British Politics

[downzy]

1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

Its a bit more than a marketing slogan though is it, it was a statement regarding the nature of the referendum, you can't just diffuse that by calling it marketing, by that rationale can anyone rightly aim their arrows at the misinformation or alleged misinformation, you could just turn around and say 'well that was all marketing'. 

Not really.  Referendums have no legal basis.  They're simply just a poll.  It's why it takes a vote in Parliament to make something law.  

And as I stated, the nature of the referendum was made on now what appears to be false premises.  The choice presented by the pro-leave campaign was to leave but have access to the European market or to stay.  With the defeat of May's negotiated soft-Brexit plan, that seems far less likely.  

Both sides used false arguments to stay.  The stay side cooked up job reports that were highly untrue.  But it still doesn't change the fact that what faces Britain now isn't the future that was presented in the referendum.  

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, downzy said:

What?  We don't know until we leave?  We know for absolute certainty that closing off Europe's market to England will disrupt the English economy, with a high likelihood of having severe negative consequences for some time.  We don't know how far from the cliff to the water the jump would be, but we do know it's a cliff and the landing is going to hurt regardless.

There are really a lot of arguments and speculations floating around and we don't know the eventual outcome irrespective. Some cite the UK's renewed ability to negotiate independent trade deals as a positive; indeed Commonwealth countries were shafted when the United Kingdom joined in 1973. Hard Brexiteers desire a Canada Deal whereby we'd have a negotiated free trade deal. 

3 minutes ago, downzy said:

Certainly there are areas in England that will vote to leave regardless, but we don't limit referendums to certain areas of a country that pertain to the entire country.  So because your particular county would repeat its vote to stay that should fuck everyone else?  I grant that there are a large portion of people that voted to leave for reasons that have nothing to do with the arguments presented by the leave side.  

There are actually geographic areas that are larger than where I live with a greater leave vote, so it cannot very well be said we (North East of England) are dragging anyone along - besides, we have a paltry demographic! The Midlands' voted for leave was actually to a greater extent than the North East. Individual constituencies elsewhere are larger leave constituencies than the constituencies where I live. The fishing argument actually effects the entirety of constituencies with a coastline, all home nations, which is a lot of constituencies seeing that we are an island-maritime nation.

9 minutes ago, downzy said:

But is that a majority?  If those arguments are no longer relative or applicable, shouldn't the matter be brought up to another vote?

I suspect people voted for all manner of reason. As I said, Britain has been consistently the most Eurosceptic country since we joined in 1973. The French and Germans even used to complain about it, ''Britain...doesn't know whether she is in Europe or out''. ''Europe'' has split one (of two) of our major parties since we joined the EEC down the middle; Euroscepticism was also rife among the hard-left, Benn, Skinner, (hitherto) Corbyn; and yes, among the far-right. It is not as if we pulled all of this ''leave'' stuff out of our arse in 2016, believing some gibberish on a bus.

13 minutes ago, downzy said:

 The case was made to leave the EU but still have access to the continental market.

The question was quite simple: ''should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union? (Remain/Leave)''.

[SoulMonster]

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The question was quite simple: ''should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union? (Remain/Leave)''.

It is such a silly question because it is obvious the answer is "depends….". It depends on what the consequences are of remaining and of leaving. And these consequences are first now starting to be clear to people. Hence people might be changing their opinion. Or rather, people have a more informed opinion now. 

Edited January 17, 2019 by SoulMonster

[DieselDaisy]

23 minutes ago, downzy said:

Not really.  Referendums have no legal basis.  They're simply just a poll.  It's why it takes a vote in Parliament to make something law.  

And as I stated, the nature of the referendum was made on now what appears to be false premises.  The choice presented by the pro-leave campaign was to leave but have access to the European market or to stay.  With the defeat of May's negotiated soft-Brexit plan, that seems far less likely.  

