Thread: Bloody Brexiteers 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=005580

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
Found myself in a storm thread & I can't bloody believe that people are voting to leave & can't see the carnage it will do to the economy & to international relations.

It is all about freedom, a delusion that leaving the EU will control immigration and the NHS will then have pots of money, a stupid idiotic myth myth created by Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson and people believe it.

Yes it might work all right at the bloody end but in the mean time the UK will have to go through a really miserable time of probably many years.

Stupid David Cameron for allowing us to get us in this awful situation & ridiculous Corbyn for not being man enough to work with the Cameron for the good of the country.

I am Euro sceptic but I am not going vote for an unknown never, never land.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Seriously, have you not seen the God alone knows how many stump speeches, videos, adverts, podcasts, Corbyn's done about this - as for appearing with the Prime Minister - both men's core supporters and internal party rivals would tear them apart. It would be of no value to the remain campaign whatsoever and they both know it.

That said, I agree with you about brexit being short termist politicking based on half truths and fantasy.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
If Corbyn can share a stage with Hamas supporters he can share a stage with David Cameron. Typical politician prioritising his position over the good of the country.
Brexiteers thinking that leaving the EU might destroy it as if that was a good thing for the world...
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
If large proportion of the Electorate are looking to bunch of Mavericks for salvation then one only needs to ask -- Why?
I'll tell for why. It is because are glorious, once trusted and revered institutions have fucked the masses over one time too many.

WMD,s that didn't exist.
A recession that wasn't going to happen.
Child abuse rings operating right under the noses of Police, social services and politicians with the media gagged.
Blatant and unchecked tax evasion by the rich and powerful.

To name but a few, (and before anyone says, I know exiting the EU won't make a damn bit of difference to the above). The point is people are heartily sick of Experts telling them what will be for the best and many have turned to their gut instinct to tell them what is best.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
If Corbyn can share a stage with Hamas supporters he can share a stage with David Cameron. Typical politician prioritising his position over the good of the country.
Brexiteers thinking that leaving the EU might destroy it as if that was a good thing for the world...

Do you really think it would help ? I think that those likely to losten to either of them would be turned off by their appearing together - it is not whether he can do it, it is whether it is useful to the remain campaign to do it.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
If large proportion of the Electorate are looking to bunch of Mavericks for salvation then one only needs to ask -- Why?

No, one needn't. For the answer is obvious: they're stupid.

Like you.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
Labour shared a platform with the Tories in the Scottish Indyref and look where that got them.

Win or lose, Cameron is a toxic brand.

If you have an argument to make, base it on your own convictions and principles.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
Hamas is not a toxic brand? Corbyn is just the same as any other politician he just fools himself and others he is not.
 
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Labour shared a platform with the Tories in the Scottish Indyref and look where that got them.

Win or lose, Cameron is a toxic brand.

If you have an argument to make, base it on your own convictions and principles.

I take it that that last comment refers to Cameron, whose "principles" appear to operate on a swivel basis.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
Not really. I think Labour should base the argument for Remain on the likes of workers's rights, cooperation in science, funding of projects for social good, reciprocal health care etc.

I doubt if Cameron could find a principle with Klieg lights and a magnifying glass on white paper at noonday.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Rolyn
quote:
The point is people are heartily sick of Experts telling them what will be for the best and many have turned to their gut instinct to tell them what is best.
Got it in one.

And every "expert" rolled out by the Remain campaign loses them more votes. And STILL they can't get their collective head around that and leave the "experts" out of it.

For sheer stupidity alone, the Remainers deserve to lose.

[ 07. June 2016, 09:36: Message edited by: L'organist ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Rolyn
quote:
The point is people are heartily sick of Experts telling them what will be for the best and many have turned to their gut instinct to tell them what is best.
Got it in one.

And every "expert" rolled out by the Remain campaign loses them more votes. And STILL they can't get their collective head around that and leave the "experts" out of it.

For sheer stupidity alone, the Remainers deserve to lose.

So, what do you recommend? There has been a consistent message from the electorate (at least, as reported in the media) that what they most want is to know the facts. How do you propose to provide the electorate with facts if you want prevent the experts who can present and explain those facts from contributing to the debate?

There have, of course, been some very stupid things presented by both sides. And, therefore, on the "sheer stupidity" scale, both sides deserve to lose. Maybe that's inevitable when the whole referendum is a stupid idea. But, producing people who can present and explain facts has not been one of those stupid things.

If the electorate don't want to base their decisions on facts (despite saying that's what they want) then the UK is so far up shit creek that whether we're in or out of the EU is minor issue. We might as well just invite Trump to come over and run for President.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rolyn
The point is people are heartily sick of Experts telling them what will be for the best and many have turned to their gut instinct to tell them what is best.

The only problem with that is that my gut instinct is saying I want to be In the common market and have free trade but Out of most of the rest of it, and neither party is offering that.

We need an Indecisive Party and a third option on the ballot paper that goes something like "Oh God, don't ask me these questions, I don't know."
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
I think you are defining 'expert' as 'someone saying something I disagree with' rather than 'someone who knows what they are talking about and whom I would be well-advised to heed'.

I am basing this on the apparent opposition to 'gut instinct'. My innards tell me lots of things, but in general I find it safer to consult my brain.
 
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :
 
In the words of Rob from Nick Hornby's High Fidelity:

quote:
I've come to the conclusion that my guts have shit for brains

 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
On the whole, I feel that going with the people who want out, whose views on matters I know about I find repulsive, and who have brought this referendum on us as a result of cosying up to people who seem very xenophobic about migrants, and who said a programme telling us about the troubles of refugees shouldn't have been shown because it was biassed against leaving is not something I should be doing.

OTOH, I am very dubious about TTIP, which we would be dragged into if remaining, with its clauses allowing very unelected commercial corporations to ride roughshod over the decisions of elected governments. Presumably backed up by someone's military in the manner of certain states in the Americas and covert action as with others such as Greece and Iran, since their private kangaroo courts would have no powers to enforce decisions if rejected. Only it could be done openly because approved in these treaty laws.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Rolyn
quote:
The point is people are heartily sick of Experts telling them what will be for the best and many have turned to their gut instinct to tell them what is best.
Got it in one.

And every "expert" rolled out by the Remain campaign loses them more votes. And STILL they can't get their collective head around that and leave the "experts" out of it.

For sheer stupidity alone, the Remainers deserve to lose.

What is really stupid is swallowing the idea that experts are "experts" and can therefore be disregarded because they are clearly in Cameron's pocket and making selective use of facts. The Brexit anti-"expert" campaign is pure Bulverism.

Show me a Brexit argument which addresses the substance of the economic and political arguments in favour of remaining which have been given by experts. As opposed to simple rubbishing, which any fool can do.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
The UK will have no choice but to sign up to TTIP if we vote leave as it will be desperate to form any trade agreement with the USA no matter how lunatic it is. Inside the EU there is at least the protection of the European parliament.

I find Brexiteers supporting the facts of Gove who says there will be loads of cash for the NHS above that of the IFS who says there will none completely bonkers.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:


OTOH, I am very dubious about TTIP, which we would be dragged into if remaining, with its clauses allowing very unelected commercial corporations to ride roughshod over the decisions of elected governments. Presumably backed up by someone's military in the manner of certain states in the Americas and covert action as with others such as Greece and Iran, since their private kangaroo courts would have no powers to enforce decisions if rejected. Only it could be done openly because approved in these treaty laws.

