Why in the argument that “Brexiteers didn’t know what they were voting for” not being

[Monty92]

challenged more fiercely?

Virtually the entire Remain campaign was based on warnings about the economic risks involved in leaving. Of course, many of the so-called “low information voters” may not have been able to recite the various figures involved, but to suggest that they voted without knowing that leaving would lead to risk and uncertainty is absolutely f*cking outrageous.

I don’t understand why there’s not been greater push back against this shame-faced lie?

[Burney]

challenged more fiercely?

Virtually the entire Remain campaign was based on warnings about the economic risks involved in leaving. Of course, many of the so-called “low information voters” may not have been able to recite the various figures involved, but to suggest that they voted without knowing that there were risks is absolutely f*cking outrageous.

I don’t understand why there’s not been greater push back against this shame-faced lie?

There's plenty. You just won't hear it on the BBC. Ever.
More interesting to me is the fact that Remain campaigners apparently cannot imagine that anyone would ever vote for something other than financial self-interest. The idea that people believe that there is an economic price worth paying to get out of the EU never seems to occur.

[Monty92]

There's plenty. You just won't hear it on the BBC. Ever.
More interesting to me is the fact that Remain campaigners apparently cannot imagine that anyone would ever vote for something other than financial self-interest. The idea that people believe that there is an economic price worth paying to get out of the EU never seems to occur.

Indeed. The same way that immigration is only ever talked about by progressives in terms of net economic impact, rather than social cohesion (on which the studies are far less favourable).

[Sir C]

challenged more fiercely?

Virtually the entire Remain campaign was based on warnings about the economic risks involved in leaving. Of course, many of the so-called “low information voters” may not have been able to recite the various figures involved, but to suggest that they voted without knowing that leaving would lead to risk and uncertainty is absolutely f*cking outrageous.

I don’t understand why there’s not been greater push back against this shame-faced lie?

I would say, actually, that it was true. Remainers voted for the status quo, that was a reasonably informed judgement because we know what we've got. I remember saying at the time that, whilst I might be tempted instinctively, to vote to leave, no one was giving me an argument upon which I could make that judgement. No one told us what leaving would mean in terms of having a plan to replace the EU trade deals which govern how we do bsuiness. I sort of assumed that some genius had worked out such a plan, but that that they simply weren't prepared to share iot with us. This seemed to me to make it impossible to vote Leave, because I had no idea what the outcome of this decision would be for the country.

Obviously, the thick, fat, ignorant, benefits-stealing feckless northerners give not a single fúck what happens to the country as long as their giro arrives on a Tuesday, so they voted in swathes to send the w*gs home. Others voted to give the liberal elite a good kick in the gonads; others still to save our sovereignity, and so on. But not one single leave voter had the first idea what the effects on the country would be, and so, in effect, didn't know what they were voting for. :shrug:

[Monty92]

I would say, actually, that it was true. Remainers voted for the status quo, that was a reasonably informed judgement because we know what we've got. I remember saying at the time that, whilst I might be tempted instinctively, to vote to leave, no one was giving me an argument upon which I could make that judgement. No one told us what leaving would mean in terms of having a plan to replace the EU trade deals which govern how we do bsuiness. I sort of assumed that some genius had worked out such a plan, but that that they simply weren't prepared to share iot with us. This seemed to me to make it impossible to vote Leave, because I had no idea what the outcome of this decision would be for the country.

Obviously, the thick, fat, ignorant, benefits-stealing feckless northerners give not a single fúck what happens to the country as long as their giro arrives on a Tuesday, so they voted in swathes to send the w*gs home. Others voted to give the liberal elite a good kick in the gonads; others still to save our sovereignity, and so on. But not one single leave voter had the first idea what the effects on the country would be, and so, in effect, didn't know what they were voting for. :shrug:

Everyone knew that leaving meant risk and uncertainty. The idea that a full breakdown of that risk is required for your vote to be considered and rational is ridiculous. On that basis, we should never be allowed to vote on anything.

[Luis Anaconda]

so they voted in swathes

They all voted in bandages?

[Monty92]

I would say, actually, that it was true. Remainers voted for the status quo, that was a reasonably informed judgement because we know what we've got. I remember saying at the time that, whilst I might be tempted instinctively, to vote to leave, no one was giving me an argument upon which I could make that judgement. No one told us what leaving would mean in terms of having a plan to replace the EU trade deals which govern how we do bsuiness. I sort of assumed that some genius had worked out such a plan, but that that they simply weren't prepared to share iot with us. This seemed to me to make it impossible to vote Leave, because I had no idea what the outcome of this decision would be for the country.

Obviously, the thick, fat, ignorant, benefits-stealing feckless northerners give not a single fúck what happens to the country as long as their giro arrives on a Tuesday, so they voted in swathes to send the w*gs home. Others voted to give the liberal elite a good kick in the gonads; others still to save our sovereignity, and so on. But not one single leave voter had the first idea what the effects on the country would be, and so, in effect, didn't know what they were voting for. :shrug:

Good article on this subject

http://quillette.com/2016/11/30/stop-calling-people-low-information-voters/

[Sir C]

Everyone knew that leaving meant risk and uncertainty. The idea that a full breakdown of that risk is required for your vote to be considered and rational is ridiculous.

No, 'risk and uncertainty' would have resulted if we'd been told that the plan was to rapidly negotiate a trade deal with Commonwealth countries before settling in to the long job of negotiating such deals with the rest of the world. That would have represented risk and uncertainty. You could have made an informed decision there, even you could have rubbed your two braincells together and decided whether such a plan was worth the risk. What we voted for was... nothing. Nada. No plan. No idea. Nihilistic nonsense.

The fact that I voted Leave makes no difference to my argument.

[PSRB]

Everyone knew that leaving meant risk and uncertainty. The idea that a full breakdown of that risk is required for your vote to be considered and rational is ridiculous. On that basis, we should never be allowed to vote on anything.

Surely that is rather the point of voting for MP's.....I vote for them so that I don't have make decisions that I don't really understand :-)

I voted out but I was rather under the impression there was a plan.....I feel a little let down on that front

[Monty92]

Surely that is rather the point of voting for MP's.....I vote for them so that I don't have make decisions that I don't really understand :-)

I voted out but I was rather under the impression there was a plan.....I feel a little let down on that front

But what level of pre-vote planning did you realistically imagine there could have been, given leaving would inevitably result in a new PM and cabinet? Surely you factored this into your decision-making, and if not, was this not naive?

[World's End Stella]

Everyone knew that leaving meant risk and uncertainty. The idea that a full breakdown of that risk is required for your vote to be considered and rational is ridiculous. On that basis, we should never be allowed to vote on anything.

That depends on the volatility of the potential outcome. In the case of Brexit, the options are considerable and many of them vastly different, so it is a perfectly reasonable point to make.

It doesn't invalidate the outcome of the vote, however. Not in my view, anyway.

[Ash]

Surely that is rather the point of voting for MP's.....I vote for them so that I don't have make decisions that I don't really understand :-)

I voted out but I was rather under the impression there was a plan.....I feel a little let down on that front

There was no plan because they were too arrogant to think they might lose. I suspect they are only too happy to be seen flapping about without one as it increases the likelihood of the decision somehow being reversed. Chances are the EU will actually collapse under its own failings before the British Government manages to implement the decision of the voters. Or most other countries vote to leave anyway.

[Sir C]

But what level of pre-vote planning did you realistically imagine there could have been, given leaving would inevitably result in a new PM and cabinet? Surely you factored this into your decision-making, and if not, was this not naive?

I don't suppose anyone expected that Mssrs Cameron and Osborn were sitting up late into the night with their abaci and thinking caps, determining what to do in the unlikely event. One rather imagined that a roomfull of civil servants, chaps with big brains and self-propeling pencils and thick spectacles, would have been tasked to come up with some options for the politicos to choose from.