Both sides used false arguments to stay.  The stay side cooked up job reports that were highly untrue.  But it still doesn't change the fact that what faces Britain now isn't the future that was presented in the referendum.  

Before the referendum the Cameron government published an official guide, my italics,

Quote

 

 It’s your opportunity to decide if the UK remains in the European Union (EU).

It’s a big decision. One that will affect you, your family 

...

A once in a generation decision

The referendum on Thursday, 23 June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union.

The government believes it is in the best interests of the UK to remain in the EU.

This is the way to protect jobs, provide security, and strengthen the UK’s economy for every family in this country – a clear path into the future, in contrast to the uncertainty of leaving.

This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk

[SoulMonster]

I really don't understand why it matters what was said. If the majority now want to remain, then people shouldn't be bound to lies presented by a previous government. That is just stupid. Of course, I do understand why you keep harping on this, Dies, because you want to leave, after all.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

I really don't understand why it matters what was said. If the majority now want to remain, then people shouldn't be bound to lies presented by a previous government. That is just stupid. Of course, I do understand why you keep harping on this, Dies, because you want to leave, after all.

And I understand why you (et al.) say things like ''lies'' and produce a post-Brexit picture of doom and gloom, because you are pro-EU. It is a prevalent remain argument to produce a Brexit future of Armageddon. It is fitting with the remain argument, of a complete reliance on the EU for British prosperity.

The battle lines are obvious.

 

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

And I understand why you (et al.) say things like ''lies'' and produce a post-Brexit picture of doom and gloom, because you are pro-EU. It is a prevalent remain argument to produce a Brexit future of Armageddon. It is fitting with the remain argument, of a complete reliance on the EU for British prosperity.

The battle lines are obvious.

I don't think I have ever argued why UK should remain. I certainly think the UK is better off within the EU, but then again I don't really have such a huge problems with immigration nor the English fisheries having to adopt to modern times. 

Anyway, my argument now is simply that in a proper democracy one shouldn't hang on to referenda that might be outdated. That really isn't an argument for or against Brexit. It is an argument for democracy. If Brexit had happened immediately after the referendum, then all would be good and UK would be out for a long time. But now, a long time after, especially with people being more informed, one should find out what people think before one goes through with Brexit. One simply cannot do something with such huge consequences based on what people thought before.

[downzy]

48 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

There are really a lot of arguments and speculations floating around and we don't know the eventual outcome irrespective. Some cite the UK's renewed ability to negotiate independent trade deals as a positive; indeed Commonwealth countries were shafted when the United Kingdom joined in 1973. Hard Brexiteers desire a Canada Deal whereby we'd have a negotiated free trade deal. 

Independent trade deals usually take years to negotiate.  They don't get made overnight.  The last trade deal Canada had with Europe (CETA) began in 2008 and wasn't agreed to and signed by member parties until 2014 (and it still hasn't been ratified by all member states, though for all intent and purposes it's in effect).  In the mean time trade between England and other nations will get bogged down in tariffs and regulations.  Also, think about how England will be scrambling and will be in a much weaker position to set terms of the deal, particularly the first few deals it sets with each country.

If anyone thinks a hard Brexit won't be a disaster for the British economy they are deluded.

Quote

There are actually geographic areas that are larger than where I live with a greater leave vote, so it cannot very well be said we (North East of England) are dragging anyone along - besides, we have a paltry demographic! The Midlands' voted for leave was actually to a greater extent than the North East. Individual constituencies elsewhere are larger leave constituencies than the constituencies where I live. The fishing argument actually effects the entirety of constituencies with a coastline, all home nations, which is a lot of constituencies seeing that we are an island-maritime nation.

You're missing the point.  It doesn't matter how certain regions voted.  The fact remains that 52 percent of those voted made a choice that is not going to be possible without major disruption in the short to medium term.  The were sold a bill of goods that won't be materializing.  It's possible that many of those leave regions of the country might change their vote considering the new realties presented to them.

