British Politics

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

This is more and more a thing too.  What with people getting their info about the world from mad ranting arseholes on youtube with an axe to grind, there's a shitload of disinformation about and mainstream politics is no difference but thats always been your own look out hasn't it, being able to differentiate the bollocks from the slightly less bollocks that has a bit of a point and then taking that option. 

But people couldn't possibly know what the outcome of a Brexit would be, because negotiations with the EU hadn't started. There was simply no way an informed referendum could be held back in 2016 (or whenever it was). Now the two alternatives are starting to condense and now there people can have an informed opinion. Back in 22016 it was just vague ideologies and hopes.

[Len Cnut]

10 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

But people couldn't possibly know what the outcome of a Brexit would be, because negotiations with the EU hadn't started. There was simply no way an informed referendum could be held back in 2016 (or whenever it was). Now the two alternatives are starting to condense and now there people can have an informed opinion. Back in 22016 it was just vague ideologies and hopes.

So then you pay the freight and you end up where you end up, thats life, you can't really blame that on anyone but yourself.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

You got it all wrong. The point is not that the public should reach some kind of level of understanding, but to make sure that the decision to stay or remain is in accordance with whatever the public currently think. 

So IF there is reason to believe that opinion has shifted, and people now want to remain, then it would not be democratic to go ahead with Brexit. The problem is of course that Brexit didn't happen two years ago, then it would have been all good...or rather, that a referendum was held before the public really knew what they were voting against or for.

On the other hand, if people still want to leave, then of course Brexit it is. And no one would complain about the procedure (except those that think a simple majority vote is not enough for such a drastic change of course, and would have preferred a 2/3 majority).

Doesn't matter if they have changed their opinion. A thorough poll could reveal any shift in opinion, and then be the basis for whether a new referendum should be held. 

But where do you draw the line?

What would happen if there is evidence of further shifts of opinion in say 3 years' time, 5 years', 10 years', etc.? Do you just re-run the referendum according to perceived changes of public opinion?

The 2016 Referendum was campaigned by both Europhiles and Brexiteers alike as an, ''once in a lifetime'' or ''once in a generation'' thing. That would be it. There would be no further referenda. Re-running it makes a mockery of that, and a mockery of our democracy. 

If I was a remainer, which I'm not but for sake of argument, I'd have accepted the 52% mandate. ''Well, it wouldn't be my opinion but the people have spoken''. 

[SoulMonster]

The last referendum really should have been about whether the UK government should explore the two alternatives of leaving and staying, and then present these alternatives with their consequences to the public before a new referendum about which of the alternatives to take. 

 

[Len Cnut]

And all this stuff about not knowing the options, when you don't know the options you play it safe, vote Remain, cuz you know what Remains like to some degree, we've been in the EU long enough, its what you got already.  But if you wanna fuckin' roll the dice on the star prize don't piss and moan when it turns out to be a lump of coal. 

Edited January 17, 2019 by Len Cnut

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

But where do you draw the line?

What would happen if there is evidence of further shifts of opinion in say 3 years' time, 5 years', 10 years', etc.? Do you just re-run the referendum according to perceived changes of public opinion?

The 2016 Referendum was campaigned by both Europhiles and Brexiteers alike as an, ''once in a lifetime'' or ''once in a generation'' thing. That would be it. There would be no further referenda. Re-running it makes a mockery of that, and a mockery of our democracy. 

If I was a remainer, which I'm not but for sake of argument, I'd have accepted the 52% mandate. ''Well, it wouldn't be my opinion but the people have spoken''. 

You didn't get my point. This ISN'T about the people being more knowledgeable, but about people having changed their opinion.

If people shift their opinion post-Brexit, it is too late. The referendum isn't final, Brexit is.

And I don't care how it was campaigned.

And of course you should have accepted 52 % to leave IN 2016, now, in 2019, given that this has changed and people now want to remain, then you should accept that too and not just point to them wanting it differebtly two years ago. That is not democratic. In a democracy people are allowed to change their position.

 

[SoulMonster]

7 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

So then you pay the freight and you end up where you end up, thats life, you can't really blame that on anyone but yourself.

Of course the Brits only have themselves to blame

But stubbornly going ahead with a result of a referendum that it now out-dated, serves no purpose except to punish the people for their past idiocy.

