|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Rolyn: Traitorous to the cause of democracy
|
hilaryg
Shipmate
# 11690
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 261 | From: back home in England | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
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".
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stercus Tauri
Shipmate
# 16668
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Thay haif said. Quhat say thay, Lat thame say (George Keith, 5th Earl Marischal)
Posts: 905 | From: On the traditional lands of the Six Nations. | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
It didn't have us rolyn in the aisles.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
MarsmanTJ
Shipmate
# 8689
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 238 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
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)?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stercus Tauri
Shipmate
# 16668
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Thay haif said. Quhat say thay, Lat thame say (George Keith, 5th Earl Marischal)
Posts: 905 | From: On the traditional lands of the Six Nations. | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
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!"
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
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".
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