[Brentwood]

Everyone knew that leaving meant risk and uncertainty. The idea that a full breakdown of that risk is required for your vote to be considered and rational is ridiculous. On that basis, we should never be allowed to vote on anything.

This just isn't true. A lot of people were convinced that we would SAVE 350m a week by leaving, without taking into account the fact that this sum includes subsidies coming back that we'll have to cover, EU investment in deprived areas, and the fact that not being in the EU brings with it new costs for us. There were interviews with people who said they'd be disgusted if it turns out the NHS won't be getting this 350m, when we all know they'll be getting less

There is still so much contradiction about what Brexit looks like coming from govt appointed ministers, that people still don't know what it looks like.

[Sir C]

This just isn't true. A lot of people were convinced that we would SAVE 350m a week by leaving, without taking into account the fact that this sum includes subsidies coming back that we'll have to cover, EU investment in deprived areas, and the fact that not being in the EU brings with it new costs for us. There were interviews with people who said they'd be disgusted if it turns out the NHS won't be getting this 350m, when we all know they'll be getting less

There is still so much contradiction about what Brexit looks like coming from govt appointed ministers, that people still don't know what it looks like.

Come on b, no sane, sentient adult human being took any notice of the £350m bus, did they? I mean. Really.

[Brentwood]

Come on b, no sane, sentient adult human being took any notice of the £350m bus, did they? I mean. Really.

Oh definitely. It was the main crux of their argument, from what I could tell. This idea that we are a cash cow for the EU, sending all of our money to countries like Poland, money used by the EU to make laws we have to adhere to against our will, was very powerful. It worked very effectively

[Burney]

No, 'risk and uncertainty' would have resulted if we'd been told that the plan was to rapidly negotiate a trade deal with Commonwealth countries before settling in to the long job of negotiating such deals with the rest of the world. That would have represented risk and uncertainty. You could have made an informed decision there, even you could have rubbed your two braincells together and decided whether such a plan was worth the risk. What we voted for was... nothing. Nada. No plan. No idea. Nihilistic nonsense.

The fact that I voted Leave makes no difference to my argument.

No. We voted against something. That is absolutely valid.
Not knowing the precise outcome of such a decision is not a reason to retain a status quo with which one is dissatisfied. If one reaches a condition of irreconcilability with one's spouse, one can opt for divorce. Not being precisely certain of the outcome of that divorce does not make the decision to divorce a purely nihilistic one.

[Burney]

Oh definitely. It was the main crux of their argument, from what I could tell. This idea that we are a cash cow for the EU, sending all of our money to countries like Poland, money used by the EU to make laws we have to adhere to against our will, was very powerful. It worked very effectively

At best political sloganeering tends to tap into and validate people's pre-existing feelings. It rarely if ever changes minds. People don't actually believe politicians or their promises (not that this was a promise, of course). After all, if they did and if people are really so easily led, how come the rampant and demonstrably mendacious scaremongering of the Remain side didn't work?

[Sir C]

No. We voted against something. That is absolutely valid.
Not knowing the precise outcome of such a decision is not a reason to retain a status quo with which one is dissatisfied. If one reaches a condition of irreconcilability with one's spouse, one can opt for divorce. Not being precisely certain of the outcome of that divorce does not make the decision to divorce a purely nihilistic one.

I said nothing of validity and wonder why you have introduced this idea to my argument.

[Brentwood]

No. We voted against something. That is absolutely valid.
Not knowing the precise outcome of such a decision is not a reason to retain a status quo with which one is dissatisfied. If one reaches a condition of irreconcilability with one's spouse, one can opt for divorce. Not being precisely certain of the outcome of that divorce does not make the decision to divorce a purely nihilistic one.

People voted against something, which they can't possibly understand in enough detail. It was incredibly reckless to put this decision in the hands of laymen. The few people who understand the financial aspects of the EU in detail (professors, economists, CEOs) were dismissed as having vested interests, mocked and ignored. The idea that companies wouldn't want to produce cars in a non-EU country was dismissed, because of the quality of British craftsmanship. Straight away, Nissan are given some secret deal persuading them to stay. Now Ford are trying it on, saying that it will cost them 600m if we leacve and they want similar compensation.

So it's fine if people want to prioritise the social downsides of the EU against the financial unknowns, but it will ultimately lead to disaster

It's like persuading football fans that FIFA are a corrupt organisation who hate us because they don't have a statue of Bobby Moore in their HQ, and that we should rescind our membership. However, of course we'll still be allowed to play in World Cups and sell our own sponsorhip deals because we're England. We won in 66 and we have the best players that everyone wants to watch. In other words, sell everyone a vague, unrealistic dream and make up a load of numbers that support your argument

[Monty92]

People voted against something, which they can't possibly understand in enough detail. It was incredibly reckless to put this decision in the hands of laymen. The few people who understand the financial aspects of the EU in detail (professors, economists, CEOs) were dismissed as having vested interests, mocked and ignored. The idea that companies wouldn't want to produce cars in a non-EU country was dismissed, because of the quality of British craftsmanship. Straight away, Nissan are given some secret deal persuading them to stay. Now Ford are trying it on, saying that it will cost them 600m if we leacve and they want similar compensation.

So it's fine if people want to prioritise the social downsides of the EU against the financial unknowns, but it will ultimately lead to disaster

It's like persuading football fans that FIFA are a corrupt organisation who hate us because they don't have a statue of Bobby Moore in their HQ, and that we should rescind our membership. However, of course we'll still be allowed to play in World Cups and sell our own sponsorhip deals because we're England. We won in 66 and we have the best players that everyone wants to watch. In other words, sell everyone a vague, unrealistic dream and make up a load of numbers that support your argument

But this disregards the many voters who were aware they were being sold a "vague, unrealistic dream" (economically) and still voted out in good conscience, because for them more important issues were at stake.

[Burney]

People voted against something, which they can't possibly understand in enough detail. It was incredibly reckless to put this decision in the hands of laymen. The few people who understand the financial aspects of the EU in detail (professors, economists, CEOs) were dismissed as having vested interests, mocked and ignored. The idea that companies wouldn't want to produce cars in a non-EU country was dismissed, because of the quality of British craftsmanship. Straight away, Nissan are given some secret deal persuading them to stay. Now Ford are trying it on, saying that it will cost them 600m if we leacve and they want similar compensation.

So it's fine if people want to prioritise the social downsides of the EU against the financial unknowns, but it will ultimately lead to disaster

It's like persuading football fans that FIFA are a corrupt organisation who hate us because they don't have a statue of Bobby Moore in their HQ, and that we should rescind our membership. However, of course we'll still be allowed to play in World Cups and sell our own sponsorhip deals because we're England. We won in 66 and we have the best players that everyone wants to watch. In other words, sell everyone a vague, unrealistic dream and make up a load of numbers that support your argument

Placing huge decisions about matters the totality of which they cannot possibly understand in the hands of laymen is rather the point of democracy, old chap. If you don't like it, that's a separate argument, but hardly germane here. The logical conclusion to your argument is rule by unaccountable technocrats to whom we must acquiesce on the somewhat dubious grounds that they know what's best for us. And, since that is precisely the situation that many of us voted to reject on June 23rd, you can hardly expect that it would be favourably received now.

As to the suggestion that the experts to whom you refer did not have vested interests, it is patently ludicrous, since they clearly did. If they wished to be taken seriously as genuinely independent voices, perhaps they ought to have done more to retain some modicum of independence?

[Brentwood]

At best political sloganeering tends to tap into and validate people's pre-existing feelings. It rarely if ever changes minds. People don't actually believe politicians or their promises (not that this was a promise, of course). After all, if they did and if people are really so easily led, how come the rampant and demonstrably mendacious scaremongering of the Remain side didn't work?