I'm not dubious about TTIP one bit. It's evil. Democratic rule is being rolled back as commercial interests take over and TTIP will be another nail in democracy's coffin.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
On the whole, I feel that going with the people who want out, whose views on matters I know about I find repulsive, and who have brought this referendum on us as a result of cosying up to people who seem very xenophobic about migrants, and who said a programme telling us about the troubles of refugees shouldn't have been shown because it was biassed against leaving is not something I should be doing.

OTOH, I am very dubious about TTIP, which we would be dragged into if remaining, with its clauses allowing very unelected commercial corporations to ride roughshod over the decisions of elected governments. Presumably backed up by someone's military in the manner of certain states in the Americas and covert action as with others such as Greece and Iran, since their private kangaroo courts would have no powers to enforce decisions if rejected. Only it could be done openly because approved in these treaty laws.

Actually we're less likely to get TTIP if we stay in the EU. For it to be enacted in Europe, it would have to ratified by all the member countries. A few, including Greece, have said they'll never agree to it.

We are, almost certainly going to get TTIP if we leave the EU. It's the sort of pro-business policy that the Tories love. [Big Grin]

Tubbs
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Rolyn
quote:
The point is people are heartily sick of Experts telling them what will be for the best and many have turned to their gut instinct to tell them what is best.
Got it in one.

And every "expert" rolled out by the Remain campaign loses them more votes. And STILL they can't get their collective head around that and leave the "experts" out of it.

For sheer stupidity alone, the Remainers deserve to lose.

What is really stupid is swallowing the idea that experts are "experts" and can therefore be disregarded because they are clearly in Cameron's pocket and making selective use of facts. The Brexit anti-"expert" campaign is pure Bulverism.

Show me a Brexit argument which addresses the substance of the economic and political arguments in favour of remaining which have been given by experts. As opposed to simple rubbishing, which any fool can do.

They don't have any. They're too busy throwing around buzzwords like freedom and demogracy and appealing to some people's inner racist.

And, if we do leave, what's the plan? It's not enough to keep saying we won't have the EU, but what will we have instead? Splendid isolationism isn't working that well for North Korea but if we join EEA, then we're back where we started but without any actual say.

Tubbs

[ 07. June 2016, 12:39: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Ariel
quote:
The only problem with that is that my gut instinct is saying I want to be In the common market and have free trade but Out of most of the rest of it, and neither party is offering that.
In other words, you want what we were told we would get if we voted to remain in 1975. Shame that it is now clear that it was Government policy to lie to the electorate if any questions were asked about political or social union - and that IS a fact, borne out by papers released under the 30 year rule.

But we CAN get what you want again because there is EFTA (the European Free Trade Area), and there is a blanket agreement (the EEA) for those countries within EFTA for trade with the EU.

As for those who believe the "experts" are telling the truth, try this one for size: within the figures for "Exports to the EU from the UK" there is one giant elephant, namely those goods which go to countries outside the EU but via Rotterdam; once those are stripped out the trade balance with the EU is a lot less rosy than Remain would have you believe.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Ariel
quote:
The only problem with that is that my gut instinct is saying I want to be In the common market and have free trade but Out of most of the rest of it, and neither party is offering that.
In other words, you want what we were told we would get if we voted to remain in 1975. Shame that it is now clear that it was Government policy to lie to the electorate if any questions were asked about political or social union - and that IS a fact, borne out by papers released under the 30 year rule.

But we CAN get what you want again because there is EFTA (the European Free Trade Area), and there is a blanket agreement (the EEA) for those countries within EFTA for trade with the EU.

As for those who believe the "experts" are telling the truth, try this one for size: within the figures for "Exports to the EU from the UK" there is one giant elephant, namely those goods which go to countries outside the EU but via Rotterdam; once those are stripped out the trade balance with the EU is a lot less rosy than Remain would have you believe.

Every economist of note believes that we're better off in, apart from one who's name I can't remember. And even he admits that leaving would cost the UK our remaining manufacturing industries. Pesky experts.

You might want to look at the small print of EFTA before getting excited. Being part of EFTA means accepting EU legislation covering the four freedoms — the free movement of goods, services, persons and capital — throughout the 31 EEA States.

Given that the free movement of persons is what's caused much of the trouble I can see Nigel and his ilk leading the brave charge to Oppose That Sort Of Thing.

Tubbs

[ 07. June 2016, 12:40: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
In other words, you want what we were told we would get if we voted to remain in 1975.

Yes, that is what I want, but I don't think Leave will achieve it. In 40 years the culture of the country has changed and I'm not at all convinced that we could make it on our own. I see it more as being outside a closed door while the people in the room inside decide whether they want anything to do with us. I want to vote Leave but you can't live on past glories or hope to revive them in their entirety: there has to be some adaptation to the circumstances of the present and some of the glories have had their day and others are no longer feasible. I think we would struggle. And I think we're screwed whatever result we get.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
within the figures for "Exports to the EU from the UK" there is one giant elephant, namely those goods which go to countries outside the EU but via Rotterdam; once those are stripped out the trade balance with the EU is a lot less rosy than Remain would have you believe.

And, on the flip side there is a lot of goods from elsewhere in the EU that get shipped through UK ports. Why do goods made in one country get put on ships in another? Simple - because it's cheaper (presumably some destinations are cheaper from the UK, others from elsewhere in the EU). So, UK exporters will have to pay more (by either paying tariffs to ship via Rotterdam or paying the extra costs of shipping from a UK port), and EU exporters will pay more (because they will no longer have access to the cheaper UK ports). Everyone loses. Whoopee.

But, the amount of finished goods being shipped from other EU ports is relatively small. Much, much greater are UK manufactured goods that are parts for other goods assembled elsewhere in the EU and then exported. Or, parts from elsewhere in the EU that end up in products finished in the UK. Those complex webs of suppliers and customers for parts have taken decades to establish, and many of them will probably survive a Brexit but not all. Another boot into British business.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

But we CAN get what you want again because there is EFTA (the European Free Trade Area), and there is a blanket agreement (the EEA) for those countries within EFTA for trade with the EU.

Oh yes the EEA a bit like the opposite to having your cake and eating it.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Show me a Brexit argument which addresses the substance of the economic and political arguments in favour of remaining which have been given by experts. As opposed to simple rubbishing, which any fool can do.

It isn't what any fool can say, but what any fool wants believe.
Look at Ariel's post. She's reasoned out why Remain is better, but doesn't like it. She is putting reason above ideology, but many will not.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Ah sure it'll be alright. If it all sinks down the plug hole you can always devalue the pound and magic money out of exports to the folks you just slapped in the face ten minutes earlier. Be grand. Honest.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

But we CAN get what you want again because there is EFTA (the European Free Trade Area), and there is a blanket agreement (the EEA) for those countries within EFTA for trade with the EU.

Oh yes the EEA a bit like the opposite to having your cake and eating it.
It may be valid to say that if the UK joins EFTA, then some of the worst economic effects of Brexit would be lost BUT some of the Leave campaign's comments over the last few months would make that a very difficult political sell. And it's the worst of both worlds.

