more hospital beds, and reduce taxes......

It isnt that easy..

It would be fascinating though watching people work it out.

[android]

How is it that a less than 52-48 win for Leave is legitimate, but unless Remain wins a second one by about 75-25 then it's not even worth having a second referendum? That's an insane double-standard.

Because I don't think another 52-48 in either direction would help us at all. If Leave won again that's where we are now. If Remain won 52-48 I don't see that helping us at all. There would be interviews with people saying they voted Leave last time but did not vote a 2nd time because...well...what's the point? "They" will not let us Leave. And so on and so on.

In an extreme case if 100% of the country now wanted to Remain it would be silly (insane!) to Leave. But there is no evidence of a substantial swing in opinion since the decision was given to the people and they decided.

You can pin the delay on lots of factors but essentially what has stopped us leaving is politicians not accepting the result not a changing of minds - as this board illustrates in a small way.

[Erasmus]

What is apparent is that implementation of the referendum is a process rather than a single event (although the process concludes with an event). The process was certainly implemented but proved to be more problematic than originally envisaged. Therefore taking the Athenian model of 'pure democracy' as the standard for democracy as a whole, it would seem that holding a second or third vote as the process develops is the closest we could get to what is truly democratic.

The objection to acting in this way would be that it is impractical and dysfunctional, but not that it is undemocratic. In reality, it would be too democratic for practical purposes. So I can quite accept the objections to a second vote on the grounds of functionality, but not on the grounds of democracy.

The real problem here rests on the tensions that inevitably arise when you try to combine referendum democracy with representative democracy, which is why we don't usually have referendums. As we can see now, they cause such a disruption to the process of governance in a representative democracy. And what is particularly galling is the fact that all this confusion and waste of resources was put in motion simply as a means of bringing unity to the Conservative Party; nothing at all to do with the national interest.

[nil_desperandum]

Because I don't think another 52-48 in either direction would help us at all. If Leave won again that's where we are now. .

How do you reach that conclusion?
If there's a "2nd" vote that confirms the first one, (in light of all the info we've picked up over the past 3 years and knowing now so much more than we all did 3 years ago), then it's obvious that the decision should be implemented.
The most important question on the ballot would have to be the 2nd one (i.e.deal or no deal)
Question 1 remain or leave - that's decisive.
Question 2 advises the govt how to leave. (There might even be more than 2 options here, though over-complication could be an issue.)
The problem in 2016, as we have all since learnt, is that the binary yes / choice was far too broad, and leave could mean anything from a "Labour CU / SM Norway type Brexit that protectst the regions and jobs, to a bonkers Mark Francois type brexit that would be ruinous for working people in the north, (whilst of course lining the pockets of the likes of Redwood, Rees-Mogg, Farage etc.).

[AndyClaret]

How do you reach that conclusion?
If there's a "2nd" vote that confirms the first one, (in light of all the info we've picked up over the past 3 years and knowing now so much more than we all did 3 years ago), then it's obvious that the decision should be implemented.
The most important question on the ballot would have to be the 2nd one (i.e.deal or no deal)
Question 1 remain or leave - that's decisive.
Question 2 advises the govt how to leave. (There might even be more than 2 options here, though over-complication could be an issue.)
The problem in 2016, as we have all since learnt, is that the binary yes / choice was far too broad, and leave could mean anything from a "Labour CU / SM Norway type Brexit that protectst the regions and jobs, to a bonkers Mark Francois type brexit that would be ruinous for working people in the north, (whilst of course lining the pockets of the likes of Redwood, Rees-Mogg, Farage etc.).

Caroline Lucas and Jo swinson have both said that they wouldn't accept a second leave vote.

[JohnMcGreal]

All 27 EU leaders have accepted the deal, and the leaders of all 8 parties represented in the House of Commons have rejected it. That should tell you something about the quality and fairness of the deal. It's all for the EU, very little for us.

(And that's before you get to the unrepresented UKIP and Brexit parties.)

I agree that it's a rubbish deal, but then leaving the EU is a rubbish idea. There are only so many ways you can try and polish this turd.

