Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 63

Thread: Damn those pesky kids - if they hadn't been scurrilously encouraged to

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Ash View Post
    Well, I don't consider myself as smug but I am more than disappointed. The election campaigns were fought on the basis of 'Brexit is settled', and saw UKIP's vote collapse to nothing, from a fairly substantial national share, and to the benefit of the two main parties. Over 80% of people voted for parties who said they would leave the single market.

    Now the election is over, May's battering is being used as an excuse for the dominant political and media classes to do what they've wanted ever since the referendum - to stop Brexit. The electorate at large hasn't voted against Brexit in this election (even though some people will have done), they have voted on all the basis of various reasons.

    If this scenario plays out as we imagine, the majority who voted Leave will have been betrayed. UKIP will be back in five years when Britain is still subject to undemocratic and unnacountable external rule, still has no control over its borders, and still subsidises other countries from which it gets little (except cheap labour which is good for the wealthy and bad for the less wealthy).
    The argument has to be that the will of the people was expressed at the referendum. If that was true before the election it is just as true now. I would also agree that any Brexit that involves remaining in the single market and retaining freedom of movement is an absolute betrayal of that vote. Nobody in their right can honestly think that those voting leave were voting for that. Its a joke.

    There are more complex, longer term issues in there around cheap labour, the drift of skills and capital towards the areas of economic strength within the EU and away from those areas requiring development. The potential for widening an east-west divide within the Union that already exists.....

    I have already heard plenty of references to a 'jobs Brexit', an 'economic Brexit', a 'Brexit that works for Britain'. As you say , this is politician-speak for the political establishment devising a brexit that works for them.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter View Post
    The argument has to be that the will of the people was expressed at the referendum. If that was true before the election it is just as true now. I would also agree that any Brexit that involves remaining in the single market and retaining freedom of movement is an absolute betrayal of that vote. Nobody in their right can honestly think that those voting leave were voting for that. Its a joke.

    There are more complex, longer term issues in there around cheap labour, the drift of skills and capital towards the areas of economic strength within the EU and away from those areas requiring development. The potential for widening an east-west divide within the Union that already exists.....

    I have already heard plenty of references to a 'jobs Brexit', an 'economic Brexit', a 'Brexit that works for Britain'. As you say , this is politician-speak for the political establishment devising a brexit that works for them.
    Yes, it will absolutely be a betrayal, but the reality is that whether or not Brexit is good in the long run, it will clearly be bad in the short run. And many politicians will be thinking 'if we go hard Brexit the economy will die and there goes my seat. If I go soft Brexit the economy should be just fine and I can argue my way out of the betrayal argument'.

    Brexit may ultimately be better for the country but it clearly has a far lower downside in the short run and as I said, it's all about the here and now nowadays. As we've just seen with the student vote.

  3. #23
    I think a betrayal of the referendum would make us no better than the Irish who simply hold referenda repeatedly til they get the answer they want, but it may be worth it just to see every blood vessel in Berni's head erupt in a sort of hyper aneurysm.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Herbette Chapman - aged 15 View Post
    I think a betrayal of the referendum would make us no better than the Irish who simply hold referenda repeatedly til they get the answer they want, but it may be worth it just to see every blood vessel in Berni's head erupt in a sort of hyper aneurysm.
    I believe it was the EU that demanded that the Irish keep voting until they delivered the required result. And the EU have ignored referendums in France, Netherlands and Greece because they didn't like the outcome. This contempt for democracy is one of the reasons that some of us voted Leave in the first place. That the British, pro-EU elite are behaving in the same way comes as no surprise.

  5. #25
    All tax changes are good for me!

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter View Post
    The argument has to be that the will of the people was expressed at the referendum. If that was true before the election it is just as true now. I would also agree that any Brexit that involves remaining in the single market and retaining freedom of movement is an absolute betrayal of that vote. Nobody in their right can honestly think that those voting leave were voting for that. Its a joke.

    There are more complex, longer term issues in there around cheap labour, the drift of skills and capital towards the areas of economic strength within the EU and away from those areas requiring development. The potential for widening an east-west divide within the Union that already exists.....

    I have already heard plenty of references to a 'jobs Brexit', an 'economic Brexit', a 'Brexit that works for Britain'. As you say , this is politician-speak for the political establishment devising a brexit that works for them.
    1. No parliament can bind its successor. Otherwise the 1975 vote would have been good for all time and the Jocks wouldn't have been talking about an IndyRef 2. Which, btw, has been derailed by the general election. People voted to say there was no longer a majority in Jockland for the party wanting independence.

    Likewise, the two parties promising a hard Brexit got only 44.2% of the vote (and a minority of seats.) So over 55% voted against a hard Brexit and there is no majority in the HoC for such.

    2. And no, a softer Brexit would not be a betrayal of the vote. Only of some people's interpretation. Were people asked if they wanted to stop free movement? No. Or leave the EEA? Or the SM or CU? Or if they had a problem with rejoining EFTA? No, no, no and no.

    Basically, if they had wanted those questions asked, they should have done so at the time. They didn't.

    And if the voters had wanted to answer those questions themselves, they should have done so this month, when they had a chance to vote for the two parties promising a hard Brexit. They didn't.

    They didn't. The referendum didn't ask, ad therefore didn't answer, these questions. The GE did. And a majority of voters and of MPs said the answer to a hard Brexit is no.

