|
Post by Bernie on Aug 28, 2019 15:43:54 GMT
That's a matter for me and the privacy of the polling booth. I don't have to justify my vote to anyone. Neither do the majority who voted to leave the EU. The government said their choice would be acted on. And it will, on October 31st. What a pathetic and cowardly answer. The only thing that was done in the polling booth was a vote of leave or remain. You have already told us you voted leave. So what was 'between you and the polling booth' is no secret. The reason you don't want to reveal what you were voting for is because it will either differ from what is being offered now or what was offered then or more than likely you were swallowed a whole pack of lies and just voted leave. I might be a pathetic coward. But you clearly don't believe in democracy when it doesn't go your way. I think Corbyn would be a disaster as PM, but if that's what people voted for I would respect the mandate. If Remain had won I would accept that. You're just a sore loser.
|
|
|
Post by nws on Aug 28, 2019 16:33:52 GMT
What a pathetic and cowardly answer. The only thing that was done in the polling booth was a vote of leave or remain. You have already told us you voted leave. So what was 'between you and the polling booth' is no secret. The reason you don't want to reveal what you were voting for is because it will either differ from what is being offered now or what was offered then or more than likely you were swallowed a whole pack of lies and just voted leave. I might be a pathetic coward. But you clearly don't believe in democracy when it doesn't go your way. I think Corbyn would be a disaster as PM, but if that's what people voted for I would respect the mandate. If Remain had won I would accept that. You're just a sore loser. You got your democracy that you all so wanted...Parliamentary democracy...remember back in 2016 and early 2017 when you were all shouting about loss of democracy to the EU and Parliament was our democratic institution. Parliament then started to do things that you all didn't like so you all started to call it undemocratic and started your 'will of the people' phrase (just for the record it was 52% of well less than 100% of the electorate so not really necessarily will of the people). Anyway, you cannot answer the question because you know what the answer would reveal. You had absolutely no clue what you were voting for. All you can do is trot out nonsense about me being undemocratic because I think people should get a vote on something (Nigel Farage said this would be OK, as did David Davies). If there were a second vote and all the lies, changing goalposts etc hadn't convinced people to do the sensible thing then I would just give up and accept that I live in a country populated by gullible fools. Oh and I'm interested to know how committing electoral fraud is democratic. Oh and just for the record the people I voted for have never won a general election. I guess I must be very democratic as I have never called for a re-run. You are thus proven wrong. I would note, by the way, that the time between the last two elections was two years and it has been three years since the referendum so quite why you are calling me undemocratic is beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by nws on Aug 28, 2019 16:43:29 GMT
Just to reiterate the point. Barney thinks that wanting a vote on a major change is undemocratic. He prefers that Alex Johnson - unelected PM - just makes the decision. OK...point taken. Ooooooh I am so undemocratic me.
|
|
|
Post by Bernie on Aug 28, 2019 16:54:10 GMT
Just to reiterate the point. Barney thinks that wanting a vote on a major change is undemocratic. He prefers that Alex Johnson - unelected PM - just makes the decision. OK...point taken. Ooooooh I am so undemocratic me. We already had a vote. You just don't like or accept the result. That makes you undemocratic.
|
|
|
Post by daveu on Aug 28, 2019 17:23:41 GMT
I knew what I was voting for. Didn't you? Easy to know what you're voting for retrospectively. Doesn't give you the right to accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being undemocratic. If you were so sure the result wouldn't change you would have no problem with another referendum, but you know you'll end up losing so like all absolutists you want to deny everyone else the chance to change their minds. We get to vote on a new parliament every five years. That's democracy. Making a non reversible decision based on a one off vote isn't.
|
|
|
Post by Bernie on Aug 28, 2019 17:27:38 GMT
You can have another referendum when the last one has been implemented.
|
|
|
Post by daveu on Aug 28, 2019 17:28:06 GMT
What a pathetic and cowardly answer. The only thing that was done in the polling booth was a vote of leave or remain. You have already told us you voted leave. So what was 'between you and the polling booth' is no secret. The reason you don't want to reveal what you were voting for is because it will either differ from what is being offered now or what was offered then or more than likely you were swallowed a whole pack of lies and just voted leave. I might be a pathetic coward. But you clearly don't believe in democracy when it doesn't go your way. I think Corbyn would be a disaster as PM, but if that's what people voted for I would respect the mandate. If Remain had won I would accept that. You're just a sore loser. Hah! A brexiteer accusing someone else of not believing in democracy. I think we've all just been alanised.