These pre-existing feelings were seeded years ago because of slogans just like these. Boris admitted that he made up stories about barmy bendy banana laws in the Telegraph because people lapped it up and started believing it.

Take a look closer to home. Facts and common sense tell you that Arsenal had to cut their spending for 10+ years in order to pay off the stadium loan. During that time, we have had swathes of people convinced by loudmouths on social media, Arsenal Fan TV that the money is all going to Kroenke, or Wenger is arogant, tight and personally profitting, or that Wenger isn't tactically astute enough to realise that selling our best players and replacing them with teenage seedlings is a bad idea. The momentum continues following every defeat to the extent that he gets booed at games and people hold up placards begging him to spend. No amount of sane, reasoned arguments could stop this sentiment from spreading. It would be just as reckless to ask the fans in the stadium to vote on how our finances should be managed.

There was some silly scaremongering going on, but a lot of the other stuff labelled as scaremongering is still vert likely in my eyes

[Burney]

I said nothing of validity and wonder why you have introduced this idea to my argument.

You said that not having a clear idea of the outcome made voting leave impossible. I am merely pointing out that your conclusion does not necessarily follow from your point.

[Burney]

These pre-existing feelings were seeded years ago because of slogans just like these. Boris admitted that he made up stories about barmy bendy banana laws in the Telegraph because people lapped it up and started believing it.

Take a look closer to home. Facts and common sense tell you that Arsenal had to cut their spending for 10+ years in order to pay off the stadium loan. During that time, we have had swathes of people convinced by loudmouths on social media, Arsenal Fan TV that the money is all going to Kroenke, or Wenger is arogant, tight and personally profitting, or that Wenger isn't tactically astute enough to realise that selling our best players and replacing them with teenage seedlings is a bad idea. The momentum continues following every defeat to the extent that he gets booed at games and people hold up placards begging him to spend. No amount of sane, reasoned arguments could stop this sentiment from spreading. It would be just as reckless to ask the fans in the stadium to vote on how our finances should be managed.

There was some silly scaremongering going on, but a lot of the other stuff labelled as scaremongering is still vert likely in my eyes

Everyone is subject to confirmation bias - everyone.
Those who instinctively disliked the Common Market/EEC/EC/EU were inclined to believe the stuff about bendy bananas, just as you are inclined to believe the prophets of doom because disaster would validate your beliefs. The idea that one side was any more mendacious than the other is simply silly.
The UK has never embraced the European project in the same way as other European nations for obvious historical reasons. As a consequence, we have always been rather sceptical of it. Our readiness to believe stories about bendy bananas is a symptom of an innate Euroscepticism, not the cause of it. The idea that British Euroscepticism was created out of whole cloth by Boris (or anyone else for that matter) is a fantasy.

[SWv2]

Jesus ****ing Christ, still whingeing about Brexit.

You have voted, one side won. Just get on with it.

[Burney]

Jesus ****ing Christ, still whingeing about Brexit.

You have voted, one side won. Just get on with it.

Ah, there you are! Did you fall down a hole or something?

[Sir C]

Jesus ****ing Christ, still whingeing about Brexit.

You have voted, one side won. Just get on with it.

Exactly. We voted for Irexit in 1917 or something didn't we sw? And we just got on with it. Bloody whinging Brits

[Brentwood]

Placing huge decisions about matters the totality of which they cannot possibly understand is rather the point of democracy, old chap. If you don't like it, that's a separate argument, but hardly germane here. The logical conclusion to your argument is rule by unaccountable technocrats to whom we must acquiesce on the somewhat dubious grounds that they know what's best for us. And, since that is precisely the situation that many of us voted to reject on June 23rd, you can hardly expect that it would be favourably received now.

As to the suggestion that the experts to whom you refer did not have vested interests, it is patently ludicrous, since they clearly did. If they wished to be taken seriously as genuinely independent voices, perhaps they ought to have done more to retain some modicum of independence?

There were people like that Professor of EU Law, working for the University of Liverpool who was said to have had a vested interest, because his uni got some EU grant somewhere. Compare his modest University salary to the money he could make advising the UK Govt on how best to establish a post-Brexit UK, and he probably voted against his personal interests. Manufacturers telling us that they wouldn't manufacture in the UK if they had to pay tariffs on incoming materials and be charged tariffs for the suff they produce, only had vested interests, in the sense that it is obviously a high risk to their UK business operations which needed spelling out to people (which was dismissed anyway).

The way we usually make major decisions is in the HoCs after following due process, extensive cross examining, publishing detailed white papers, issuing bills and laws and generally ensuring that we actually know what we are signing up for. We don't ask the public to directly vote about whether we should invade a country, without telling them what the country is, who we're up against , who our allies may be etc. Our elected politicians debate it in parliament, consider all the facts and make the decision on our behalf

[SWv2]

Ah, there you are! Did you fall down a hole or something?

Work ****, you know the score.

I won, naturally.

[Burney]

There were people like that Professor of EU Law, working for the University of Liverpool who was said to have had a vested interest, because his uni got some EU grant somewhere. Compare his modest University salary to the money he could make advising the UK Govt on how best to establish a post-Brexit UK, and he probably voted against his personal interests. Manufacturers telling us that they wouldn't manufacture in the UK if they had to pay tariffs on incoming materials and be charged tariffs for the suff they produce, only had vested interests, in the sense that it is obviously a high risk to their UK business operations which needed spelling out to people (which was dismissed anyway).

The way we usually make major decisions is in the HoCs after following due process, extensive cross examining, publishing detailed white papers, issuing bills and laws and generally ensuring that we actually know what we are signing up for. We don't ask the public to directly vote about whether we should invade a country, without telling them what the country is, who we're up against , who our allies may be etc. Our elected politicians debate it in parliament, consider all the facts and make the decision on our behalf

A desire to maintain a status quo that happens to suit you rather than risk the unknown is also a vested interest, I'm afraid. And if you take money from the EU, don't expect anyone to take you seriously as an independent voice on matters pertaining to the EU. Wouldn't you question someone who claimed to speak independently about climate change if you found they'd taken money from the oil industry, for instance?

The referendum took place in no small part because our parliamentary system was shown to be unfit for purpose when it came to representing the people's views. Despite a huge groundswell of anti-EU sentiment, MPs were overwhelmingly pro-EU and thus the public were being ignored - making them understandably angry. It wasn't until another party (UKIP) gained traction and potentially threatened Tory majorities that the public's feelings were even acknowledged. In effect, the referendum came about in order to meet a democratic shortfall in our system of government.

[Ash]

People voted against something, which they can't possibly understand in enough detail. It was incredibly reckless to put this decision in the hands of laymen. The few people who understand the financial aspects of the EU in detail (professors, economists, CEOs) were dismissed as having vested interests, mocked and ignored.

These anti-democratic impulses are similar to the arguments used against the Chartists, the Suffragettes and all the way back to the Levellers. Only the elite capitalists, financiers and political classes, we are told, (whose wisdom, of course, brought us the great crash of 2008), can be allowed to decide the destiny of all, and the common man and women must defer to their betters. And that destiny is to be a Europe united under an unelected and unnacountable leadership.

The same experts, by the way, whose policies have devastated the economies of southern Europe and pretty much destroyed Greece, while placing blame on the Greek people.

Yes, there will be a short-to-medium term economic hit to leaving the single market. No, it is not essential to exist in a supranational state (where not everyone shares the benefits). Yes, there is every reason to be confident that new trade deals can be struck both elsewhere and with a Europe that will still want to trade with us, assuming the government is committed to competently persuing this.

And yes, there are definitely vested interests squealing the loudest. From bankers and their billions of bonuses to the middle-class with their cheap au-pairs and builders.

[Ash]

Jesus ****ing Christ, still whingeing about Brexit.

You have voted, one side won. Just get on with it.

Welcome back me old china. You have been missed.

And it isn't yet possible to go to the pub in London without people still whingeing about Brexit and how evil and stupid all Leave voters are.