Tubbs
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
To me, the problem is that we're being offered a binary choice by people who are all clearly talking bollocks.

The Leave position seems to be "look, if we're not spending money on the EU, we can spend more on the NHS". Yeah, bollocks. Even if there were the amounts they're claiming could be freed up from leaving the EU - which almost everyone credible is saying are total exaggerations - there is no way whatsoever that the Europhile Tories and UKIPers would say "oh, ok then, we'll just forget privatising the NHS, forget cutting services, and instead put more taxpayer money into pensions, the NHS, the steelworks, fishing, farming... etc"

If there was any money spare, they would be looking to prop up their own white-elephant economic projects and looking to reduce taxes for their core constituents.

On the Remain side, a vote-of-confidence in the EU will be used as a blank cheque to justify anything they feel like - including TTIP etc. Yes, Cornwall, South Wales and elsewhere have benefited from EU funds, but the chances of any more coming in that direction are negligible to none.

And that's the trouble for Corbyn and the left. Those leading both Remain and Leave are fixated with the kinds of laissez-faire economics that caused the last crash and which are causing the problems in the South of Europe. Jumping into bed with Cameron is to find one on the same side as someone who believes only in feathering his own nest and couldn't give a shit about the things the left really cares about - rights for working people, fair wages, justice for the exploited and so on. Giving them a win will almost inevitably lead to the weakening of Europe's policies in these areas as the next step for the Tories would be to pull out from the European Convention on Human Rights and assorted other Directives that the blood-suckers who support the Tories don't much like.

But unlike 1975, there is no strong left argument against the EU - so the odd individual who takes that position is left floundering about with only Farage and Widdecombe for company. Leaving the EU is even less likely to bring stronger protections for most working people.

Another point is that whichever way the referendum goes, there is going to be an almighty fight in Parliament. At present there (appears to be) a majority of MPs in favour of Remain. If the country votes Leave with a slight majority - but, for example, a minority of voters in Scotland - it isn't clear how it would be ratified. Presumably if the MPs refused to vote with the will of the country shown in the Referendum, the only alternative would be a fresh General Election, but goodness knows what the result of that would be or what would happen in/to Scotland.

If the result is Remain with a slight majority in the Referendum, I don't see Farage going away any time soon and so UKIP and their dirty xenophobic mates would likely resort to any tactic in and out of Parliament to get their way. I'd imagine a whole lot of difficult debates and narrow votes in favour of even more painful forms of austerity.

If it doesn't cause a run on the £ and an instant recession - whatever happens - I'd be very surprised.

[ 07. June 2016, 14:19: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
I think it would be fairly certain that in the event of an exit, Scotland would not just slowly stagger towards independence - as it is doing now - but take a running jump at it. I'm somewhat surprised that little has been made of this in the 'remain' campaign, but I guess there is no desire to add yet another hot political potato.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
In the case of a Brexit vote, Mrs B and I are thinking of "emigrating" to an independent Scotland as soon as family commitments permit. One option would be to find somewhere to live on Mull and provide a holiday haven for children and grandchildren. They would enjoy the eagles, sea eagles, otters and friendly folk. So would we, even in the winter.

I'm not a little Englander, never have been. I don't want to see England go that way. But I guess it might.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
To me, the problem is that we're being offered a binary choice by people who are all clearly talking bollocks.

The Leave position seems to be "look, if we're not spending money on the EU, we can spend more on the NHS". Yeah, bollocks. Even if there were the amounts they're claiming could be freed up from leaving the EU - which almost everyone credible is saying are total exaggerations - there is no way whatsoever that the Europhile Tories and UKIPers would say "oh, ok then, we'll just forget privatising the NHS, forget cutting services, and instead put more taxpayer money into pensions, the NHS, the steelworks, fishing, farming... etc"

If there was any money spare, they would be looking to prop up their own white-elephant economic projects and looking to reduce taxes for their core constituents.

On the Remain side, a vote-of-confidence in the EU will be used as a blank cheque to justify anything they feel like - including TTIP etc. Yes, Cornwall, South Wales and elsewhere have benefited from EU funds, but the chances of any more coming in that direction are negligible to none.

And that's the trouble for Corbyn and the left. Those leading both Remain and Leave are fixated with the kinds of laissez-faire economics that caused the last crash and which are causing the problems in the South of Europe. Jumping into bed with Cameron is to find one on the same side as someone who believes only in feathering his own nest and couldn't give a shit about the things the left really cares about - rights for working people, fair wages, justice for the exploited and so on. Giving them a win will almost inevitably lead to the weakening of Europe's policies in these areas as the next step for the Tories would be to pull out from the European Convention on Human Rights and assorted other Directives that the blood-suckers who support the Tories don't much like.

But unlike 1975, there is no strong left argument against the EU - so the odd individual who takes that position is left floundering about with only Farage and Widdecombe for company. Leaving the EU is even less likely to bring stronger protections for most working people.

Another point is that whichever way the referendum goes, there is going to be an almighty fight in Parliament. At present there (appears to be) a majority of MPs in favour of Remain. If the country votes Leave with a slight majority - but, for example, a minority of voters in Scotland - it isn't clear how it would be ratified. Presumably if the MPs refused to vote with the will of the country shown in the Referendum, the only alternative would be a fresh General Election, but goodness knows what the result of that would be or what would happen in/to Scotland.

If the result is Remain with a slight majority in the Referendum, I don't see Farage going away any time soon and so UKIP and their dirty xenophobic mates would likely resort to any tactic in and out of Parliament to get their way. I'd imagine a whole lot of difficult debates and narrow votes in favour of even more painful forms of austerity.

If it doesn't cause a run on the £ and an instant recession - whatever happens - I'd be very surprised.

At the moment, the speculation is that the pro-EU MPs will push for EFTA in the event of a successful Leave vote as that means we wouldn't lose the valuable trade links. (But brings its own problems). That might keep Scotland around for a little longer, but in the event of Brexit, they've already said they will go for another refendum as soon as they can get one. And that one will work. Frankly, I don't blame them!

Farage has already said that if Leave lose, they will just keep demanding a re-do until "the will of the British people prevails" and they get the result they wanted in the first place. I can see the Tories running in the next election on a Leave ticket. Headed by Boris [Projectile]

Tubbs

[ 07. June 2016, 14:55: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I think it would be fairly certain that in the event of an exit, Scotland would not just slowly stagger towards independence - as it is doing now - but take a running jump at it. I'm somewhat surprised that little has been made of this in the 'remain' campaign, but I guess there is no desire to add yet another hot political potato.

That has been a feature of the discussion in Scotland. But, I'm not too sure if it would be that big an issue in England. Would many people south of Hadrians Wall care that much if the Scots gain independence of Westmonster to maintain the very beneficial links with Europe?
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
As an observer from the outside it's rather frightening to see it all played out in the realm of 'economics'. I'm sure that is a major part of it for the 'remain' campaign, but I'm seeing the 'leave' campaign more in line with the western swing to the right and the alarming rise of insular nationalism. I suspect there is a hell of a lot more to be losing than just money and trade; but then I've always argued this point about Europe on these boards in the past and had little other than scorn for stating it. I'd love to think that sense would prevail and the remain campaign will win, but I'm beginning to think it might be very close indeed; almost too close for comfort.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I think it would be fairly certain that in the event of an exit, Scotland would not just slowly stagger towards independence - as it is doing now - but take a running jump at it. I'm somewhat surprised that little has been made of this in the 'remain' campaign, but I guess there is no desire to add yet another hot political potato.