|
|
|
Post by shamstone on Aug 28, 2019 17:46:05 GMT
Wealdstone can’t come quick enough
|
|
|
Post by 61666 on Aug 28, 2019 17:54:47 GMT
Quote in the Evening Standard from a government spokesman: "If MPs pass a no confidence vote next week, we won't resign. We won't recommend another government, we'll dissolve parliament, call an election between November 1-5 and there'll be zero chance of legislation to stop a no deal". So, plain and simple, this is a premeditated plan to push forward a no deal right from the start. They may think it is the right option, but democratic, it is not because if/when they lose that election, whoever takes over will find the country so far up shit creek, it will make the financial crash seem like child's play. Only the his time there won't be 35 billions worth of PPA compensation to bail it out. Not that BoJo and his cronies will be affected of course...
|
|
|
Post by nws on Aug 28, 2019 18:59:43 GMT
Just to reiterate the point. Barney thinks that wanting a vote on a major change is undemocratic. He prefers that Alex Johnson - unelected PM - just makes the decision. OK...point taken. Ooooooh I am so undemocratic me. We already had a vote. You just don't like or accept the result. That makes you undemocratic. So we implement a decision that was hardly gained democratically (I note the point about electoral fraud was ignored), we lose the deal we have now and then we go back a few years later to get a deal that is nowhere near as good. All because you feel that a democracy cannot change its mind. Oh and you keep on about me not accepting the result. I am watching conman use slogans to con the likes of you into making us significantly worse off. You might be silly enough to let chat about fish and blue passports enrich them and make you worse off, I am not. Just for the record I am not advocating Parliament reverse the decision. I am asking that people are asked a second time if this what they really want. This happens with almost anything else you do. At the very least people should be asked if they want the Withdrawal deal on the table or no deal because they have never been asked that. Anyway. I get the point. You think voting is undemocratic regardless of whether those that initially voted are still alive, still hold the same view etc. So even if, in 2019, 65% want to stay it doesn't matter because a few years ago 52% didn't. Got it. Democracy. Incidentally. At what point will it be ok to vote again?
|
|
|
Post by Bernie on Aug 28, 2019 20:03:43 GMT
Like I said...
|
|
|
Post by gromley on Aug 28, 2019 20:56:23 GMT
I genuinely would be interested to know what leave voters were voting for. Were they voting for the promised land of sunny uplands etc...i.e. a deal? Were they voting for cutting ties completely...i.e. no deal? Did they not really know/understand any of the implications but just felt the EU was bad? There is a racist subset who voted just to get rid of brown people but I'm not sure how important they were overall, particularly as they would have to be quite mad to believe voting leave got rid of brown people. The other question I feel curious about is what leave voters feel they won in 2016. I have generally tried to stay out of this to and fro. It's far from a quality debate and to be honest Adrian whilst I do accept that you have made the better effort to assemble "facts" far too many of them are actually straw men.
But to answer your question directly I voted to leave Project United States of Europe. The EU seems clearly to have a vision and direction towards political union that is far removed from the "Common Market" we joined decades ago.
I remain surprised that I voted leave as I had long being a staunch supported of the free trade and co-operation arrangement that the EU engendered. However, when Cameron came back with his "reformed EU" (which involved no meaningful change) for us to vote for, it became clear to me that the choice was vote leave or implicitly sign up for a deeper union that was doomed to failure.
I will confess that freedom of movement of labour (not people) was one of my concerns. Whilst I do accept in that regard I have some xenophobic bedfellows in that regard (which doesn't make me happy) my concerns are rather that as a concept are that it is economically illiterate. I recall rather shockingly a few years ago seeing Jack Straw agree with a conservative counterpart (can't remember who) that EU immigration had been a substantial benefit to the UK because it had reduced our age profile and therefore helped to address our pensions crisis (more pensioners than workers to fund their pensions). That's all well and good, but who is going to pay for Polish pensions, given that their demographic has been skewed the other direction? Under the US of E I think you can guess the ultimate answer!
I have a lot of time for Yanis Varoufakis but I am puzzled why he can see the flaws in Freedom of movement of Capital, but fail to see the similar flaws in the Freedom of movement of Labour.
