Brexit

[David]

1 minute ago, johnnyboy said:

I disagree.  The grievances that people had with the EU were, in an awful lot of cases, grievances with our government who had used the bogeyman EU to get away with shit for ages.

You disagree that if it had went the other way the same people crying just now would be all-ears to the wailing we'd be hearing from the opposite side? You think those who are saying "fuck those who voted to leave, they're just stoopid, lolz" would be interested in the grievances of those stoopidz who would be upset at the vote going to remain?

I can't see that being the case.

You're right though, a lot of the issues people had should have been directed at the Government rather than the EU.

5 minutes ago, johnnyboy said:

The number of people who proudly claimed that voting in the referendum was the first time in their life was pure Picard facepalm.  Maybe take an interest in politics more than once every forty years and stuff might change.

We saw a lot of people saying the same thing during the independence referendum in Scotland, with many people who didn't vote in the past due to being entirely disillusioned with the system deciding to vote in the referendum because it was something they legitimately cared about.

You never know, maybe now, just as it was then, it could be the spark to get people interested who didn't give a toss before.

7 minutes ago, johnnyboy said:

Secondly, a narrow win would not have seen remainers pushing for adopting the Euro, joining Schengen, and signing up for a European army.  May's withdrawal agreement is still a hard Brexit based on the imaginary red lines in her head despite all the different flavours of leave because she thinks we hate brown people more than we like electricity, cancer treatment, and insulin.  52-48 for remain and maybe we enforce the 3 month rule (even if it actually costs more than we'd save to do so).

Her approach is a result of internal party politics though really, isn't it? it's not about appeasing the people who voted to leave, it's about appeasing the various factions of her own party. Like most politicians she couldn't give a fuck about the people she represents.

It really is a terrible mess, but it was our Government who created the mess by sanctioning the vote in the first place. Once you give the people their say it's political suicide to tell that the politicians have decided they didn't like the result and a do-over is the answer, which is why that hopefully won't happen.

14 minutes ago, Chest Rockwell said:

So no interest in addressing the point that there's a difference between lying and actual illegal activity as part of the campaign?

Those guilty of illegal activity should obviously be dealt with by the law, that goes without saying, but I don't see that as a reason to call the whole thing off and start again. For me, the EU vote went far beyond some "campaigns" that were fronted, on both sides, by wealthy politicians and their friends.

But yeah, those involved in illegal activity should be dealt with by the law.

[Chest Rockwell]

4 hours ago, David said:

Those guilty of illegal activity should obviously be dealt with by the law, that goes without saying, but I don't see that as a reason to call the whole thing off and start again. For me, the EU vote went far beyond some "campaigns" that were fronted, on both sides, by wealthy politicians and their friends.

But yeah, those involved in illegal activity should be dealt with by the law.

With a victory as narrow as it was to say that it went far beyond the campaigns is just dumb. If there is substantial evidence presented of illegal activity in the campaigns then it should be enough to consider the result itself suspect. That's both common sense and how the law works in other situations, so there's no reason it should be different for this one.

[Chilly McFreeze]

12 hours ago, David said:

I have an even greater fear that there's a second referendum and remain wins it this time, because then we'll have a whole lot of angry as fuck people who (rightly) believe that the goalposts were shifted simply because the political elite didn't get their way the first time around.

The goalpost wouldn't have moved, they were never established in the first place. No one knew where they were or how big they were. This time, if there is another Referendum, people will know. That's why we need the 2nd vote. 

 

[d-d-d-dAz]

I think the base level effect on our democracy, both functionally amongst certain demographics and on a higher level intellectual basis, if we don’t leave will be profound.

But the effect on our actual economy if we do leave will be equally profound.

Thats why this is brutal. If economic reality is allowed to win, which frankly I almost think it should, then we risk proving democracy is a sham, and degrading any remaining soft power that provides the liberal west in discussions with the ‘regressive’ east.

Fundamentally, this is potentially the most  definitive turning point in the history of the democratic epoch.

Whether the campaign tactics were dodgy or not, that as an issue has no cut through: the message to political skimreaders, who are the majority of people, will be ‘your vote matters... to a point’... and that slope is dodgy.

[Lion_of_the_Midlands]

6 hours ago, johnnyboy said:

the lion's share

I'm sure they would be happy if you went for The Bryan's share, noted vegan that D-Bry is. 

[Teedy Kay]

I'm bored of the Democracy argument.

Things change, and because of that opinions and ideas change. There is more of an actual construct of what Brexit looks like now. That's want democracy is, the populus govern, 36%ish of the public voted to leave in some random guise, we now know what guise that could possibly be. And it's shit. Surely the populus should have the potential to govern the overall decision?

I mean we voted to stay in the EC back in 75, why isn't that vote being honoured?

[Keith Houchen]

I realise we all move in different circles but I think that most people I know who voted leave did so without any regard to economic reasons.  So trying to win their vote with economic reasoning isn't going to work.  They don't care for hard Brexit, Norway model, Canada plus, Shengen or any of that gubbins.  For them it's about borders and our own laws.

