Thread: Rolyn: Traitorous to the cause of democracy Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005636
Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on
:
There is simply no way I can respond to the depths of the unmitigated idiocy that you show in your post here in Purgatory.
Your choice to vote Leave and UKIP shows that you are happy because you think it is appropriate to ‘stick it to the man’. You are by implication allowing racists, bigots and howling fundamentalists of have their own way. You are showing them that they have more support than they really do, which only goes to strengthen them. And that means that you deserve no respect, because you do it because you are making a thinking choice by so doing.
Bluntly, yes, you should feel guilty. You should be in sackcloth and ashes on a permanent basis for the rest of your life because of how you have screwed my generation over by your vote. You should be out there making lots of noise about how you were a Leave voter who did so because he was an idiot. You and people like you are significantly at fault for all the post-Brexit racist crime that exists in the UK, because you legitimised it with your vote. You made a choice to make a vote that supported bigotry and violence, and by not realising that, it strongly suggests you actually have some sympathy with their bigotry. Or at the very least, that you are not enough of a person to be willing to stand up against bigotry. Frankly, by your vote, you are demeaning all those people who have made sacrifices so people can vote in a free and fair democracy.
Voting a protest vote is something an adolescent does, it's a key reason why I think lowering the voting age to 16 is stupid idea. Evidently there are catastrophically stupid people in the grown-up population as well, example here: Rolyn.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
God. Damn.
See, I knew there was a reason rolyn put a bug up my ass.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
rolyn wasn't clear what they were protesting against, but I can only presume it was sanity and basic human decency.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
Protest votes are stupid and shortsighted. Voting isn't a game. Don't vote for something unless you want it. If you genuinely wanted Brexit or you believed in Trump, fair enough, it's your vote and your right, but to play with your vote, and then be surprised and regretful or even guilty when you find you've got what you voted for is irresponsible and immature.
If you've done it three times, you probably don't see anything wrong with it.
(Quote from Rolyn) "Me going all guilt ridden isn't going to stop post-brexit hate crimes, what might stop it is people like Farage and Bojo getting up and emphatically denouncing it."
What might stop it is the perpetrators deciding to stop it. There are people who (as I said on another thread) need to externalize their demons and some of them need to exorcise those demons through physical violence. Neither Farage nor Johnson will be able to stop them from doing so. Brexit is just an excuse: if that had never been on the agenda the same urge would just express itself in some other way, probably beating up different sections of the population.
The protest votes contributed in encouraging this upsurge. Trump was visibly encouraged by the UK's Brexit, and that's led to encouraging other far right leaders elsewhere in Europe, with the result that the world is now a notably more unstable and dangerous place than it was at the start of this year.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
There has been a UK campaign to include an option on ballot boxes of None of the above to enable voters to register a protest vote against the current electoral system without voting for the radical option.
There's always voting Green or LibDem or spoiling a ballot paper by scrawling None of them across it. At least the LibDem or Green policies are less divisive than UKIP's.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I'm sure that both the LibDems and the Greens would want people to vote for their candidates because they believed in their policies (or, at least, found them preferable to the policies of other parties). I don't think either of them would really want to be seen as a protest vote. Even Screaming Lord Sutch put together some policies for people to vote for, rather than standing to allow people to vote against everyone else.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I would much rather have a LibDem or Green MP than the current establishment Tory. And usually vote for either of those parties. But it is effectively a protest vote in this constituency which would vote a donkey in with a blue rosette. It has returned a couple of candidates with increased majorities after scandals (expenses for one and sex scandals - lots of mistresses at once - for another)
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I would much rather have a LibDem or Green MP than the current establishment Tory. And usually vote for either of those parties. But it is effectively a protest vote in this constituency which would vote a donkey in with a blue rosette. It has returned a couple of candidates with increased majorities after scandals (expenses for one and sex scandals - lots of mistresses at once - for another)
I love - no wait, not love, the other thing - how a tory MP having one mistress is so passé that for it to be a scandal they have to have more than one at a time.
Posted by Goldfish Stew (# 5512) on
:
I cast a "protest vote" in the first election I was eligible to vote for - for the McGillicuddy Serious Party. I was in a safe seat where the incumbent (whom I did not support) was always going to win with the biggest majority in parliament, and only bothered voting because there was a referendum at the same time on introducing proportional representation. The introduction of that system really meant that was the last time the concerns of wasting a vote made any sort of sense.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
If I didn't feel there was anyone I could vote for I wouldn't vote at all. I'd rather that than vote for a party I didn't particularly like whose aims I wasn't in sympathy with just to make a point. Nobody knows you've made a protest vote, anyway, unless you make a point of plastering your decision all over the internet. A quiet protest vote is indistinguishable from a sincerely meant vote.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
We trialled electronic voting here a few elections back. The most frustrating thing about it was that we couldn't abstain or spoil a paper or whatever. The only option was to vote for one of the candidates.
It was one of those elections where you get four ballot papers and I was voting in the general election, but there were not enough candidates I wanted to vote for in the local, district and county council elections. The whole thing was part of the electronic vote and I may have given up and not voted for anyone because it wasn't possible to be picky or scrawl none of the above across the ballot paper.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
A protest vote is saying to the current government -- you need to up your game.
I would never cast a vote that might put someone like farage or his party in power. If I was an American voter last week I would never have risked a vote that might put trump in power.
If history ends up saying the Brexit win caused the US to vote in a dictator. Which then went on to set in motion a domino right wing slide across Europe, then quite frankly it is wonky history that is the fucking ass.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Nope. It's you. You treating democracy like it's a joke. For those - like my Polish neighbour - who's now threatened with deportation (despite the fact she's a secondary school English teacher, ffs), I'm going to send you a hearty Fuck You Very Much.
You utter cockwomble.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Brexit is going to fuck things up enough all on its own, without any knock on effects it might have in encouraging fascists in the US or France (or Russia, for that matter).
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
A protest vote is saying to the current government -- you need to up your game.
I would never cast a vote that might put someone like farage or his party in power.
No, you just cast a vote that puts Theresa May in power, and sends a message that the UK voters like the policies of people like Farage and therefore to stay in power she needs to ape those policies. Thanks to the "protest votes" our nation has lurched to the right. Maybe you want to talk to the family of Arkadiusz Jóźwik and tell them how your vote hasn't given power to the likes of Farage, people who feel empowered to murder someone just because they aren't British.
Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
A protest vote is saying to the current government -- you need to up your game.
I would never cast a vote that might put someone like farage or his party in power. If I was an American voter last week I would never have risked a vote that might put trump in power.
Are you even listening to yourself? Farage and his party are basically in power now. Mrs May has taken the government to an extreme the likes of which Farage could only dream of. You chose to stomp all over democracy to give us the most racist, right-wing government this country has seen in decades. And if you try and get a cop out and say the polls told you Remain would win, you knew the polling was close. Incredibly close. So you are completely and utterly to blame for the current government, because you deliberately chose to act like... actually, I'm struggling to come up with any similies that are good enough and aren't insulting to who or what I am comparing you to.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
A protest vote is turning up at the polling station and scrawling None of the above across your ballot paper. If enough of us do it, and None of the above starts outvoting the candidates, that's a protest and maybe the Government would take note. As a last resort, if there is no-one to vote for.