[android]

How do you reach that conclusion?
If there's a "2nd" vote that confirms the first one, (in light of all the info we've picked up over the past 3 years and knowing now so much more than we all did 3 years ago), then it's obvious that the decision should be implemented.
The most important question on the ballot would have to be the 2nd one (i.e.deal or no deal)
Question 1 remain or leave - that's decisive.
Question 2 advises the govt how to leave. (There might even be more than 2 options here, though over-complication could be an issue.)
The problem in 2016, as we have all since learnt, is that the binary yes / choice was far too broad, and leave could mean anything from a "Labour CU / SM Norway type Brexit that protectst the regions and jobs, to a bonkers Mark Francois type brexit that would be ruinous for working people in the north, (whilst of course lining the pockets of the likes of Redwood, Rees-Mogg, Farage etc.).

The "of course we would accept the result a second time" argument does not carry much weight with Leave voters - see Andy's comment which is just the tip of the iceberg.

I am very surprised to see someone of your obvious intelligence peddling the lining the pockets of Redwood, Rees-Mogg myth. I have asked how this would happen before so that I could get a piece of the action but I never received an answer - there isn't an answer that stacks up.

[nil_desperandum]

I am very surprised to see someone of your obvious intelligence peddling the lining the pockets of Redwood, Rees-Mogg myth. I have asked how this would happen before so that I could get a piece of the action but I never received an answer - there isn't an answer that stacks up.

In answer I could provide numerous links, (but you can also equally quickly find them via a google search).
Anyway, (in summary), I believe one description for this is what is generally termed "asset-stripping", "cleaning-up" etc. Then there's also their privatisation agenda, and the erosion of standards for workers, food etc, and tax avoidance. (Many see this as the opportunity for the UK to be an off Europe tax haven). None of this helps anyone unless they already have massive assets and investments.
Why has hypocrite James Dyson moved himself and his business thousands of miles away. Dyson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Nigel Lawson – the leave elite appears to want Brexit for everyone else but themselves
How do you reconcile Jacob Rees-Mogg’s position as leader of the European Research Group and his stance as co-founder of, part-time worker for and 15% stakeholder in Somerset Capital Management – which has warned its investors of the dangers of a hard Brexit and which has now set up not one but two funds in Dublin. Recall too the advice from fellow arch-Brexiteer John Redwood, who has a sideline as chief global strategist for the Charles Stanley investment bank, suggesting a year after the Brexit referendum that those with money pull it out of Britain and “look further afield.”
2 questions: Why do people like Redwood, Farage and Rees- Mogg support a hard brexit? is it to make you richer or them?
And why do they have most of their assets away from the UK and advise their clients to do so?

[nil_desperandum]

Caroline Lucas and Jo swinson have both said that they wouldn't accept a second leave vote.

To use a simplistic phrase. So what?
Some people correctly never give up on what they are committed to, but a leave vote now would be a clear mandate for leaving asap. There would be some who would immediatleystart to campaign to rejoin, which is a different thing, but would be their democratic right. Swinson and Lucas amongst them I would imagine, but the argument of leave or remain would be finished.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

No the argument wouldn't be finished let's be honest.

It took Farage years to get what he wanted and there would be similar campaigns to get us back in.

[2 Bee Holed]

Imagine this:

We do hold a 2nd referendum.
Remain wins 44% to Leave's 42%
BUT
The Government/Parliament doesn't enact it and we leave on the 31st October regardless.
What an outcry there would be.

Yet, this is exactly what those of us who voted Leave are having to endure now and have done since 2016.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Imagine this:

We do hold a 2nd referendum.
Remain wins 44% to Leave's 42%
BUT
The Government/Parliament doesn't enact it and we leave on the 31st October regardless.
What an outcry there would be.

Yet, this is exactly what those of us who voted Leave are having to endure now and have done since 2016.

There would be some major meltdowns just on here.

[RingoMcCartney]

Aahh, him of super injunction fame.

David Schneider - whats he going to do when he loses his good looks?

[RingoMcCartney]

Imagine this:

We do hold a 2nd referendum.
Remain wins 44% to Leave's 42%
BUT
The Government/Parliament doesn't enact it and we leave on the 31st October regardless.
What an outcry there would be.