    If the voters don't like this parliament giving a soft Brexit, they can vote for a hard Brexit party next time. {Just like if the Jocks do want IndyRef 2, they can all go and vote SNP.}

    We can join EFTA, which wasn't precluded by the referendum, and then voters can vote for a party promising to leave that or promising a referendum on leaving.

    Sorry, but if you believe in GB's parliamentary democracy, then you have to accept that the answer to questions given in a recent GE trump questions not asked in a prior referendum.

    Hopefully we can rejoin EFTA, wait for the OAP Brexiters to die and then rejoin the EU.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult View Post
    1. No parliament can bind its successor. Otherwise the 1975 vote would have been good for all time and the Jocks wouldn't have been talking about an IndyRef 2. Which, btw, has been derailed by the general election. People voted to say there was no longer a majority in Jockland for the party wanting independence.

    Likewise, the two parties promising a hard Brexit got only 44.2% of the vote (and a minority of seats.) So over 55% voted against a hard Brexit and there is no majority in the HoC for such.

    2. And no, a softer Brexit would not be a betrayal of the vote. Only of some people's interpretation. Were people asked if they wanted to stop free movement? No. Or leave the EEA? Or the SM or CU? Or if they had a problem with rejoining EFTA? No, no, no and no.

    Basically, if they had wanted those questions asked, they should have done so at the time. They didn't.

    And if the voters had wanted to answer those questions themselves, they should have done so this month, when they had a chance to vote for the two parties promising a hard Brexit. They didn't.

    They didn't. The referendum didn't ask, ad therefore didn't answer, these questions. The GE did. And a majority of voters and of MPs said the answer to a hard Brexit is no.

    If the voters don't like this parliament giving a soft Brexit, they can vote for a hard Brexit party next time. {Just like if the Jocks do want IndyRef 2, they can all go and vote SNP.}

    We can join EFTA, which wasn't precluded by the referendum, and then voters can vote for a party promising to leave that or promising a referendum on leaving.

    Sorry, but if you believe in GB's parliamentary democracy, then you have to accept that the answer to questions given in a recent GE trump questions not asked in a prior referendum.

    Hopefully we can rejoin EFTA, wait for the OAP Brexiters to die and then rejoin the EU.
    Errr.. the only slight problem here is that you insist on being incredibly precise about what leavers voted for in the referendum while at the same time extrapolating all kinds of desires and motives towards Brexit from an election campaign that wasn’t about that.

    The electorate believed that the Brexit issue was resolved, largely because both major parties committed to the referendum result. You can see this clearly by the fact that the significant UKIP vote collapsed and drifted back to the two main parties, both promising to respect the referendum outcome.

    Trying to suggest that this is in any way a public mandate for rethinking Brexit is absurd. If you want to overturn the referendum there are only two acceptable, democratic ways of doing it. Either the public clearly votes for a party promising to overturn at an election (to borrow your thinking, they had the chance to do this and didn’t take it) or you hold a second referendum (which neither of the main parties proposed).

    This is why you should never hold referenda- too confusing for everyone

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult View Post
    1. No parliament can bind its successor. Otherwise the 1975 vote would have been good for all time and the Jocks wouldn't have been talking about an IndyRef 2. Which, btw, has been derailed by the general election. People voted to say there was no longer a majority in Jockland for the party wanting independence.

    Likewise, the two parties promising a hard Brexit got only 44.2% of the vote (and a minority of seats.) So over 55% voted against a hard Brexit and there is no majority in the HoC for such.


    2. And no, a softer Brexit would not be a betrayal of the vote. Only of some people's interpretation. Were people asked if they wanted to stop free movement? No. Or leave the EEA? Or the SM or CU? Or if they had a problem with rejoining EFTA? No, no, no and no.

    Basically, if they had wanted those questions asked, they should have done so at the time. They didn't.

    And if the voters had wanted to answer those questions themselves, they should have done so this month, when they had a chance to vote for the two parties promising a hard Brexit. They didn't.

    They didn't. The referendum didn't ask, ad therefore didn't answer, these questions. The GE did. And a majority of voters and of MPs said the answer to a hard Brexit is no.

    If the voters don't like this parliament giving a soft Brexit, they can vote for a hard Brexit party next time. {Just like if the Jocks do want IndyRef 2, they can all go and vote SNP.}

    We can join EFTA, which wasn't precluded by the referendum, and then voters can vote for a party promising to leave that or promising a referendum on leaving.

    Sorry, but if you believe in GB's parliamentary democracy, then you have to accept that the answer to questions given in a recent GE trump questions not asked in a prior referendum.

    Hopefully we can rejoin EFTA, wait for the OAP Brexiters to die and then rejoin the EU.
    If I was the sort of poster to go in for ad hom abuse I would call you a tedious, ageist, soap-dodging windbag.

    Your arguments are rubbish, btw. The labour leadership have said they would leave the single market. The election was not fought on Brexit, but on lots of issues, and your pretending that it was is weasilly *******s.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Ash View Post
    I believe it was the EU that demanded that the Irish keep voting until they delivered the required result. And the EU have ignored referendums in France, Netherlands and Greece because they didn't like the outcome. This contempt for democracy is one of the reasons that some of us voted Leave in the first place. That the British, pro-EU elite are behaving in the same way comes as no surprise.
    If you wanted a hard Brexit you should have voted Tory.

    It wouldn't have guaranteed it, but it would have been far more likely than it is now.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by World's End Stella View Post
    If you wanted a hard Brexit you should have voted Tory.

    It wouldn't have guaranteed it, but it would have been far more likely than it is now.
    No point in my constituency.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •