Brexit

BubblesNeverDies

Sorry, forgot the link ;whome

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy

MrsGrey

I'm not a David Lammy fan, so will take your word for it ;ok

MrsGrey

MrsGrey said:

I have therefore realised I must have voted in the wrong referendum. ;doh I feel like a right idiot now.

But not as much as those who thought they were voting for more fish ;lol

BubblesNeverDies

MrsGrey, neither am I, nor have I ever been, but it's worth watching. ;ok

SuzanneClaret

;nonono

You mean I'm not getting more fish ;weep

MrsGrey

;fishslap

There ya go. ;biggrin

OutcastLondoner

I always thought that looked more like a fried chicken slap than a fish.

MrsGrey

Gawd help us. ;doh

Various polls of public opinion on what to do next, including whether or not they support a 'no deal brexit'. An ICM poll found this to be the most popular option.

Wait - it gets worse....

Sky asked people what 'no deal' meant, and 26% answered 'it means we stay in the EU'.

BubblesNeverDies

You mean it doesn't - ;puzzled


;biggrin

OldCastleSwift

MrsGrey said:

Gawd help us. ;doh

Various polls of public opinion on what to do next, including whether or not they support a 'no deal brexit'. An ICM poll found this to be the most popular option.

Wait - it gets worse....

Sky asked people what 'no deal' meant, and 26% answered 'it means we stay in the EU'.

This is hilarious and tragic in equal measure

Ace of Clubs

Mrs grey, I think this was the problem with the referendum, many people did not fully understand the implications of leaving the EU and my worry now is that it will not be in the interest of the EU for us to be successful as other members might get ideas about leaving.

OutcastLondoner

This whole process has been awfully done. No real public discussion or education at any point. Just circular debates within the political bubble that most feel completely isolated from and reporting of that which relies on phrases like "backstop" and "no deal" which are rarely broken down.

Whitehorsehammer

OCS Sadly I think it is mush more tragic than hilarious.

MrsGrey

Tusk has said in a documentary that's just come out, on asking David Cameron... ‘Why did you decide on this referendum, this – it’s so dangerous, so even stupid, you know,’ and, he told me - and I was really amazed and even shocked - that the only reason was his own party, [He told me] he felt really safe, because he thought at the same time that there’s no risk of a referendum, because, his coalition partner, the Liberals, would block this idea of a referendum.

And May continues to put the party first, ruling out compromising on any of her 'red lines' in order to appease her backbenchers.

;angry

TheMadcapLaughs

Ace of clubs. You are correct, no one knows what the implications of leaving the EU are. Same as no one knows what will happen if we stay in the EU. Which is why I find it odd that: "now we know what the consequences of leaving the EU are, it seems only right and proper that we let the people have another vote". Apparently people calling for another vote are privy to information that will happen in the weeks, months and years hence. I also find it odd that this second vote is championed as "the peoples vote" (nice) rather than "a second referendum". Calling it a second referendum would even up the scores if Remain won, I.E. 1 referendum apiece. In the interests of "British fair play" this would surely call for a third and final referendum. However, calling it "the peoples vote" seems to absolve those calling for this vote of any such notion, and if Remain won it would be "truly democratic" and the result would be fixed, firm and final. I have no problem with another referendum. To re-join the EU. Once we have given life outside of the EU a blinking good bash. Say in maybe 10, 15 years time. It was never going to be easy leaving. It is in the interests of the politicians, bureaucrats and purveyors of the law to make life as complicated as possible. That is what they do and what they get paid for. If anyone has learned anything from all of this, surely it`s that these people are not half as good as they tell themselves.

BubblesNeverDies

Some good reading here. The last 2 links were mentioned in the comments section of the 1st.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/01/21/10-questions-remainers-need-answer-stopping-no-deal/
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/sunday/brexit-ireland-empire.html
https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/12/22/the-elite-that-failed

BubblesNeverDies

And another ;biggrin
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/opinion/sunday/brexit-theresa-may-politics.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article

EXETERHAMMER

MrsGrey said:

Gawd help us. ;doh

Various polls of public opinion on what to do next, including whether or not they support a 'no deal brexit'. An ICM poll found this to be the most popular option.

Wait - it gets worse....

Sky asked people what 'no deal' meant, and 26% answered 'it means we stay in the EU'.

This sort of thing is what worries me the most about the Brexit debate. One in four people could vote for the opposite of what they think they are actually voting for. The other three people would be voting for something they think is right, but aren't sure of the detail.

Laughing stock UK.

claretandbluesky

I read yesterday someone suggested calling it the peoples veto, rather than vote.

Democracy could be seen as an battle of persuasion. The populous are powerless on their own but potentially very powerful en mass, this means the need for control of the population can be via suppression, through a police state, or democracy, a vehicle where by the populous vote their consent and agree to abide voluntarily, it could also be a cross between the two similar to Russia in which it is democratic but the vehicle is dramatically shaped in the dictatorships favour to return only one winner, voted for consensually .