On the other hand of course we have the significant societal changes and pressure on housing that derive from the unplanned migration. - These concerns fuel the Xenophobia, but are not at root xenophobic.
That though is countered again by the boost to economic growth we have seen from EU immigration - we could not possibly have such a choice of coffee shops on the High Street, nor cheap car-washes nor free internet delivery without the changes to the available workforce. And yet we suffer serious angst about our lack of productivity - which as a proxy is essentially a measure of average wage.
I voted leave, because the direction of the EU is untenable and I would rather be out before it all collapses and then become part of a collaboration that returns to rationality.
Whilst democracy if often a lottery with a significant portion of the electorate deciding on the basis of irrelevant facts, I do not accept that the referendum was the result of lies. Sure the numbers on the bus were farcical, but the other side had ample opportunity (& did) to challenge them. On the other hand much of the expert opinion from "the establishment" was equally bogus, but arguably harder to counter. For example the analysis from the BoE that even just the leave vote itself would trash the economy would totally trash the economy totally ignored the 'option' that they would reduce interest rates, which of course they always planned to do and in the event did - If you are looking for blatant lies during the campaign this is a pretty easy target.
But if leavers believe in democracy - why would a second referendum be un-democratic?
This is actually quite a tough one to justify, but I'll give it a go.
I don't honestly know how a rerun of the referendum would go at this time. But from a career spent in "change management" in one form or another I do now that it is very difficult to convince a population of the need for change. If you get over that hurdle, once you get to the (inevitable) stage where during transition thing worsen before the promised improvements from completing the project - sentiment turns against the change. It is only later when the pain has been felt and the benefits start to emerge that sentiment starts to turn again.
If we changed direction on each "opinion poll" we would be a total basket case.
Don't get me wrong, I think Johnson is almost as dangerous as Trump, but I do think his fringe benefits could be positive.
Personally whilst I am unhappy with where we are with the negotiations, I do feel that "No-Brexit" would be the worst possible outcome now.
Did that answer your question Adrian?
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Aug 28, 2019 22:53:49 GMT
Worse than a no-deal Brexit?
Worse than a right-wing coup?
Worse than the biggest constitutional crisis in recent history and the country being completely fucked, when only 37% of the electorate voted for it?
Really?
|
|
|
Post by nws on Aug 28, 2019 23:44:32 GMT
I genuinely would be interested to know what leave voters were voting for. Were they voting for the promised land of sunny uplands etc...i.e. a deal? Were they voting for cutting ties completely...i.e. no deal? Did they not really know/understand any of the implications but just felt the EU was bad? There is a racist subset who voted just to get rid of brown people but I'm not sure how important they were overall, particularly as they would have to be quite mad to believe voting leave got rid of brown people. The other question I feel curious about is what leave voters feel they won in 2016. I have generally tried to stay out of this to and fro. It's far from a quality debate and to be honest Adrian whilst I do accept that you have made the better effort to assemble "facts" far too many of them are actually straw men. But to answer your question directly I voted to leave Project United States of Europe. The EU seems clearly to have a vision and direction towards political union that is far removed from the "Common Market" we joined decades ago.
I remain surprised that I voted leave as I had long being a staunch supported of the free trade and co-operation arrangement that the EU engendered. However, when Cameron came back with his "reformed EU" (which involved no meaningful change) for us to vote for, it became clear to me that the choice was vote leave or implicitly sign up for a deeper union that was doomed to failure. I will confess that freedom of movement of labour (not people) was one of my concerns. Whilst I do accept in that regard I have some xenophobic bedfellows in that regard (which doesn't make me happy) my concerns are rather that as a concept are that it is economically illiterate. I recall rather shockingly a few years ago seeing Jack Straw agree with a conservative counterpart (can't remember who) that EU immigration had been a substantial benefit to the UK because it had reduced our age profile and therefore helped to address our pensions crisis (more pensioners than workers to fund their pensions). That's all well and good, but who is going to pay for Polish pensions, given that their demographic has been skewed the other direction? Under the US of E I think you can guess the ultimate answer! I have a lot of time for Yanis Varoufakis but I am puzzled why he can see the flaws in Freedom of movement of Capital, but fail to see the similar flaws in the Freedom of movement of Labour.
