Whoa! 'Theresa May to call Arlene Foster later today to pitch border deal'?

[Burney]

Surely even May isn't incompetent enough to make an offer to the EU on the border without first running it by the party currently keeping her in office? Surely?

[SWv2]

Surely even May isn't incompetent enough to make an offer to the EU on the border without first running it by the party currently keeping her in office? Surely?

Ni will effectively remain as an EU state in all but name in relation to all dealings with the free 26 counties of Ireland.

Basically an outpost, different to the rest of your so-called United Kingdom and if anything more aligned to us than the other 3 countries which make up your outdated concept of Great Britain.

Arlene is going to go fúcking mental.

[Luis Anaconda]

Ni will effectively remain as an EU state in all but name in relation to all dealings with the free 26 counties of Ireland.

Basically an outpost, different to the rest of your so-called United Kingdom and if anything more aligned to us than the other 3 countries which make up your outdated concept of Great Britain.

Arlene is going to go fúcking mental.
Great Britain is the name of the Ireland, sw, and will continue to be so even if Scotland, Wales and England were to go their separate ways - not sure how that can be an outdated concept

[Luis Anaconda]

Surely even May isn't incompetent enough to make an offer to the EU on the border without first running it by the party currently keeping her in office? Surely?

I reckon she is - wouldn't mind be a fly on the wall for the conversation though. Would be a lovely irony if Ireland becomes a more united entity thanks to a government backed by those ****ers

[SWv2]

Great Britain is the name of the Ireland, sw, and will continue to be so even if Scotland, Wales and England were to go their separate ways - not sure how that can be an outdated concept

It is a silly name.

For a start there is fúck all Great about it. Perhaps once when you ruled others.

[Burney]

Ni will effectively remain as an EU state in all but name in relation to all dealings with the free 26 counties of Ireland.

Basically an outpost, different to the rest of your so-called United Kingdom and if anything more aligned to us than the other 3 countries which make up your outdated concept of Great Britain.

Arlene is going to go fúcking mental.

Lots of benefits for the UK if that were to work. It would effectively allow the UK to retain economic access to the EU while remaining politically outside it. NI might become a very handy place for UK businesses to set up satellite offices. Of course, we would have to restrict entry from NI to GB to keep the foreigners out.

[Luis Anaconda]

It is a silly name.

For a start there is fúck all Great about it. Perhaps once when you ruled others.
sigh - as I'm sure you know, rich, sorry sw, it refers to the geographical size in comparison to the rest of the British Isles, of which Ireland is, of course, one.

Must you be so literal with names? Is Ireland really a Land of Ire, A Land of Anger and Wrath? Oh...

[Luis Anaconda]

Lots of benefits for the UK if that were to work. It would effectively allow the UK to retain economic access to the EU while remaining politically outside it. NI might become a very handy place for UK businesses to set up satellite offices. Of course, we would have to restrict entry from NI to GB to keep the foreigners out.

If it keeps the Northern Irish out - win, win :hide:

[Burney]

It is a silly name.

For a start there is fúck all Great about it. Perhaps once when you ruled others.

It simply means great in the sense of 'encompassing the whole island and all nations and principalities therein', you tit.

Besides, there's fücking loads that's 'Great' about it.

[Ash]

Ni will effectively remain as an EU state in all but name in relation to all dealings with the free 26 counties of Ireland.

Basically an outpost, different to the rest of your so-called United Kingdom and if anything more aligned to us than the other 3 countries which make up your outdated concept of Great Britain.

Arlene is going to go fúcking mental.

Result imo. The Brexit bonus. Not only get rid of Brussels but give N.Ireland back too.

Your fine Guards! can deal with a few hundred thousand orange loonies. :-)

[Peter]

It is a silly name.

For a start there is fúck all Great about it. Perhaps once when you ruled others.

Really? You often speak very fondly of your time here which seems to have consisted of smoking third rate hash, quaffing pints, nobbing fat birds and getting sacked.

What's not 'Great' about that?

Ungrateful swine.......

[Peter]

Result imo. The Brexit bonus. Not only get rid of Brussels but give N.Ireland back too.

Your fine Guards! can deal with a few hundred thousand orange loonies. :-)

The dream of a united Ireland. THe true Ireland. A nation once again!

Its wonderful....

[SWv2]

sigh - as I'm sure you know, rich, sorry sw, it refers to the geographical size in comparison to the rest of the British Isles, of which Ireland is, of course, one.

Must you be so literal with names? Is Ireland really a Land of Ire, A Land of Anger and Wrath? Oh...

I’ve never really bothered to understand it to be honest.

I was always confused how it was one entity for certain issues such as the Olympics or the Eurovision but then different for important stuff like the World Cup.

The fact that I was at war with you just caused me to be even less interested than normal.

[SWv2]

Result imo. The Brexit bonus. Not only get rid of Brussels but give N.Ireland back too.

Your fine Guards! can deal with a few hundred thousand orange loonies. :-)

Gardai :rolleyes:

[Burney]

Result imo. The Brexit bonus. Not only get rid of Brussels but give N.Ireland back too.

Your fine Guards! can deal with a few hundred thousand orange loonies. :-)

Point of order: we cannot give Northern Ireland 'back', since the Irish have never had it to be given it 'back'. Ireland has never been a meaningfully united political entity other than under British rule.

