British Politics

[DieselDaisy]

5 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Back in June 2016 they had no idea what they were voting for.

Correction: in your opinion. 

The Blair Creature is repellent, and anything emanating from his mouth should be dismissed forthwith; Blair supporting ''remain'' is doing ''remain'' a disservice, such is his poor reputation in Britain - I said as much during the campaigning before the vote (''oh, Blair has reappeared. That is remain buggered then''). 

[SoulMonster]

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Correction: in your opinion. 

Well, yes, but it was also Blair's opinion.

6 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The Blair Creature is repellent, and anything emanating from his mouth should be dismissed forthwith; Blair supporting ''remain'' is doing ''remain'' a disservice, such is his poor reputation in Britain - I said as much during the campaigning before the vote (''oh, Blair has reappeared. That is remain buggered then''). 

Blair did a lot of good for UK and for Labour. New Labour was a brilliant thing. Too bad he ruined his legacy by supporting the Iraq war.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

Well, yes, but it was also Blair's opinion.

Blair did a lot of good for UK and for Labour. New Labour was a brilliant thing. Too bad he ruined his legacy by supporting the Iraq war.

You'll not hear a good word about Blair here I'm afraid. 

[SoulMonster]

19 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You'll not hear a good word about Blair here I'm afraid. 

Don't be afraid. I wouldn't expect you to be able to be fair and give due credits to a man who was the Prime Minister when the EU was widened to include states in Eastern Europe and when Britain accepted free movement from other member states into Britain. Then his social reforms and environmental concern is irrelevant.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Don't be afraid. I wouldn't expect you to be able to be fair and give due credits to a man who was the Prime Minister when the EU was widened to include states in Eastern Europe and when Britain accepted free movement from other member states into Britain. Then his social reforms and environmental concern is irrelevant.

My argument does not really concern what I think but what the UK thinks (of Blair) and he is universally unpopular here. 

Edited June 24, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

10 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

My argument does not really concern what I think but what the UK thinks (of Blair) and he is universally unpopular here. 

No doubt. And to some extent he should be unpopular. But everybody is entitled to be credited for the good things they did.

[DieselDaisy]

9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

No doubt. And to some extent he should be unpopular. But everybody is entitled to be credited for the good things they did.

...and the bad things. Lies lies lies; ''sexed up dossiers''; 179 British servicemen dead; a war which has not alleviated the region.

[AtariLegend]

24 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

...and the bad things. Lies lies lies; ''sexed up dossiers''; 179 British servicemen dead; a war which has not alleviated the region.

What about the several hundred thousand dead Iraqis that no one ever talks about and the destabilising of an entire region with all that followed. Which is one of the many reasons we should have nothing to do with this US/Iran situation.

Just a reminder too that the right were begging for blood too. Most of the conservatives backed it. Gove is one of those that believes it was one of the best decisions this country has ever made.

The biggest contribution Blair could make to the remain debate is staying away for it.

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by AtariLegend

[Dazey]

26 minutes ago, AtariLegend said:

Just a reminder too that the right were begging for blood too. Most of the conservatives backed it. Gove is one of those that believes it was one of the best decisions this country has ever made.

Gove also married Sarah Vine so I think that his judgement is sketchy at best.  

[Graeme]

3 hours ago, AtariLegend said:

The biggest contribution Blair could make to the remain debate is staying away for it.

The biggest contribution Blair could make to human society is staying away from it.

[bucketfoot]

9 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Back in June 2016 they had no idea what they were voting for.

The question on the ballot paper was very clear, simply to Remain or Leave. Everything else is just noise whipped up by our EU-worshipping friends in a desperate attempt to undermine and ultimately overturn the result of a democratic vote. Make no mistake, in the event of another referendum, everything would be done to ensure a win for Remain.

It is a disgrace that a majority of people who voted in good faith for an outcome, may not see their decision respected and implemented because the other side are behaving like tantrum-throwing, spoilt brats.