Voting for UKIP and Farage has given him and his policies credibility, allowing racism and xenophobia a legitimised entry into politics in this country.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Protest votes are stupid and shortsighted. Voting isn't a game. Don't vote for something unless you want it.
Yes indeed. This was also my advice to those members of the parliamentary Labour party who nominated Mr. Corbyn because they thought a leftie ought to be on the ballot. If you didn't think he was an acceptable candidate, you shouldn't have nominated him.
I know several people who voted for Jill Stein because they felt safe doing so (Clinton was always going to win their states significantly) and wanted to protest against her corporate ties. They'd have all voted Bernie if he was the candidate.
They would happily tell me that Jill Stein wasn't a perfect candidate either, but they wanted to say "environmental issues are important, pay attention to this".
And that's fine. It's a protest vote, but also not a lie - you can't encode your entire political opinion in one vote, you just get to make one choice. But how important are the other messages you're sending?
In the case of Jill Stein, she has some really stupid opinions, and anyone seriously proposing her for elected office needs their heads examining. But that's not going to happen, so there's no downside to supporting her stupid opinions along with her reasonable ones.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
Farage and his party are basically in power now.
Well, no. 'His party' has 1 Member of Parliament, who dislikes Farage.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
A protest vote is saying to the current government -- you need to up your game.
Oh, come on rolyn, how does the government or indeed anybody else know that it's a protest vote? It's anonymous. They have no way of telling that you personally cast a vote you didn't mean seriously, unless you write in and tell them and also plaster it all over the internet with a note that says "I, Rolyn, have made a protest vote and voted for a party I didn't support and don't particularly want to see in power as a way of saying Up Yours."
quote:
If history ends up saying the Brexit win caused the US to vote in a dictator. Which then went on to set in motion a domino right wing slide across Europe, then quite frankly it is wonky history that is the fucking ass.
No, it's wonky thinking that considers "protest votes" are a sensible way of getting a point across that's to blame, not history.
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
Doc Tor, why is your Polish neighbour threatened with deportation?
(Serious question)
M.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
If history ends up saying the Brexit win caused the US to vote in a dictator. Which then went on to set in motion a domino right wing slide across Europe, then quite frankly it is wonky history that is the fucking ass.
If gravity ends up saying that stepping out of a window means a person will hit the ground with fatal force, then quite frankly it is wonky gravity that is the ass. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
A protest vote is saying to the current government -- you need to up your game.
What utter bollocks! How can voting for a permanent change in a one off referendum be interpreted as telling the government to up their game?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Never, ever vote for someone you don't want to win. It's not just mad, it's stupid.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I have to admit a small amount of respect for rolyn's choice to come clean. Coming on to a (mostly) British forum and admitting you protest- voted in favor of Brexit is like stuffing every pocket with bacon and strolling into a doberman kennel.
[ 13. November 2016, 17:05: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Never, ever vote for someone you don't want to win. It's not just mad, it's stupid.
Stupid and mad are far to kind words.
"I'm going to make a useless, probably self-harming, statement that no one will hear, remember or care about". Woo hoo democracy
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Seem to rember a lot of folks voting Green back in the 80's and 90s who didn't want to have their car took away or be legislated into only having one kid.
If you want to get mad about goof voters like me and the outcome of June 23rd/November 8th then blame those stupid bloody pollsters. The whole effin lot of 'em would be better sat at home doing nowt as formulating wrong information .
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
pollsters. really. You are an idiot. Liars and frauds who campaigned for a result they didn't want, the fools who supported those politicians (who, by the way,have no interest in helping them), xenophobes and racists who would fuck their own country to prevent non-existent ills and moronic self-fellating arseholes who lob a "protest" vote because they are too imbecilic and lazy to do anything other than occasionally vote. Those are the people to blame.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Goldfish Stew:
I cast a "protest vote" in the first election I was eligible to vote for - for the McGillicuddy Serious Party.
I was tempted, but they didn't have a candidate standing in my electorate. They made elections fun.
Now we have clowns standing that are no fun at all.
Huia
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
Doc Tor, why is your Polish neighbour threatened with deportation?
(Serious question)
M.
Serious answer? Because she's Polish.
She's here as an EU citizen: you know, that big thing we're leaving in just over 2 years time, when all rights of residency - just like those 1.2 million Britons living elsewhere in the EU - end.
You may not know of the rules for foreign nationals living in the UK, but there's a new earnings threshold of £30,000 (from April). If a non-EU national earns less than that, they don't even get to apply for a visa.
Now, after we leave the EU, those rules may change. But they may change to be more liberal, or more draconian. She doesn't know. Neither, apparently, does the government, which has refused point blank to say whether EU nationals currently in the UK can stay or not.
So, yes. She has the threat of deportation hanging over her. Not tomorrow, not next year. But is she going to apply for a promotion? Is she going to do her CPD? Is she going to plan for living in the UK long term? No. Of course she's not.
And it's not just her. It's 96% of EU nationals employed in the agricultural sector. 94% of EU nationals in the hospitality industry. FFS, it's 60% of them in the financial sector. All of them are threatened with deportation.
Who knows, there might even be some living in Surrey...
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Even if when Theresa May announces her plans when she puts in the article 50 declaration she says that EU nationals currently living in the UK can remain without complying with any future immigration requirements, that Polish doctor (and millions of others) will have been put through the best part of a year living with the uncertainty of what their future will be. Not to mention all the additional abuse from morons who think that 52% of the population agree with their xenophobia idiocy.
All because some people who didn't want Brexit decided to vote "Leave" to tell the government "we don't want to leave, but we want to say we're not happy with the system".
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Seem to rember a lot of folks voting Green back in the 80's and 90s who didn't want to have their car took away or be legislated into only having one kid.
If you want to get mad about goof voters like me and the outcome of June 23rd/November 8th then blame those stupid bloody pollsters. The whole effin lot of 'em would be better sat at home doing nowt as formulating wrong information .
The polls were within 5 points of the result. When things are that close you don't take fucking chances. Also, given the total fuckup at the 2015 general election, why were you putting any faith in the polling in the first place?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
The polls were within 5 points of the result, with uncertainties of 3-4 points. Basically, the polls got it right - damn close with a narrow margin of victory.
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
rolyn said, after the documents were released related to the Hillsborough disaster in 2012, that, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Liverpool fans were partly to blame. Angloid picked him up on that and I considered calling him to Hell myself, but thought, the battle's almost won, why kick off with some gobshite truth-denier now.
Then I noticed their stance on the EU referendum and denial of a link between the vote and the subsequent rise in hate crimes.
I'm trying to avoid calling political opponents idiots, but still, even clever people can have idiotic self-delusional stances.
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
Thank you Doc Tor. The last I heard, no immigrants already legally here were threatened with deportation when we leave the EU. I must have missed something, which is altogether possible.
By referring to a threat of deportation hanging over her head, you made it sound imminent. It was a genuine question.