Also, I looked into what kind of reality UK fishers would have following a hard Brexit.  There's a case it wouldn't be much better, and possibly worse, should a hard Brexit happen:

https://www.ft.com/content/84f51c84-5fe2-11e7-91a7-502f7ee26895

It appears that much of the fish that British fishers catch isn't in British waters.  Britain would need to negotiate new deals with countries like Ireland and Norway.  Otherwise they'll likely deplete domestic stocks that have recovered since the 80s.  Britain also exports more fish than it imports, which would likely result in high tariffs on British fish by neighbouring countries, negating some of the positives derived from more domestic control of fishing policies. 

Quote

I suspect people voted for all manner of reason. As I said, Britain has been consistently the most Eurosceptic country since we joined in 1973. The French and Germans even used to complain about it, ''Britain...doesn't know whether she is in Europe or out''. ''Europe'' has split one (of two) of our major parties since we joined the EEC down the middle; Euroscepticism was also rife among the hard-left, Benn, Skinner, (hitherto) Corbyn; and yes, among the far-right. It is not as if we pulled all of this ''leave'' stuff out of our arse in 2016, believing some gibberish on a bus.

While there is certainly a healthy amount of Euroskepticism within England, let's not pretend that the refugee crisis stemming from Syria and Northern Africa didn't elevate this issue far above its normal place in British political discourse.  

Quote

The question was quite simple: ''should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union? (Remain/Leave)''.

Yes, that was the question, but the leave side framed it in a manner that British people will get all of the advantages of leaving and none of the drawbacks.  Most were told that Britain would sever its political ties to Europe but keep its economic ties in tact.  As I've said, that reality no longer seems to be the case.  So the context has changed and hence the decision should be brought to the voters again under no false impressions that the country gets to keep its economic ties to the continent and all the benefits it derives from it.  

34 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I really don't understand why it matters what was said. If the majority now want to remain, then people shouldn't be bound to lies presented by a previous government. That is just stupid. Of course, I do understand why you keep harping on this, Dies, because you want to leave, after all.

Exactly.  

Let's continue the path of economic suicide because of the semantics used by a half-wit politician who thought calling a referendum on the matter as a good political move.  

It's mindbogglingly nuts.  

[DieselDaisy]

29 minutes ago, downzy said:

Independent trade deals usually take years to negotiate.  They don't get made overnight.  The last trade deal Canada had with Europe (CETA) began in 2008 and wasn't agreed to and signed by member parties until 2014 (and it still hasn't been ratified by all member states, though for all intent and purposes it's in effect).  In the mean time trade between England and other nations will get bogged down in tariffs and regulations.  Also, think about how England will be scrambling and will be in a much weaker position to set terms of the deal, particularly the first few deals it sets with each country.

You're assuming a no deal. Only the most hard of Brexiteers advocate such.

This is all true and I think we'll take an initial hit in the event of a no deal, as would the EU, the benefits transpiring later. 

29 minutes ago, downzy said:

Quote

 

You're missing the point.  It doesn't matter how certain regions voted.  The fact remains that 52 percent of those voted made a choice that is not going to be possible without major disruption in the short to medium term.  The were sold a bill of goods that won't be materializing.  It's possible that many of those leave regions of the country might change their vote considering the new realties presented to them.

But what is your basis of this? From daily conversations in my area I would go as far to say a hardening of attitudes from leavers around leave (and yes, remainers around remain). The £39 million divorce bill, alongside certain Anglophobic mutterings of Tusk, Junker (et al.), is particularly inflammatory in this regard. I cannot say for certain that this is isolated to my area. I do not think it is. Soul wants some weird mini referendum to ascertain whether or not leave has drifted towards remain, which I think is nonsensical. As I formally said, another dominant trend - and I think most British people can agree here - is Brexit fatigue. Britain is fed up of Brexit. Britain could even be apathetic about Brexit, a process which does not seem to have an end in sight (if they extend article 50)! How is this interpreted as evidence of a seismic change from leave to remain? A second referendum would only increase Brexit fatigue.