That said, I see a lot of useful aspects to essentially treating Northern Ireland as a bonded warehouse for exporting to the EU.

[SWv2]

Point of order: we cannot give Northern Ireland 'back', since the Irish have never had it to be given it 'back'. Ireland has never been a meaningfully united political entity other than under British rule.

That said, I see a lot of useful aspects to essentially treating Northern Ireland as a bonded warehouse for exporting to the EU.

Does Arlene not pull the plug then and you go to the polls again, and then maybe even let Jeremy in?

There is a fair amount more clusterfúcking which yet could happen here.

[Peter]

Point of order: we cannot give Northern Ireland 'back', since the Irish have never had it to be given it 'back'. Ireland has never been a meaningfully united political entity other than under British rule.

That said, I see a lot of useful aspects to essentially treating Northern Ireland as a bonded warehouse for exporting to the EU.

And Ireland has never been a meaningfully partitioned entity other than under british rule. So yes, we can 'give it back' in the same sense that we 'gave back' the 26 almost a century ago.

[Burney]

Does Arlene not pull the plug then and you go to the polls again, and then maybe even let Jeremy in?

There is a fair amount more clusterfúcking which yet could happen here.

Oh, yeah. We've all come to assume clusterfückery as the new norm over here. I still don't think Corbo will get in whatever happens.

I'm just trying to get my head around May trying to broker a deal without proper consultation with the DUP. It just seems impossibly stupid.

[Peter]

Oh, yeah. We've all come to assume clusterfückery as the new norm over here. I still don't think Corbo will get in whatever happens.

I'm just trying to get my head around May trying to broker a deal without proper consultation with the DUP. It just seems impossibly stupid.

The impossibly stupid might just be an act of genius in the current climate. Or, more likely, an act of impossible stupidity.

[Burney]

And Ireland has never been a meaningfully partitioned entity other than under british rule. So yes, we can 'give it back' in the same sense that we 'gave back' the 26 almost a century ago.

You can't give something 'back' that someone has never had, p. ou can give it to them (and welcome to it, God knows), but that's it. We didn't give the 26 counties 'back', we gave them to the newly-founded entity of the Irish Republic. Y

[Ash]

You can't give something 'back' that someone has never had, p. ou can give it to them (and welcome to it, God knows), but that's it. We didn't give the 26 counties 'back', we gave them to the newly-founded entity of the Irish Republic. Y

We gave them back to the Irish people, if we couldn't give them back to the Irish State.

That's the trouble with your ilk. You only recognise the ruling class of a nation. The ordinary people just don't exist. :shrug:

[Peter]

You can't give something 'back' that someone has never had, p. ou can give it to them (and welcome to it, God knows), but that's it. We didn't give the 26 counties 'back', we gave them to the newly-founded entity of the Irish Republic. Y

We actually didnt do that. We created a free state within the commonwealth but outside the Union, pretty much what it had been before 1801. We did NOT grant independence or an Irish Republic. The Irish just ignored that and took it as independence, then later declared it themselves.

Lets not quibble over what to call it. We all want Northern Ireland gone so lets just get on with it.

[Burney]

The impossibly stupid might just be an act of genius in the current climate. Or, more likely, an act of impossible stupidity.

That or she's showing willing in the certain knowledge that the DUP will kibosh it. That way, the political heat falls on them rather than her.

[Burney]

We gave them back to the Irish people, if we couldn't give them back to the Irish State.

That's the trouble with your ilk. You only recognise the ruling class of a nation. The ordinary people just don't exist. :shrug:

:hehe: And, if I may say so, the trouble with your 'ilk' is that it actually believes there is such an entity as 'the people' rather than a few million individuals.

[Sir C]

That or she's showing willing in the certain knowledge that the DUP will kibosh it. That way, the political heat falls on them rather than her.

WTO here we come :clap:

[Peter]

We gave them back to the Irish people, if we couldn't give them back to the Irish State.

That's the trouble with your ilk. You only recognise the ruling class of a nation. The ordinary people just don't exist. :shrug:

Politically they dont exist other than as minority share holders with inconsequential voting rights.

*******s to ordinary people. They shouldn't be so ****ing ordinary :D

[Burney]

WTO here we come :clap:

As an idea, it works. She can legitimately say that the majority party in NI as represented at Westminster has rejected the deal and that she has to respect their wishes. I do wonder if she's actually clever enough to have thought that one through, though.

[Ash]

:hehe: And, if I may say so, the trouble with your 'ilk' is that it actually believes there is such an entity as 'the people' rather than a few million individuals.

'Let the people decide.'

And we did. We made history.

[Ash]

Politically they dont exist other than as minority share holders with inconsequential voting rights.

*******s to ordinary people. They shouldn't be so ****ing ordinary :D

:hehe: So we're here again. You elitist Blairite running dogs!

Yes, what did the deplorables ever do with their votes eh?

Power to the Demos!

[Peter]

'Let the people decide.'

And we did. We made history.

Yes.... 'made history' is one of those phrases that really can go either way isnt it :)

[Ash]

Yes.... 'made history' is one of those phrases that really can go either way isnt it :)

Of course. Better than being powerless though. The point is to change it an all that.

[Peter]

:hehe: So we're here again. You elitist Blairite running dogs!

Yes, what did the deplorables ever do with their votes eh?