M.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
If we're looking for breathtaking hypocrisy on Brexit, we need look no further than the Scottish National Party. It turns out that several SNP members of the Scottish Parliament voted Leave and others have admitted to only voting Remain reluctantly.
I'm absolutely sure that there are many who voted Leave as a protest vote, the more worrying thing is that there are some elected politicians who are now talking loudly about the benefits of Scotland in the EU who actually voted against it (presumably having decided at the time that it was the best thing for their scottish constituents).
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If we're looking for breathtaking hypocrisy on Brexit, we need look no further than the Scottish National Party. It turns out that several SNP members of the Scottish Parliament voted Leave and others have admitted to only voting Remain reluctantly.
I'm absolutely sure that there are many who voted Leave as a protest vote, the more worrying thing is that there are some elected politicians who are now talking loudly about the benefits of Scotland in the EU who actually voted against it (presumably having decided at the time that it was the best thing for their scottish constituents).
Ah, but to misquote Kipling Scexiteers and Brexiteers are sisters under the skin... Sadly, no one ever said they had to be coherent.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
By referring to a threat of deportation hanging over her head, you made it sound imminent. It was a genuine question.
To be honest I'd almost rather it was imminent rather than 2 years of uncertainty. Better to get it over and done with rather than carry on wondering whether to keep investing in life in the UK.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
mr cheesy--
I heard something that Scotland might go back into the EU on its own. Might that be why some Scots voted Brexit? So they could go back in as their own country?
(puzzling from across the pond.)
Thx.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
mr cheesy--
I heard something that Scotland might go back into the EU on its own. Might that be why some Scots voted Brexit? So they could go back in as their own country?
(puzzling from across the pond.)
Thx.
It was posited by some of the more extreme Scexiteers as a wrecking tactic for the union - that just enough people needed to vote leave for Brexit to get over the line UK wide, then they could turn round and say Scotland's being dragged out against its will and the momentum for another go at independence would be increased (clearly this wouldn't work if too many people did it though).
If anyone has indeed voted that way for that end, then even in the pantheon of low political manoeuvring they deserve to be excoriated.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
mr cheesy--
I heard something that Scotland might go back into the EU on its own. Might that be why some Scots voted Brexit? So they could go back in as their own country?
(puzzling from across the pond.)
Thx.
It was suggested that a UK vote for Brexit with a strong vote in Scotland to Remain would provide an impetus towards a second Scottish Independence referendum - as, indeed, has happened.
It would not, under that scenario, make sense to campaign/vote Brexit in Scotland to force an Independence referendum.
What mr cheesy has basically highlighted is that some individual SNP members (including MSPs) personally held views on EU membership different from the party leadership. The same, of course, could be said for members and MPs (councillors, members of other parliaments, local party leadership etc) of practically every UK political party since (with the exception of UKIP) the EU has never been the defining policy of any party.
No political party is homogenous, they all represent a spread of views on a range of subjects. On some policies there would be a very narrow spread of opinion, in particular where that defines the main objective of the party (within the SNP there would be almost universal support for Scottish independence, within the Greens almost universal support for reducing CO2 emissions etc). On other policies, especially those not central to the main objectives of the party, there will be considerable variation - in the SNP the fairly left-wing policies we currently see are relatively new, traditionally the party membership has had a wide spread of political opinions on issues such as welfare, education, health, defense, immigration, the economy and Europe - a broad party centred around one main policy, Scottish independence from Westminster. In government, the SNP has had to develop a narrower political spread to function, and that has been generally to the left. Although EU membership was something identified by the Scottish Government as desirable as part of an Independence deal (and, hence, was in the white paper produced prior to the 2014 referendum), there isn't unanimity on that issue within the SNP with a large minority favouring an independent Scotland outwith the EU.
This, of course, isn't news to anyone with some knowledge of Scottish politics. And, I would add, I would think it more hypocritical for MSPs in an individual, personal vote (ie: when they are not representing anyone else) to vote against their personal beliefs just because Nicola Sturgeon has been campaigning for Remain. You might as well call Tory MPs hypocrites if they voted Leave while Cameron campaigned for Remain.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
Thank you Doc Tor. The last I heard, no immigrants already legally here were threatened with deportation when we leave the EU. I must have missed something, which is altogether possible.
What many people have been asking for (without any response) since the end of June has been a statement from the government regarding the status of people currently legally living in the UK after we leave the EU. What we have been calling for is that the just and right thing to do would be to say that any changes in immigration and residence policy resulting from leaving the EU would not be backdated and applied to people who had legally settled in the UK prior to leaving the EU (or, at least prior to June 23).
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
This, of course, isn't news to anyone with some knowledge of Scottish politics. And, I would add, I would think it more hypocritical for MSPs in an individual, personal vote (ie: when they are not representing anyone else) to vote against their personal beliefs just because Nicola Sturgeon has been campaigning for Remain. You might as well call Tory MPs hypocrites if they voted Leave while Cameron campaigned for Remain.
No, humbug. The Tories were riven down the middle on the EU referendum. Labour was more united but still had a vocal minority advocating Leave.
Importantly, neither party is now claiming the high ground as being always against Brexit, even as MPs from both parties speak out for both positions.
In contrast, the SNP has consistently been bashing the English since June as being the reason that Scotland is being dragged out of the EU unwillingly.
SNP MPs have never, to my knowledge, spoken out for Leave and I doubt any SNP MSP has either. And yet they're now using the political expediancy of having a majority Remain vote north-of-the-border to call for all kinds of things for Scotland.
Even though a significant minority of senior SNP politicans that we know of voted Leave - and presumably it is likely a proportion of SNP supporters did as well.
That's bollocks. Now you can continue in your mindset that says you're hard-done-by and that the nasty English are persecuting the plucky Scots and that only the SNP are standing up for the true Remainers if you like.
But we now know the truth.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
SNP MPs have never, to my knowledge, spoken out for Leave and I doubt any SNP MSP has either.
Well, there was a well publicised SNP group campaigning for a Leave vote (my computer here seems to be objecting to opening any of the news pages Google produced to allow me to see whether any MPs or MSPs were in that group). The main issues being fisheries, and to a lesser extent whether Scotland being in the EU actually is independence.
Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on
:
As I understand it, all 54 of the SNP MPs voted Remain (although Mhairi Black is on record as saying there was an element of holding her nose involved, see here). That article quotes Jim Sillars (former Govan MP and SNP grandee), who was always the voice of SNP opposition to Remain, as stating that there were around 5 or 6 MSPs who voted Leave. Polling before and after the vote suggested that close to 25% of SNP membership were in favour of Leave (similar to the number of Labour supporters voting for Leave, according to polls post-referendum).
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
Thank you Doc Tor. The last I heard, no immigrants already legally here were threatened with deportation when we leave the EU. I must have missed something, which is altogether possible.
What many people have been asking for (without any response) since the end of June has been a statement from the government regarding the status of people currently legally living in the UK after we leave the EU. What we have been calling for is that the just and right thing to do would be to say that any changes in immigration and residence policy resulting from leaving the EU would not be backdated and applied to people who had legally settled in the UK prior to leaving the EU (or, at least prior to June 23).