Heck, even Farage was open to a second referendum (he only would do that if he thinks leave will win again)!

We could just be pissing away £130 million for the exact same outcome!

I really think you are deliberately devaluing the 2016 referendum by portraying it as mere market research with some affiliated slogans about perpetuity, and compounding it with the leave campaign (NB., the Cameron government advocated remain as you will see in their official guide)! The government pledged to enact the results of the referendum! This referendum passed the Commons 544-53! True, not technically binding, but this referendum had a much greater seriousness than you portray. 

I've discussed the fisheries thing before, sufficing to say that a lot of people hate the EU where I live because of the Common Fisheries Policy, and will continue to hate the EU because of the Common Fisheries Policy. It is a bit like the miners and Thatcher; you can argue the positives of Thatcher's policies until you are blue in the face, shutting down a moribund industry and creating wealth in the public sector etc etc, but it is because it is. What do people expect? 

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

Soul wants some weird mini referendum to ascertain whether or not leave has drifted towards remain, which I think is nonsensical. 

Again, I don't want anything. I couldn't really care less about what you Brits do, except that I kind of like you and wish you all the best. What I am saying is that it makes sense to gauge what the public thinks before going along with a Brexit, since it's been two years and there's a fair chance people have changed their minds. I mean, you don't just play democracy, do you? If people have actually changed their minds on this then it is downright moronic to not acknowledge that and instead stubbornly hold on to referendum that doesn't reflect what people actually want. And neither "people must be punished for getting it wrong two years ago" or "but Cameron's words are binding so now we have to go along with something we don't want!" makes sense to me. If people don't want a Brexit (today) then don't fucking do it This is not brain surgery, it is just democracy. 

And this gauging of the public opinion doesn't happen in "some weird mini referendum", but through a normal statistical survey  I mean, I get you don't know much about statistics and science and stuff and have no idea how a survey works and how it differs from a referendum (a poll versus a vote), but one would like to think I wouldn't have to repeat myself so much (but I guess that's the difference between being ignorant and being stupid). One would like to think you'd spent some time reading up on representative surveys, trying to understand how one can confidently assess what the public wants from questioning a representative sample, instead of making a fool of yourself again.

And your argument that a second referendum shouldn't happen because it would cost £ 130 million (or 94 ) is just silly considering the economic effects of Brexit is likely be much, much, much, much, much, much, much severe. Those 130 million are rather negligible in the broader picture. 

Edited January 17, 2019 by SoulMonster

[DieselDaisy]

28 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Again, I don't want anything. I couldn't really care less about what you Brits do, except that I kind of like you and wish you all the best. What I am saying is that it makes sense to gauge what the public thinks before going along with a Brexit, since it's been two years and there's a fair chance people have changed their minds. I mean, you don't just play democracy, do you? If people have actually changed their minds on this then it is downright moronic to not acknowledge that and instead stubbornly hold on to referendum that doesn't reflect what people actually want. And neither "people must be punished for getting it wrong two years ago" or "but Cameron's words are binding so now we have to go along with something we don't want!" makes sense to me. If people don't want a Brexit (today) then don't fucking do it This is not brain surgery, it is just democracy. 

And this gauging of the public opinion doesn't happen in "some weird mini referendum", but through a normal statistical survey  I mean, I get you don't know much about statistics and science and stuff and have no idea how a survey works and how it differs from a referendum (a poll versus a vote), but one would like to think I wouldn't have to repeat myself so much (but I guess that's the difference between being ignorant and being stupid). One would like to think you'd spent some time reading up on representative surveys, trying to understand how one can confidently assess what the public wants from questioning a representative sample, instead of making a fool of yourself again.

And your argument that a second referendum shouldn't happen because it would cost £ 130 million (or 94 ) is just silly considering the economic effects of Brexit is likely be much, much, much, much, much, much, much severe. Those 130 million are rather negligible in the broader picture. 