[Brentwood]

A desire to maintain a status quo that happens to suit you rather than risk the unknown is also a vested interest, I'm afraid. And if you take money from the EU, don't expect anyone to take you seriously as an independent voice on matters pertaining to the EU. Wouldn't you question someone who claimed to speak independently about climate change if you found they'd taken money from the oil industry, for instance?

The referendum took place in no small part because our parliamentary system was shown to be unfit for purpose when it came to representing the people's views. Despite a huge groundswell of anti-EU sentiment, MPs were overwhelmingly pro-EU and thus the public were being ignored - making them understandably angry. It wasn't until another party (UKIP) gained traction and potentially threatened Tory majorities that the public's feelings were even acknowledged. In effect, the referendum came about in order to meet a democratic shortfall in our system of government.

He works for a uni and the uni gets some research money from the EU. You can't dismiss somebody who has spent his life studying the intricacies of the EU because of that. Especially one who could become super rich consulting the govt on how to navigate our way out of the EU. Otherwise you could say any expert has a vested interest in anything.

[SWv2]

Exactly. We voted for Irexit in 1917 or something didn't we sw? And we just got on with it. Bloody whinging Brits

Remind me who is "we" these days?

One day you are a blessed son of the British Empire, next day you are crawling to us asking (begging) to become Irish then come international football tournament day you become a Dutcher.

You change identity more often than Mr Benn.

[Ash]

Remind me who is "we" these days?

One day you are a blessed son of the British Empire, next day you are crawling to us asking (begging) to become Irish then come international football tournament day you become a Dutcher.

You change identity more often than Mr Benn.

Mr Benn :bow:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/275000/images/_278329_mr_benn300.jpg

[redgunamo]

Mr Benn :bow:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/275000/images/_278329_mr_benn300.jpg

Max Mosley, imo, talking of Formula 1.

[Sir C]

Remind me who is "we" these days?

One day you are a blessed son of the British Empire, next day you are crawling to us asking (begging) to become Irish then come international football tournament day you become a Dutcher.

You change identity more often than Mr Benn.

The blood of Brian Boru flows like fire through my veins, sw.

[World's End Stella]

The same experts, by the way, whose policies have devastated the economies of southern Europe and pretty much destroyed Greece, while placing blame on the Greek people.

You mean the Greek people who consistently avoid paying tax and who voted for a series of governments who established a civil service whose compensation, including exorbitant pension benefits, the government could not possibly afford shouldn't take the overwhelming majority of the blame for the collapse of the Greek economy?

Blimey.

[redgunamo]

Do you blame yourself if your customers decide not to pay their bills?

[Ash]

You mean the Greek people who consistently avoid paying tax and who voted for a series of governments who established a civil service whose compensation, including exorbitant pension benefits, the government could not possibly afford shouldn't take the overwhelming majority of the blame for the collapse of the Greek economy?

Blimey.

A report from International Monetary Fund’s Independent Evaluation Office in July 2016 blamed the troika of IMF, ECB and European Commision for the bailout with no debt relief, shrinking the Greek economy by 30% in six years.

As the telegraph notes, "At root was a failure to grasp the elemental point that currency unions with no treasury or political union to back them up are inherently vulnerable to debt crises. States facing a shock no longer have sovereign tools to defend themselves. Devaluation risk is switched into bankruptcy risk."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/28/imf-admits-disastrous-love-affair-with-euro-apologises-for-the-i/

The report said "There were concerns that such a credit event could spread to other members of the euro area, and more widely to a fragile global economy" - an admission of the failure of the Eurozone, which Greece was sacrificed to save.

[redgunamo]

Surely that is rather the point of voting for MP's.....I vote for them so that I don't have make decisions that I don't really understand :-)

I voted out but I was rather under the impression there was a plan.....I feel a little let down on that front

The whole point of MPs is that they don't really understand these things either though :-\

[redgunamo]

Jesus ****ing Christ, still whingeing about Brexit.

You have voted, one side won. Just get on with it.

Good afternoon, SW. Is the pub on fire?

[World's End Stella]

A report from International Monetary Fund’s Independent Evaluation Office in July 2016 blamed the troika of IMF, ECB and European Commision for the bailout with no debt relief, shrinking the Greek economy by 30% in six years.

As the telegraph notes, "At root was a failure to grasp the elemental point that currency unions with no treasury or political union to back them up are inherently vulnerable to debt crises. States facing a shock no longer have sovereign tools to defend themselves. Devaluation risk is switched into bankruptcy risk."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/28/imf-admits-disastrous-love-affair-with-euro-apologises-for-the-i/

The report said "There were concerns that such a credit event could spread to other members of the euro area, and more widely to a fragile global economy" - an admission of the failure of the Eurozone, which Greece was sacrificed to save.

Several points here:
1) the fact that Greece needed a bailout in the first place was because of their inability to manage their finances, Greek finances are the responsibility of - unsurprisingly - the Greeks
2) the potential lack of flexibility in a debt crisis was well known when they joined the EU, did the Greek people not vote to join the EU?
3) 'an admission of the failure of the Eurozone, which Greece was sacrificed to save' - this nonsense suggests to me that the author is rather biased on this particular topic, Greece was 'sacrificed', was it? :hehe:

[SWv2]

Good afternoon, SW. Is the pub on fire?

Good afternoon Red. I must say your stereotyping of me is upsetting.

Pub at 5 dear boy.

[Burney]

Good afternoon Red. I must say your stereotyping of me is upsetting.

Pub at 5 dear boy.

Given your oft-expressed contempt for your work colleagues, who do you go drinking with at 5 on a Friday?

[SWv2]

Given your oft-expressed contempt for your work colleagues, who do you go drinking with at 5 on a Friday?

This evening I am going to the pub with like-minded chums, not colleagues. Drinking steadily from 5-8 then over the river to see Teenage Fanclub.

Last night I went to see Super Furry Animals.

Tomorrow night I have football drinks from 8 until late.

Sunday I am die but I hope not.

p.s. this day 2 weeks is my annual night out with colleagues.

[Burney]

This evening I am going to the pub with like-minded chums, not colleagues. Drinking steadily from 5-8 then over the river to see Teenage Fanclub.

Last night I went to see Super Furry Animals.

Tomorrow night I have football drinks from 8 until late.

Sunday I am die but I hope not.

p.s. this day 2 weeks is my annual night out with colleagues.

God, I can't imagine going to a concert these days. The very idea fills me with horror. All the standing and proximity to people and the noise and the smell. :-(

[SWv2]

God, I can't imagine going to a concert these days. The very idea fills me with horror. All the standing and proximity to people and the noise and the smell. :-(

Well quite. There was a chap right in front of me in the Olympia last evening who tested my patience to the very limit. Him and his fat bird. His level of over exuberance suggested chemicals.

Not the done thing to give him a pasting on a Thursday night all the same, 3 weeks from Xmas.

[Ash]

Several points here:
1) the fact that Greece needed a bailout in the first place was because of their inability to manage their finances, Greek finances are the responsibility of - unsurprisingly - the Greeks
2) the potential lack of flexibility in a debt crisis was well known when they joined the EU, did the Greek people not vote to join the EU?
3) 'an admission of the failure of the Eurozone, which Greece was sacrificed to save' - this nonsense suggests to me that the author is rather biased on this particular topic, Greece was 'sacrificed', was it? :hehe:

You seem to have mixed up the quote from the report and my interpretation of that. A more usual bailout with debt relief could not be applied without risking other countries which is an inherent weakness of the Eurozone, as is that countries cannot set interest rates or float currencies (sovereign tools).

[redgunamo]

You seem to have mixed up the quote from the report and my interpretation of that. A more usual bailout with debt relief could not be applied without risking other countries which is an inherent weakness of the Eurozone, as is that countries cannot set interest rates or float currencies (sovereign tools).