 

 

[SoulMonster]

Just now, bucketfoot said:

The question on the ballot paper was very clear, simply to Remain or Leave. Everything else is just noise whipped up by our EU-worshipping friends in a desperate attempt to undermine and ultimately overturn the result of a democratic vote. Make no mistake, in the event of another referendum, everything would be done to ensure a win for Remain.

It is a disgrace that a majority of people who voted in good faith for an outcome, may not see their decision respected and implemented because the other side are behaving like tantrum-throwing, spoilt brats.

The reason you are still in the EU is not because "the other side behaving like a tantrum-throwing, spoilt brats" but because getting out of EU is a lot more difficult than what people were led to believe and because the leave side didn't have a good plan ready. Basically it is a massive clusterfuck.

And overturning the result of the vote would be to remain without a new referendum. Having a second referendum because people were duped and because things have changed now (you know a lot more about the costs of leaving) is as democratic as it can get. 

So let Boris (or whoever poor chap gets the job) try to come up with good terms for leaving and then let people vote on that well-defined scenario (and not a stupid 'leave' or 'remain'), then quickly do as the people wanted while the referendum result still has some legitimacy. If another 3-4 years passes before the will f the people is realized then another referendum is likely required.

This is as democratic as it gets. 

[DieselDaisy]

How could one quantifiably say, ''they had no idea what they were voting for''. It is impossible to determine. And it raises the question, how much information does one need to process before voting?

You could say, ''they had no idea what they were voting for'' in every general election conducted throughout history!

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

How could one quantifiably say, ''they had no idea what they were voting for''. It is impossible to determine. 

Still not getting the concept of statistical surveys, are you?

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

And it raises the question, how much information does one need to process before voting?

Exactly as much information as is obtained when an exit is fully negotiated so all costs and consequences are known as far as possible. 

[DieselDaisy]

But all of this is academic anyway as they'll be no second vote, as,

 

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

Still not getting the concept of statistical surveys, are you?

A statistical survey cannot determine the motivations and knowledge of 33,577,342 who voted in the 2016 Referendum.

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Exactly as much information as is obtained when an exit is fully negotiated so all costs and consequences are known as far as possible. 

The costs and consequences are well known, and have been discussed at length. 

[DieselDaisy]

3 hours ago, Dazey said:

Gove also married Sarah Vine so I think that his judgement is sketchy at best.  

With looks like his, he could have had all the fanny he desired also,

[DieselDaisy]

You know all sanity has departed,

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/9366099/itv-victoria-bbc-retire-dads-army-brexit/

PS

 

Edited June 25, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

10 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

A statistical survey cannot determine the motivations and knowledge of 33,577,342 who voted in the 2016 Referendum.

The costs and consequences are well known, and have been discussed at length. 

Heh, that is exactly what statistics are for  

Election results are perishable. They come with an expiry date. The more time that passes the less relevant they are. Because things change, people change, context changes, the outside world changes, we learn and understand more, and our perspective changes. That's why we have standard elections where citizens can vote on cabinet members, prime ministers, etc, every fourth year or so. It's been three years since the 2016 referendum now, and politicians have still not been able to execute the will of the people. And since then I am sure the Brits have learnt a lot. About the consequences of leaving. That they were lied to. What the costs will be. Closing in on four years. If we elect our politicians every four years it only makes sense to go through a new referendum/vote when the results of the negotiations are clear, especially since, in contrast to politicians being elected, leaving the EU is a permanent thing and there will be no do-overs. It is only the democratic thing to do.

[DieselDaisy]

3 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Heh, that is exactly what statistics are for  

Election results are perishable. They come with an expiry date. The more time that passes the less relevant they are. Because things change, people change, context changes, the outside world changes, we learn and understand more, and our perspective changes. That's why we have standard elections where citizens can vote on cabinet members, prime ministers, etc, every fourth year or so. It's been three years since the 2016 referendum now, and politicians have still not been able to execute the will of the people. And since then I am sure the Brits have learnt a lot. About the consequences of leaving. That they were lied to. What the costs will be. Closing in on four years. If we elect our politicians every four years it only makes sense to go through a new referendum/vote when the results of the negotiations are clear, especially since, in contrast to politicians being elected, leaving the EU is a permanent thing and there will be no do-overs. It is only the democratic thing to do.