On the other hand of course we have the significant societal changes and pressure on housing that derive from the unplanned migration. - These concerns fuel the Xenophobia, but are not at root xenophobic. That though is countered again by the boost to economic growth we have seen from EU immigration - we could not possibly have such a choice of coffee shops on the High Street, nor cheap car-washes nor free internet delivery without the changes to the available workforce. And yet we suffer serious angst about our lack of productivity - which as a proxy is essentially a measure of average wage. I voted leave, because the direction of the EU is untenable and I would rather be out before it all collapses and then become part of a collaboration that returns to rationality. Whilst democracy if often a lottery with a significant portion of the electorate deciding on the basis of irrelevant facts, I do not accept that the referendum was the result of lies. Sure the numbers on the bus were farcical, but the other side had ample opportunity (& did) to challenge them. On the other hand much of the expert opinion from "the establishment" was equally bogus, but arguably harder to counter. For example the analysis from the BoE that even just the leave vote itself would trash the economy would totally trash the economy totally ignored the 'option' that they would reduce interest rates, which of course they always planned to do and in the event did - If you are looking for blatant lies during the campaign this is a pretty easy target. But if leavers believe in democracy - why would a second referendum be un-democratic?This is actually quite a tough one to justify, but I'll give it a go. I don't honestly know how a rerun of the referendum would go at this time. But from a career spent in "change management" in one form or another I do now that it is very difficult to convince a population of the need for change. If you get over that hurdle, once you get to the (inevitable) stage where during transition thing worsen before the promised improvements from completing the project - sentiment turns against the change. It is only later when the pain has been felt and the benefits start to emerge that sentiment starts to turn again. If we changed direction on each "opinion poll" we would be a total basket case.
Don't get me wrong, I think Johnson is almost as dangerous as Trump, but I do think his fringe benefits could be positive. Personally whilst I am unhappy with where we are with the negotiations, I do feel that "No-Brexit" would be the worst possible outcome now. Did that answer your question Adrian?
I have to say that it is nice to see an answer of thought rather than slogans. Not sure what you are gabbling on about Re straw men and I'd be happy to look at that otherwise I'll disregard it as your own mini form of pointless slogan You say you voted against future political integration which was obvious once Cameron failed to get anything meaningful. Under Camerons deal the EU was to include - in its Treaties - that the UK was not committed to further political integration. You seem to suggest that under US of E (another slogan, sigh) we will pay Polish pensions. Given the point above I suggest this may not be true. The pressures on housing are problems little connected to EU immigrants. They started in the 80s with Thatcher. She sold off the council houses and released the banks on us. High house prices mean that only those with capital can generally buy anything and they generally already have houses but want more. The high house prices are a function of availability of credit and the creation of a giant ponzi. Natural supply and demand for housing is a small time player in the equation. The EU is untenable is something I hear a lot but have not really seen many people say why they believe this. I'm presuming it is based on the variety of ethnicities, culture etc between the nation states. I look forward and see the existential threat of climate change bringing the world, let alone Europe, together. In addition I see each new generation away from 'the war' being more accepting. These factors lead me to think that you may well be wrong (unless your opinion is based on something else). The lies accusation is a bit more than numbers on the bus (although that lie seemed quite successful). In 2016 people were promised a great deal and the chatter was all about being like Norway. Now they are reduced to saying they voted for job losses but we will be ok because we survived the blitz and those people that spoke about getting a great deal now say they pumped no deal all along! I don't disagree that the dire economic warnings were OTT to say the least but to claim they are worse than an outright lie in the bus (which was countered but remain wasn't using the account hacking software of Cambridge Analytica), electoral fraud and the continued lies such as GATT 24, accounts haven't been signed off for 20 years etc. Not to mention the drip feed of lies in the papers about bananas (step forward Alex Johnson) and rocking horses etc. Your argument about a second vote being undemocratic seems to rest on a text book argument about people wishing not to change because things have got tough right before the change that will bring great benefits happens. Well I hate to say it but that is not really an argument. The facts are the facts as they are not some unspecified gain in the future. You can't deny people a chance to change their minds because you know better and think things will be better in the future. You sound almost Stalinist in your approach. If you are using that argument I could argue that 2016 was unfair because 6 years of Tory austerity had masked the good things the EU was bringing us a drove people to vote out when there was something better round the corner. Can I ask what this great benefit in the future will be and when we will see it? I'm not sure what you are talking about with changing direction on opinion polls. Seems a straw man.
|
|
|
Post by nws on Aug 28, 2019 23:48:14 GMT
You didn't really say anything
|
|