The government daren't do that: it would be a betrayal of the leave campaign and Theresa May would be toast.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
There was Leave group in Aberdeen, which was a single-issue pressure group attached to the fishing industry, and they were cross-party. They had a stall outside Marks & Spencer. (I'm not sure if being outside Markies = well publicised or not.)
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Although it's all rather tangential. I think it can be safely assumed that members of a political party, especially senior members and MPs/MSPs, would vote according to their assessment of the issues. It would be very unlikely that they would vote as a protest against the political system.
There were valid arguments against remaining in the EU - eg: sovereignty of Parliament, over beaurocratic EU government, protection of fishing industries, restrictions on unilateral trade arrangements. I personally found them unconvincing, but they were valid. I'm not going to say that someone convinced of those arguments did anything wrong by voting accordingly. I'd even grudgingly admit that if someone is a racist xenophobe then they have every right to vote accordingly, even though I find those arguments deeply abhorent.
The issue here is the ill-conceived idiocy of casting a "protest vote".
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What many people have been asking for (without any response) since the end of June has been a statement from the government regarding the status of people currently legally living in the UK after we leave the EU. What we have been calling for is that the just and right thing to do would be to say that any changes in immigration and residence policy resulting from leaving the EU would not be backdated and applied to people who had legally settled in the UK prior to leaving the EU (or, at least prior to June 23).
The government daren't do that: it would be a betrayal of the leave campaign and Theresa May would be toast.
IMO, when the Leave campaign call for something that is immoral then betrayal of that aspect of their campaign is the right thing to do. And, if Mrs May is afraid to face up to racism and xenophobia, is unwilling to treat people who are legally living in this country with decency and common humanity, then being toast is too good for her.
The government (post-Brexit) can put up all sorts of immigration restrictions to meet some bonkers arbitrary net migration goal without abusing the human rights of people who have already legally settled in this country.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What many people have been asking for (without any response) since the end of June has been a statement from the government regarding the status of people currently legally living in the UK after we leave the EU. What we have been calling for is that the just and right thing to do would be to say that any changes in immigration and residence policy resulting from leaving the EU would not be backdated and applied to people who had legally settled in the UK prior to leaving the EU (or, at least prior to June 23).
The government daren't do that: it would be a betrayal of the leave campaign and Theresa May would be toast.
IMO, when the Leave campaign call for something that is immoral then betrayal of that aspect of their campaign is the right thing to do. And, if Mrs May is afraid to face up to racism and xenophobia, is unwilling to treat people who are legally living in this country with decency and common humanity, then being toast is too good for her.
The government (post-Brexit) can put up all sorts of immigration restrictions to meet some bonkers arbitrary net migration goal without abusing the human rights of people who have already legally settled in this country.
They can put up plenty of restrictions but I really doubt it will satisfy the Brexiteers, most of whom regard human rights as a load of lefty liberal nonsense.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The government (post-Brexit) can put up all sorts of immigration restrictions to meet some bonkers arbitrary net migration goal without abusing the human rights of people who have already legally settled in this country.
They can put up plenty of restrictions but I really doubt it will satisfy the Brexiteers, most of whom regard human rights as a load of lefty liberal nonsense.
Then, they can burn in Hell. Both the Brexiteers willing to trample over human rights, and the government too cowardly to stand up to them (or, even worse, actually agreeing with them).
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
Thank you Doc Tor. The last I heard, no immigrants already legally here were threatened with deportation when we leave the EU. I must have missed something, which is altogether possible.
By referring to a threat of deportation hanging over her head, you made it sound imminent. It was a genuine question.
M.
And it was a genuine answer.
If you knew you had to leave Surrey in two years, would you bother putting down lots of roots, buying a house, starting a family, applying for that promotion?
Of course it's imminent. The effects are now. Seriously, how insular do you have to be not to have realised this? I've no particular wish to pick a fight with you (no matter how cathartic it might be), but This Is What Brexit Means to 3 million people who live in this country.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Brexit isn't running the Country.
Maybe a useful exercise for Pollsters who are clearly crap at predicting the outcome of people's voting persuasion would be to question those who voted Leave in retrospect. How great a proportion of these people would be prepared to vote in a hard right regime?
Not an overwhelming number is my guess.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Brexit isn't running the Country.
Brexit is ruining the country.
quote:
Maybe a useful exercise for Pollsters who are clearly crap at predicting the outcome of people's voting persuasion would be to question those who voted Leave in retrospect. How great a proportion of these people would be prepared to vote in a hard right regime?
Not an overwhelming number is my guess.
Well, maybe. But, that doesn't alter the fact that voting Leave has resulted in a hard right regime. Admittedly, a rabble - but they had limited talent to choose from, merely those Tories who had been elected in 2015.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Oh rolyn, do you not understand how you have given wings to the worst of ideas and fallen angels? Your only excuse could be strength in numbers and of ignorance. None of which escapes the scythe.
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Brexit isn't running the Country.
Maybe a useful exercise for Pollsters who are clearly crap at predicting the outcome of people's voting persuasion would be to question those who voted Leave in retrospect. How great a proportion of these people would be prepared to vote in a hard right regime?
Not an overwhelming number is my guess.
As Alan mentioned the polls are much closer than sometimes claimed. UK election: spot on for UKIP, LibDems, Greens and SNP pretty damn close. Conservatives 4% low, Labour 3% high. I've never met anyone close to that accurate.
Brexit the pollsters were consistently showing it was too close to call with leave in the lead in the majority of polls with a week to go. The city made a much bigger mistake - they assumed there'd be a swing back to the status quo in the final week as happened in the Scottish Referendum - this didn't happen.
US - again the polls were effectively within 3% of the final result. The political scientists who know about these things were also saying it was too close to call. That 3% was of course decisive - wouldn't have been regarded as significant if one side won by 7% instead of a predicted 4%.
Yes pollsters have normally done better in the past but that doesn't mean that they don't know what they are doing. Or that they are idiots.
[ 14. November 2016, 21:48: Message edited by: Luigi ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Mrs May was hardly a cheerleader for Brexit during the referendum, so it seems odd to call her 'hard right' at this point. She's a politician - she says what she thinks people want to hear.
Brexit hasn't happened yet, so we don't know how it's going to 'ruin' the country. There will be a degree of uncertainty until a final agreement is reached, and our politicians should be saying more to address people's concerns. But if we don't want Britain to be ruined then emitting a whole bunch of negative messages 24/7 is a strange way of going about it. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy!
As for the recent racist incidents, they're bloody awful, but let's not kid ourselves; black and brown people were being vilified before the referendum. Racism never went away, and the idea that Britain was some sort of wonderful multiracial paradise beforehand is laughable. The sudden outburst of sanctimony from some quarters is not impressive.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Mrs May was hardly a cheerleader for Brexit during the referendum, so it seems odd to call her 'hard right' at this point. She's a politician - she says what she thinks people want to hear.
I admit she's been effectively silent on what she will be aiming for, the best we've got is the meaningless "Brexit means Brexit". Which does mean that we're left with nothing to say she's not going to follow the nuttier far-right agenda of the more vocal Brexiteers - stringent controls on immigration for example, and her reluctance to even guarantee that people currently living in the UK will be able to stay strongly suggests that she's bought the xenophobic nonsense of UKIP.
If she thinks that's what people voted for, then she's a loony. The majority wanted something else on June 23rd.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Mrs May was hardly a cheerleader for Brexit during the referendum, so it seems odd to call her 'hard right' at this point. She's a politician - she says what she thinks people want to hear.
On brexit sure, because she tended towards the free-market side of the Tory party. In general she had a track record of being fairly authoritarian.
quote:
Racism never went away, and the idea that Britain was some sort of wonderful multiracial paradise beforehand is laughable. The sudden outburst of sanctimony from some quarters is not impressive.
The vote gave made some people feel that it was more acceptable to give voice to their racism than it had been.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
As for the recent racist incidents, they're bloody awful, but let's not kid ourselves; black and brown people were being vilified before the referendum. Racism never went away, and the idea that Britain was some sort of wonderful multiracial paradise beforehand is laughable. The sudden outburst of sanctimony from some quarters is not impressive.
Who needed to argue multiracial paradise when they decried racist attacks? Anyone on this thread?
And decrying racist attacks is sanctimony? Would you be happier if we ignored them to avoid giving the impression that things weren't bad before?
I have no idea what you are on.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I do not get the sanctimony comment at all. And no one, least of all brown folk, thought racism was gone. The gleeful and open regression is disheartening. Not entirely surprising, but disheartening.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
As for the recent racist incidents, they're bloody awful, but let's not kid ourselves; black and brown people were being vilified before the referendum. Racism never went away, and the idea that Britain was some sort of wonderful multiracial paradise beforehand is laughable. The sudden outburst of sanctimony from some quarters is not impressive.
I don't even know where to start with this. Inexplicably, we live in the same country, and yet - I don't know why, maybe where we live or the friends we have - we seem to be inhabiting two parallel worlds.
I live in a world where racism is still bad and resisting that shit every day is a moral duty. How is it where you are?
[ 15. November 2016, 07:40: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Can it be that SvitlanaV2 is saying/suggesting it is wrong to put responsibility for the racism at the door of Leave voters?
If so, I'm not sure sanctimony is the right word - unless SvitlanaV2 is suggesting that Remain voters are being smug about having "voted the right way".
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If you knew you had to leave Surrey in two years, would you bother putting down lots of roots, buying a house, starting a family, applying for that promotion?
If I knew I had to leave in two years I would set about making a new life in Poland. That would be painful, but in some ways better than hanging on with it being unclear whether I might have to leave in two years. I'm not going to desert all I have built up in terms of professional life, roots, community and family living unless I really know I have to, on the other hand I'm likely to go slow on various aspects of it without certainty.
And at the moment, as I understand it, there is zero certainty.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
My son has applied for German citizenship. No way he wants to return to the UK.
Who can blame him?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Can it be that SvitlanaV2 is saying/suggesting it is wrong to put responsibility for the racism at the door of Leave voters?
If so, I'm not sure sanctimony is the right word - unless SvitlanaV2 is suggesting that Remain voters are being smug about having "voted the right way".
I think that "moral fortitude"="sanctimony" in Orwellian Newspeak.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
My son has applied for German citizenship. No way he wants to return to the UK.
Who can blame him?
From what my German friends tell me, next year (when there is a general election) could be interesting. I don't wish for another Brexit or Trump-style victory, but I'm hearing that such things are not impossible in Germany as well as the Netherlands, France etc.
The TL;DR version being that Germany might not be the haven of tolerance everyone currently thinks it is for much longer.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Although, at the moment, Germany looks as though it will still remain in the EU. If Germany comes out of the EU he won't be worse off, and if it remains in, he will continue to enjoy the benefits of EU citizenship.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
My son has applied for German citizenship. No way he wants to return to the UK.
Who can blame him?
From what my German friends tell me, next year (when there is a general election) could be interesting. I don't wish for another Brexit or Trump-style victory, but I'm hearing that such things are not impossible in Germany as well as the Netherlands, France etc.
The TL;DR version being that Germany might not be the haven of tolerance everyone currently thinks it is for much longer.
My Dutch friends and colleagues seem to think that in the Netherlands, whatever the sentiment amounts to, the electoral tendencies will never amount to any of these extremists getting their hands on the levers of power.
Le-Pen seems keen to capitalise on Trump's victory, and on Brexit though.
Not very hellish is it, this thread....
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I live in a world where racism is still bad and resisting that shit every day is a moral duty. How is it where you are?
I think resisting racism is a moral duty too. What I'm not keen on is this idea that we were all hunky-dory until the referendum turned us into a nation of horrid people.
Where I live there is a lot of segregation. Being in the EU hasn't prevented that. I hope Brexit will provide the opportunity to face the issue openly. It won't happen automatically; there's a lot of work to do, among racists and everyone else.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Lass:
As I understand it, all 54 of the SNP MPs voted Remain (although Mhairi Black is on record as saying there was an element of holding her nose involved, see here). That article quotes Jim Sillars (former Govan MP and SNP grandee), who was always the voice of SNP opposition to Remain, as stating that there were around 5 or 6 MSPs who voted Leave. Polling before and after the vote suggested that close to 25% of SNP membership were in favour of Leave (similar to the number of Labour supporters voting for Leave, according to polls post-referendum).
I have no quarrel with reluctant remainers. They voted in the national interest with the rest of us.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
What I'm not keen on is this idea that we were all hunky-dory until the referendum turned us into a nation of horrid people.
Where did you get this straw man from? Is it left over from bonfire night? Literally no one is arguing this.
FFS listen to black and brown people, and those who don't have Proper English Accents™. They are completely aware that it wasn't 'all hunky-dory' before. But they are saying that since the referendum, racist white people think they've a green light to just be openly and shamelessly shitty in public and that every other white person won't lift a finger to help.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I'm one of those people myself. And I'm saying that racism existed before the referendum. Glad you agree with that.
I did fear that incidents of racist incidents might rise after a vote for Brexit. In some places they have, although not so much in my city. IMO what these incidents show is that we need to deal with the sociological causes of racism and the lack of faith in the EU project rather than sweeping it all under the carpet of false unity.
Obviously, it's true that some parts of the country are more unified than others. How lucky they are.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I have no quarrel with reluctant remainers. They voted in the national interest with the rest of us.
I have no quarrel with anyone who weighed the pro's and con's of EU membership and voted accordingly (although I wonder how they managed to work out the pro's and con's of leaving when no-one had bothered to define what Leave would be seeking). Even those who chose to vote in a different manner to me.
The people I do take issue with are:
a) those who decided to vote based on issues not related to the EU - including, and perhaps especially, those who voted as a protest against the government or the political system.
b) those who decided that the way to get people to vote for their position was to ignore facts and evidence and just spread a load of lies and scare stories (and, that includes some of the Remain side as well, I regret to say).
c) those who have taken the Leave vote to mean they have a licence to harass, intimidate, assault and be generally shitty to other people. Which has made a bad situation worse.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If you knew you had to leave Surrey in two years, would you bother putting down lots of roots, buying a house, starting a family, applying for that promotion?