That has been a feature of the discussion in Scotland. But, I'm not too sure if it would be that big an issue in England. Would many people south of Hadrians Wall care that much if the Scots gain independence of Westmonster to maintain the very beneficial links with Europe?
Based on a read of some of the comments on FB, they're just in denial. Devo-Max is apparently way better than EU membership apparently. Boris and Nigel said so.

Tubbs
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Alan:
quote:

Would many people south of Hadrians Wall care that much if the Scots gain independence of Westmonster to maintain the very beneficial links with Europe?

I don't know the answer to that to be honest, but what I do know is that when/if it comes they will suddenly find they care an awful lot. All things Scottish aside (and there is a lot there that will vex those south of Hadrian's Wall) the result of it would have a hugely destabilising influence on the political climate of Northern Ireland and possibly even the Republic of Ireland. It may also wake a sleeping dragon a little closer to home. It really could get very messy and I'm not at all sure England would survive it.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And that's the trouble for Corbyn and the left. Those leading both Remain and Leave are fixated with the kinds of laissez-faire economics that caused the last crash and which are causing the problems in the South of Europe. Jumping into bed with Cameron is to find one on the same side as someone who believes only in feathering his own nest and couldn't give a shit about the things the left really cares about - rights for working people, fair wages, justice for the exploited and so on. Giving them a win will almost inevitably lead to the weakening of Europe's policies in these areas as the next step for the Tories would be to pull out from the European Convention on Human Rights and assorted other Directives that the blood-suckers who support the Tories don't much like.

Interestingly enough we had an EU Referendum debate at our church last week. Speaking for "Remain" was the Tory MP Ben Gummer; speaking for "Leave" was the Labour MP Kelvin Hopkins.

What was fascinating is that Hopkins, a left-winger, constantly looked back to the 1950s as a golden age of social democracy which, he believes, worked on behalf of the people and was embedded into the early days of the EEC. However he sees the present EU as dominated by monetarist and business interests which work against the people.

Gummer, on the other hand, felt that we could not look back to the past, however rosy it may have been, and sees working together in the EU as the best way of counteracting the power of multinational corporations. It was a strange reversal of their natural positions.

I am no Tory but Ben was the better speaker and his arguments much more persuasive. He also shared a vision which went beyond mere economics.

PS Gove and Boris have BOTH been in town today ... no doubt we shall see their gloating on the local news bulletin later.

[ 07. June 2016, 15:22: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
PS Gove and Boris have BOTH been in town today ... no doubt we shall see their gloating on the local news bulletin later.

That will be something to look forward too.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That has been a feature of the discussion in Scotland. But, I'm not too sure if it would be that big an issue in England. Would many people south of Hadrians Wall care that much if the Scots gain independence of Westmonster to maintain the very beneficial links with Europe?

I have no idea whether it is true or not - but there is a perception for some in England that they're paying for Scots (and to a lesser extent the Welsh) to have a cushy life whilst things get worse here.

So to that extent, I think there would be general support in England for Scottish Independence, so that some other bugger can pay for their social security bill. Whether the EU would want Scotland (or whether Scotland could alone negotiate a better relationship with the EU than the rest of the UK is an open question in my mind).

If Scotland were to go Independent, I think the next logical step would be for London to become a city state like Singapore. Northern Ireland and (parts of?) Wales (possibly also Cornwall and Northumberland) get some kind of encouragement to become their own - likely very poor - states with minimal contact with London.

Even if that doesn't happen, I can see the "extremities" getting increasingly shut out from Westminster plans.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Interestingly enough we had an EU Referendum debate at our church last week. Speaking for "Remain" was the Tory MP Ben Gummer; speaking for "Leave" was the Labour MP Kelvin Hopkins.

What was fascinating is that Hopkins, a left-winger, constantly looked back to the 1950s as a golden age of social democracy which, he believes, worked on behalf of the people and was embedded into the early days of the EEC. However he sees the present EU as dominated by monetarist and business interests which work against the people.

I understand that was basically the position of Tony Benn in opposing the EEC in 1975.

quote:
Gummer, on the other hand, felt that we could not look back to the past, however rosy it may have been, and sees working together in the EU as the best way of counteracting the power of multinational corporations. It was a strange reversal of their natural positions.
When you hear a Tory talking about countering the power of corporations, you know it is a temporary position they're using to get votes. Because no Tory actually believes in limiting the power of corps.

quote:
I am no Tory but Ben was the better speaker and his arguments much more persuasive. He also shared a vision which went beyond mere economics.

PS Gove and Boris have BOTH been in town today ... no doubt we shall see their gloating on the local news bulletin later.

Sadly that's the problem. Protecting ourselves from corporations is a winning argument, but it becomes completely bastardised when borrowed as an argument by Tories.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I tend to agree, although I know Ben quite well and believe him to be a man of integrity - he has held this view publicly for at least two years that I know of.

It's a shame he's a Conservative: in my view he'd make a good right-of-centre LibDem!

[ 07. June 2016, 15:45: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I tend to agree, although I know Ben quite well and believe him to be a man of integrity - he has held this view publicly for at least two years that I know of.

It's a shame he's a Conservative: in my view he'd make a good right-of-centre LibDem!

OK even if he is the one living Tory who actually has his head screwed on the right way around, the fact is that others are going to use a Remain mandate in ways he doesn't want.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
When you hear a Tory talking about countering the power of corporations, you know it is a temporary position they're using to get votes. Because no Tory actually believes in limiting the power of corps.

It used to be a strain in conservative thinking. Thatcher tried to weed out those who thought that way, but I'm not altogether surprised there's some still around.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Would many people south of Hadrians Wall care that much if the Scots gain independence of Westmonster to maintain the very beneficial links with Europe?

What are the consequences of Brexit followed by Scindependence and Screadmission? Is it automatic trade and movement barriers between England and Scotland until the UK negotiates something with the whole EU, or can the UK and Scotland make their own side deal as part of independence without involving the rest of the EU?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
What are the consequences of Brexit followed by Scindependence and Screadmission? Is it automatic trade and movement barriers between England and Scotland until the UK negotiates something with the whole EU, or can the UK and Scotland make their own side deal as part of independence without involving the rest of the EU?

I don't know. But we do have a bit of history with other former relationships - such as with the Irish Republic and the Commonwealth countries. Of course, an ex-EU relationship would be different, but Irish people are free to live (and unusually vote in GE and the Referendum) in the UK, which must be due to a bilateral relationship between Eire and the UK rather than with the EU. The Commonwealth relationship is a bit stranger, but they also can vote in the current referendum at least.

My guess is that there will continue to be a free trade relationship with the Republic with no borders on the island of Ireland. Because basically it'd be a convoluted thing to take stuff from the UK to the EU via the Republic. Probably not worth trying to control.

I think it'd be highly likely this would also be the trading relationship with an Indie Scotland, which I think would probably remain with Sterling at least in the short term. Again, there are few direct land trading links between Scotland and the rest of the EU, so it probably wouldn't be worth setting up a separate customs zone just for that.