Right. The thing would work perfectly well if everyone behaved like the Germans.

According to the Germans anyway.

[Burney]

You seem to have mixed up the quote from the report and my interpretation of that. A more usual bailout with debt relief could not be applied without risking other countries which is an inherent weakness of the Eurozone, as is that countries cannot set interest rates or float currencies (sovereign tools).

This is pretty basic stuff that pretty much everyone now accepts about the Euro and these were the reasons why Gordon Brown (a man I have little time for in other respects) did us all a huge favour by fighting that grinning idiot Blair tooth and nail to keep us out of the clusterfück.

[1 up 2 down]

But not one single leave voter had the first idea what the effects on the country would be, and so, in effect, didn't know what they were voting for. :shrug:

What a dumb blinkered response. There are plenty of people who knew what it was like before joining the "common market" and the efforts needed to enter into trade deals. There are plenty of knowledgeable people who take interest in other countries, who are not in the "single market" to do their deals (Switzerland, Finland etc)....so to tar everyone with the same ignorant brush shows your lack of respect and understanding for your fellow man.

[eastgermanautos]

I would say, actually, that it was true. Remainers voted for the status quo, that was a reasonably informed judgement because we know what we've got. I remember saying at the time that, whilst I might be tempted instinctively, to vote to leave, no one was giving me an argument upon which I could make that judgement. No one told us what leaving would mean in terms of having a plan to replace the EU trade deals which govern how we do bsuiness. I sort of assumed that some genius had worked out such a plan, but that that they simply weren't prepared to share iot with us. This seemed to me to make it impossible to vote Leave, because I had no idea what the outcome of this decision would be for the country.

Obviously, the thick, fat, ignorant, benefits-stealing feckless northerners give not a single fúck what happens to the country as long as their giro arrives on a Tuesday, so they voted in swathes to send the w*gs home. Others voted to give the liberal elite a good kick in the gonads; others still to save our sovereignity, and so on. But not one single leave voter had the first idea what the effects on the country would be, and so, in effect, didn't know what they were voting for. :shrug:

Well, I mean, social cohesion is not a very good argument. Basically if you can make the argument for social cohesion, you can persuade a people to do anything. All the disasters of the 20th century came about as a result of the social cohesion argument. Now, it's effective. Because people desire to submit themselves to the local strongman. And that tends to be, in every village, some loudmouth who's a bit bigger physically than his brethren. But, because there is no limit to what people would wish to grab on the basis of social cohesion, it rightly has a bad reputation.

[Yesterday Once More]

It may be true that not everyone who voted leave wanted exactly the same from leaving the EU, but the same could be said of those who voted to Remain. Many Tory Remainers like Theresa May would have wanted to get shot of the European Court of Human Rights; this would have been anathama to Lib Dems.

It was a referendum, and the majority in voting for Leave understood that this would probably involve leaving the Single Market. It was empahsised by leading figures on both sides at regular interviews during the campaign. To say that there is no mandate for a so-called "hard Brexit" is nonsense.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

I would say, actually, that it was true. Remainers voted for the status quo, that was a reasonably informed judgement because we know what we've got. I remember saying at the time that, whilst I might be tempted instinctively, to vote to leave, no one was giving me an argument upon which I could make that judgement. No one told us what leaving would mean in terms of having a plan to replace the EU trade deals which govern how we do bsuiness. I sort of assumed that some genius had worked out such a plan, but that that they simply weren't prepared to share iot with us. This seemed to me to make it impossible to vote Leave, because I had no idea what the outcome of this decision would be for the country.

Obviously, the thick, fat, ignorant, benefits-stealing feckless northerners give not a single fúck what happens to the country as long as their giro arrives on a Tuesday, so they voted in swathes to send the w*gs home. Others voted to give the liberal elite a good kick in the gonads; others still to save our sovereignity, and so on. But not one single leave voter had the first idea what the effects on the country would be, and so, in effect, didn't know what they were voting for. :shrug:

Agree with every word of that analysis. {Though as a committed Europhile who spent much of the '90s and noughties travelling around Europe teaching the continentals how to live in trucks, put up **** off sound systems in fields for free and get ****ered for weeks at at time, I was always gonna vote Remain no matter what.}

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Placing huge decisions about matters the totality of which they cannot possibly understand in the hands of laymen is rather the point of democracy, old chap. If you don't like it, that's a separate argument, but hardly germane here. The logical conclusion to your argument is rule by unaccountable technocrats to whom we must acquiesce on the somewhat dubious grounds that they know what's best for us. And, since that is precisely the situation that many of us voted to reject on June 23rd, you can hardly expect that it would be favourably received now.

As to the suggestion that the experts to whom you refer did not have vested interests, it is patently ludicrous, since they clearly did. If they wished to be taken seriously as genuinely independent voices, perhaps they ought to have done more to retain some modicum of independence?

No. I thought I voted for MPs who were members of parties who paid big-brained people to advise them on the best course of action. It's called representative democracy, and I kinda like it. It sits between direct democracy plebicites and autocracy.

It's worked rather well for us, certainly since the Glorious Revolution meant we had permanent parliaments.

[Ash]

No. I thought I voted for MPs who were members of parties who paid big-brained people to advise them on the best course of action. It's called representative democracy, and I kinda like it. It sits between direct democracy plebicites and autocracy.

It's worked rather well for us, certainly since the Glorious Revolution meant we had permanent parliaments.

But yet some things are more important than 'big brains'. Big brains have brought us endless regime-change wars, millions of death, chaos, Islamist barbarism and a new cold war. Brought to us by high-flying academic neo-cons and lib-hawks. Yet many ordinary people with their smaller brains don't buy this ****. They're actually smart enough to notice that after Iraq and Libya it doesn't work. Yet the 'big brains' try it again in Syria.

The Levellers and the Chartists wouldn't buy this 'big brain' elitist crap, Ganps, and neither should you. Liking Europe has *nothing* to do with supporting the ruling class technocracy of the EU machine. If you support the people of Europe, then support them, not the ****s in Brussels who keep overturning referendums they don't like - in Ireland, France, NL and Greece.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

But yet some things are more important than 'big brains'. Big brains have brought us endless regime-change wars, millions of death, chaos, Islamist barbarism and a new cold war. Brought to us by high-flying academic neo-cons and lib-hawks. Yet many ordinary people with their smaller brains don't buy this ****. They're actually smart enough to notice that after Iraq and Libya it doesn't work. Yet the 'big brains' try it again in Syria.

The Levellers and the Chartists wouldn't buy this 'big brain' elitist crap, Ganps, and neither should you. Liking Europe has *nothing* to do with supporting the ruling class technocracy of the EU machine. If you support the people of Europe, then support them, not the ****s in Brussels who keep overturning referendums they don't like - in Ireland, France, NL and Greece.

1. I'm just saying I prefer representative democracy to direct democracy, Ash. I don't know enough about most policy issues to make an informed decision, I'd rather just elect an MP to make those decisions for me.

2. I take your point about the Levellers, though. Though if I remember the Putney debates correctly, they wanted one man (but not woman) one vote and annual parliaments. Again, they wanted to elect MPs, not have plebiscites on everything.

3. The lifestyle I had between c.1994 and c.2007 was all because of the EU. The first GB free sound system (Spiral Tribe) left for France and Spain c.1992 because of the Criminal Justice Act and started a free party scene. They didn't have free festivals in Europe but the Spirals started them - Teknivals. More and more English rigs (sound systems) came out and more and more natives started joining in, getting their own rigs and starting to live in vehicles. Before long we had 40-50k people coming to Teknivals in France. We had free sound systems from all over Europe, many with a mix of nationalities. That was my adult life, mate.

And I'm afraid it was inseparable from Brussels. (A bit like I couldn't have been a squatter before that without a govt and the City of London to pay my giro.)