[Len Cnut]

9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

You didn't get my point. This ISN'T about the people being more knowledgeable, but about people having changed their opinion.

If people shift their opinion post-Brexit, it is too late. The referendum isn't final, Brexit is.

And I don't care how it was campaigned.

And of course you should have accepted 52 % to leave IN 2016, now, in 2019, given that this has changed and people now want to remain, then you should accept that too and not just point to them wanting it differebtly two years ago. That is not democratic. In a democracy people are allowed to change their position.

 

Certain shit though you don't get to fuckin' back track on.  There is a lot involved in leaving the EU, you can't just wake up on morning, lose your bottle and expect everything to be like it was before you fucked yourself up, life doesn't work like that, my fuckin' opinion on bets I make changes the day after the result when I realise I picked a shitter, I can't go back to William Hill and go 'oh let us off mate, I've changed my mind'.  Regardless of whether or not you care about how it is campaigned when something is presented as a one shot thing you can't just flip flop cuz your arse went. 

10 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

The perception the Russian people have of Putin is based on bullshit, ignorance and desperation. Desperation the West has helped create for them sadly. Putin is KGB and a judo expert so there's an element of truth to his bravado image but he's a lying, thieving, murdering, dictator. The Russian people being drawn to him due to their circumstances and lack of understanding does not legitimize Putin it condemns him.

I wouldn't know fella.

10 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Of course the Brits only have themselves to blame

But stubbornly going ahead with a result of a referendum that it now out-dated, serves no purpose except to punish the people for their past idiocy.

So it just becomes an ad infinitum process then?  What if later they want another referendum?  Just keep fuckin' doin' it and doin' it and doin' it and drawing up plans and scrapping plans and setting up EU conferences and blah blah blah blah based on the capricious nature of Britains population and their various whims? 

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

You didn't get my point. This ISN'T about the people being more knowledgeable, but about people having changed their opinion.

If people shift their opinion post-Brexit, it is too late. The referendum isn't final, Brexit is.

And I don't care how it was campaigned.

And of course you should have accepted 52 % to leave IN 2016, now, in 2019, given that this has changed and people now want to remain, then you should accept that too and not just point to them wanting it differebtly two years ago. That is not democratic. In a democracy people are allowed to change their position.

 

I see no convincing evidence that people have changed, and even if it has, how does one go about determining the tides of public opinion? Do you expect the government to implicate referenda based upon newspaper opinion polls?

You have to remember that Britain has been one of the most Euroskeptic countries for a lot longer than the 2016 Referendum. We were not an original founder in 1957, only joining in 1973 (having been vetoed twice by de Gaulle in the '60s). We do not belong to the Eurozone. Euroskepticism has always been prevalent here, not only among the right but also the hard left. 

[DieselDaisy]

Why am I writing sceptic with a k?

[Len Cnut]

9 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Why am I writing sceptic with a k?

Cuz you're into Grime and you been listenin' to Skepta all morning?

[SoulMonster]

6 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

So it just becomes an ad infinitum process then?  What if later they want another referendum?  Just keep fuckin' doin' it and doin' it and doin' it and drawing up plans and scrapping plans and setting up EU conferences and blah blah blah blah based on the capricious nature of Britains population and their various whims? 

I think two mistakes were made:

1) The alternatives weren't properly presented. People didn't really know what they were voting for, or more precisely what the outcomes would be.

2) Brexit didn't happen immediately after the referendum. People have simply had time to change their opinion.

If the alternatives were properly presented, and things happened immediately, then a Brexit would be final. There wouldn't be new referendums in an ad infinitum process, because leaving the EU is in principle an unchangeable event. If the decision was to remain, though, then yes, new referendums could happen as people change their opinion. That's democracy. People must be allowed to change their opinion, either because they feel they know better or because the world changes.

This is analogues to Norway. We have had two referendum to JOIN the EU. I expect we will have more in the future as the public opinion sways towards "join". And that is how it should be. Nothing is finite.

 

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

Cuz you're into Grime and you been listenin' to Skepta all morning?

I was just accepting the computer's Yanky ways. I wasn't even aware the Yanks wrote it that way. 

[Len Cnut]

9 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

"I wouldn't know fella." - @Len Cnut

Okay. 