I would certainly apply for that promotion, and I might well buy a house (if it could be done outright) as a view to both of these increasing my material worth and career prospects, and having more money to take elsewhere at the end of those two years.
In a two-year span I’d look to getting as much out of the place in other ways as I could so yes, I would want to make friends and enjoy the time here while I could. Not sure about starting a family but I wouldn’t rule it out. After all, nothing has definitely been said about deporting anybody and at the end of those two years you either leave with more money and better career prospects than you had at the outset, or you get to stay and enjoy them. Just living on the eve of departure for two years gets you nowhere. I've done that: it turned into over a decade.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm one of those people myself. And I'm saying that racism existed before the referendum. Glad you agree with that.
I did fear that incidents of racist incidents might rise after a vote for Brexit. In some places they have, although not so much in my city. IMO what these incidents show is that we need to deal with the sociological causes of racism and the lack of faith in the EU project rather than sweeping it all under the carpet of false unity.
Obviously, it's true that some parts of the country are more unified than others. How lucky they are.
So we've gone from Straw Men to Stating The Bleedin Obvious.
Well done. Progress of sorts. You might contribute something meaningful to this thread any day now.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
No, I don't think I'll contribute much that's useful to this thread. I don't live in the kind of cosy environment where the Brexit vote rudely disturbed some sort of equilibrium, so what I have to say doesn't really fit in here.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
My son has applied for German citizenship. No way he wants to return to the UK.
Who can blame him?
I think this is right and good. Germany is where he lives and where he feels most at home. The Germans were always highly committed to the EU project.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
No, I don't think I'll contribute much that's useful to this thread. I don't live in the kind of cosy environment where the Brexit vote rudely disturbed some sort of equilibrium, so what I have to say doesn't really fit in here.
Back to straw men. Find one post on this thread that implies there was a cosy environment before Brexit. Then reflect on why you need straw men.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I don't live in the kind of cosy environment where the Brexit vote rudely disturbed some sort of equilibrium, so what I have to say doesn't really fit in here.
there are plenty of places which weren't particularly cosy, which have still been made worse by Brexit.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Saying that things have got worse does not imply that they were perfectly satisfactory to start with. Merely that they were better than they are now. I think, for example, that Boris Johnson is a worse Foreign Secretary than David Miliband. It does not follow that I thought Mr Miliband was a good one.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
This shouldn't be difficult. A>B does not imply an absolute value of A. Unless I missed someone saying that A was really very good and cosy I don't see the justification.
[ 15. November 2016, 17:14: Message edited by: mdijon ]
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
Thank you Doc Tor. The last I heard, no immigrants already legally here were threatened with deportation when we leave the EU. I must have missed something, which is altogether possible.
By referring to a threat of deportation hanging over her head, you made it sound imminent. It was a genuine question.
M.
And it was a genuine answer.
If you knew you had to leave Surrey in two years, would you bother putting down lots of roots, buying a house, starting a family, applying for that promotion?
Of course it's imminent. The effects are now. Seriously, how insular do you have to be not to have realised this? I've no particular wish to pick a fight with you (no matter how cathartic it might be), but This Is What Brexit Means to 3 million people who live in this country.
It’s not just EU migrants living here. My employer has its European HQ in the UK because the UK was part of the EU and it can access the Single Market for Services. While it’s still likely to have a UK entity after Brexit, the size and shape of that entity will depend on what agreement the UK and the EU manage to cobble together.
Or, to put it bluntly, there are a lot of people who don’t know if they will have a job in a few years’ time.
You can’t really plan for that. You just hope it’s not you or, if it is, you can find another job elsewhere. Many of us don’t have a convenient European relative or qualification we can pull out of the bag. Sucking it up and making the best of it is the order of the day.
Tubbs
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
And, there are various EU agencies in the UK as well. The biggest is the European Medicines Agency, directly employing about 800 people - indirectly many more (it's not unusual to have 100s of visitors per week, needing local hotels and restaurants, plus a large number of consultancies that work with the EMA, and pharmaceutical companies with London offices just so they're near the EMA, various companies with contracts for security, cleaning, catering etc). All of those jobs will relocate when the EMA moves - and, it probably won't be easy for all the UK staff to move with them.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
My son has applied for German citizenship. No way he wants to return to the UK.
Who can blame him?
I think this is right and good. Germany is where he lives and where he feels most at home. The Germans were always highly committed to the EU project.
I always said we could learn a lot from the seemingly irrepressible Germany Nation. Fighting it on two occasions last Century did this Country a whole heap of no good at all, both economically and psychologically.
In fact I believe the shadow of those conflicts was partly responsible for fuelling Brexit even after 70 years. That, and island mentality.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, there are various EU agencies in the UK as well. The biggest is the European Medicines Agency, directly employing about 800 people - indirectly many more (it's not unusual to have 100s of visitors per week, needing local hotels and restaurants,
The EMA is based in Canary Wharf, where about 100,000 people work. I'm sure the Docklands hotel and restaurant industry will survive the relocation of the EMA, if it does indeed relocate. And if it does, it'll vacate some prime London offices which will no doubt be occupied by a business which attracts visitors who want a slap-up lunch from time to time. The Jamies Italian outside the EMA's HQ existed a long time before the EMA moved in. I'm sure it'll still be there in years to come.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Good for Canary Wharf, able to absorb the loss of a few thousand highly skilled, professional jobs. Replace them with more bankers, eh? Oh, except that someone setting up a new office would be better off somewhere where the financial sector is supported - Frankfurt is probably a good choice.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
Well today Google announced it's setting up a new HQ in King's Cross, bringing about £1bn of investment. Let's see what the future holds. I think it could be quite bright...
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
But that is a stupid statement. "Oh look at this anomalous example, it proves you are wrong".
The good news is that some businesses will benefit as the declining £ brings in more tourists.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Well today Google announced it's setting up a new HQ in King's Cross, bringing about £1bn of investment. Let's see what the future holds. I think it could be quite bright...
Ooh, a £1bn investment from a company that doesn't pay its taxes. Terrific.
Meanwhile, our beloved Chancellor espies a shortfall of £84bn.
Face it, the future will only look bright if we start burning shit down. And even that's a short-term solution.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Christ, some of you fuckers are so obstinately pessimistic I swear you want the country to fail just so you can say you told us so.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Look at this way. If I'm a pessimist, I'm always open to be happily wrong. If I'm an optimist, I'm always open to disappointment.
So, yes. I think we're fucked in the short-to-medium term. And if, by some miracle, we're not, I've lost nothing.
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on
:
There's a simple cure for this tedious discussion
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Optimists are positive, right? So I am an optimist because I am positive we are all fucked.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Christ, some of you fuckers are so obstinately pessimistic I swear you want the country to fail just so you can say you told us so.
I just want the Brexit negotiations and the government to fail. That will be a Good Thing for Britain, the British and Europe as a whole.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
There's a simple cure for this tedious discussion
Reading some other thread?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Clearly finding a thread to be tedious, the thing to do is to continue reading. Rather than the sensible thing of voting to read a thread you find interesting, you need to register a protest vote against the tedium on the Ship by continuing to read stuff you find boring.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Christ, some of you fuckers are so obstinately pessimistic I swear you want the country to fail just so you can say you told us so.