Yet, this is exactly what those of us who voted Leave are having to endure now and have done since 2016.

I'd love to be able to scream like a toddler - "waaaah, waaaah waaaah "but it wasn't legally binding " waaaah waaaah"

[android]

In answer I could provide numerous links, (but you can also equally quickly find them via a google search).
Anyway, (in summary), I believe one description for this is what is generally termed "asset-stripping", "cleaning-up" etc. Then there's also their privatisation agenda, and the erosion of standards for workers, food etc, and tax avoidance. (Many see this as the opportunity for the UK to be an off Europe tax haven). None of this helps anyone unless they already have massive assets and investments.
Why has hypocrite James Dyson moved himself and his business thousands of miles away. Dyson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Nigel Lawson – the leave elite appears to want Brexit for everyone else but themselves
How do you reconcile Jacob Rees-Mogg’s position as leader of the European Research Group and his stance as co-founder of, part-time worker for and 15% stakeholder in Somerset Capital Management – which has warned its investors of the dangers of a hard Brexit and which has now set up not one but two funds in Dublin. Recall too the advice from fellow arch-Brexiteer John Redwood, who has a sideline as chief global strategist for the Charles Stanley investment bank, suggesting a year after the Brexit referendum that those with money pull it out of Britain and “look further afield.”
2 questions: Why do people like Redwood, Farage and Rees- Mogg support a hard brexit? is it to make you richer or them?
And why do they have most of their assets away from the UK and advise their clients to do so?

That is what I assumed you were talking about nil. I have debunked it all before - some of it several times.

One example is the Rees Mogg Dublin funds. The term non-story is overused but when I say that was a non-story I mean it literally. Literally ZERO connection with Brexit. I have explained this and the Redwood stuff in detail previously and I haven't got time to do it again. It's probably available on a search if you are interested.

Ironically, a lot of people voted Remain mainly because they were concerned about a fall in value of their assets and investments if Leave won. My wait goes on for a sure fire way of making money out of Brexit (hard or soft).

[dsr]

The most powerful reason to move your money abroad, both then and now, was for fear that Corbyn was going to introduce a wealth tax. There aren't many people, if they were told that the government was going to take 10% of your savings, but you could easily protect them by moving the money abroad - wouldn't you?

[AndyClaret]

To use a simplistic phrase. So what?
Some people correctly never give up on what they are committed to, but a leave vote now would be a clear mandate for leaving asap. There would be some who would immediatleystart to campaign to rejoin, which is a different thing, but would be their democratic right. Swinson and Lucas amongst them I would imagine, but the argument of leave or remain would be finished.

They weren't talking about campaigning to rejoin, they were talking about carrying on with stopping us leaving.

[Imploding Turtle]

Caroline Lucas and Jo swinson have both said that they wouldn't accept a second leave vote.

No they haven't.
Swinson said she wouldn't vote for it in Parliament, but that doesn't mean she wouldn't accept it.

[AndrewJB]

The most powerful reason to move your money abroad, both then and now, was for fear that Corbyn was going to introduce a wealth tax. There aren't many people, if they were told that the government was going to take 10% of your savings, but you could easily protect them by moving the money abroad - wouldn't you?

A determined government won't be put off by people moving their money abroad.

[dsr]

A determined government won't be put off by people moving their money abroad.

What can a government, however determined, do about someone who lives abroad and keeps his money abroad?

[nil_desperandum]

They weren't talking about campaigning to rejoin, they were talking about carrying on with stopping us leaving.

By definition you can't campaign to stop us leaving once we've left, so your point makes no sense.
We vote to leave in a 2nd referendum. It's certain that we then leave, but of course people like Swinson and Lucas, and probably millions of others would campaign to "rejoin". How could they campaign to remain once we've left?

[nil_desperandum]

No the argument wouldn't be finished let's be honest.

It took Farage years to get what he wanted and there would be similar campaigns to get us back in.

Agreed. the argument would continue, but we would have left. It's absolutely certain that people would campaign to rejoin, but that's not the same as campaigning not to leave.
there'' ll always be campaigners on both sides. That's how our democracy works, or at least tries to work.