Power to the Demos!

You dont let the lunatics run the asylum.

[Peter]

Of course. Better than being powerless though. The point is to change it an all that.

THere is nothing more dangerous than a sharp sword in the hand of a blind man......

Apart from possession on the edge of your own box, of course.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

Really? You often speak very fondly of your time here which seems to have consisted of smoking third rate hash, quaffing pints, nobbing fat birds and getting sacked.

What's not 'Great' about that?

Ungrateful swine.......

I'll bet those fat birds were as elfin wood nymphs compared to the bog dwelling toothless hags he fires it up these days.

[Ash]

THere is nothing more dangerous than a sharp sword in the hand of a blind man......

Apart from possession on the edge of your own box, of course.

And a sharp sword in the hand of someone who can see where you are.

I'm not sure you thought this metaphor through, tbh.

[Ash]

You dont let the lunatics run the asylum.

From where I'm standing, they have been for hundreds of years.

[Burney]

I reckon she is - wouldn't mind be a fly on the wall for the conversation though. Would be a lovely irony if Ireland becomes a more united entity thanks to a government backed by those ****ers

Not as lovely an irony, of course, as the distinct possibility - now that they have, as predicted, kiboshed it - of the anti-Brexit protest vote that destroyed May's majority potentially leading to a harder Brexit than would otherwise have been the case.

The last two years of politics in this country really are an object lesson for everyone in the dangers of unintended consequences. :hehe:

[Peter]

And a sharp sword in the hand of someone who can see where you are.

I'm not sure you thought this metaphor through, tbh.

Different danger. The man who can see wil kill who he intends. The blind man could kill anyone.

You may disagree with the plan but its better than random and accidental slaughter.

[Ash]

Not as lovely an irony, of course, as the distinct possibility - now that they have, as predicted, kiboshed it - of the anti-Brexit protest vote that destroyed May's majority potentially leading to a harder Brexit than would otherwise have been the case.


Or a collapse in the coalition leading to a Labour govt which waters down Brexit so much that we are left as an EU colony. :-|

[SWv2]

Not as lovely an irony, of course, as the distinct possibility - now that they have, as predicted, kiboshed it - of the anti-Brexit protest vote that destroyed May's majority potentially leading to a harder Brexit than would otherwise have been the case.

The last two years of politics in this country really are an object lesson for everyone in the dangers of unintended consequences. :hehe:

Allowing the people to vote on an issue which even the politicians in charge, or those whose idea it was, failed to fully understand the consequences of was never really a great idea.

Then again allowing the people to make that call was not May’s call.

The spineless chap who started it all has kind of slid off I note.

[Ash]

Allowing the people to vote on an issue which even the politicians in charge, or those whose idea it was, failed to fully understand the consequences of was never really a great idea.


This is a technocratic argument for concentrating power in the hands of an unelected elite, who in reality should not be trusted to be either wise or fair. The alternative is self-determination, which may be difficult, but that is not a reason for not doing it.

[Burney]

Allowing the people to vote on an issue which even the politicians in charge, or those whose idea it was, failed to fully understand the consequences of was never really a great idea.

Then again allowing the people to make that call was not May’s call.

The spineless chap who started it all has kind of slid off I note.

Only one 'consequence' has ever mattered, though, sw: Getting out of the fücking EU.

Everything else is just detail. It's like a divorce. You don't get divorced knowing every negative or positive consequence of doing so. You get divorced because your relationship has reached an irrevocable point of breakdown.

Every potential difficulty of leaving the EU (and several made-up ones) was flagged up to us before the vote and yet we still voted to Leave. That is an informed decision. We wanted out regardless of the 'consequences'.

[Peter]

Only one 'consequence' has ever mattered, though, sw: Getting out of the fücking EU.

Everything else is just detail. It's like a divorce. You don't get divorced knowing every negative or positive consequence of doing so. You get divorced because your relationship has reached an irrevocable point of breakdown.

Every potential difficulty of leaving the EU (and several made-up ones) was flagged up to us before the vote and yet we still voted to Leave. That is an informed decision. We wanted out regardless of the 'consequences'.

In reality the public were fed hore**** from both sides and inevitably ended up believing what they wanted to believe. THe vast majority of people (on both sides) had virtually no idea what they were voting for. Most of them dont actually know what the EU is. An awful lot of them dont know the difference between a Prime Minister and the Queen.

Ash will probably tell me that this is another example of my Blairist elitism but the fact is the majority of british people take no interest in politics and know virtually nothing about it. THat is fine when we give them a choice between red and blue. If you ask them a complicated question then **** knows what answer you are going to get.

[Burney]

In reality the public were fed hore**** from both sides and inevitably ended up believing what they wanted to believe. THe vast majority of people (on both sides) had virtually no idea what they were voting for. Most of them dont actually know what the EU is. An awful lot of them dont know the difference between a Prime Minister and the Queen.

Ash will probably tell me that this is another example of my Blairist elitism but the fact is the majority of british people take no interest in politics and know virtually nothing about it. THat is fine when we give them a choice ‘between red and blue. If you ask them a complicated question then **** knows what answer you are going to get.

Balls. This is just a way of saying ‘People should not be allowed to vote for outcomes I might dislike’.

[World's End Stella]

Balls. This is just a way of saying ‘People should not be allowed to vote for outcomes I might dislike’.