I think you read as pessimism what many of us see as realism and many of us read your optimism as living in cloud cuckoo land.
If indeed we were proved wrong in this, by an agreement which preserved good trading and political relationships with the 27, as well as giving us a restored sovereignty, independent control of our borders and immigration, and improved trading terms outside the EU, we'd all cheer. But in both process and realpolitik terms that just looks like nonsense. As others in Europe keep telling us, it's not going to happen.
The assertions that 'Brexit means Brexit' and 'I am determined to make a success of this' will preserve some kind of fragile Tory unity for a little while longer. Until reality bites.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Well today Google announced it's setting up a new HQ in King's Cross, bringing about £1bn of investment. Let's see what the future holds. I think it could be quite bright...
Ooh, a £1bn investment from a company that doesn't pay its taxes. Terrific.
Meanwhile, our beloved Chancellor espies a shortfall of £84bn.
Face it, the future will only look bright if we start burning shit down. And even that's a short-term solution.
In any event it's been on the cards since 2013. So it's a case of "Capital Flight After Brexit Overstated" not "Behold Brexit Brings Us Shiny New Things!"
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Christ, some of you fuckers are so obstinately pessimistic I swear you want the country to fail just so you can say you told us so.
Further to this:
Do I want the country to fail? No.
Do I expect the country to fail? Yes.
Why? Because my reasoned opinion, backed by economic data, a passing knowledge of EU treaties and a decent grasp of socio-political interactions, lead me to believe that voting to Remain in the EU was, frankly, the only sensible decision to make, and to choose otherwise was to court disaster.
Given that many of the problems flagged up by Remain before the vote are slowly, inexorably, coming to pass, I can't see any problem with the way I voted.
Unlike many other situations, however, I don't get to sit on the sidelines and stay unaffected by the sucking pool of shit that will eventually engulf all but the rich. Unless my circumstances change dramatically, I'm circling the same drain as everybody else.
I am, however, going to go down swinging.
Posted by hilaryg (# 11690) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, there are various EU agencies in the UK as well. The biggest is the European Medicines Agency...
The EMA is based in Canary Wharf, where about 100,000 people work. I'm sure the Docklands hotel and restaurant industry will survive the relocation of the EMA, if it does indeed relocate. And if it does, it'll vacate some prime London offices which will no doubt be occupied by a business which attracts visitors who want a slap-up lunch from time to time.
Yes, lets not worry about losing yet more jobs from an industry (pharmaceutical) where the UK has been aleader, from both the commercial company perspective and in influencing regulatory thinking and laws.
Given that the licensing of new medicines is mostly done these days centrally via the EMA, and that is governed by EU law (that the UK influenced and helped write), I am very interested to see how we extricate from that, as we are deeply embedded in there. We run the real risk of the UK being relegated to the status of Lichtenstein, Iceland and Norway as accepting EU medicines but having no say in the approval process or influencing the thinking.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I just want the Brexit negotiations and the government to fail. That will be a Good Thing for Britain, the British and Europe as a whole.
Brexit negotiations failing would mean we'd be completely out of the EU with absolutely no replacement trade deals of any kind. I don't see that as a good thing.
The government failing would mean someone else taking over. Who is that going to be? Gove? Boris? The options don't look too good there either.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Wouldn't "failure of Brexit" mean staying in the EU?
Unless you're working with a particular definition of Brexit - but there isn't such a thing as "Brexit means Brexit".
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
There's a simple cure for this tedious discussion
Reading some other thread?
Rolyn/Rolaids. Weak humour. Sorry.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
There's a simple cure for this tedious discussion
Reading some other thread?
Rolyn/Rolaids. Weak humour. Sorry.
Completely passed me by. I thought you were just saying it was giving you heartburn. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
It didn't have us rolyn in the aisles.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Wouldn't "failure of Brexit" mean staying in the EU?
Perhaps, depending on what you mean by the various words. Whether it would be a good thing for the country depends on how you think those who voted for Brexit would react.
But Sioni specifically said he hoped the Brexit negotiations failed. For negotiations to be happening we'd already have to have triggered Article 50, which would mean we'd be out of the EU one way or another once the two years were up.
Basically, once Article 50 is triggered it's in all of our interests*, yours and Sioni's included, for the government to succeed in getting the best possible deal for Britain.
.
*= "all of our" meaning Brits, of course. It may not be in the best interests of everyone in Europe, but I don't really care about that. Being able to do what's best for us without having to worry about the impact on them is a large part of what Brexit was all about.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Wouldn't "failure of Brexit" mean staying in the EU?
Perhaps, depending on what you mean by the various words.
Failure of Brexit would mean stay in the EU. Failure of one form of Brexit could mean either success of another form or stay in the EU.
quote:
But Sioni specifically said he hoped the Brexit negotiations failed. For negotiations to be happening we'd already have to have triggered Article 50, which would mean we'd be out of the EU one way or another once the two years were up.
Somehow I managed to skim over that important word. You're right, if negotiations fail then we have a very hard Brexit, since that means we'll have had 2 years after calling Article 50.
Technically (whether it's politically acceptable is another matter) the government could still decide "there's no way we'll get any sort of deal we want, and we'll be better off in the EU", and simply not put in the Article 50 notice. A referendum is only advisory, and a 52:48 was a result that the Leave campaign (well Farage at least) said wasn't going to be conclusive before we cast our votes.
At least one of the negotiators who drafted Article 50 was on the telly the other week saying that even after the government triggers negotiations the UK can still back out and stay in the EU - though of course that would result in really pissing off the EU side, with the more time and effort put into negotiations the more pissed they will be.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A referendum is only advisory, and a 52:48 was a result that the Leave campaign (well Farage at least) said wasn't going to be conclusive before we cast our votes.
And Mr Farage, of course, was not part of the official Leave campaign.
I would've accepted a 52/48 result the other way. Indeed up until about 3am on 24th June I thought that was going to be the result. Interestingly, speaking to my pro-Leave friends afterwards, many thought that the result was going to be a close Remain win and would similarly have accepted the result, despite the government trying to load the dice in favour of Remain. While some will never shut up, and Farage is a prime example, I suspect many Leavers would have quietly accepted the result.
Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I would've accepted a 52/48 result the other way. Indeed up until about 3am on 24th June I thought that was going to be the result. Interestingly, speaking to my pro-Leave friends afterwards, many thought that the result was going to be a close Remain win and would similarly have accepted the result, despite the government trying to load the dice in favour of Remain. While some will never shut up, and Farage is a prime example, I suspect many Leavers would have quietly accepted the result.