[Imploding Turtle]

Agreed. the argument would continue, but we would have left. It's absolutely certain that people would campaign to rejoin, but that's not the same as campaigning not to leave.
there'' ll always be campaigners on both sides. That's how our democracy works, or at least tries to work.

**** these people. We'll exercise our freedom of speech however the **** we like, and if we want to use democracy to reverse a bad decision then anyone who objects to that use of democracy can go play with traffic. They don't value democracy, and they certainly don't get to decide what is and isn't "democratic".

[Erasmus]

The reason for wanting to remain is that there is a risk that leaving the EU would damage our economy and hence the standard of life enjoyed by the people. It can't be proved that this would happen, but it is a risk. And as far as I can see the people of Britain have nothing to gain from leaving, no greater personal freedom, no better public services etc. So why gamble on something when there is nothing to win from it. So far I haven't heard anything tangible in terms of benefits to the people of this country from leaving. It seems to be just a matter sentiment.

[Imploding Turtle]

The reason for wanting to remain is that there is a risk that leaving the EU would damage our economy and hence the standard of life enjoyed by the people. It can't be proved that this would happen, but it is a risk. And as far as I can see the people of Britain have nothing to gain from leaving, no greater personal freedom, no better public services etc. So why gamble on something when there is nothing to win from it. So far I haven't heard anything tangible in terms of benefits to the people of this country from leaving. It seems to be just a matter sentiment.

It's the loss of personal freedoms i'm worried most about. In the EU we had some protection against our ever more right-wing governments and their attempts to trample all over our freedoms. We still lost some but we had European law to protect us from losing a lot. We're removing that protection and leaving ourselves wide open to our government exploiting "security concerns" and public fear to further curtail our liberties. After the Manchester bombing for example, we actually had serious public servants talking about whether internment camps might be a good idea. "News" papers were talking about them as a possibility. Just imagine how far we'll be willing to descend if we remove this layer of protection.

[PaintYorkClaretnBlue]

**** these people. We'll exercise our freedom of speech however the **** we like, and if we want to use democracy to reverse a bad decision then anyone who objects to that use of democracy can go play with traffic. They don't value democracy, and they certainly don't get to decide what is and isn't "democratic".

Do you have high blood pressure turtle? Seriously, do you? There is no way that you are calm when you are typing in such an aggressive manner as most of your posts are. You must be sat there spitting feathers as you type. You want to chill out a bit, get out, relax and live life, you only get one chance.

[PaintYorkClaretnBlue]

It's the loss of personal freedoms i'm worried most about. In the EU we had some protection against our ever more right-wing governments and their attempts to trample all over our freedoms. We still lost some but we had European law to protect us from losing a lot. We're removing that protection and leaving ourselves wide open to our government exploiting "security concerns" and public fear to further curtail our liberties. After the Manchester bombing for example, we actually had serious public servants talking about whether internment camps might be a good idea. "News" papers were talking about them as a possibility. Just imagine how far we'll be willing to descend if we remove this layer of protection.

Just as I posted my last post he types the most calm and reasoned post he has ever posted

[GodIsADeeJay81]

It's the loss of personal freedoms i'm worried most about. In the EU we had some protection against our ever more right-wing governments and their attempts to trample all over our freedoms. We still lost some but we had European law to protect us from losing a lot. We're removing that protection and leaving ourselves wide open to our government exploiting "security concerns" and public fear to further curtail our liberties. After the Manchester bombing for example, we actually had serious public servants talking about whether internment camps might be a good idea. "News" papers were talking about them as a possibility. Just imagine how far we'll be willing to descend if we remove this layer of protection.

I think he's about one step from saying we will end up with a far far right government and end up like another country in Europe did in the last century.
I might be wrong, but I don't think I am, he loves making these comparisons.

[nil_desperandum]

That is what I assumed you were talking about nil. I have debunked it all before - some of it several times.

One example is the Rees Mogg Dublin funds. The term non-story is overused but when I say that was a non-story I mean it literally. Literally ZERO connection with Brexit. I have explained this and the Redwood stuff in detail previously and I haven't got time to do it again. It's probably available on a search if you are interested.
.