More difficult, I think, would be to work out how exactly Eire and an Indie Scotland could be managed as EU states with a non-EU rUK in the way. Clearly they wouldn't be in Schengen, but how could they be in the EU free trading zone? I'm not sure it would be possible.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Hamas is not a toxic brand? Corbyn is just the same as any other politician he just fools himself and others he is not.

I have to say, I think Cameron is more toxic than Hamas. At least his meetings with Hamas were in the name of negotiating peace. I think meeting with Cameron would be suicidal for him. And stupid - Cameron is on the way out, whatever the result.

Corbyn has been making his points. But he does not get listened to and reported in the media. That is his problem, and he has not had enough time to establish his media presence. He is not particularly good at it either (much as I like him).

The problem is that this campaign has been utterly toxic from all sides. It has been dominated by lies from all sides - I think more from the exiters, because they are making definitive statements about a situation that they have no idea about it.

I hate having Cameron and Osborne on the same side as me. They are vile and obnoxious people. But compared to the line up on the exit side, they are starting to seem almost OK*. It is making me completely sick of the politics we have in this country. I can only hope that we vote to stay in, and the exiters fuck off to somewhere else. Ideally, the depths of hell, where they will be at home.

*Almost. When I surface from the cess-pit of EU discussions.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Not really. I think Labour should base the argument for Remain on the likes of workers's rights, cooperation in science, funding of projects for social good, reciprocal health care etc..

That is pretty much what the Labour In campaign is doing - but its biggest presence seems to be on Twitter, facebook and youtube. Not tending to see this stuff on tv / hear it on radio.

Plus my local party is regularly canvassing for the in vote - but to watch the tv news you'd think none of this was happening.

[ 07. June 2016, 17:59: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
The campaign in the press is between two of the most powerful organisations in the Country:

One hand we have the Conservative party fighting hard for remain.

On the other hand we have the conservative party fighting for leave.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I think one of the problems is that the two people stood up as leaders of the camps is Cameron and Farage.

If I had a sniper rifle, I would probably take out Cameron.

There is nobody on the left who gets a say in the media. So the arguments from the left for staying are not heard.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
In the case of a Brexit vote, Mrs B and I are thinking of "emigrating" to an independent Scotland as soon as family commitments permit. One option would be to find somewhere to live on Mull and provide a holiday haven for children and grandchildren. They would enjoy the eagles, sea eagles, otters and friendly folk. So would we, even in the winter.


Wow! That is a brilliant idea. Include a holiday cottage and we'll be your first guests
[Cool] [Cool]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Mr Cheesy:
quote:

Irish people are free to live (and unusually vote in GE and the Referendum) in the UK, which must be due to a bilateral relationship between Eire and the UK rather than with the EU. The Commonwealth relationship is a bit stranger, but they also can vote in the current referendum at least.

Irish people being able to move to and live in the UK has more to do with the division of the island more than anything else. I guess it's down to historical anomaly, but they could still do it under the EU.

Irish citizens can't vote in your referendum unless they have been living in the UK for over five years. British citizens living in Ireland can vote in the UK referendum if they have lived in Ireland for under five years (or have an address/permanent residence in the UK). Where it might get complicated is where Irish citizens might be able to vote if they lived in Northern Ireland for a time and retained their dual citizenship. I'm not actually sure what happens in that instance.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Any concept that needs a portmanteau words like 'Brexit' to label it, is surely bound to be a shit idea?! Mind you, it does sound like one of those fibre-filled cereals that keeps you regular.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Any concept that needs a portmanteau words like 'Brexit' to label it, is surely bound to be a shit idea?!

I've also heard 'Bremain' doing the rounds...
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Ouch!
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Irish people being able to move to and live in the UK has more to do with the division of the island more than anything else. I guess it's down to historical anomaly, but they could still do it under the EU.

Technically EU citizens can only stay in the UK if they're working. I believe that the status of Irish citizens is not restricted by work. I could be wrong on that, but the status of citizens of the Irish Republic in the UK seem to be different to citizens of other EU states.

quote:
Irish citizens can't vote in your referendum unless they have been living in the UK for over five years. British citizens living in Ireland can vote in the UK referendum if they have lived in Ireland for under five years (or have an address/permanent residence in the UK). Where it might get complicated is where Irish citizens might be able to vote if they lived in Northern Ireland for a time and retained their dual citizenship. I'm not actually sure what happens in that instance.
Again, this seems to be different to other EU citizens, who cannot vote however long they've lived in the UK unless they've taken UK citizenship.

Australians and other Commonwealth country residents can also vote (possibly also after 5 years of residency, I'm not sure).
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
According to my EU referendum voting guide (which I have in front of me) you can vote in the referendum if you are:

A British or Irish citizen living in the UK, or

a Commonwealth citizen living in the UK who has leave to remain in the UK or who does require leave to remain in the UK, or

a British citizen living overseas who has been registered to vote in the UK in the last 15 years.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
The campaign in the press is between two of the most powerful organisations in the Country:

One hand we have the Conservative party fighting hard for remain.

On the other hand we have the conservative party fighting for leave.

From June 24th a campaign will begin to keep the Conservative party and therefore the Conservative government, in one piece, even though it may need a new leader.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
The five year thing comes from the papers sent to people here in Ireland where it specifies this to be the condition of casting a vote. I didn't get one myself, but I've seen the papers others have posted as pics on Facebook. I've no idea why five is the magic number, although one Facebook post seemed to suggest it was changing; or perhaps was a recent change?

Edited to add:
Just in case there was confusion in previous posts I'm talking about British citizens living in the Republic of Ireland. Irish citizens don't have a vote. Well, as far as I know we don't. If we did, that would be a little weird.

[ 07. June 2016, 23:07: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
My recollection is that Irish citizens can vote generally in UK elections, at least for Westminster seats. A strange hangover from the Home Rule legislation and making allowance for the large numbers of southern Irish working there.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
My recollection is that Irish citizens can vote generally in UK elections, at least for Westminster seats.

I think that's right - my understanding was that it was also reciprocal. Irish citizens can also join the UK armed forces as though they were UK citizens. I served with many - usually got statements (when asked why they hadn't joined the Irish navy) of "have you seen the Irish navy?", etc.

At one point (IIRC, and excluding the Ulster Defence Regiment) there were more citizens of the Irish Republic in the UK armed forces than there were citizens of Norn Iron in the UK armed forces. Again, I'd understood that that was reciprocal - I certainly know one or two that transferred to the Irish Naval Service with no Irish connections.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I think that's right - my understanding was that it was also reciprocal. Irish citizens can also join the UK armed forces as though they were UK citizens. I served with many - usually got statements (when asked why they hadn't joined the Irish navy) of "have you seen the Irish navy?", etc.

And not just in the British military either - often public sector jobs in the UK state the categories of people who can apply (including, randomly, in the security services) always include people with Irish passports.

I have no idea whether the reverse is also true.

quote:
At one point (IIRC, and excluding the Ulster Defence Regiment) there were more citizens of the Irish Republic in the UK armed forces than there were citizens of Norn Iron in the UK armed forces. Again, I'd understood that that was reciprocal - I certainly know one or two that transferred to the Irish Naval Service with no Irish connections.
My observation is that the North tends to attract polarised views - those people I've met from the Irish Republic seem relatively unconcerned about the British occupation of the North. Of course, that might be related to the fact that I've met them in the UK - no doubt there are people with more fundamentalist views in the Republic.