Yes, I think that's exactly what Peter is saying.

And I would expect exactly the same from you or I if Corbyn were to be elected PM. :shrug:

[IUFG]

And I would expect exactly the same from you or I if Corbyn were to be elected
PM. :shrug:

Corbyn? PM? My god, could you imagine..?

I suppose, one cannot ignore the democratic process which, regrettably, allows mouth-breathers, ****wits, retards and Spurs fans to vote. Some of which will. If they can find the polling station, of course.

[World's End Stella]

Corbyn? PM? My god, could you imagine..?

I suppose, one cannot ignore the democratic process which, regrettably, allows mouth-breathers, ****wits, retards and Spurs fans to vote. Some of which will. If they can find the polling station, of course.

You forgot to put Leavers in that list IUFG ;-)

[Peter]

Balls. This is just a way of saying ‘People should not be allowed to vote for outcomes I might dislike’.

It also happens to be true. Talk to the average person about politics.

You know where I work. I asked 25 people here who the head of the church of england was. Around 17/18 very well educated people didnt know.

I knew the answer to that when I was 8 years old. How the **** can you not know that?????

People are horribly disengaged with politics and for that reason I have always opposed referenda. I have been very clear on that through all the years I have been on here. You know it, I know it and until the referendum was on the subject of Brexit, you agree with me.

I heard three sociologists going on and on about how a second referendum is inevitable. It ****ing isnt.....

[SWv2]

It also happens to be true. Talk to the average person about politics.

You know where I work. I asked 25 people here who the head of the church of england was. Around 17/18 very well educated people didnt know.

I knew the answer to that when I was 8 years old. How the **** can you not know that?????

People are horribly disengaged with politics and for that reason I have always opposed referenda. I have been very clear on that through all the years I have been on here. You know it, I know it and until the referendum was on the subject of Brexit, you agree with me.

I heard three sociologists going on and on about how a second referendum is inevitable. It ****ing isnt.....

Is CoE relevant to politics?

[World's End Stella]

It also happens to be true. Talk to the average person about politics.

You know where I work. I asked 25 people here who the head of the church of england was. Around 17/18 very well educated people didnt know.

I knew the answer to that when I was 8 years old. How the **** can you not know that?????

People are horribly disengaged with politics and for that reason I have always opposed referenda. I have been very clear on that through all the years I have been on here. You know it, I know it and until the referendum was on the subject of Brexit, you agree with me.

I heard three sociologists going on and on about how a second referendum is inevitable. It ****ing isnt.....

Ah, well if your point is that we should avoid referendums at all costs then I would agree with you. It wasn't clear that you were making that point until now, I think.

The voting public can be trusted with voting for the right person to represent them, but no more. But the problem is that there was no way that political parties, outside of nutters like Farage, were ever going to run a campaign based on leaving the EU because it was too risky and there was no quantitative basis for doing so.

Basically, Cameron out!

[Peter]

Is CoE relevant to politics?

It is pretty relevant to british history as it is the result of...well, Henry VIII and all that, independence from Rome and popery ..... It is a fundamental part of our political structure in terms of the separation of church and state (and the fact that we dont have it).

It isnt directly relevant to current politics but it is still a staggering example of ignorance.

[SWv2]

It is pretty relevant to british history as it is the result of...well, Henry VIII and all that, independence from Rome and popery ..... It is a fundamental part of our political structure in terms of the separation of church and state (and the fact that we dont have it).

It isnt directly relevant to current politics but it is still a staggering example of ignorance.

Who is the head out of curiosity, Queenie?

[Pokster]

Yes, I think that's exactly what Peter is saying.

And I would expect exactly the same from you or I if Corbyn were to be elected PM. :shrug:

Bloody hell, I agree with you for once :yikes:... I'm off for a lie down

[Peter]

Who is the head out of curiosity, Queenie?

Precisely. See, even you know. Even an irishman of pathological loathing for all things british knows.

We should have let you vote....

[Burney]

Yes, I think that's exactly what Peter is saying.

And I would expect exactly the same from you or I if Corbyn were to be elected PM. :shrug:

I would absolutely be furious if Corbyn were elected as PM. However, I wouldn't seriously hold it up as an example of why we should abandon democracy, which is what Peter is effectively suggesting. The British electorate voted for that cünt Blair three times and at no point did I seriously suggest that an end to democracy was the answer. You just have to accept that sometimes the electorate will do shít you don't like.

[Burney]

It also happens to be true. Talk to the average person about politics.

You know where I work. I asked 25 people here who the head of the church of england was. Around 17/18 very well educated people didnt know.

I knew the answer to that when I was 8 years old. How the **** can you not know that?????

People are horribly disengaged with politics and for that reason I have always opposed referenda. I have been very clear on that through all the years I have been on here. You know it, I know it and until the referendum was on the subject of Brexit, you agree with me.

I heard three sociologists going on and on about how a second referendum is inevitable. It ****ing isnt.....

Ignorance does not - can not - constitute sufficient reason to deny someone a vote, I'm afraid. And on matters of national self-determination such as Scottish independence or Brexit, there really is no alternative to referenda. The EU was a special case in that there had been a profound democratic deficit on the subject for decades. There was a total failure by all the main political parties to represent a deeply-held Euroscepticism in the country and the inevitable result was the rise of a single-issue party able to create sufficient pressure on votes to force a referendum.