What, you can determine that 33 million people ''didn't know what they were voting for'' in 2016, and determine that furthermore by the usage of statistics? 

What is it we were lied to about?

The United Kingdom, like most countries, isn't a direct plebiscitary democracy so the rest of your post is nonsensical.  

[SoulMonster]

20 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

What, you can determine that 33 million people ''didn't know what they were voting for'' in 2016, and determine that furthermore by the usage of statistics? 

Using statistics you can determine how many out of 33 million didn't know what they were voting for, yes. You just need to talk to a statistically representative set. You really ought to learn some statistics, this pops up too frequently in our discussions. You really suffer from it.

22 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

What is it we were lied to about?

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-lies-austerity-conservatives-immigration-financial-crisis-racism-neoliberalism-a8929986.html

Quote

The first lie was austerity. Politicians, but also the media, told us the government had to cut spending to prevent another financial disaster. Most economists disagreed with this theory. There was never even a chance of a financial crisis in the years after 2010, and even when that became clear to everyone, austerity continued. I estimate the average household lost resources worth £10,000 as a result of this disastrous policy, and many suffered much more than the average.

The second lie had two components, and together they led to the Conservatives’ victory in the 2015 general election. The first was that the Labour government had been profligate before the crisis. A simple look at the data shows this to be untrue. The second was that the economy was strong. In reality we had the slowest recovery in centuries and an unprecedented decline in real wages.

The third lie was that immigration, rather than austerity, was responsible for those falling wages and reduced access to public services. The Conservative Party and their supporters in the press had started pushing this lie during the Labour government. Under the 2010 coalition, the lie was embodied in immigration targets that were never met. This helped create a public view that controlling immigration was important but because of freedom of movement, the goal was impossible to achieve.

23 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The United Kingdom, like most countries, isn't a direct plebiscitary democracy so the rest of your post is nonsensical.  

Heh. You hold general election every four year for something as transient as which politicians should be in charge yet you complain if you have to have a new referendum 3-4 after the previous when something as permanent as leaving the EU is at stake. Noooo, apparently your type of democracy is one where general elections for parliament are held frequently yet referendums re: leaving the EU is only a one-time thing!

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Heh. You hold general election every four year for something as transient as which politicians should be in charge yet you complain if you have to have a new referendum 3-4 after the previous when something as permanent as leaving the EU is at stake. Noooo, apparently your type of democracy is one where general elections for parliament are held frequently yet referendums re: leaving the EU is only a one-time thing!

And now you understand!

 

[SoulMonster]

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

And now you understand!

You happily embrace things that make no sense because you just so desperately want to get out of EU.

There is no logic behind the position that referendums and the results thereof must be permanent while accepting that when it comes to general elections these should be done frequently. But then again you have a history of discarding logic and consistency when the outcome suits you. Whereas to most others being consistent, logical and rational is in itself a virtue.

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

You happily embrace things that make no sense because you just so desperately want to get out of EU.

There is no logic behind the position that referendums and the results thereof must be permanent while accepting that when it comes to general elections these should be done frequently. But then again you have a history of discarding logic and consistency when the outcome suits you. Whereas to most others being consistent, logical and rational is in itself a virtue.

You don't seem to grasp how rare referenda are in British politics. There have been only three nationally! They are generally not things you re-run every few years, ''between world cups'', but ''once in a lifetime'' rarities.  

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

You don't seem to grasp how rare referenda are in British politics. There have been only three nationally! They are generally not things you re-run every few years, ''between world cups'', but ''once in a lifetime'' rarities.  

Irrelevant.