We can call it a battle of persuasion as each political aspirant has the opportunity to persuade the populous and earn it's vote. The populous imagine they decide how to vote and imagine this decision informed, it is however informed by information provided. So the first battle for the politically ambitious is to secure the information lines. In the example of Russia this is how the dictatorship is secured by securing all important lines to spread their very own narrative. A glaring example of political change in our own recent history was when Labour under Tony Blair secured the Murdoch information outlet 'the Sun' before their first victory, something which hadn't happened previously. Once you secure information lines this allows you to provide information in a biased way to secure the vote of each member of the population. So it could be said that the most powerful in a democracy are the information providers and it could also be said social media has unleashed a new source of information which is easily tapped into and more easily spread. This could account for the populist success of Brexit and Trump.

The problem many have with brexit is that we recognise that so much of brexit was secured in this way by lies with regard what could be achieved, what glorious opportunity awaited us. The call for a new vote or veto is to counter misinformation being used to win a democratic process. In my view democracy is at more risk without a second vote as this encourages all would be populist political parties by suggesting if you can just promise you get your hands on the wheel, and it doesn't matter if you follow through. In theory I could get sophisticated social media information lines to promote myself as prime minister by promising a three day week that ends on Wednesday with two free beers and football tickets for all at the weekend. once I secure the vote I am in. Now it depends on the intelligence of the plebiscite to see through my lies, and for me that is the frustration of remainers as we knew Boris couldn't deliver but because he was persuasive he helped scrape a win. The call for a second vote is greater than to protect the national interest it's to send a message that if you win and don't follow through you will not get to lift the prize.

Ultimately democracy is controlled by information providers as the idea that each and everyone of us will fact check everything said is just never going to happen. We love to have a view and we love to be asked for it, but it's how we arrive at it which is well known to those in power and there lies the control.

Ace of Clubs

Madcap, You say that now we are due to leave the EU we know the consequences of leaving but we don’t know the consequences of staying in the EU while we are a member. I think we have a good idea what remaining would be like. I wanted to leave the EU for reasons of my own (nothing to do with immigration by the way) but asked my children and grandchildren what they wanted which was to remain so that’s why I voted to stay. As others have said so many lies were fed to the public it was hard to know which way to vote. I’m to old now and whatever the consequences it’s unlikely to have much effect on me.

imagelost

MrsGrey said:

Tusk has said in a documentary that's just come out, on asking David Cameron... ‘Why did you decide on this referendum, this – it’s so dangerous, so even stupid, you know,’ and, he told me - and I was really amazed and even shocked - that the only reason was his own party, [He told me] he felt really safe, because he thought at the same time that there’s no risk of a referendum, because, his coalition partner, the Liberals, would block this idea of a referendum.

And May continues to put the party first, ruling out compromising on any of her 'red lines' in order to appease her backbenchers.

;angry

Correct dc could of delt with this better ,,, instead I don’t like this I am jacking

BubblesNeverDies

I remember reading somewhere that if the quitters' campaign had been subject to a court of law in the UK, those behind the campaign would have been charged with perjury and held in contempt of court, although that might have been a problem as I'm not sure there is any extradition agreement with Russia. ;biggrin

Btw, if you haven't read them yet, the articles I posted links to (especially the last two) are well worth reading.

imagelost

The day mp’s are actually accountable for there stupidity, is the day I stop being sarcastic ;yercoat

ASLEFshrugged

Ignore this...

TheMadcapLaughs

Bubbles. Very interesting articles, particularly the last two in your first post. The next article, in your second post, is full of emotive Remainer bluster and invective. Its very title tells you that. The other two articles confirm my view that to be governed by a set of incompetents is nothing new, and something that to demand more of, in the shape of the EU, is counter intuitive.

TheMadcapLaughs

ASLEFshrugged said:

Ignore this...

I can`t, I`ve seen it now........................................

BubblesNeverDies

Madcap:
"The next article, in your second post, is full of emotive Remainer bluster and invective."

Bluster: loudly boastful or threatening speech
Invective: insulting or abusive language

Sorry Madcap, but could you tell me what in that article you're referring to. ;puzzled

TheMadcapLaughs

BubblesNeverDies said:

And another ;biggrin
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/opinion/sunday/brexit-theresa-may-politics.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article

Pretty much the whole article. It offers nothing constructive. It is an opinion piece presented as fact.

"they are determined to push Britain to the hardest possible Brexit, toward the wrecked economy and shattered lives that would follow" ;scary

BubblesNeverDies

Very much a politician's answer, i.e. avoiding the question. ;hmm
Let's just leave it there. ;ok

TheMadcapLaughs

Not that I`m an admirer of anyone in the article. But her descriptions of the main Brexiteers are needlessly insulting (imo). You have asked "what in that article" and I have replied the whole article. I can`t see how I`ve avoided the question. I just can`t see any merit in that particular article. The author (imo) is needlessly abusive and insulting and her interpretation of leaving the EU without a deal is nothing short of cataclysmic. She may well be right, but she has presented the case as a foregone conclusion. She speaks of "a permanent economic hit". "shattered lives". "Push Britain off a cliff" etc etc. Without being able to see into the future I would describe such statements as bluster. Perhaps I`m using the word incorrectly. ;hmm