 

What, its true   He can't be much worse than what ol' Charlie Big Bollocks England has got goin' on right now.

[SoulMonster]

7 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I see no convincing evidence that people have changed, and even if it has, how does one go about determining the tides of public opinion? Do you expect the government to implicate referenda based upon newspaper opinion polls?

A statistical survey with a large representative number of people asked, so no, no newspaper poll And yes, OF CORSE governments lets their policies be affected by statistics 

[Len Cnut]

Quote

1) The alternatives weren't properly presented. People didn't really know what they were voting for, or more precisely what the outcomes would be.

But they couldn't've been properly presented by your own admission cuz no sod knew one way or the other right?

Quote

2) Brexit didn't happen immediately after the referendum. People have simply had time to change their opinion.

Brexit couldn't happen that quickly anyway could it, you have to set up a framework etc as they've been attempting to now.

Quote

If the alternatives were properly presented, and things happened immediately, then a Brexit would be final. There wouldn't be new referendums in an ad infinitum process, because leaving the EU is in principle an unchangeable event. If the decision was to remain, though, then yes, new referendums could happen as people change their opinion. That's democracy. People must be allowed to change their opinion, either because they feel they know better or because the world changes.

I don't get the 'properly presented' argument.  In any situation where you have options there's a right one and a wrong one...or a less wrong one than the other one, 'properly presented', every campaign since the concept began involved lies, its up to you the voter to use your loaf and work out which one is the right one, thats about the size of it, they are presented in a way to make the shit look attractive to you, is this a revelation or has this always been the way, that a great deal of campaigns are full of shit, its down to what the voter agrees or disagrees with.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

A statistical survey with a large representative number of people asked, so no, no newspaper poll And yes, OF CORSE governments lets their policies be affected by statistics 

Conducted by the government or the state? Surely that would be just a referendum? 

You have to remember that referenda are very rare and constitutionally unique in British politics. There have only been three national referenda (1975/2011/2016). We are not a plebiscitary democracy.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Len Cnut said:

But they couldn't've been properly presented by your own admission cuz no sod knew one way or the other right?

Brexit couldn't happen that quickly anyway could it, you have to set up a framework etc as they've been attempting to now.

I don't get the 'properly presented' argument.  In any situation where you have options there's a right one and a wrong one...or a less wrong one than the other one, 'properly presented', every campaign since the concept began involved lies, its up to you the voter to use your loaf and work out which one is the right one, thats about the size of it, they are presented in a way to make the shit look attractive to you, is this a revelation or has this always been the way, that a great deal of campaigns are full of shit, its down to what the voter agrees or disagrees with.

Hence why the first referendum should have been about exploring the alternatives and present them to the public. Then the second referendum would be based on clear alternatives, and whatever decision made would be executed upon immediately.

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Conducted by the government or the state? Surely that would be just a referendum? 

You have to remember that referenda are very rare and constitutionally unique in British politics. There have only been three national referenda (1975/2011/2016). We are not a plebiscitary democracy.

No, a referendum gives every citizen the possibility to voice their opinion and it dictates the course of politicians. It is rather expensive. A statistical survey is based on letting a representative number of citizens voice their opinion.

You don't have a bureau of statistic in the UK? An organization that is responsible for collecting data on everything that happens? And set up to perform objective surveys?

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

No, a referendum gives every citizen the possibility to voice their opinion and it dictates the course of politicians. It is rather expensive. A statistical survey is based on letting a representative number of citizens voice their opinion.

You don't have a bureau of statistic in the UK? An organization that is responsible for collecting data on everything that happens? And set up to perform objective surveys?

Statistics, yes, but it is not common for the British state to conduct its own opinion polls.

Opinion polls I should add are generally conducted by independent market research such as Yougov or Newspapers, the latter naturally carrying the biases of the newspaper along with it. By the way these polls completely got the 2015 and 2017 General Elections wrong (remember the ''hung Parliament/coalition'' bollocks?). 

Edited January 17, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[Len Cnut]

Quote

Hence why the first referendum should have been about exploring the alternatives and present them to the public.

How'd you mean?