Again, what evidence is there that there is an altering of the mood for even your ''normal statistical survey'' least of all a second referendum? You say we're better informed? Who determines this? Arrogant piffle.

Ignoring the first ''once in a generation'' referendum presumably means the whole premise of holding a referendum is not worth the paper it is written on and this would also be the case for a second referendum. We would no longer believe ''once in a generation'' again - no government could ever use this line. Referenda, given that they're rare events, would be now reduced to the status of YouGov polls. Another aspect showing clearly that democracy would be undermined. Further, and again, where do you draw the line? I assume you're stopping at ''two referenda'' to determine Britain's relationship with the EU? Why not three? Why not four? Your logic would still hold up if, in ten years' time, having departed, some people thought Britons wanted to re-join the EU. ''Let's have a statistical survey followed by another referenda''. Taking your arguments to their logical conclusion, we'd become no longer a representative democracy but a plebiscitary democracy, a sort of 70 million version of Ancient Athens. 

We are tired of voting: since 2015 we've had two General Elections and one referenda - two if you're Scottish: that is 2015, 2014, 2016, 2017 in which the country has been faced with grave constitutional issues! At some stage representatives, i.e., elected Members of Parliament, have to do the job they're paid to do which would be to enact the results of the 52% majority of 2016.

Edited January 17, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[downzy]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

You're assuming a no deal. Only the most hard of Brexiteers advocate such.

That's true.  But that's kind of the point.  If the choice is between stay and a no deal Brexit, shouldn't that be brought to the voters to decide?

Do I think that's likely?  Probably not.  In all likelihood they'll push back the breakup date to give each side another kick at the can of negotiating a deal but also setting up the logistical nightmare should another deadline approach without a deal in place.  I've read plans that would convert the highways around Dover into parking lots that would handle the backup of shipments across the channel.  Both the EU and the UK would drastically need to ramp up their customs infrastructure and there's no way that happens in the next two months.  Both sides banked on a deal and it doesn't look like one is likely before the deadline.  

Quote

But what is your basis of this? From daily conversations in my area I would go as far to say a hardening of attitudes from leavers around leave (and yes, remainers around remain). The £39 million divorce bill, alongside certain Anglophobic mutterings of Tusk, Junker (et al.), is particularly inflammatory in this regard. I cannot say for certain that this is isolated to my area. I do not think it is. Soul wants some weird mini referendum to ascertain whether or not leave has drifted towards remain, which I think is nonsensical. As I formally said, another dominant trend - and I think most British people can agree here - is Brexit fatigue. Britain is fed up of Brexit. Britain could even be apathetic about Brexit, a process which does not seem to have an end in sight (if they extend article 50)! How is this interpreted as evidence of a seismic change from leave to remain? A second referendum would only increase Brexit fatigue.

The basis is the fact that many people vote to leave on the assumption that they'd still have access to the European market.  If that assumption goes away, how many truly want to leave?  

Quote

We could just be pissing away £130 million for the exact same outcome!

Peanuts compared to the costs of a hard Brexit.

Quote

I really think you are deliberately devaluing the 2016 referendum by portraying it as mere market research with some affiliated slogans about perpetuity, and compounding it with the leave campaign (NB., the Cameron government advocated remain as you will see in their official guide)! The government pledged to enact the results of the referendum! This referendum passed the Commons 544-53! True, not technically binding, but this referendum had a much greater seriousness than you portray. 

I do think referendums are important, but they shouldn't act as handcuffs.  Things change.  Some things play out while others do not.  It doesn't matter one bit that the stay side used silly hyperbole like "once in a generation."  Cameron was the idiot who thought calling a referendum to shut up people like Farage and Johnson was a smart play (even after almost losing the Scottish independence vote a few years earlier with the same tactic).  