[Peter]

Ignorance does not - can not - constitute sufficient reason to deny someone a vote, I'm afraid. And on matters of national self-determination such as Scottish independence or Brexit, there really is no alternative to referenda. The EU was a special case in that there had been a profound democratic deficit on the subject for decades. There was a total failure by all the main political parties to represent a deeply-held Euroscepticism in the country and the inevitable result was the rise of a single-issue party able to create sufficient pressure on votes to force a referendum.

Yes, to answer the point above first I think it is laughable to accuse me of wanting to abandon democracy. We have a representative, parliamentary democracy that does not necessitate the use of referenda. It is a choice taken by our representatives and is nothing to do with democracy whatsoever. They were perfectly able to take this decision themselves but chose not to do so. One can argue that it is fairer to hold the public vote, and it may well be. But please dont take some moral high ground on democracy. Its unbecoming and irrelevant.

The referendum was an electoral ploy by the PRime Minister to fight the UKIP threat in Tory constituencies. THat is all.

There is arguably as much pressure for a referendum now as there was initially, if not more. THere is plenty of evidence to suggest that people were not aware of the consequences of their vote. Why should we not hold a second referendum on the exit plan?

[SWv2]

Yes, to answer the point above first I think it is laughable to accuse me of wanting to abandon democracy. We have a representative, parliamentary democracy that does not necessitate the use of referenda. It is a choice taken by our representatives and is nothing to do with democracy whatsoever. They were perfectly able to take this decision themselves but chose not to do so. One can argue that it is fairer to hold the public vote, and it may well be. But please dont take some moral high ground on democracy. Its unbecoming and irrelevant.

The referendum was an electoral ploy by the PRime Minister to fight the UKIP threat in Tory constituencies. THat is all.

There is arguably as much pressure for a referendum now as there was initially, if not more. THere is plenty of evidence to suggest that people were not aware of the consequences of their vote. Why should we not hold a second referendum on the exit plan?

The Irish method.

[World's End Stella]

Yes, to answer the point above first I think it is laughable to accuse me of wanting to abandon democracy. We have a representative, parliamentary democracy that does not necessitate the use of referenda. It is a choice taken by our representatives and is nothing to do with democracy whatsoever. They were perfectly able to take this decision themselves but chose not to do so. One can argue that it is fairer to hold the public vote, and it may well be. But please dont take some moral high ground on democracy. Its unbecoming and irrelevant.

The referendum was an electoral ploy by the PRime Minister to fight the UKIP threat in Tory constituencies. THat is all.

There is arguably as much pressure for a referendum now as there was initially, if not more. THere is plenty of evidence to suggest that people were not aware of the consequences of their vote. Why should we not hold a second referendum on the exit plan?

That's the slippery slope with referenda, when do you stop? I agree, there should be no need for them in a representative democracy, if people wanted Brexit that badly, they should have voted en masse for Farage. :shrug:

Decisions as important as Brexit should be taken by intelligent people on the back of extensive quantitative analysis and consideration of public opinion. And with the exception of UKIP, all major parties considered the option and rejected it because there wasn't a strong intellectual argument for it. Sadly, a power hungry conservative PM exposed us to the vagaries of a one off vote and we are now about to pay the price for it.

[Peter]

That's the slippery slope with referenda, when do you stop? I agree, there should be no need for them in a representative democracy, if people wanted Brexit that badly, they should have voted en masse for Farage. :shrug:

Decisions as important as Brexit should be taken by intelligent people on the back of extensive quantitative analysis and consideration of public opinion. And with the exception of UKIP, all major parties considered the option and rejected it because there wasn't a strong intellectual argument for it. Sadly, a power hungry conservative PM exposed us to the vagaries of a one off vote and we are now about to pay the price for it.

When do you stop? When does an issue deserve it and when does it not? None of these questions are answered through any theory of democracy. They are just a consequence of the political climate.

Of course, it doesnt help when it is such a narrow victory. A thumping 60% would end the debate but it was so narrow, and the issue so complicated, that thee notion of the voice of the people is fairly weak.

I dont want another referendum and I dont want endless debate. Its done, we are leaving, just get on with it. But I do resent the assumption that this is democracy at its finest.

I am also hugely sceptical about Ash's analysis that this is somehow a strike against the political elite, as though the leave campaign wasnt led and orchestrated by part of the political elite. As though the right wing of the Conservative party is some marginalised, disenfranchised mob screaming for a voice.

Its all very interesting of course....but we do have a country to run and it isnt really in anyone's interests that we spend the next three years doing nothing but argue about Brexit.

[Peter]

The Irish method.

You fellas love a bit of the EU though, dont you.

We have never really got on with it here, as an institution. Its basically French, for starters.

[Sir C]

You fellas love a bit of the EU though, dont you.

We have never really got on with it here, as an institution. Its basically French, for starters.

They like it because they leech money from it. Our money. :shrug:

[Burney]

Yes, to answer the point above first I think it is laughable to accuse me of wanting to abandon democracy. We have a representative, parliamentary democracy that does not necessitate the use of referenda. It is a choice taken by our representatives and is nothing to do with democracy whatsoever. They were perfectly able to take this decision themselves but chose not to do so. One can argue that it is fairer to hold the public vote, and it may well be. But please dont take some moral high ground on democracy. Its unbecoming and irrelevant.

