You think you've got problems America...

[John Cuthber]

On 1/21/2019 at 3:46 PM, StringJunky said:

I voted to stay but lost. Given we voted to leave, I would vote leave to honour the first vote. I feel the consequences of a second vote will hurt the UK far longer than leaving Europe. Our global reputation depends on being actively democratic and consistent...it's a matter of honour.

The Leave campaign repeatedly broke the law (not to mention their outright lies)
What "honour" is there in letting the cheats win?

[StringJunky]

4 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

The Leave campaign repeatedly broke the law (not to mention their outright lies)
What "honour" is there in letting the cheats win?

Is there not always some dishonesty in every political process? We are always 'done wrong' on the losers side.

Edited January 23, 2019 by StringJunky

[Silvestru]

No offence to anyone on this thread but I believe racism and xenophobia played a bigger role in convincing people towards the Brexit idea than Russia.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Is there not always some dishonesty in every political process? We are always 'done wrong' on the losers side.

Saying everyone lies benefits the biggest liars the most. The degree to which dishonesty exists within any campaign various greatly. The fact that dishonest might always be perceived on some level is not a good reason to do nothing when it is rife. 

Then there is that matter of Russian interference. It is a fact they supported Brexit on social media using fake accounts to spread disinformation. You have dismissed their impact but how can you possibly know for sure? If there is a chance that a foreign adversary successfully influenced the Brexit vote shouldn't that be treated seriously? 

[Strange]

11 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

And that's assuming that all 1,000,000 who died voted one way, and all 1,000,000 who became eligible will vote the opposite.

That seems like a stretch.

I'm not sure it assumes that. Unless your question requires that the result be different by 10%, in which case it is impossible to answer because we don't how people will vote. But we can estimate the time it will take for the make up of the electorate to change by 10% (which looks to be roughly 3 years). 

However, in this particular case, we do know that those who have left the voting pool overwhelmingly voted one way and those coming in generally voted the other way. So with a 6% change in the electorate we might expect, say, 3% swing in the result (I could look up the numbers and get a more accurate estimate, but I'm not sure it is worth it for a discussion of the general principle). 

It seems to me that if you are going to ask "The People" for their opinion on a major decision that will take years (possibly decades) to fully implement, then it makes sense to track their views in some way as the process goes on. For example, are they happy with the current withdrawal agreement (anyone who wants to leave the EU and minimise the damage to the economy should say "yes" to that). Then, in a couple of years, "is this the sort of future relationship you want with the EU?" Then, further down the line, "is this the sort of trade deal you want with the US, China, etc?"

But if one thinks that those questions of the preferred trade deal with the EU or the US should be left to the "experts" then we should never had the referendum in the first place!

[DrP]

Just now, Silvestru said:

No offence to anyone on this thread but I believe racism and xenophobia played a bigger role in convincing people towards the Brexit idea than Russia.

Same here - when you live here in the UK and come from certain council estate areas it is clear that xenophobia was the driving force. I still here it all the time -  'It ain't fair they come over here getting free benefits'  'taking our jobs' 'free health care on our NHS - we have to pay if we go over there'...  'bloody scroungers',  'charity begins at home - what about our squaddies and the disabled and homeless here in the UK?'  'aint right housing them when we are chucking our pensioners out on the street',  'why do we have to give all our money away in foregn aid so the Indians can go to the moon - feed our pensioners first!'  'we'd be fucked with Corbyn - he's an idiot - he'll disarm all our nukes and leave us defenceless'.   Honestly  -  I was in no way surprised by Brexit or Trump....  saddened, but not surprised at all.  In fact - I was sickened by how surprised 'everyone' was about the results  -  if you didn't see them coming then you have had your head in the sand.

Every point they make has clear logical factual rebuttal - but they wont believe it or listen to any of it  - first point you rebuff and they start shouting about any of the other points...  address that and they change to another non incident or unfactual xenophobic hatred filled rant which has no basis in fact. If you are lucky you might get to go full circle and rebuff every point...  but then it's... 'no way - it's in the paper they wouldn't be allowed to print it if it isn't true - your brainwashed by the elite'.  

 

You can't talk to them the way you would have a discussion here - they do not care about your facts - they have their own from The Sun and the Daily Mail.  I doubt the referendum would be any different if you repeated it now.  I admit that these people feed greedily from the hate filled propaganda that came out of Russia   -  but it only fuelled what they already believed and they would have voted the same anyway. If you say different then I doubt you know these people very well at all.  

 

[Ten oz]

9 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

 

Do you think Brexit should have had a super majority status, where it requires more then just a simple majority?

No I do not. I already outlined my thoughts regarding a super majority in my response to J.C.. Ultimately I feel Democracies should strive to stay current and hold votes cyclically. When Obama passed the ACA in 2010 it received 60 votes in the Senate. That was a super majority. Can you imagine how the minority party would have felt if that vote were final and nothing after it could have been changed? Rather the ACA wouldn't go into effect until after the 2012 election. Republicans had both the mid term and a general election to try and beat it. I believe on some level there was something cathartic about that process. Today the ACA has never been more popular and Republicans no longer  want it gone. We are past repeal and replace. 

I think in the case of Brexit there is enough outliers that those who opposed Brexit have legitimate reasons to feel cheated. I am not saying they were cheated just that I can see why one would feel they might've been. Lies, Russia interference, an apathetic belief going in the Brexit vote would fail, and etc. It isn't healthy in my opinion to force a nation to live with a single vote when large portions of the population remain passionate about the issue. People want to be heard and win or lose elections allow people to be heard. There should just be another vote.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Is there not always some dishonesty in every political process? We are always 'done wrong' on the losers side.

There is always theft and murder. That doesn't mean we should just shrug and ignore it.

"Bloody victims, complaining about having their stuff stolen. They should just get over it."

22 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

No offence to anyone on this thread but I believe racism and xenophobia played a bigger role in convincing people towards the Brexit idea than Russia.

That may well be true. And the propaganda (whether it was Russian or from the Leave campaign) exploited that by playing on peoples fears that the EU would mean more of those weird foreigners coming over. Even though most immigration into the UK is nothing to do with the EU. And immigration is a net benefit. And ...

But the argument was certainly won on emotional rather than rational grounds.

[Strange]

Another example of Brexit hypocrisy: during the debate on Welsh/Scottish devolution there was an amendment saying that there “must” be a second referendum when the details of the legislation were known. 

This was tabled by one Ian Duncan Smith, whose opinion now is that there would be blood on the streets if there was a second referendum on the detailed agreement. 

[CharonY]

On 1/23/2019 at 5:30 AM, Silvestru said:

No offence to anyone on this thread but I believe racism and xenophobia played a bigger role in convincing people towards the Brexit idea than Russia.

I do think you are right. While external interference may had an additive effect, it really just played the already existing sentiment. While there is a margin now preferring to stay, even after all the chaos there is no true reversal. Sure, considering that the referendum was so close it may have tipped the scales, but it is not that they brought a wholesale conversion of folks.

[John Cuthber]

On 1/23/2019 at 10:20 AM, StringJunky said:

Is there not always some dishonesty in every political process? We are always 'done wrong' on the losers side.

Do you understand that one side lied, broke the law, got prosecuted + fined + reported to the police for criminal action, and the other side didn't?

Are you somehow pretending that the situation was symmetrical?

On 1/23/2019 at 11:30 AM, Silvestru said:

No offence to anyone on this thread but I believe racism and xenophobia played a bigger role in convincing people towards the Brexit idea than Russia.

Well, it's hard to say.
But racism is wrong, and played in favour of "Leave"

Xenophobia is wrong, and played in favour of "Leave"

External interference  is wrong, and played in favour of "Leave"
And the margin by which thecheats won is small.

Imagine this was a football game and, after the match, it emerged that the winning side had played a "ringer".

The acceptable outcomes would be that
(1) The cheats would lose by default or

(2) there would be a rematch.

Why does anyone think it is reasonable to hold the future of the UK to lower standards of propriety than they would for a game of football ?

 

[John Cuthber]

On 1/25/2019 at 10:49 AM, Strange said:

Another example of Brexit hypocrisy: during the debate on Welsh/Scottish devolution there was an amendment saying that there “must” be a second referendum when the details of the legislation were known. 

This was tabled by one Ian Duncan Smith, whose opinion now is that there would be blood on the streets if there was a second referendum on the detailed agreement. 

Like the country, IDS is allowed to change his mind in light of the evidence.

[dimreepr]

47 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Like the country, IDS is allowed to change his mind in light of the evidence.

unlike IDS the country won't be allowed too...

no obvious hostages...

[John Cuthber]

58 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

unlike IDS the country won't be allowed to

Watch this space...

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Watch this space...

I will, hopefully...

[MigL]

So , how many more 'deals' have to be voted down before you Brits demand another referendum from your politicians ?
 

[StringJunky]

21 minutes ago, MigL said:

So , how many more 'deals' have to be voted down before you Brits demand another referendum from your politicians ?
 

It's going to be messy whatever is agreed. The losers can't accept we are leaving and it will cause years of problems and loss of credibility with much of the electorate if we don't. 

Edited March 13, 2019 by StringJunky

[iNow]

Broader issues are at play, like are we better together or better apart... globally. 

See also: the term “globalist” being tossed around as an insult. 

[DrP]

6 hours ago, StringJunky said:

It's going to be messy whatever is agreed. The losers can't accept we are leaving and it will cause years of problems and loss of credibility with much of the electorate if we don't. 

The type that will complain about it being unfair to have another referendum because they want to leave (loads want to leave with no deal) - will complain anyway whatever deal we make and say that we've been betrayed for not 'following the will of the people' and coming out totally.

I disagree with what you wrote earlier  -  they were lied too - they have a right to vote again based on new information - i.e. Their campaign was based on propaganda, plain lies and xenophobia - not actually considered pros and cons.   I do agree though that there will be some that will never be happy unless we repatriate all foreigners that have ever come here. Most of that ilk just sit on the fringe and moan about illegal immigrants supposedly draining our NHS dry (they are a piss in the ocean but they don't care - they just want to moan about foreigners)... they don't care about the facts and wont change their vote if you show them they based their decision on lies - they just wont believe it or refuse to listen.

5 hours ago, iNow said:

See also: the term “globalist” being tossed around as an insult. 

By the people I am describing. Look at the case of Jo Cox  -  to many she was a saint that saved many human lives and was a champion of love and humanity... to others she was considered a traitor to her own country and was shot because of it.  

 

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, DrP said:

The type that will complain about it being unfair to have another referendum because they want to leave (loads want to leave with no deal) - will complain anyway whatever deal we make and say that we've been betrayed for not 'following the will of the people' and coming out totally.

I disagree with what you wrote earlier  -  they were lied too - they have a right to vote again based on new information - i.e. Their campaign was based on propaganda, plain lies and xenophobia - not actually considered pros and cons.   I do agree though that there will be some that will never be happy unless we repatriate all foreigners that have ever come here. Most of that ilk just sit on the fringe and moan about illegal immigrants supposedly draining our NHS dry (they are a piss in the ocean but they don't care - they just want to moan about foreigners)... they don't care about the facts and wont change their vote if you show them they based their decision on lies - they just wont believe it or refuse to listen.

By the people I am describing. Look at the case of Jo Cox  -  to many she was a saint that saved many human lives and was a champion of love and humanity... to others she was considered a traitor to her own country and was shot because of it.  

 

You are assuming it made a difference. I think people felt one way or the other, regardless of any electioneering blurb.

Edited March 13, 2019 by StringJunky

[DrP]

19 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

You are assuming it made a difference. I think people felt one way or the other, regardless of any electioneering blurb.

Are you suggesting the majority voted on feelings over logical analysis? You are probably right  -  that doesn't make it smart or correct or irreversible though.

Many of these 'feelings' you speak of are reactionary (and understandable) views brought on from thinking that immigrants have rape gangs pestering Europe, from believing Farage's tirade about millions of Turks flooding in  -  all scaremongering and propaganda and untrue. Are we that ignorant and stupid that we can't change our minds if presented with facts which contradict our personal beliefs?  

I agree though - most will vote the same way - they don't care about the same things the remainers do - they just want to send Jonny Foreigner back to where they came from.  However - we voted to leave the EU  -  not to install a right wing government like the BNP or NF.  

 

[StringJunky]

18 minutes ago, DrP said:

Are you suggesting the majority voted on feelings over logical analysis? You are probably right  -  that doesn't make it smart or correct or irreversible though.

Many of these 'feelings' you speak of are reactionary (and understandable) views brought on from thinking that immigrants have rape gangs pestering Europe, from believing Farage's tirade about millions of Turks flooding in  -  all scaremongering and propaganda and untrue. Are we that ignorant and stupid that we can't change our minds if presented with facts which contradict our personal beliefs?  

I agree though - most will vote the same way - they don't care about the same things the remainers do - they just want to send Jonny Foreigner back to where they came from.  However - we voted to leave the EU  -  not to install a right wing government like the BNP or NF.  

 

People made their decisions based on up to 40 years of being in the EU and how they feel it affected them The leavers have as much right to think what they do as you do. I voted to stay and I'm managing to keep objective, I think. It troubles me that people are trying to reverse the referendum because they lost. Nationalism is becoming increasingly prevalent all over Europe, and I think the referendum result here is a reflection of that. The EU has gone far beyond its original remit in 1971 as a trading bloc and people within each member country are becoming vocal about it.

Edited March 13, 2019 by StringJunky

[Endy0816]

18 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

People made their decisions based on up to 40 years of being in the EU and how they feel it affected them The leavers have as much right to think what they do as you do. I voted to stay and I'm managing to keep objective, I think. It troubles me that people are trying to reverse the referendum because they lost. Nationalism is becoming increasingly prevalent all over Europe, and I think the referendum result here is a reflection of that. The EU has gone far beyond its original remit in 1971 as a trading bloc and people within each member country are becoming vocal about it.

It was nonbinding though.

Seems reasonable to guage people's opinions once more in light of everything that has come out since then.

 

I wish you guys luck.

Edited March 13, 2019 by Endy0816

[DrP]

13 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The EU has gone far beyond its original remit in 1971 as a trading bloc and people within each member country are becoming vocal about it.

We joined the common market in 1971.   We should have had a vote in the 90's as to whether we wanted to join the EU properly when we did - Tony Blair took us in without asking us. However - since then we have had better working conditions, better holidays, better paternity and maternity care/pay better minimum wages, better protection under human rights laws.  I guess the unemployed on the council estates that hate anything to do with any system that will ever be put in place will never be happy. We'll see how happy they are with a watered down brexit and cuts to their money and rights afterwards. I feel that in the case of brexit  -  ignorance will not be bliss once the reality kicks in. I hope I am wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

[dimreepr]

16 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

I wish you guys luck.

Thanks, we're going to need it.