Had the stay side one, I wouldn't begrudge Britain for re-evaluating their EU membership a year or two later if such a relationship was materially and overwhelmingly causing harm.  Assume a continental war broke out that obligated Britain to get involved in something they didn't want it to.  Should they be forced to stay simply because some nitwit a few years earlier called the referendum a once in a lifetime vote?  Absolutely not.

The government pledged to enact the results of the referendum, but that's not their highest priority as representatives of the people.  They highest calling is to do what's right for the country.  Blindly following an initial plan that would devastate the country is not responsible governance.  Assuming no deal can be had, legislators primary responsibility is to look out for their constituents and not honour a referendum that was decided on assumptions that didn't pan out.  As I said, hold another referendum now that the ground has shifted.  If a majority still want to take the plunge, so be it.  

Quote

I've discussed the fisheries thing before, sufficing to say that a lot of people hate the EU where I live because of the Common Fisheries Policy, and will continue to hate the EU because of the Common Fisheries Policy. It is a bit like the miners and Thatcher; you can argue the positives of Thatcher's policies until you are blue in the face, shutting down a moribund industry and creating wealth in the public sector etc etc, but it is because it is. What do people expect? 

That's fair.  Coal miners in the U.S. still think Trump's bringing coal back.  Sometimes people don't want to hear truth.  They just want someone to blame and foreign bureaucrats make for easy targets.  

[DieselDaisy]

35 minutes ago, downzy said:

That's fair.  Coal miners in the U.S. still think Trump's bringing coal back.  Sometimes people don't want to hear truth.  They just want someone to blame and foreign bureaucrats make for easy targets.

But there is more than a modicum of truth that the Common Fisheries Policy did negatively impact our fishing industry. Now there are various counter-arguments one could set forth such as,

- eco-sustainability 

- modernity, ditching an outdated industry

- etc.

And I do not wish to reprise this particular argument, but to expect these people to like the EU is absurd - and to question their cognizance whilst doing it moreso. If the EU hadn't destroyed their industry and livelihood they might have been a group who would've voted remain and that may have altered the outcome, but if you roger someone up the arse you can hardly expect them to vote for you in x number of years' time. Would you expect the Greeks to like the EU? Of course not. 

It is what it is.

Conversely, a studenty middle class globetrotter is probably more liable to vote EU because he has benefited from the European Union's Erasmus scheme. A company dealing with EU imports is more liable to vote EU because they belong to the EU's economic system.

[Dazey]

 

[SoulMonster]

10 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Again, what evidence is there that there is an altering of the mood for even your ''normal statistical survey'' least of all a second referendum? You say we're better informed? Who determines this? Arrogant piffle.

Ignoring the first ''once in a generation'' referendum presumably means the whole premise of holding a referendum is not worth the paper it is written on and this would also be the case for a second referendum. We would no longer believe ''once in a generation'' again - no government could ever use this line. Referenda, given that they're rare events, would be now reduced to the status of YouGov polls. Another aspect showing clearly that democracy would be undermined. Further, and again, where do you draw the line? I assume you're stopping at ''two referenda'' to determine Britain's relationship with the EU? Why not three? Why not four? Your logic would still hold up if, in ten years' time, having departed, some people thought Britons wanted to re-join the EU. ''Let's have a statistical survey followed by another referenda''. Taking your arguments to their logical conclusion, we'd become no longer a representative democracy but a plebiscitary democracy, a sort of 70 million version of Ancient Athens. 

We are tired of voting: since 2015 we've had two General Elections and one referenda - two if you're Scottish: that is 2015, 2014, 2016, 2017 in which the country has been faced with grave constitutional issues! At some stage representatives, i.e., elected Members of Parliament, have to do the job they're paid to do which would be to enact the results of the 52% majority of 2016.

It is reasonable to assume that popular opinion has shifted, thus a survey should be done, this survey results in evidence that may or may not substantiate the necessity of a new referendum.

The reasonable assumption comes from the fact that in these two years that have passed, a lot more information about a possible Brexit and its conditions have been revealed, which is likely to have affected the opinion of people.