The referendum was an electoral ploy by the PRime Minister to fight the UKIP threat in Tory constituencies. THat is all.

There is arguably as much pressure for a referendum now as there was initially, if not more. THere is plenty of evidence to suggest that people were not aware of the consequences of their vote. Why should we not hold a second referendum on the exit plan?

No, I'm sorry, but your naked contempt for the 'quality' of the electorate is what's unbecoming here. People don't have to fit your idea of what constitutes a properly informed person for their vote to be valid. Your beloved Labour Party was founded on the back of millions of poorly-educated men and women who fancied a somewhat easier life, were promised one by Labour and so voted for them. Their knowledge of the wider repercussions of such a vote was in most cases zero, but that does not invalidate their vote.

Once you attack the electorate - as you have - you are undermining one of the keystones of the democratic system - the sovereignty of the electorate's decision. The 'let's go back and have another go' approach when you don't get the result you like is an essentially anti-democratic one - as deployed by the EU in several cases. It is simply not acceptable to undermine electoral sovereignty in that way. Plus, of course, the last vote on the matter was in 1975. I didn't hear these same people who now claim there has been a change of heart clamouring for another go on that one. It took 41 years, in fact.

Referenda are simply the only way to make certain decisions. You could never take a decision such as taking Scotland out of the Union or the UK into or out of the EU purely by the mechanics of Parliamentary democracy - it would be unthinkable in this day and age, in fact. The decision to drag the nation unwillingly into the EU of ever-closer union via Maastricht and Lisbon were exactly what caused so much resentment in the first place.

Ultimately, there have been 11 referenda in UK political history. The outcome of every single one has been enacted. The idea that this one - the biggest there has ever been - would not be or would be overturned is absurd.

[Burney]

if people wanted Brexit that badly, they should have voted en masse for Farage. :shrug:

An absurd argument. People vote in general elections for a variety of factors. People didn't want a UKIP government because UKIP is a madhouse and would have screwed up the running of the country. Not voting for UKIP does not invalidate an individual's anti-EU feeling. There was a democratic deficit on the question that the blunt object of a referendum was the only way to meet.

And as for this



Decisions as important as Brexit should be taken by intelligent people on the back of extensive quantitative analysis and consideration of public opinion.

This is an argument for technocracy, not democracy. That is precisely what the Leave vote rejected. Your 'intelligent people' simply means 'people who will agree with me and whose decisions will suit my interests'. That is not democracy.

[Burney]

They like it because they leech money from it. Our money. :shrug:

It also saves them from the pesky business of having to actually be independent. They had a look at independence for 50-odd years, didn't much like it, so eagerly took refuge under a new imperium that told them what to do and gave them sweeties.

'A Nation Once Again', my fùcking arse.

[Sir C]

It also saves them from the pesky business of having to actually be independent. They had a look at independence for 50-odd years, didn't much like it, so eagerly took refuge under a new imperium that told them what to do and gave them sweeties.

'A Nation Once Again', my fùcking arse.

I wonder how long it will take them to decide they're being oppressed and start writing puke-inducing self-pitying songs about their experiences at the hands of the Evil EU? #professionalvictims

[Burney]

I wonder how long it will take them to decide they're being oppressed and start writing puke-inducing self-pitying songs about their experiences at the hands of the Evil EU? #professionalvictims

I'm afraid that as long as we're around for them to vent their ever-full spleens at, the EU can carry on treating them like a rather amusing colonial possession and they'll just keep tugging their forelocks and saying 'tank you, sor!'

[Peter]

No, I'm sorry, but your naked contempt for the 'quality' of the electorate is what's unbecoming here. People don't have to fit your idea of what constitutes a properly informed person for their vote to be valid. Your beloved Labour Party was founded on the back of millions of poorly-educated men and women who fancied a somewhat easier life, were promised one by Labour and so voted for them. Their knowledge of the wider repercussions of such a vote was in most cases zero, but that does not invalidate their vote.

Once you attack the electorate - as you have - you are undermining one of the keystones of the democratic system - the sovereignty of the electorate's decision. The 'let's go back and have another go' approach when you don't get the result you like is an essentially anti-democratic one - as deployed by the EU in several cases. It is simply not acceptable to undermine electoral sovereignty in that way. Plus, of course, the last vote on the matter was in 1975. I didn't hear these same people who now claim there has been a change of heart clamouring for another go on that one. It took 41 years, in fact.

Referenda are simply the only way to make certain decisions. You could never take a decision such as taking Scotland out of the Union or the UK into or out of the EU purely by the mechanics of Parliamentary democracy - it would be unthinkable in this day and age, in fact. The decision to drag the nation unwillingly into the EU of ever-closer union via Maastricht and Lisbon were exactly what caused so much resentment in the first place.

Ultimately, there have been 11 referenda in UK political history. The outcome of every single one has been enacted. The idea that this one - the biggest there has ever been - would not be or would be overturned is absurd.

Its quite hard to hear you when you are so high up on that horse, b.

I dont want it overturned. I have said that. I dont want a second referendum. I have said that. I dont like referenda- I think you know I have said that.

I dont have contempt for the electorate. I have contempt for people who believe that a referendum is the only way to go when it suits them and oppose it when it isnt. Lets say the bill gets even messier to the point at which the proposed exit looks absolutely nothing like what was sold to us? LEts say opinion polls suggest 70 or 80% of the electorate want a second referendum? Would you support one?