Fair enough but you haven't attempted to answer either of my questions or to explain the following 2 quotes that I included:
Why have : "Rees- Mogg's" Somerset Capital Management – warned its investors of the dangers of a hard Brexit ?
Why has John Redwood proposed (post - referendum) that those with money pull it out of Britain and “look further afield.”

(For the full context of the those quotes you can look up my previous post.)

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Fair enough but you haven't attempted to answer either of my questions or to explain the following 2 quotes that I included:
Why have : "Rees- Mogg's" Somerset Capital Management – warned its investors of the dangers of a hard Brexit ?
Why has John Redwood proposed (post - referendum) that those with money pull it out of Britain and “look further afield.”

(For the full context of the those quotes you can look up my previous post.)

A capital management company warning its clients/investors of the dangers of a hard brexit is what you'd expect from a capital management company isn't it?

Can't answer the 2nd one.

[Imploding Turtle]

I think he's about one step from saying we will end up with a far far right government and end up like another country in Europe did in the last century.
I might be wrong, but I don't think I am, he loves making these comparisons.

And if we started locking up a religious minority in internment camps you would still complain that such comparisons are unfair.

[dsr]

A capital management company warning its clients/investors of the dangers of a hard brexit is what you'd expect from a capital management company isn't it?

Can't answer the 2nd one.

Are you sure they weren't warning them of the risks of a hard Brexit? In financial advice terms, it's a different thing.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

And if we started locking up a religious minority in internment camps you would still complain that such comparisons are unfair.

Why would I say that?

You're really good at making assumptions about people without generally backing them up, yet never apologize for it whilst demanding apologies from others if they've said something about you.

[Imploding Turtle]

Why would I say that?

You're really good at making assumptions about people without generally backing them up, yet never apologize for it whilst demanding apologies from others if they've said something about you.

You just made an assumption. I made an assumption back. And now you're outraged that i would dare make an assumption.

jfc

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Are you sure they weren't warning them of the risks of a hard Brexit? In financial advice terms, it's a different thing.

I'd expect that if I was an investor.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

You just made an assumption. I made an assumption back. And now you're outraged that i would dare make an assumption.

jfc

You've got form for calling pretty much calling people Nazis/ right wingers etc.

Where am I outraged?
Just pointed out that you don't like people making assumptions about you yet you freely label and make assumptions about others.

I don't agree with internment camps, I do agree with a country protecting its borders from illegal immigrants and there is a clear and distinct difference between the two.

I've made a point of visiting Poland so I could see for myself the horrors of Nazi Germany and I actually think it should be compulsory for schools to go there and educate people, I think other countries education systems encourage school visits just not the UK.

[Imploding Turtle]

You've got form for calling pretty much calling people Nazis/ right wingers etc.

Nope.
You mumbled your words in an edit but i'm pretty sure you'd trying to claim i call people "Nazis" unfairly or make unfair comparisons. This is obviously bullshit, which is why you will not post an example of an unfair comparison.

[android]

Fair enough but you haven't attempted to answer either of my questions or to explain the following 2 quotes that I included:
Why have : "Rees- Mogg's" Somerset Capital Management – warned its investors of the dangers of a hard Brexit ?
Why has John Redwood proposed (post - referendum) that those with money pull it out of Britain and “look further afield.”

(For the full context of the those quotes you can look up my previous post.)

As I said nil, I have answered all this stuff at length before. DJ and dsr have the right idea. Rees Mogg and Redwood's asset management firms are not solely controlled by them. Some of the stuff those firms produce would be from independent boards of directors. They will have colleagues who are ardent Remainers. Even if they didn't, they would be bound by financial regulations to issue comprehensive risk warnings. They can personally believe a hard Brexit would be wonderful but they would not be stupid or negligent enough to deny that it did not carry any risks.

As for why the individuals you mention believe in a hard Brexit, it is probably best to think of them as human beings like the rest of us (alright that's tricky with Redwood I know)! A lot of Leavers share their view and a good number of Remainers agree as well. What I mean is a lot of people (including some Remainers) think that if we are going to leave at least do it properly. Being half in half out being seen as worse than staying in.

I really need to curtail my time on here.