I remember talking to one Irish man who was saying that the EU basically took the rug from under the feet of the Republicans. People from the North could live and work in the South and vice-versa. Irish people could move to wherever there was work, which was often to the UK.

Given the economic downturn, this guy said, making the North part of the Republic would either make no difference or reduce their standard of living.

Of course, that's not to downplay the significant divisions between communities in the North, just to say that it is possible that the EU has merged things to the extent that being part of the UK verses part of Eire is less of an obvious political position as both states are inside the EU.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Any concept that needs a portmanteau words like 'Brexit' to label it, is surely bound to be a shit idea?!

After last week's public debate in our church, people were hanging around in the church for ages. Our caretaker wanted to switch off the lights, lock the doors and go home.

Eventually I told folk that the time for REMAINING had passed and that it was now time to LEAVE. A Vicar immediately christened this "Chexit" (Church Exit) and we all laughed - and left!
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:


I remember talking to one Irish man who was saying that the EU basically took the rug from under the feet of the Republicans. People from the North could live and work in the South and vice-versa. Irish people could move to wherever there was work, which was often to the UK.


Just on a point of order, the EU had nothing to do with that - citizens of the Irish Free State/Eire/Irish Republic* and citizens of the UK have had those reciprocal rights since Home Rule.

*in its various incarnations - I'm not calling the modern Republic the Irish Free State, just making the point that it's been the same arrangement all along the timeline AIUI.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
An interesting point which is being raised by some "Remain" people is that, if Britain comes out of the EU, it will have a land border with the EU across Ireland. Since, at present, British and Irish citizens can move freely across this without even having passports, this would provide an easy "back door" for illegal migrants travelling from Europe via Dublin.

In the early days of the Free State there were customs controls at the border and many roads and rail lines were closed. There were many controls during the Troubles, too. But essentially it's a border which would be hard to defend or close. And any attempt to do so would provoke strong reactions in both Dublin and Belfast.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Just on a point of order, the EU had nothing to do with that - citizens of the Irish Free State/Eire/Irish Republic* and citizens of the UK have had those reciprocal rights since Home Rule.

Yes, exactly the point I was bringing to this discussion! If you look above, we were discussing what would happen in an Indie Scotland Brexit future.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
An interesting point which is being raised by some "Remain" people is that, if Britain comes out of the EU, it will have a land border with the EU across Ireland. Since, at present, British and Irish citizens can move freely across this without even having passports, this would provide an easy "back door" for illegal migrants travelling from Europe via Dublin.

I think this is a bit of an exaggerated point. The main direct route to Eire from Europe is by air. And I'm not sure how attractive Northern Ireland would be for illegal migrants.

I suppose it is possible that EU citizens could fly to Dublin then drive to the North where they could live and work illegally. But I suspect this could be dealt with relatively easily with police checks, immigration raids etc. I'm doubting that it would really be much of a problem.

More of an issue might be the attraction of getting to England, but there is still the ferries and controls there.

Basically I don't think anyone wants to go back to having customs and passport checks in Ireland, so I think it'll remain a free travel zone whatever happens.

quote:
In the early days of the Free State there were customs controls at the border and many roads and rail lines were closed. There were many controls during the Troubles, too. But essentially it's a border which would be hard to defend or close. And any attempt to do so would provoke strong reactions in both Dublin and Belfast.
I've never been quite sure if there was actually a closed border from the 1970s or whether the border was technically "open" with prominent police and army checkpoints. Can anyone tell me?

[ 08. June 2016, 08:24: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Mr Cheesy:
quote:

the EU basically took the rug from under the feet of the Republicans

I presume when you use the term 'Republicans' you are referring to terrorists and those who exist in that rather strange world of hyper nationalism? I hope I'm pointing out the obvious in saying that 'Republicans' would generally be taken to mean 'those who believe in the ideals of a republic' (despite how the BBC might consistently understand the term) which would obviously be something quite different and effect more than just Ireland throughout Europe.

Edited to add:
On the border point: there were checkpoints and a strange sort of zone with hidden army and watch towers. At least, that's what I remember from my childhood.

[ 08. June 2016, 08:30: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Mr Cheesy:
I presume when you use the term 'Republicans' you are referring to terrorists and those who exist in that rather strange world of hyper nationalism? I hope I'm pointing out the obvious in saying that 'Republicans' would generally be taken to mean 'those who believe in the ideals of a republic' (despite how the BBC might consistently understand the term) which would obviously be something quite different and effect more than just Ireland throughout Europe.

OK, I'm sorry I meant those who are profoundly against the British up to and including those who go in for violence against all things British.

[ 08. June 2016, 08:33: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:

On the border point: there were checkpoints and a strange sort of zone with hidden army and watch towers. At least, that's what I remember from my childhood.

This broadly - although it depends where on the border - "Bandit Country" (South Armagh) got more attention than other areas, and Lough Neagh more than other bits of coastline.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:


More of an issue might be the attraction of getting to England, but there is still the ferries and controls there.

I'm not sure how having to go through passport control to get from one part of the UK to another is an improvement over having to go through passport control to get from the Republic to NI. You don't usually even need ID for internal UK ferry travel.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:

OTOH, I am very dubious about TTIP, which we would be dragged into if remaining, with its clauses allowing very unelected commercial corporations to ride roughshod over the decisions of elected governments. Presumably backed up by someone's military in the manner of certain states in the Americas and covert action as with others such as Greece and Iran, since their private kangaroo courts would have no powers to enforce decisions if rejected. Only it could be done openly because approved in these treaty laws.

Well if you don't want TTIP the only rational thing is vote IN as TTIP is currently hanging on by a thread with Germany, Greece and France all having cold feet over it. If you vote 'leave' you will have the most pro TTIP government in the EU negotiating with the USA for new trade agreements.

If you don't think leave will mean TTIP you are fooling yourself. Of course it will be different to the current deal as it won't have the watering down that the European Parliament voted for and it won't be liable to get ruled illegal by various European courts.

I agree that voting 'remain' may mean we have TTIP
trade agreement but it is better than a dead cert of having it if we vote 'leave'.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
There will have to be some kind of border controls between NI and Eire if the UK left the EU even if it is just to collect VAT and duty on commercial goods.
 
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
What are the consequences of Brexit followed by Scindependence and Screadmission? Is it automatic trade and movement barriers between England and Scotland until the UK negotiates something with the whole EU, or can the UK and Scotland make their own side deal as part of independence without involving the rest of the EU?

I don't know. But we do have a bit of history with other former relationships - such as with the Irish Republic and the Commonwealth countries. Of course, an ex-EU relationship would be different, but Irish people are free to live (and unusually vote in GE and the Referendum) in the UK, which must be due to a bilateral relationship between Eire and the UK rather than with the EU. The Commonwealth relationship is a bit stranger, but they also can vote in the current referendum at least.

My guess is that there will continue to be a free trade relationship with the Republic with no borders on the island of Ireland. Because basically it'd be a convoluted thing to take stuff from the UK to the EU via the Republic. Probably not worth trying to control.