And it is not arrogant to assume many Brits have altered their opinion on a Brexit during these two years. It is, on the other hand, arrogant, or ignorant, to think that this mess of a process and how Theresa May have struggled to obtain favorable conditions haven't swayed people in the direction of "remain".

And yes, I understand that your fishing pals may not have shifted their opinion because they bear this grudge that prevents them from doing what is best for them, but it is again reasonable to assume that there will be many Brits who aren't bound by old grudges and will be able to vote for what is best for them, and who might now have changed their opinion.

And no, having a second referendum that validates that a Brexit is in fact aligned with the will of the people, is not "undermining" democracy but democracy in action. Going ahead with Brexit if it doesn't have support among the people, is, on the other hand, un-democratic.

 

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

It is reasonable to assume that popular opinion has shifted, thus a survey should be done, this survey results in evidence that may or may not substantiate the necessity of a new referendum.

The reasonable assumption comes from the fact that in these two years that have passed, a lot more information about a possible Brexit and its conditions have been revealed, which is likely to have affected the opinion of people.

And it is not arrogant to assume many Brits have altered their opinion on a Brexit during these two years. It is, on the other hand, arrogant, or ignorant, to think that this mess of a process and how Theresa May have struggled to obtain favorable conditions haven't swayed people in the direction of "remain".

And yes, I understand that your fishing pals may not have shifted their opinion because they bear this grudge that prevents them from doing what is best for them, but it is again reasonable to assume that there will be many Brits who aren't bound by old grudges and will be able to vote for what is best for them, and who might now have changed their opinion.

And no, having a second referendum that validates that a Brexit is in fact aligned with the will of the people, is not "undermining" democracy but democracy in action. Going ahead with Brexit if it doesn't have support among the people, is, on the other hand, un-democratic.

 

I don't agree with any of this for the reasons outlined above. ''Fishing pals'' is certainly contemptuous; there is no nobler occupation than fishing. 

3 hours ago, Dazey said:

 

They have clearly been watching the ''Brexxit'' porn Len posted up.

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I don't agree with any of this for the reasons outlined above. ''Fishing pals'' is certainly contemptuous; there is no nobler occupation than fishing. 

It wasn't meant with any contempt. I have some fishing pals, too.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

It wasn't meant with any contempt. I have some fishing pals, too.

I am not really talking about a bunch of ''pals'' but entire communities which were destroyed by the EU. So you honestly expect these people to be pro-EU? I suppose you expect the Greeks to be pro-EU also? I have a saying that if someone rogers you up the arse, you don't go back for seconds; unless of course you are into that kind of thing!

[SoulMonster]

6 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I am not really talking about a bunch of ''pals'' but entire communities which were destroyed by the EU. So you honestly expect these people to be pro-EU? I suppose you expect the Greeks to be pro-EU also? I have a saying that if someone rogers you up the arse, you don't go back for seconds; unless of course you are into that kind of thing!

Have I said I expect these people to be pro-EU? I have said that among the Brits, which includes much more than just your fishing pals, there is likely to be people who now, considering the mess of the process, the lies before the referendum, and the hardline of EU in terms of possible Brexit conditions, have changed their opinion and have become "remainers". 

[But you know what? I actually think higher of your fishing pals then what you think. I don't think they are blinded by their grudge against the EU. I think some of them, many of them, are able to rationally consider what is best for them, their families and their children, and will now have gone from "leave" to "stay". I am not saying this is all of them, I am sure a large proportion, maybe majority, will stubbornly vote against their best interests due to being butthurt over what has happened before, but some of them are bound to have seen the light.]

Edited January 18, 2019 by SoulMonster

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Have I said I expect these people to be pro-EU? I have said that among the Brits, which includes much more than just your fishing pals, there is likely to be people who now, considering the mess of the process, the lies before the referendum, and the hardline of EU in terms of possible Brexit conditions, have changed their opinion and have become "remainers". 