Probably. Because to be honest, most Leavers would have been completely unaffected by a Remain result. And that is where the difference lies. The Leave campaign had to make up startlingly huge lies to win, because bluntly, it is a massive leap into the unknown. The fact that they were able to convince 52% of voters to make such a jump is an impressive feat. The problem is, probably 15-20% of the 48% are significantly affected by the decision, in many cases in a catastrophic way. Which is why it should have been a 70% threshold to change the status quo... like the way referendums happen in countries that actually use them regularly. A change in the status quo that will affect a lot of people in a way that removes rights that many of us consider fundamental should require more than a slim majority, it requires an overwhelming mandate, in my opinion. Particularly in something as risky as Brexit is. And when you discover that the Leave vote was supported by such catastrophically stupid idiots as Rolyn, I wonder how slim the actual majority is. If it's a majority at all...
[ 17. November 2016, 20:36: Message edited by: MarsmanTJ ]
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
If you're on the hunt for 'catastrophic idiots' over the outcome of June 23rd then start and end it with David C.
Emergency budget if Leave wins? A triple lock on pensions to punish coffin dodgers voting to cast old Blighty adrift? Black Friday? Troubles returning to NI?
All lies.
Besides which do your fuckin sums. Subtract all of Scotland's votes from the Referendum total, (because we all know how keen they are to piss off from the UK), and you find Leave voters winning by a much greater margin. Many of whom voted with far greater conviction than myself.
It's called democracy, deal with it.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
The problem is, probably 15-20% of the 48% are significantly affected by the decision, in many cases in a catastrophic way. Which is why it should have been a 70% threshold to change the status quo...it requires an overwhelming mandate, in my opinion.
On that basis the 1975 referendum would have failed, wouldn't it?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
There is one massive difference between the 1975 and 2016 referenda - and it has nothing to do with the numbers who voted in or out.
The 1975 referendum followed a Parliamentary debate and vote on the terms of continuing membership of the EEC, and it thus cemented the decision of Parliament. Constitutionally, the decision of Parliament was the definitive policy, and the referendum was not binding - though, clearly, politically it was important in sealing the deal.
The 2016 referendum was held without a Parliamentary debate on the terms of exit - and, indeed, we're still waiting to hear what the government would like to achieve, let alone have a Parliamentary debate (followed by a referendum). We have no Parliamentary decision, which would be the constitutionally correct procedure, instead we have a non-binding referendum with no constitutional validity being used as though it trumps Parliament.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
If you're on the hunt for 'catastrophic idiots' over the outcome of June 23rd then start and end it with David C.
Emergency budget if Leave wins? A triple lock on pensions to punish coffin dodgers voting to cast old Blighty adrift? Black Friday? Troubles returning to NI?
All lies.
Besides which do your fuckin sums. Subtract all of Scotland's votes from the Referendum total, (because we all know how keen they are to piss off from the UK), and you find Leave voters winning by a much greater margin. Many of whom voted with far greater conviction than myself.
It's called democracy, deal with it.
It has sod all to do with democracy. We have a democratic process that results in an elected body that forms most of the government and does so on a coherent basis, taking decisions as a whole.
Thanks to this one-off exercise, designed to resolve a problem within the political party that formed the government, the government was effectively dismissed and its entire program turned arse over tit.
That isn't democracy by any stretch of the imagination.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
It's called democracy, deal with it.
A useless tit who votes for spite has not much room to criticise.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
It's called democracy, deal with it.
Ah, the last cry of the civicly ignorant.
Tell me, oh wise sage, when a vote goes against what you wanted - like, actually wanted, rather than a decision to have a kebab rather than chips on a pissed-up night out, which is how you treated the referendum you utter cockwomble - do you simply roll over and wait for the surgeons to start extracting your organs for fun and profit, or do you roll up your sleeves and use all democratic means to overturn the previous wrong decision?
If I was to stage an armed coup against Brexit, you might - just might, bearing in mind how terminally clueless you are - have a point. Not wanting the country disappear into a cesspit of xenophobia and decay is a laudable position to take. So yes. This is democracy. Deal with it.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I would've accepted a 52/48 result the other way.
Even if the government had gone on to interpret that result as a yes to Schengen and currency union (ie "hard" remain)?
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I would've accepted a 52/48 result the other way.
Even if the government had gone on to interpret that result as a yes to Schengen and currency union (ie "hard" remain)?
Either way, 52% of the vote was only the 37% of the electorate who could be bothered or induced to vote. I don't see how any government can take that as a mandate for drastic change. If they do, then the country is being governed by the apathetics and the Rolyns.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I would've accepted a 52/48 result the other way.
Even if the government had gone on to interpret that result as a yes to Schengen and currency union (ie "hard" remain)?
Since the government called the referendum based on accepting David Cameron's negotiated reforms vs leaving; as the referendum was based on EU membership; and all parties have committed to either holding a referendum on joining the euro or ruled it out completely, I think that would be a bit of a stretch, to say the least.
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on
:
I think it very strange to assert how you ould behave in a given situation. You might believe that you would be accepting of it, and you might hope you would act charitably in a situation. But you don't know, any more than the Self Righteous Brothers would know how they would react to Yoko Ono's presence and shout, "Ono, No!"
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
I think it very strange to assert how you ould behave in a given situation. You might believe that you would be accepting of it, and you might hope you would act charitably in a situation. But you don't know, any more than the Self Righteous Brothers would know how they would react to Yoko Ono's presence and shout, "Ono, No!"
Well I said that on the basis that in the final week I thought Remain were going to win and until around 5.00am on 24th June I thought Remain had won (perhaps being in a room full of cheering Remainers didn't help my analysis of the unfolding situation). As the night unfolded I'd reconciled myself to a Remain win and thought 'well, that's that then, we'd better move on'. By about 5.30am I was very (if pleasantly) surprised.
[ 22. November 2016, 21:49: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
52% of the vote was only the 37% of the electorate who could be bothered or induced to vote. I don't see how any government can take that as a mandate for drastic change. If they do, then the country is being governed by the apathetics and the Rolyns.
Seem to remember Maggie making a few drastic changes with only 33% of the Electorate holding their hands up to it.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Tell me, oh wise sage, when a vote goes against what you wanted - like, actually wanted, rather than a decision to have a kebab rather than chips on a pissed-up night out, which is how you treated the referendum you utter cockwomble
I have no intention of telling you or anyone else on here the real reason I voted Leave.
For the record I did not actively campaign for Leave or urge anyone to vote Leave. In fact I urged a few Mr an Mrs Nices' who didn't think politics affected them, to vote Remain.
The problem with apathy in democracy is that it cuts both ways, it keeps people at home who believe everything will always continue hunky-dory. Conversely it provides a bunker in which irrational grievances fester and pupate when the right/wrong conditions present themselves.
Ok, let us say the outcome of June 23rd wasn't democracy but an incalculable fuck up, and my putting a cross in a box on two occasions has assisted it.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
52% of the vote was only the 37% of the electorate who could be bothered or induced to vote. I don't see how any government can take that as a mandate for drastic change. If they do, then the country is being governed by the apathetics and the Rolyns.
Seem to remember Maggie making a few drastic changes with only 33% of the Electorate holding their hands up to it.
That's hardly a resounding "this is a good thing".
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Ok, let us say the outcome of June 23rd wasn't democracy but an incalculable fuck up, and my putting a cross in a box on two occasions has assisted it.
I'll agree with that assessment.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0