We felt European, we felt united. For the first time ever - because of the lack of lyrics in tekno music - we had a properly united pan-European youth counter-culture movement/lifestyle. And it wouldn't have happened without the EU.

I was a Euro-raver then. Yes, I was British (which gave you a certain kudos coming from the country which started it all, which was nice.) But I was European first and foremost. It would never have happened if we'd needed the visas that are being talked about. You needed to be able to jump on a bus/train/plane or drive to Dover or Calais at the drop of a hat.

I'm not saying I support the EU machine and the technocracy. And I know in the real world the EZ will never get the full fiscal and political union it needs to make it work.

But had you asked any of us Teknival Euro-ravers back then if we could unite Europe into one country, we'd have all said yes.

As I say, I know this could never happen in the real world, but I'm just trying to explain how we felt. We all felt me had far more in common with each other than with most people from our respective countries.

It was a beautiful feeling, Ash. I can't really describe it and we didn't think about the politics of it all, just out-witting the local fuzz. But I guess we saw no difference between a govt in Brussels and the one in GB which had criminalised our lifestyle and thrown us out of the country.

If you'd said to us that the EU machine was the price we had to pay - that it was the undemocratic EU or no more Tekkies and the end to our friendships - then we'd have chosen the teknivals and EU every day of the week.

If you wanna waste five mins watching a montage vid of what we were doing (set to Moby, not Tekno music), have a look here:

https://vimeo.com/35344156

As I say, we didn't think about the politics but felt we were all citizens of the same of the same country. While we'd talk about how the rave laws were changing in various countries, I don't think any of us ever mentioned Brussels/the EU once in 2 decades. As I say, we weren't political. We just wanted to find a field, put up the rigs and get munted for the next 1-3 weeks before moving on and doing it again.

I know we can never have a proper, single European country but if I could vote for one, I would. Because that's what my adult life, in it's pathetic, hedonistic way, was devoted to.

[Burney]

1. I'm just saying I prefer representative democracy to direct democracy, Ash. I don't know enough about most policy issues to make an informed decision, I'd rather just elect an MP to make those decisions for me.

2. I take your point about the Levellers, though. Though if I remember the Putney debates correctly, they wanted one man (but not woman) one vote and annual parliaments. Again, they wanted to elect MPs, not have plebiscites on everything.

3. The lifestyle I had between c.1994 and c.2007 was all because of the EU. The first GB free sound system (Spiral Tribe) left for France and Spain c.1992 because of the Criminal Justice Act and started a free party scene. They didn't have free festivals in Europe but the Spirals started them - Teknivals. More and more English rigs (sound systems) came out and more and more natives started joining in, getting their own rigs and starting to live in vehicles. Before long we had 40-50k people coming to Teknivals in France. We had free sound systems from all over Europe, many with a mix of nationalities. That was my adult life, mate.

And I'm afraid it was inseparable from Brussels. (A bit like I couldn't have been a squatter before that without a govt and the City of London to pay my giro.)

We felt European, we felt united. For the first time ever - because of the lack of lyrics in tekno music - we had a properly united pan-European youth counter-culture movement/lifestyle. And it wouldn't have happened without the EU.

I was a Euro-raver then. Yes, I was British (which gave you a certain kudos coming from the country which started it all, which was nice.) But I was European first and foremost. It would never have happened if we'd needed the visas that are being talked about. You needed to be able to jump on a bus/train/plane or drive to Dover or Calais at the drop of a hat.

I'm not saying I support the EU machine and the technocracy. And I know in the real world the EZ will never get the full fiscal and political union it needs to make it work.

But had you asked any of us Teknival Euro-ravers back then if we could unite Europe into one country, we'd have all said yes.

As I say, I know this could never happen in the real world, but I'm just trying to explain how we felt. We all felt me had far more in common with each other than with most people from our respective countries.

It was a beautiful feeling, Ash. I can't really describe it and we didn't think about the politics of it all, just out-witting the local fuzz. But I guess we saw no difference between a govt in Brussels and the one in GB which had criminalised our lifestyle and thrown us out of the country.

If you'd said to us that the EU machine was the price we had to pay - that it was the undemocratic EU or no more Tekkies and the end to our friendships - then we'd have chosen the teknivals and EU every day of the week.

If you wanna waste five mins watching a montage vid of what we were doing (set to Moby, not Tekno music), have a look here:

https://vimeo.com/35344156

As I say, we didn't think about the politics but felt we were all citizens of the same of the same country. While we'd talk about how the rave laws were changing in various countries, I don't think any of us ever mentioned Brussels/the EU once in 2 decades. As I say, we weren't political. We just wanted to find a field, put up the rigs and get munted for the next 1-3 weeks before moving on and doing it again.

I know we can never have a proper, single European country but if I could vote for one, I would. Because that's what my adult life, in it's pathetic, hedonistic way, was devoted to.

I, too, regard representative democracy as generally preferable. However, as I pointed out earlier, this referendum came about because our representatives wilfully refused to represent their constituents' feelings about the EU.
Voters were presented with no meaningful opportunity to express their feelings, since all the major parties were pro-EU. Where representative democracy fails to represent, the clamour for direct democracy will inevitably grow until it becomes deafening.
In the end, the referendum came about because voters were flocking to the one party who gave them a chance of saying no to the EU. That pressure forced Cameron against his will to offer a referendum. Inevitably, such was the frustration of a populace so long denied any say on the question of our country's place in the EU that 20 years of anger resolved itself into an outright rejection of those who had silenced them.
In that sense, the referendum was absolutely in the tradition of our democracy because it was forced by peaceful democratic pressure on a governing parliamentary party. This was a truly revolutionary and democratic moment where the people of England (and Wales, I guess) rose up and reminded their supposed betters who was boss.

[Burney]

1. I'm just saying I prefer representative democracy to direct democracy, Ash. I don't know enough about most policy issues to make an informed decision, I'd rather just elect an MP to make those decisions for me.

2. I take your point about the Levellers, though. Though if I remember the Putney debates correctly, they wanted one man (but not woman) one vote and annual parliaments. Again, they wanted to elect MPs, not have plebiscites on everything.

3. The lifestyle I had between c.1994 and c.2007 was all because of the EU. The first GB free sound system (Spiral Tribe) left for France and Spain c.1992 because of the Criminal Justice Act and started a free party scene. They didn't have free festivals in Europe but the Spirals started them - Teknivals. More and more English rigs (sound systems) came out and more and more natives started joining in, getting their own rigs and starting to live in vehicles. Before long we had 40-50k people coming to Teknivals in France. We had free sound systems from all over Europe, many with a mix of nationalities. That was my adult life, mate.

And I'm afraid it was inseparable from Brussels. (A bit like I couldn't have been a squatter before that without a govt and the City of London to pay my giro.)

We felt European, we felt united. For the first time ever - because of the lack of lyrics in tekno music - we had a properly united pan-European youth counter-culture movement/lifestyle. And it wouldn't have happened without the EU.

I was a Euro-raver then. Yes, I was British (which gave you a certain kudos coming from the country which started it all, which was nice.) But I was European first and foremost. It would never have happened if we'd needed the visas that are being talked about. You needed to be able to jump on a bus/train/plane or drive to Dover or Calais at the drop of a hat.

I'm not saying I support the EU machine and the technocracy. And I know in the real world the EZ will never get the full fiscal and political union it needs to make it work.

But had you asked any of us Teknival Euro-ravers back then if we could unite Europe into one country, we'd have all said yes.

As I say, I know this could never happen in the real world, but I'm just trying to explain how we felt. We all felt me had far more in common with each other than with most people from our respective countries.

It was a beautiful feeling, Ash. I can't really describe it and we didn't think about the politics of it all, just out-witting the local fuzz. But I guess we saw no difference between a govt in Brussels and the one in GB which had criminalised our lifestyle and thrown us out of the country.

