Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by KashmireHawker, 29 Oct 2019.
So why on earth do you keep bringing it up?
Why not answer my questions in the post and that will give us a good starting point.
Well, that might be the case if the 51.9% agreed on what they meant by the result of the referendum. The Conservatives, Labour, Farage's Brexit Organisation and the DUP all have completely different ideas of what Brexit actually entails. And they're all different to what Vote Leave told us it would be, before the referendum. They can't all be right.
Seeing as it's three-and-a-half years since the referendum took place, I'd say the mandate is already stale - especially considering we're now going through our third General Election in under five years.
A General Election will not sort out the Brexit mess, the clue is in the name. Put the deal to the people, now we actually know what we're voting for.
That saying about glass houses comes to mind....
So because the Leave vote was a very strange coalition of people who all don’t agree on exactly what form it should take, it makes the referendum result invalid?
I’m enjoying playing Devil’s Advocate. If a political party like Labour - a really, REALLY strange coalition of various leftists few of whom agree what the party should look like or do - comes to power, especially with a spectacularly ambitious and possibly undeliverable manifesto...should a winning result for Corbyn be rejected?
What makes it different?
Not at all - would be good to get the question answered and this in itself will reveal the answer to the one he posed me.
That's not what I said.
I've always thought that major constitutional changes (such as Leaving the EU, Scottish Independence, etc.) should be done in two stages. A referendum to see if there's an appetite for change, in effect 'authorising' the government to negotiate a deal. Then, when we know exactly what the deal is, a second referendum so that voters can make an informed choice based on facts and not speculation.
I too am playing a bit of a Devil's Advocate here.
All political parties are strange coalitions. The Conservatives are a mixture of traditional 'One Nation' centre-right Tories, along with various neo-liberal and even a hint of libertarianism.
However, I would suggest that the difference is clear. The Labour Party has agreed a manifesto. There's a plan you can evaluate and choose to support or reject based on your own skills/knowledge/prejudices or whatever takes your fancy. If you think it's undeliverable, you can reject it. If you're opposed to nationalisation, you can reject it. But you do know what you are voting for.
Whereas the withdrawal deal on offer bears no relationship to what Vote Leave campaigned for before the referendum. It's supported by the Conservatives but vehemently opposed by Farage (it's too 'soft'), the DUP (it splits NI from GB), and Labour (it's too 'hard'). Which flavour of Brexit would you like today?
Yes. Part of being a democracy is that the voters in that democracy take their duty of making an informed choice seriously. If the question that is asked is ill-defined, how can voters make an informed choice. Why is it wrong to have a referendum AS AN EXAMPLE :
1. Leave all institutions of the EU
2. Leave but remain in some EU institutions such as the single market / customs union etc (or whatever a Deal might entail)
We are constantly asked to respect the referendum result. Why should we do that when we don't respect the referendum in the first place ? It was Cameron's ploy to keep his own backbenchers happy and, what was a Tory party issue has divided the country and allowed an ill-informed populace to place the blame for the country's ills at the door of 'immigrants'. I don't care how people try to pretty it up, I will always believe that the 'Leave' vote was largely due to xenophobia.
Brits have had the same opportunities to move around the EU that EU citizens have had to move here but your average Brit would never contemplate doing that, nor even learning another language to enable them to do so easier. If they did, they might learn the meaning of the word 'Inselaffen' and consider whether it applies to them.
Not agreeing exactly doesn't invalidate the result. What - to my mind - invalidates it is that there was no agreement even on the principles of Brexit. As an example, two possible varieties of Brexit are no-deal and customs union/single market membership. Bluntly, the difference between those varieties of Brexit is far greater than the difference between customs-union-Brexit and Remain. Yet the referendum treated 'customs Union' and 'no deal' as if they were exactly the same thing ('Leave the EU'), while having 'Remain' as a single isolated option. That's just absurd.
I can understand that any one option on the ballot paper might have some wiggle-room as to its precise implementation, but the referendum was putting wildly different options under the same banner of 'leave the EU' with no way to distinguish them. That to my mind is what, more than anything else, invalidates the result.
Very well put. My thoughts exactly.
Agreed! It's why I personally feel that the only way out of this mess is a second referendum where the ballot simply asks do you want the deal as negotiated or do you want to remain? It gives voters an actual clear choice so they know (broadly) what they're going to get. It also allows them to send Parliament an unequivocal message. If the vote is for the deal then it's hard for any MP to argue "oh, well it wasn't this deal that people voted for they voted for x instead" or similar. So the Withdrawal Bill should sail through Parliament. If it's to remain then the PM has a crystal clear instruction to write to the EU to revoke Article 50. Otherwise we're left with the mud of a leave vote that was all things to all people. Only it can't possibly manage to pull that off...