I wouldn't, I dont like them. You, however, believe they are the only way to resolve a constitutional issue as significant as this. Would you really think a 51% win on a now thoroughly repudiated idea of what Brexit might look like is enough?

OBviously once we are out we will have time to discuss the many and varied ideas you have for refining our democracy, the one you are so proud of. A first past the post system that excluded your main issue from the agenda for 41 years.

[World's End Stella]

An absurd argument. People vote in general elections for a variety of factors. People didn't want a UKIP government because UKIP is a madhouse and would have screwed up the running of the country. Not voting for UKIP does not invalidate an individual's anti-EU feeling. There was a democratic deficit on the question that the blunt object of a referendum was the only way to meet.

And as for this



This is an argument for technocracy, not democracy. That is precisely what the Leave vote rejected. Your 'intelligent people' simply means 'people who will agree with me and whose decisions will suit my interests'. That is not democracy.

Really? Yeah, all right, fair enough.

I'll take the whole thing back then. :-)

[Burney]

Its quite hard to hear you when you are so high up on that horse, b.

I dont want it overturned. I have said that. I dont want a second referendum. I have said that. I dont like referenda- I think you know I have said that.

I dont have contempt for the electorate. I have contempt for people who believe that a referendum is the only way to go when it suits them and oppose it when it isnt. Lets say the bill gets even messier to the point at which the proposed exit looks absolutely nothing like what was sold to us? LEts say opinion polls suggest 70 or 80% of the electorate want a second referendum? Would you support one?

I wouldn't, I dont like them. You, however, believe they are the only way to resolve a constitutional issue as significant as this. Would you really think a 51% win on a now thoroughly repudiated idea of what Brexit might look like is enough?

OBviously once we are out we will have time to discuss the many and varied ideas you have for refining our democracy, the one you are so proud of. A first past the post system that excluded your main issue from the agenda for 41 years.

A vote - any vote - is a snapshot of opinion at a certain time and place. We accept that when it is a general election and accept that we'll only have to have another go in a few years' time. We don't look at an opinion poll six months later and decide it's time to go again because some people's minds have changed according to a highly flawed polling system. The precedent for referenda in this country is that our votes are binding and that we will have to wait a long while before we get a chance to change them. That was the case in terms of devolution and Common Market entry and should rightfully be the same on Brexit.

Also, your premise is flawed. I wasn't 'sold' any particular exit from the EU and neither was anyone else. I remember nothing on that ballot that mentioned the details or told us how it was or wasn't going to happen. I and 17.4 million other people voted to leave the EU - that's it. Nothing has been 'thoroughly repudiated' because it hasn't actually happened yet.

[World's End Stella]

An absurd argument. People vote in general elections for a variety of factors. People didn't want a UKIP government because UKIP is a madhouse and would have screwed up the running of the country. Not voting for UKIP does not invalidate an individual's anti-EU feeling. There was a democratic deficit on the question that the blunt object of a referendum was the only way to meet.

And as for this



This is an argument for technocracy, not democracy. That is precisely what the Leave vote rejected. Your 'intelligent people' simply means 'people who will agree with me and whose decisions will suit my interests'. That is not democracy.

Putting away the windup - you don't think that this:

'Decisions as important as Brexit should be taken by intelligent people on the back of extensive quantitative analysis and consideration of public opinion.'

almost perfectly describes our 'democracy'? We don't currently elect people (Corbyn aside most of them are rather intelligent) to not only take decisions for us, but to ensure that the process used to take those decisions involves as much rational, objective, quantitative analysis as possible? I think that's exactly what MPs do all the time, and it's what the public expects.

And the only way that Brexit was going to happen was to circumvent that process, in this case via a referendum. And surely there is an argument to be made that since our democracy works this way now, a decision as important as Brexit is precisely the sort of decision which should be taken this way and not one that should be exposed to a one off vote and all the flaws associated with that approach.

And I could turn your argument about criticism of the referendum really meaning that we don't like a process that results in an outcome we disagree with around. Are you really that happy to govern by referenda, or are you just happy that this one went your way?

[Peter]

A vote - any vote - is a snapshot of opinion at a certain time and place. We accept that when it is a general election and accept that we'll only have to have another go in a few years' time. We don't look at an opinion poll six months later and decide it's time to go again because some people's minds have changed according to a highly flawed polling system. The precedent for referenda in this country is that our votes are binding and that we will have to wait a long while before we get a chance to change them. That was the case in terms of devolution and Common Market entry and should rightfully be the same on Brexit.

Also, your premise is flawed. I wasn't 'sold' any particular exit from the EU and neither was anyone else. I remember nothing on that ballot that mentioned the details or told us how it was or wasn't going to happen. I and 17.4 million other people voted to leave the EU - that's it. Nothing has been 'thoroughly repudiated' because it hasn't actually happened yet.


I shall try again- are there any circumstances under which you would accept a second referendum?

Or is that terribly slender result the be all and end all of the will of the people, on this issue, for evermore?

How about this? THe DUP pull out, Corbyn forces through a vote of no confidence, and at an election early next year Labour stand offering a second referendum and end as the largest party but without a majority. Are those grounds for a second referendum? Would you accept that?