If you'd said to us that the EU machine was the price we had to pay - that it was the undemocratic EU or no more Tekkies and the end to our friendships - then we'd have chosen the teknivals and EU every day of the week.

If you wanna waste five mins watching a montage vid of what we were doing (set to Moby, not Tekno music), have a look here:

https://vimeo.com/35344156

As I say, we didn't think about the politics but felt we were all citizens of the same of the same country. While we'd talk about how the rave laws were changing in various countries, I don't think any of us ever mentioned Brussels/the EU once in 2 decades. As I say, we weren't political. We just wanted to find a field, put up the rigs and get munted for the next 1-3 weeks before moving on and doing it again.

I know we can never have a proper, single European country but if I could vote for one, I would. Because that's what my adult life, in it's pathetic, hedonistic way, was devoted to.

Also, I can think of few things more antithetical to the idea of British democratic history than your meek, forelock-tugging acceptance that our ruling classes know what's best for us. Fúck that! Where would democracy be if everyone had always thought like that?

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Also, I can think of few things more antithetical to the idea of British democratic history than your meek, forelock-tugging acceptance that our ruling classes know what's best for us. Fúck that! Where would democracy be if everyone had always thought like that?

Don't know where you got that idea from, B. I've continually made the case that the radicals of all social classes have had to fight tooth and nail for reform since about the C13th. I'm just saying two things.

1. That I prefer representative democracy to direct democracy - MPs to plebiscites.
2. That for about 2 decades there were a group of us from many European countries who didn't give a flying fück about politics but felt part of one pan-European tribe, who felt we were all members of the same nation, Europe (or European Teknival free raver new age traveller land) and would have loved to have had one country (though with different "states" in the Indian, Aus or US sense) but where we had one govt, one fiscal and monetary system, one foreign policy (domestic policy would work better at state level given the differences between Napoleonic and GB justice for example), one army etc. We didn't think about sovereignty, though that may have had something to do with a lifestyle that us masters of our own (squatted) field where the state and their police stayed outside and we became a self-policing society with no crime and little violence.

I would suggest that it was the very fact that we refused to tug our forelock to anyone that meant we didn't have to worry about things like sovereignty.

Sorry. But do I think the average MP and economics professor had a better understanding of the economic realities Brexit could entail than the average voter? Yes I do.

Do I know what sort of machines the NHS need to fix heart attacks? No. But I expect our experts at the Health Min to, and I expect our MP's select committees to scruntinise their decisions and the MPs and Lords to debate and amend their legislation.

I don't think the decision should be made by a referendum where some voters will believe that shouldn't buy German (even if they happened to be the best) while others would try and stop them being used on foreign patients before British ones.

I fail to see how preferring representative democracy to plebiscites equates with forelock tugging.

Put it this way. So many of my ex-raver mates have so addled their brains with ketamine and so believe they are anarchists that they believe any conspiracy theory bull****. (For example they tell me that the Rothschilds own every national bank in the world, and won't believe me when I tell them that we nationalised ours after the war, or that we set up the BoE 103 years before Nat Rothschild came to GB or that Iran and Iraq are hardly going to let a Jew have the power to switch their money supply off.)

So my glw had been reading their posts pre-Brexit about TTIP and started to worry. So I just said "well write to our MP" {Meg Hillier, Hackney, who's a bloody good constituency MP - chair of the Public Accounts committee now, I think - who'd got written ministerial answers for a few of my questions and been generally very helpful.}

So she did, and got an intelligent reply about they way they and their sister Euro lefty parties would scrutinise it and make sure that we'd get it rejected if it really was gonna **** us over - all we needed was one country out of 28 where the left were in charge and if we weren't all happy, we'd get them to veto it. Put her mind at rest.

Would I rather they were dealing with it than letting my mates vote - people who think the minimum wage must be "neo-liberal" cause Blair done it and everything Blair did was "neo-liberal". You try to show that the state intervening to make sure that workers get a higher wage than the supply and demand equilibrium for the price of labour is the antithesis of "neo-liberalism" and they won't believe you because that doesn't fit with what "Jeremy" says.

If you knew as many fückwits as I do, you'd be wary of letting them have a vote on every single issue.

This is not forelock tugging. We live in a multi-party democracy where we can throw our MPs and govt out. We can choose to vote for the party that seems to closest reflect our views. But we can leave them to deal with the specifics unless we want to take an active interest on a specific issue and hassle them all the time about it.

I don't say that we should accept that the ruling classes know what's best for us. FFS we've had to fight them to come round to our PoV on most major social reform issues. But I'd rather live in a multi-party representative democracy (some form of PR would be nice - eg multi-member constituencies with STV) than allow everyone to have a vote on every issue.

Having MPs has been the British way since 1265, and permanently since 1689. Our MPs cut the head off a king in 1649. We had to go through two elections in 1910 (of MPs, not plebiscites) to get the People's Budget passed and then the Parliament Act to stop the aristocratic ruling class keeping their veto. That is the British way.

Having plebiscites to simply confirm the diktats of the ruling class (as used by Boney and Adolf and attempted and failed by Cameron) is the foreign way.

If we can choose our MPs from a wide selection every 4-5 years what's the problem with letting them spend all the time examining these things while we get off our heads or watch the football?

I fail to see where I'm tugging my forelock.

[Ash]

We live in a multi-party democracy where we can throw our MPs and govt out. We can choose to vote for the party that seems to closest reflect our views. But we can leave them to deal with the specifics unless we want to take an active interest on a specific issue and hassle them all the time about it.


I don't think anyone here is arguing against representative democracy as a general model, but as Berni said, when all the main parties support the EU and a majority of the population don't, then those representatives have failed. Eventually they would have risked being voted out in favour of a single-issue party so they called the referendum expecting to defeat the idea but failed.

As the EU assume more and more power (and I don't think I'm exaggerating to say that this is what it intends to do) over local MPs and national governments then throwing out those MPs will make less and less difference.

The forelock-tugging that Berni is teasing you about would presumably be the 'my MP knows best' line that you are sticking to. I already gave you a pretty damned important example of where these people clearly don't know best but you had nothing to say about that, and prefer to cite your years of glorious hedonism as a reason to support the status quo. :shrug:

And the detail of the Levellers programme, as well as the lack of the notion of women's equality in the 17th century, obfuscates my point about the democratic principles at stake.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

I, too, regard representative democracy as generally preferable. However, as I pointed out earlier, this referendum came about because our representatives wilfully refused to represent their constituents' feelings about the EU.
Voters were presented with no meaningful opportunity to express their feelings, since all the major parties were pro-EU. Where representative democracy fails to represent, the clamour for direct democracy will inevitably grow until it becomes deafening.
In the end, the referendum came about because voters were flocking to the one party who gave them a chance of saying no to the EU. That pressure forced Cameron against his will to offer a referendum. Inevitably, such was the frustration of a populace so long denied any say on the question of our country's place in the EU that 20 years of anger resolved itself into an outright rejection of those who had silenced them.
In that sense, the referendum was absolutely in the tradition of our democracy because it was forced by peaceful democratic pressure on a governing parliamentary party. This was a truly revolutionary and democratic moment where the people of England (and Wales, I guess) rose up and reminded their supposed betters who was boss.

We should have let them all vote Ukip if they cared so much. We know that some Leavers want all immigration stopped while others wanted continued single market access. These are mutually exclusive. We know that some genuinely believed they were getting £350m a week for the NHS, while others really thought Turkey could join without us being able to veto it. We know that in the post-vote racist attacks both Poles and Pakistanis were attacked being told that they should fück off as we've voted out, and I assume there must be many like my sis-in-law (Cornish, where there's no immigrants and massive EU subsidies, and who has no concern about sovereignty beyond Cornwall not having to share a constituency with Devon) who simply voted out "to stick two fingers up to the lot of them." There were also those who were basically trying to vote against a modern globally-integrated economy as though we can somehow turn the clock back without raising costs and prices to ridiculously high levels.