Y'know what it is mate, the country got fuckin' blagged.  They got taken for a fuckin' ride by your Nigel Farages and your Tommy Robinsons and your Katie Hopkinses and all these fuckin' snakes that are so obviously fuckin' snakes that you can see the trail of slime they leave behind em...and a lot of it is to do with not being able to stand the sight of fuckin' wogs.  Here's how fuckin' ignorant some of this shit was right, for a miniscule little example for ya, I know a bricklayer called Harry, this fuckin' bloke, politically speaking, don't know his arsehole from a bowl of Rice Krispies right and I ain't tryna give it cuz neither do i but I didn't do what follows, this geezer goes out, gets his wife out, sister out, 5 kids out and they all go and vote leave and I've seen him afterwards and gone 'so why'd you do that?' and he goes 'fuckin' Romanians innit, it'll be good to get rid of em, they undercut every builder in Romford'...and this cunt ain't hard up, he ain't on his arse, got a nice house, comfortable little life for as much as someone on his rung of the social ladder can get and what, he voted leave because he's seen a few fuckin' Romanians on buildings sites...and I'm willing to bet that this is the level upon which a great deal of this shit was conducted.

But thats it, democracy in action, we as a populus, if we're fuckin' thick, we're gonna get the just desserts of fuckin' thick people.

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Statistics, yes, but it is not common for the British state to conduct its own opinion polls.

I think there is a good case that they should do it now, because it would be silly to go on with Brexit if it has little support in the population.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

I think there is a good case that they should do it now, because it would be silly to go on with Brexit if it has little support in the population.

So you want a sort of non-binding/mini referendum in order to ascertain whether the leave vote has shifted to remain? If it has you'd then have a nationwide referendum? 

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Len Cnut said:

How'd you mean?

Y'know what it is mate, the country got fuckin' blagged.  They got taken for a fuckin' ride by your Nigel Farages and your Tommy Robinsons and your Katie Hopkinses and all these fuckin' snakes that are so obviously fuckin' snakes that you can see the trail of slime they leave behind em...and a lot of it is to do with not being able to stand the sight of fuckin' wogs.  Here's how fuckin' ignorant some of this shit was right, for a miniscule little example for ya, I know a bricklayer called Harry, this fuckin' bloke, politically speaking, don't know his arsehole from a bowl of Rice Krispies right and I ain't tryna give it cuz neither do i but I didn't do what follows, this geezer goes out, gets his wife out, sister out, 5 kids out and they all go and vote leave and I've seen him afterwards and gone 'so why'd you do that?' and he goes 'fuckin' Romanians innit, it'll be good to get rid of em, they undercut every builder in Romford'...and this cunt ain't hard up, he ain't on his arse, got a nice house, comfortable little life for as much as someone on his rung of the social ladder can get and what, he voted leave because he's seen a few fuckin' Romanians on buildings sites...and I'm willing to bet that this is the level upon which a great deal of this shit was conducted.

But thats it, democracy in action, we as a populus, if we're fuckin' thick, we're gonna get the just desserts of fuckin' thick people.

A mandate to the government basically telling them to do what they have been doing for the last few years, which is to explore what the outcome of a Brexit would be in practical terms. Sure, it is not an ideal process, but a lot of the groundwork would then have been done and so, after the second referendum people want to leave, then a Brexit could realistically happen so quickly that people wouldn't change their minds (it would also be less likely because they would be voting on more detailed alternatives).

I don't agree that people should be punished severely for changing their opinions.

[Len Cnut]

Quote

A mandate to the government basically telling them to do what they have been doing for the last few years, which is to explore what the outcome of a Brexit would be in practical terms. Sure, it is not an ideal process, but a lot of the groundwork would then have been done and so, after the second referendum people want to leave, then a Brexit could realistically happen so quickly that people wouldn't change their minds (it would also be less likely because they would be voting on more detailed alternatives).

And you'd just get a bunch of manipulated results and/or funny interpretations of the shit to suit whatever shit the party in question wanted to shovel.  I agree though that you're right in what you are saying, it certainly seems a sensible approach but you're kinda assuming that the presenters of this info are gonna be straight up honest people that give it to you like it is and if they were that kind of people we wouldn't be in the situation we're in now cuz it would've been these same cunts we've got now dealing out the hand so what difference would it make?  But yeah, i like that, as an idea, certainly seems sensible.  Fact finding and that.