[d-d-d-dAz]

14 minutes ago, Teedy Kay said:

I'm bored of the Democracy argument.

Things change, and because of that opinions and ideas change. There is more of an actual construct of what Brexit looks like now. That's want democracy is, the populus govern, 36%ish of the public voted to leave in some random guise, we now know what guise that could possibly be. And it's shit. Surely the populus should have the potential to govern the overall decision?

Potentially.

But then you risk running the country by referendum. Which isn’t what a representative democracy is supposed to be. That is an absolute democracy, and that does not work.

A referendum was held, and the result has never been adhered to. As a remainer, I have to be honest and say that the arguments we’ve circled back to (after 2 years of negotiating) are the same ones remain made during the referendum. And we lost.

There has to be a marker laid here. If we do not leave the EU at all, then we have to accept that we have told large swathes of the population, who to Keith’s point do not give a shit about any of the reasons why leaving is insane (hence why remain wasn’t listened to), then democracy takes a significant hit.

There’s no way around that.

Edited December 5, 2018 by d-d-d-dAz

[PunkStep]

13 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

For them it's about borders and our own laws.

That's 100% the reasoning behind my Dad voting leave, and almost everyone else I know. Not wanting to be controlled by Europe he said, and the examples he gave me where we were mostly affected were "well look at them telling us our bananas are too straight" and suchlike.

[Chest Rockwell]

People are the worst. Particularly old people.

Our democracy is garbage anyway so I'd rather just have what I want and fuck those guys.

Edited December 5, 2018 by Chest Rockwell

[Keith Houchen]

1 minute ago, PunkStep said:

That's 100% the reasoning behind my Dad voting leave, and almost everyone else I know. Not wanting to be controlled by Europe he said, and the examples he gave me where we were mostly affected were "well look at them telling us our bananas are too straight" and suchlike.

Yep. I tend to go all James O’Brien and ask which laws in particular are you looking forward to getting back and whatnot, but that’s what we are dealing with. Facts don’t matter, opinions do and those opinions won’t change. I think that in 5 years if we are out of the EU and queuing for bread, it will be because we left it too long to leave. 

Its the same with “They’re punishing us” spiel. It’s as if a union of nations who don’t do anything for the member states are looking out for the member states who they simultaneously do nothing for

[Joe Blog]

If I am having a particularly difficult shit, not often due to my squatty potty which can be ordered from most health websites near you; I often amuse myself by looking at the posts in groups such as ‘Brexit -Leave means leave’ 

The best post I saw today was a picture of a load of soldiers holding up the white cliffs of dover as a young couple walked out green and vibrant land. The caption you ask? ‘They did not ruin your future, the allowed you to have one’ 

Fucking beautiful. 

[Tamura]

I'm looking forward to being free of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2257/94. Then our greengrocers will be free to sell bananas that are broken, unfit for human consumption, rotting, dirty, infested by pests, bruised and that smell and taste funny. Oh, and they can be curved too!

[Carbomb]

11 hours ago, Keith Houchen said:

Yep. I tend to go all James O’Brien and ask which laws in particular are you looking forward to getting back and whatnot, but that’s what we are dealing with. Facts don’t matter, opinions do and those opinions won’t change. I think that in 5 years if we are out of the EU and queuing for bread, it will be because we left it too long to leave. 

The problem is we're dealing with a pernicious line of reasoning where the motivation is opinion and emotion, and the defence is cherry-picked facts or outright lies. If it was a factual motivation, it'd be easy to argue against. If it was purely emotional, it would be slightly more difficult, but still feasible, simply by appealing to people's sense of solidarity and a recognition of the benefits of that unity. But when they're banging on about "Empire 2.0" and "taking back control" (an illusion anyway if they're just going to let the same old thing keep happening under the rule of the same old fucking people), and then, when they're called out on it, defending their position by referring to either Daily Mail bullshit or the few instances where their grievances were closer to the truth, it becomes a trickier proposition.

[David]

9 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

The problem is we're dealing with a pernicious line of reasoning where the motivation is opinion and emotion, and the defence is cherry-picked facts or outright lies. If it was a factual motivation, it'd be easy to argue against. If it was purely emotional, it would be slightly more difficult, but still feasible, simply by appealing to people's sense of solidarity and a recognition of the benefits of that unity. But when they're banging on about "Empire 2.0" and "taking back control" (an illusion anyway if they're just going to let the same old thing keep happening under the rule of the same old fucking people), and then, when they're called out on it, defending their position by referring to either Daily Mail bullshit or the few instances where their grievances were closer to the truth, it becomes a trickier proposition.

Even if they're completely wrong about every aspect of it, has there ever been an instance you can think of where "arguing against" someone's point of view wins them over? That tactic rarely works, if at all. 

All that happens is that they get pissed off and eventually storm off, and you get the satisfaction of knowing you "won" the debate, which matters not a jot in the grand scheme of things.

Edited December 6, 2018 by David