Truly revolutionary. We also know that the latest polls since the pound collapsed show a majority now wish they'd remained. Give people the chance to vote "fück you all" and some will without even thinking why, let alone what the consequences will be.

As you are probably well aware, not everyone is as well read or as educated or as concerned as you are.

All this was, B, was yet another example of a Tory civil war that's been going on since the Corn Law repeal of 1846 via the free trade/imperial preference debates and then the EEC vc Commonwealth between the inward and outward looking wings of the party. That in itself is not truly revolutionary. The difference is that this time, we settled it by a plebiscite which became a personality contest between the leaders of the two wings and that everyone had a vote, including women and the poor.

As I say, you have cared about this, researched this, understood the concepts and made as informed decision as possible. My point is that the same is not true of millions of others whose vote was {rightly} worth just as much as mine or yours. I'm afraid I don't see a lot of people using their one chance to stick two fingers up to the govt as truly revolutionary. {I think it stupid of Cameron to have given them the chance or at least not considered the possibility.}

Cutting the head off a king, yes. Throwing out a king and forcing his successor to accept permanent parliaments and the right of parl to choose the monarch, yes. Passing the Great Reform Act ending the monarch's control of parl through his pocket boroughs, yes. The consequent emancipation of slaves becoming the first society in history to consider every single human a non-enslaveabe insider, yes. Peel putting the interests of the workers and free trade above those of his own party composed mostly of the landed interest, yes. Voting twice in a year to get the People's Budget and then end the Lords' veto, yes. Even voting for a Lab landslide after WW2, yes.

Having a vote on the Tory civil war where one side could say "Do you not like how things are in the modern world? Would you like to stick two fingers up to it? We have a magic bean that will give you whatever you want" and enough gullible fückwits to determine the outcome going "oh good. I like sticking two fingers up and I love magic beans" was truly revolutionary? No. Not in my book.

Look, I can see where you're coming from and completely understand why you'd see it like that. But for every Berni who cared passionately about it there were many who just wanted to say "**** you" whether to the politicians, or foreigners, or the modern, globalised economy (which won't go away, will it?) or just the world in general.

Decapitating a monarch is truly revolutionary. Drawing a big cock and balls on a ballot paper (as many effectively did) isn't. Not in my book, anyway.

But then, as I've explained, I'm completely biased the other way as a direct result of how I spent most of my adult life between the LSE at 18-21 and doing that OU history degree c.2008

So I would say all this, wouldn't I?

[Tony C]

The same people who said this wouldn't happen are the same people trying to educate us on what happens next and pushing for the government to not pursue it.

I've thought for the last few years that us exiting the EU would be the best play to make...it is doomed to fail and I'd rather not be dragged down with them.

Financially we will be far better off
Welfare and standards of living will improve
Unemployment levels will fall dramatically
Britain will be great again

Very exciting times ahead.....

Don't listen to the clowns trying to convince you of otherwise....mostly furious lefties annoyed that their +50 year globalisation scheme has been halted by us and Trump. Fair play to them....they played the long game..I think the problem was they used their social justice ace waaaaaay to early. Should've hung onto that one a bit longer.

Mind you I'm the guy who wanted Trump to win badly and thinks he will go down as of the greatest presidents of all time....when he's finished Americans will wishing they could have him for a third term!!

Theresa, Trump and Putin....3 of the finiest minds to rule the world....taiwanese are also most welcome imo

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

I don't think anyone here is arguing against representative democracy as a general model, but as Berni said, when all the main parties support the EU and a majority of the population don't, then those representatives have failed. Eventually they would have risked being voted out in favour of a single-issue party so they called the referendum expecting to defeat the idea but failed.

As the EU assume more and more power (and I don't think I'm exaggerating to say that this is what it intends to do) over local MPs and national governments then throwing out those MPs will make less and less difference.

The forelock-tugging that Berni is teasing you about would presumably be the 'my MP knows best' line that you are sticking to. I already gave you a pretty damned important example of where these people clearly don't know best but you had nothing to say about that, and prefer to cite your years of glorious hedonism as a reason to support the status quo. :shrug:

And the detail of the Levellers programme, as well as the lack of the notion of women's equality in the 17th century, obfuscates my point about the democratic principles at stake.

Look, if I wanted to take your side I could make a bloody good case. {The reason I explained my headonism was to try to explain why it would go against everything I've stood for and done.}

In Sept 1914, when germany thought they'd win the war in weeks, they planned the peace terms they'd impose. It was called (surprisingly) the September Programme.

Among all the annexations, it includes the clause:

"Germany would create a Mitteleuropa economic association, ostensibly egalitarian but actually dominated by Germany. Members would include the new buffer states."

Sounds suspiciously like what they're doing now, no?

See the full terms here (it's very short, about ten points of the length of the one above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septemberprogramm

Or Krugman and others blaming Germany for causing the crisis by keeping their real wage growth vastly below the EZ and OECD average, using the single currency to protect them from a rising DM. You can see the graph, an/or read another article on it here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/upshot/how-underpaid-german-workers-helped-cause-europes-debt-crisis.html?_r=0

So yes, I could make just as good a case for leaving as any Brexiteer.

I was simply trying to say why I didn't care about things like that when I was living in and travelling around Europe all those years.

As Stiglitz says (and everyone knows) there's no solution to the EZ without full fiscal union and that will never be accepted by Germany so the whole thing is doomed. I know this.

But I could never effectively stick two fingers up to all those mates I made who put me up when I barely knew them, looked after my truck when I came back home and became many of the best mates I'll ever make.

Even if it is all fücking wrong and the Germans have effectively won WW1 and started implementing the 1914 Sept Prog in the year we commemorate those 360k who gave their lives at the Somme to prevent such an outcome.

As a WW1 junkie, it makes my blood boil.

But I can't change who I am, Ash. I can't unlive those best years of my life.

Even if the wånkers deliberately started a war that killed 17m people just so they could take over Europe and "create a Mitteleuropa economic association, ostensibly egalitarian but actually dominated by Germany. Members would include the new buffer states." which they are now doing by deliberately keeping real wage growth far, far lower than everyone else and getting the poor in the rest of the EZ to pay for it by being unable to devalue their currencies.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

The same people who said this wouldn't happen are the same people trying to educate us on what happens next and pushing for the government to not pursue it.

I've thought for the last few years that us exiting the EU would be the best play to make...it is doomed to fail and I'd rather not be dragged down with them.

Financially we will be far better off
Welfare and standards of living will improve
Unemployment levels will fall dramatically
Britain will be great again

Very exciting times ahead.....

Don't listen to the clowns trying to convince you of otherwise....mostly furious lefties annoyed that their +50 year globalisation scheme has been halted by us and Trump. Fair play to them....they played the long game..I think the problem was they used their social justice ace waaaaaay to early. Should've hung onto that one a bit longer.

Mind you I'm the guy who wanted Trump to win badly and thinks he will go down as of the greatest presidents of all time....when he's finished Americans will wishing they could have him for a third term!!

Theresa, Trump and Putin....3 of the finiest minds to rule the world....taiwanese are also most welcome imo

Unemployment will not fall. When Blair created the Monetary Policy Committee in 1997, its brief was to keep inflation down by stopping upward wage pressure by keeping around 2m unemployed.

This has continued under successive govts.

It was about 1.9m in 1997, fell to c.1.5m before the crash, rose above 2m after and is now back down to a little over 1.5m

So unemployment has basically stayed constant as the MPC intend. During that time, the UK population has gone up from 58m to 64m.

So we've had 6m immigrants come in and no change to the number of unemployed.

No matter how many foreigners we throw out, the MPC will ensure that the least able 2m stay unemployed to stop inflation. Fact. It's in their fücking founding charter.