Instead it looks like we're going to get a Conservative party hard-Brexit on the basis of minority of the popular vote whilst the majority of the vote will have gone to either pro-Remain or at least pro-second referendum parties. Which is why a General Election is a dreadful way to resolve this issue.
Its been reported that a certain Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon is urging people to vote Tory - that says it all.
Oh, thank goodness. I was on the fence until he told me what to do.
Negotiations of a free trade agreement will not however take up all that parliamentary time and will probably not be such headline news stories either as defining such agreements is not the responsibility of politicians, they would just set the terms of reference and the final sign off.
You're more optimistic than I am!
If the Leave vote was down to xenophobia then you might want to consider if your own opinions are guided by self-hatred. Imagine your last sentence describing any other nationality or race.
Nick Griffin came out for Labour, which is equally instructive (i.e. not at all).
I would suggest that Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon (aka Tommy Robinson) is a far more high profile (and therefore influential) figure on the far right these days than Nick Griffin is.
Ah right, we’re going to play far right top trumps. Sorry, didn’t bring my cards.
If whatshisname is *influential* then it really is time to get out of this country.
I have considered it and have come to the conclusion that my opinions are not down to self-hatred.
I see that you want to take offence at the term 'Inselaffe' . Fair enough, do that - much easier that springing to the defence of the referendum and its result which your earlier postings regarded as beyond reproach.
The point still remains that a large proportion of the country, particularly Leavers, regard Europe, and particularly the 'EU' as 'them'. The only thing that separates 'us' from 'them' is the fact that we live on an island and we're all descended from apes ... so what does that make us ?
PS : You still haven't told me what you think democracy is.
I don’t think I have tried to define “democracy” in this thread. I have however laid out my views on what does and doesn’t constitute a modern democracy so many times in this area of the forum that I honestly do not want to go to the effort of doing so again. Feel free to use the search function to find copious posts.
I’m not offended at a German word I haven’t looked up but I do think the self-loathing is pathetic, and wouldn’t pass intellectual scrutiny - nor would you dare say it - if it were about any nationality other than the British.
One of the defining features of this election is the total lack of curiosity from people on all sides about why other people might hold an opposing view, and it isn’t good for civil society.
It has been downright nasty; and I don't see it getting any better as it seems that once one side starts doing it if the other sides want to be competitive then they better start doing it. Some of the more "minor" things such as vandalising and stealing signs/posters however isn't new; I remember when I was campaigning in Bristol North West in 2010 there were a number of Labour and Lib Dem activists trashing and destroying our signs that people had up in their front gardens.
Laura K is now definitely believing anything told to her. This lunchtime she told the world the postal votes received are already revealing it isn't looking good for Labour. Probably a breach of all sorts of electoral law, but also complete BS from whoever fed her this line.
I assisted with postal vote opening in 2017. Envelopes are opened, serial numbers checked to ensure both envelopes have the same code and the envelopes are then passed for processing. They are then divided into constituency vote piles and voting papers are kept face down throughout.
The papers are then transported to the count and added to all the other papers at the official count so there is absolutely no way of knowing how postal votes are being cast before the count.
Now suggestions that Laura K of the BBC has potentially committed an electoral offence by revealing postal vote results before the close of the poll. This evening the Electoral Commission conveniently tweeted this after she said live on national television postal results for labour were ‘dire’.
I genuinely think the story of this election should be just how much the critical thinking of once respected journalists has seemingly disappeared, all in an attempt to be the first to get the ‘hot exclusive’ out before anyone else.
Simply reporting unconfirmed and unsubstantiated facts of random ‘sources’ is not journalism!
Yet Dominic Raab was effectively bragging about already looking at postal votes four days ago, it has been brought back to the forefront today after Laura K had said it.
So while it should be complete BS, maybe someone is doing something they shouldn't? It wouldn't surprise me, certainly not with this lot and certainly with all the dirty tricks played of late.
And Raab's returning officer had to put out a statement reminding everyone that no one knows the postal voting numbers until the count.
Seems Mrs K didn't get this part of the memo from her 'insider'.
I'm heading to London tomorrow morning by train from Oxford. Is it likely to full of protests considering what it is tomorrow?
No. I’ve never heard of a protest on an Election Day.