I think it'd be highly likely this would also be the trading relationship with an Indie Scotland, which I think would probably remain with Sterling at least in the short term. Again, there are few direct land trading links between Scotland and the rest of the EU, so it probably wouldn't be worth setting up a separate customs zone just for that.

More difficult, I think, would be to work out how exactly Eire and an Indie Scotland could be managed as EU states with a non-EU rUK in the way. Clearly they wouldn't be in Schengen, but how could they be in the EU free trading zone? I'm not sure it would be possible.

Given that this is Hell, and if Brexit does happen with the UK leaving the EEA as well, we have a huge problem locally with the hitherto open border in danger of being restricted.

If we do see a return to check points and closure of minor roads, I cordially invite all the blithe Brexiteers in the south of England to come to Ireland to see a real border. A swift boot in the bollocks from me will be a well earned bonus for such idiots.
 
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
There will have to be some kind of border controls between NI and Eire if the UK left the EU even if it is just to collect VAT and duty on commercial goods.

292 road crossings, mostly small, some great. Any interference in the openness of the Irish border by anyone, be it British, Irish or EU authorities will not be taken lying down. And I'm not an Irish Republican, for fucks sake. If I am angry at the potential for cocking up that Brexit threatens to our way of life up here, imagine the potential for others less moderate than me.

I urge any of you to view this website http://borderlives.eu/ to see what life was like in living memory up here. To say that the Common Travel Area meant that the border was always open before Ireland and the UK were in the EU is gravely mistaken.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Even if the lunatics take over the assylum and the UK votes to leave the EU, we're not going to see border controls between NI and the Republic. Nor between an independent Scotland and England. Collection of import duties etc is almost entirely done at some point prior to arrival of the goods, and enforcement is mainly based on HMRC investigations of importers. In the last few years flying back from Japan I can't recall the last time I even saw someone at the customs desk at Glasgow airport - although going the other way, Japan still has border controls with everyone filling in forms declaring what they are importing and being questioned by a customs officer. If there are no effective customs controls for people arriving from Japan, we're not going to get them put in for people arriving from Eire or anywhere else in Europe.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
There will have to be some kind of border controls between NI and Eire if the UK left the EU even if it is just to collect VAT and duty on commercial goods.

Wasn't there a pub actually on the border that did excellent cross-border sales? ISTR that smokes were cheaper in the South but some booze was cheaper in the North, so people would walk in, go to the correct counter, and do a deal to their best advantage.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Aren't you thinking of Spike Milligan's Puckoon?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Well if you don't want TTIP the only rational thing is vote IN as TTIP is currently hanging on by a thread with Germany, Greece and France all having cold feet over it. If you vote 'leave' you will have the most pro TTIP government in the EU negotiating with the USA for new trade agreements.

This is what has just tipped the balance for me. I don't want to vote In but my God, look what could happen if you don't.

What an utter shambles this whole campaign thing has turned out to be.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
What an utter shambles this whole campaign thing has turned out to be.

That is an understatement. The crash of the voter registration website, and the subsequent extension of the deadline, strikes me as clearly representative of the whole campaign.

Which is a pity, as it is such an important decision. And the whole campaign is being run by amateur clowns. We are in an idiocracy - ruled by the most incompetent.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
We are in an idiocracy - ruled by the most incompetent.

This goes for the mainstream media as well.

They'd say, "We can only report the news, not drive the agenda." Well, yes, but you get a choice as to where to point your cameras and microphones. Currently, all you seem interested in is the noise coming from the shallow end of the pool.

We're actually interested in more than that, but it seems to make no difference to them.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
We are in an idiocracy - ruled by the most incompetent.

I believe the word you are looking for is
kakistocracy.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
What worries me about this sudden last-minute rush of people wanting to register to vote is that the campaign isn't exactly fresh news. It's been around for weeks and you can't ignore it even if you don't read the papers, watch TV or listen to the radio, because there are posters and reminders everywhere. There's also the annual reminder that comes through the door encouraging you to register, which you can do by phone or text these days so it isn't exactly an arduous procedure.

The people who aren't registered to vote are presumably mostly people who didn't vote in the general election, i.e. they don't normally take an interest in politics. Yet something has galvanized them to vote in the referendum. I suspect there's a strong element of knee-jerk reactions at work here, rather than informed opinion based on careful consideration of the pros and cons for both sides.
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
I thought the lack of carefully considered opinions was pretty much why we went for representative democracy rather than direct democracy in the first place?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
I don't know. But either way it's going to be impossible to predict which way this is likely to go.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
We are in an idiocracy - ruled by the most incompetent.

I believe the word you are looking for is
kakistocracy.

I tried to find the right word, but couldn't. Thank you - this is precisely it. We are ruled by a pile of kak.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I tried to find the right word, but couldn't. Thank you - this is precisely it. We are ruled by a pile of kak.

I like the way that link has a little map showing where that form of government is found.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
We are ruled by a pile of kak.

Yet here we are. We the proletariat, the seething and humble masses being given a once in a lifetime chance to decide which pile of kak does the ruling.
Providing we want to be ruled and not end up with anarkaky
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I always thought it was spelt 'cack'.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Yet here we are. We the proletariat, the seething and humble masses being given a once in a lifetime chance to decide which pile of kak does the ruling.
Providing we want to be ruled and not end up with anarkaky

The problem is not that there are no choices. The problem is that there nothing for which to vote.

At best, we're being expected to vote for the least-worst option. Out of two.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Which parallels the situation in the US at the moment too, if that hasn't already been noted. It's not as if the alternative to Trump is universally popular ...
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
I suspect it only looks that way because Britain has never really had to deal with the sort of rot and collapse that so many other parts of Europe have. Certainly it has been involved in the resulting wars, but it's never really had it from within itself. For those that have had that experience there is an awareness that democracy often hangs by a thin, weak thread and that a Europe together might have a lot more going for it than a Europe divided. I'm not sure there is that sort of awareness in the UK to be honest; at least, I don't think I've ever heard any politicians, leaders or members of the public express it explicitly.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I suspect it only looks that way because Britain has never really had to deal with the sort of rot and collapse that so many other parts of Europe have.

One of the phrases that came out of Lord Ashcroft's focus groups on EU membership went something like 'Europeans view the EU as a church, the British view it as Costco'.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
The choice that would get the most votes is

'sort the EU so it isn't quite so stupid'

But that isn't an option.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
The choice that would get the most votes is

'sort the EU so it isn't quite so stupid'

But that isn't an option.

That is part of the reason that I am all for staying in, and trying to change from within. If we leave, we still have to deal with the EU, but we will be dealing without having any say.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
There's a huge problem with a long ignoble history of a web of deceit though. Britain has dedicated decades to spinning yarns about what 'Europe' (as if Britain isn't part of Europe) has told it that it must do; like have straight bananas, start driving on the other side of the road, must do this, must do that - all of it, utter nonsense. Nigel Farage has been the representative for Britain in Europe. Just reflect on that for a moment. I really have no idea how that happened. I know the Irish have a tendency top elect Dustin the Turkey to certain things we have contempt for, but I'm not sure we'd play with that kind of fire in a hurry.
 