[But you know what? I actually think higher of your fishing pals then what you think. I don't think they are blinded by their grudge against the EU. I think some of them, many of them, are able to rationally consider what is best for them, their families and their children, and will now have gone from "leave" to "stay". I am not saying this is all of them, I am sure a large proportion, maybe majority, will stubbornly vote against their best interests due to being butthurt over what has happened before, but some of them are bound to have seen the light.]

The arrogance and smuggery in this reply deserves complete contempt. ''Butthurt''? Entire maritime communities were destroyed by the European Union!!!

 

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

The arrogance and smuggery in this reply deserves complete contempt. ''Butthurt''? Entire maritime communities were destroyed by the European Union!!!

Even if it is EU's fault that they failed in their businesses some decades ago (and this can be discussed), I still believe some of them are able to objectively judge if they should "stay" or "leave" without letting that decision be burdened by old grudges. I simply think higher of them than what you do. 

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

Even if it is EU's fault that they failed in their businesses some decades ago (and this can be discussed), I still believe some of them are able to objectively judge if they should "stay" or "leave" without letting that decision be burdened by old grudges. I simply think higher of them than what you do. 

The North East (and Midlands) each voted 58% leave, which is 6% above the national average. I suspect it would be larger again if you removed Newcastle. 

Why does the liberalism of people who support the EU suddenly vanish whenever the Greeks or maritime communities (now the Italians) are discussed replaced instead with elitist (alleged ''intellectual'') arrogance and class bigotry? Europhiles are so liberal when discussing cushy little middle class studenty sojourns like Erasmus and open border migration but this liberalism evaporates when discussing people who have been negatively effected by the European Union's corporate policies. Why are you not producing your liberalism in the concurrent debates about the Italian budget? Where was your liberalism during the Greek crisis? Why are you not opposing EU proposals to found a ''EU army''? Why are you not exposing the hypocrisy of the EU, which in effect bails-out the east Elbian Germans yet imposes austerity on the Greeks? Where is your liberalism, progressiveness, altruistic ''do-gooder'' social concerns when all these items are set forth?

Gone of course.

 

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

The North East (and Midlands) each voted 58% leave, which is 6% above the national average. I suspect it would be larger again if you removed Newcastle. 

Why does the liberalism of people who support the EU suddenly vanish whenever the Greeks or maritime communities (now the Italians) are discussed replaced instead with elitist (alleged ''intellectual'') arrogance and class bigotry? Europhiles are so liberal when discussing cushy little middle class studenty sojourns like Erasmus and open border migration but this liberalism evaporates when discussing people who have been negatively effected by the European Union's corporate policies. Why are you not producing your liberalism in the concurrent debates about the Italian budget? Where was your liberalism during the Greek crisis? Why are you not opposing EU proposals to found a ''EU army''? Why are you not exposing the hypocrisy of the EU, which in effect bails-out the east Elbian Germans yet imposes austerity on the Greeks? Where is your liberalism, progressiveness, altruistic ''do-gooder'' social concerns when all these items are set forth?

Gone of course.

Because right now I am discussing Brexit.

[Dazey]

28 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I am not really talking about a bunch of ''pals'' but entire communities which were destroyed by the EU. So you honestly expect these people to be pro-EU? I suppose you expect the Greeks to be pro-EU also? I have a saying that if someone rogers you up the arse, you don't go back for seconds; unless of course you are into that kind of thing!

The fishing argument is the worst excuse for leaving the EU I've heard because Brexit does absolutely nothing to rectify the problem. Even if we were to leave without a deal Iceland aren't suddenly going to allow us access to their waters again.

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, Dazey said:

The fishing argument is the worst excuse for leaving the EU I've heard because Brexit does absolutely nothing to rectify the problem. Even if we were to leave without a deal Iceland aren't suddenly going to allow us access to their waters again.

But you see -- and Diesel have admitted as much -- this isn't rational it is about being angry at what happened ages ago.