[Peter]

A vote - any vote - is a snapshot of opinion at a certain time and place. We accept that when it is a general election and accept that we'll only have to have another go in a few years' time. We don't look at an opinion poll six months later and decide it's time to go again because some people's minds have changed according to a highly flawed polling system. The precedent for referenda in this country is that our votes are binding and that we will have to wait a long while before we get a chance to change them. That was the case in terms of devolution and Common Market entry and should rightfully be the same on Brexit.

Also, your premise is flawed. I wasn't 'sold' any particular exit from the EU and neither was anyone else. I remember nothing on that ballot that mentioned the details or told us how it was or wasn't going to happen. I and 17.4 million other people voted to leave the EU - that's it. Nothing has been 'thoroughly repudiated' because it hasn't actually happened yet.

Devolution is a terrible example, by the way. Firstly the original referenda were gerrymandered by insisting that 50% of the electorate vote in favour. Secondly, the only reason is took 18 years for a further vote was that it took that long for Labour to get back in. They held the referendum immediately.

If you want precedent we should have insisted on more than a simple majority for a no vote. Presumably, for the sake of respecting precedent, you would have been happy with this?

[TheCurly]

Devolution is a terrible example, by the way. Firstly the original referenda were gerrymandered by insisting that 50% of the electorate vote in favour. Secondly, the only reason is took 18 years for a further vote was that it took that long for Labour to get back in. They held the referendum immediately.

If you want precedent we should have insisted on more than a simple majority for a no vote. Presumably, for the sake of respecting precedent, you would have been happy with this?


As far as I can see May has 2 very simple choices.
1.A hard border or
2.United Ireland.
It will be a hard border and it always was from day one.As far as I can see all this posturing is just to appease the wolly faces imo.
I'll give it about 4 weeks before some poor ******* border cop is shooted dead.

[Peter]

As far as I can see May has 2 very simple choices.
1.A hard border or
2.United Ireland.
It will be a hard border and it always was from day one.As far as I can see all this posturing is just to appease the wolly faces imo.
I'll give it about 4 weeks before some poor ******* border cop is shooted dead.

It really doesnt matter. All that matters here is that we leave the EU, regardless of how many people die, and that the principle of democracy does not perish from this earth.

;)

[TheCurly]

It really doesnt matter. All that matters here is that we leave the EU, regardless of how many people die, and that the principle of democracy does not perish from this earth.

;)

Democracy is load of old *******s p

[Peter]

Democracy is load of old *******s p

How dare you say that! Wash your mouth, you communist.

[TheCurly]

How dare you say that! Wash your mouth, you communist.

More an anarchist type to be fair :-)

[Ash]

It really doesnt matter. All that matters here is that we leave the EU, regardless of how many people die, and that the principle of democracy does not perish from this earth.

;)

So if terrorists in NI might start killing people if they don't get their way over the EU, this proves that we must stay in the EU?

[Peter]

So if terrorists in NI might start killing people if they don't get their way over the EU, this proves that we must stay in the EU?

Errr.... what??

[TheCurly]

So if terrorists in NI might start killing people if they don't get their way over the EU, this proves that we must stay in the EU?

I think he is saying the opposite A

[Ash]

Errr.... what??

you said this;


It really doesnt matter. All that matters here is that we leave the EU, regardless of how many people die, and that the principle of democracy does not perish from this earth.

;)

If only those pesky Chartists hadn't demanded the vote for the working man, eh? We could be ruled by well educated, well-bred, high-value property-owning experts who know what is best without the plebs having their ignorant opinions count.

[Burney]

It really doesnt matter. All that matters here is that we leave the EU, regardless of how many people die, and that the principle of democracy does not perish from this earth.

;)

Yes, we should definitely not leave the EU because a couple of dozen old Provos currently picking up their pensions might decide to come out of retirement.

[Burney]

you said this;



If only those pesky Chartists hadn't demanded the vote for the working man, eh? We could be ruled by well educated, well-bred, high-value property-owning experts who know what is best without the plebs having their ignorant opinions count.

I did try to point this out to p earlier, but he simply cannot grasp that the electorate doing stuff people like him (and me, for that matter) don't want is a feature rather a bug of democracy.

[Peter]

you said this;



If only those pesky Chartists hadn't demanded the vote for the working man, eh? We could be ruled by well educated, well-bred, high-value property-owning experts who know what is best without the plebs having their ignorant opinions count.

Well, of course, the Chartists achieved precisely nothing in the short term. That aside, you have just skipped from leaving the EU to disposing of democracy. I. Still dont know what your first message meant.

I am here standing up for the referendum vote and protecting democracy with every bone of my body. What more do you want? :p

[Peter]

I did try to point this out to p earlier, but he simply cannot grasp that the electorate doing stuff people like him (and me, for that matter) don't want is a feature rather a bug of democracy.

You still think this is resentment because of the outcome. Look back at messages from before the result. Not only was I opposed to the referendum, I even said it had been unfairly loaded on the side of remain by forcing people to vote for a leap in the dark.

Can we please dispose of this 'you just dont like the outcome' argument. It is beneath us both and you know it isnt true.

[Peter]

Yes, we should definitely not leave the EU because a couple of dozen old Provos currently picking up their pensions might decide to come out of retirement.

I was quoting Abraham Lincoln you big pudding!