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :
 
And now some asshat is complaining about the voter registration being extended, and threatening a judicial review, presumably because he thinks the people who register now won't vote his way.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
And, if there wasn't an extension there would be a different set of people complaining - and, those who tried to register in those last couple of hours would have a fair argument (though weakened by the fact that they had weeks of being told how to register and left it until the last minute).
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
though weakened by the fact that they had weeks of being told how to register and left it until the last minute

I'm not sure it is weakened. Some people always leave things to the absolute last moment, and they have every right to do so if they've been previously told that this is the deadline.

More of an issue, it seems to me, is that the ease of online registration may lead to some people (due to fraud or just a mistake) applying several times - or even when they're not entitled to vote - which could be fun for the election officials to sort out in time.

Also I thought that there was a minimum time between the registration period ending and the referendum happening. If the registration is extended, how does that not then have an impact on the date of the referendum?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not sure it is weakened. Some people always leave things to the absolute last moment, and they have every right to do so if they've been previously told that this is the deadline.

They have no right to complain if they then find they can't register. That's their problem. They had plenty of chances throughout the past weeks and on the annual form that comes round each year if they wanted to. The only reason the website crashed this time was through the sheer volume of numbers of last-minute applicants. What if the website crashes again? A further extension? And another? Because people can't get their acts together and comply with a deadline?
 
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
What if the website crashes again? A further extension? And another? Because people can't get their acts together and comply with a deadline?

They did comply with the deadline.

The website crashed before the deadline ended.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Yes, basically because so many of them left it to the last minute that the system couldn't cope. In which case they should accept some personal responsibility for that.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
But we surely want as many eligible people as possible on the electoral register, on general demorcratic principles, so I don't see why it should be in any way contraversial to extend the registeration deadline after a technical hitch ? The deadline is just in place to facilitate the organisation of polling booths and identity checks, nothing more, and a two day extension still leaves a substantial amount of time to do that.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Yes, basically because so many of them left it to the last minute that the system couldn't cope. In which case they should accept some personal responsibility for that.

There is a counter argument that they should have known there would be a last minute rush and allowed for that when building the site by adding lots of extra server capacity.

Given that this may be a close call, it's better that as many people are involved in the vote as possible. That gives the losing side less opportunity to rubbish the outcome. (Whoever it is!)

What I don't understand is why they didn't set a minimum threashold for the result for Article 50 to be triggered. But then I remember this was Cameron's idea and all is explained. Man's an idiot with no common sense.

Tubbs
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I don't understand. Do you mean that Brexit should have been required to get X% of the votes cast (= significantly higher than 50%) to "win"?

Or do you mean that they should have needed to get votes from at least Y% of the total electorate?

[ 09. June 2016, 12:53: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Yes, basically because so many of them left it to the last minute that the system couldn't cope. In which case they should accept some personal responsibility for that.

I agree - people shouldn't leave things to the last minute (although I'm not entirely innocent of that), but on the other hand, people should still be able to register up to the deadline.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Yes, basically because so many of them left it to the last minute that the system couldn't cope. In which case they should accept some personal responsibility for that.

No. Rubbish. Nobody should be penalised for legitimately trying to do something within the legal deadline but finding that it wasn't possible for no fault of their own.

The law doesn't have a concept of "they left it a bit late, so tough cookie they don't get their legal rights". The deal is the deal, there was a deadline and because of official incompetence, the system wasn't up to it.

It would be utterly ridiculous to have legal deadlines and then say "oh sorry, we had staff illness so we couldn't process your application so sorry, you can't have x."

That would clearly be a strong case for judicial review of a system which failed to give you the thing you're entitled to simply because they cocked it up.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The law doesn't have a concept of "they left it a bit late, so tough cookie they don't get their legal rights".

Actually, it does. When my ballot papers for a postal vote arrive in Japan with only 48h before they need to reach the counting room then my vote is not counted.

If the ballot papers had been sitting in my apartment for weeks but I didn't get them into the post in time then that's my fault. When they aren't issued in time to make it possible for them to get where they need to be in time then that's the fault of the system. But, either way, the response is the same "they arrived too late, your vote isn't counted. Tough cookies".
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I don't understand. Do you mean that Brexit should have been required to get X% of the votes cast (= significantly higher than 50%) to "win"?

Or do you mean that they should have needed to get votes from at least Y% of the total electorate?

They'd need a clear majority of more than x%. So say, 60% of the vote or above.

Tubbs
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Not of the total electorate (which includes those who don't vote)?

I'm just clarifying.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
To my embarrassment I only discovered yesterday what "Brexit" is ... obviously I hadn't read this thread! [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
I only found out when I read this thread, so I'm a couple of days more enlightened [Razz]

Huia
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Not of the total electorate (which includes those who don't vote)?

I'm just clarifying.

Nope. Just 60% of the turnout.

Tubbs
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Good to know there are still places in the world where Brexit (or Bremain if you prefer) doesn't reverberate day and night from every platform, pillar and post.
 
Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
To my embarrassment I only discovered yesterday what "Brexit" is ... obviously I hadn't read this thread! [Hot and Hormonal]

I wouldn't worry - you're in exalted company [Biased]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
If one more person shoves "Remain" in my face I swear I'll vote "Leave".

I know you can't escape the referendum anywhere you go, you'd have to be blind, deaf and living in a cave to avoid any mention of it, but I'm getting very sick of people getting evangelistic about their own points of view and "Here is why you should vote my way, you're an idiot if you don't" sort of posts, broadcast, news articles and all the rest of it. Have your views and opinion by all means, I respect your decision - just so long as you don't force it on me.

8 days, 18 hours and 55 more minutes of campaigning to go, at the time of writing.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
Just interacted with someone who is voting Brexit who didn't realise that EU nationals would lose rights to work here and UK citizens lose health benefits in the EU. Meaning several million pensioners coming home and nurses leaving the UK.

Understand the consequences of what you voting for before you do it...
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Meaning several million pensioners coming home and nurses leaving the UK.

Last couple of times I visited a hospital the nurses I met were English, Spanish, Irish, Polish, Filipino, West African, East African and Turkish. If immigration is a concern, leaving the EU will only curb part of it. The vacancies will probably be filled by non-EU nationals as before. And the EU nationals could probably still apply along the same lines as the non-EU nationals if they wanted.

(I'm not arguing in favour of Leave, just pointing out that the immigration platform has some holes in it.)

[ 14. June 2016, 11:51: Message edited by: Ariel ]
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
And the EU nationals could probably still apply along the same lines as the non-EU nationals if they wanted.

I agree they might but the UK will have to create a whole new bunch of rules/laws to sort it out in 2 years.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
There are options, which the government post-Brexit would need to put before Parliament. The obvious ones are:
Of course, the Brexit campaign can say what they want about their preference. But, after Brexit they won't be the government. The loose alliance of Tory, UKIP, Labour and others will fall apart after the referendum, job done. The Tories will be divided. Hopefully there will be enough goodwill for the government to get through legislation that gets us out of the mess in the most pragmatic way possible - but that relies on Cameron (or whoever replaces him) having the vision to act quickly, decisively and intelligently - which I don't see happening. For a start because before anything happens to try and help the country there will be an almighty battle for the soul of the Conservative party and a leadership contest. Brexit will result in at least a year of almost non-existant government as the Tories tear themselves apart. Remain will also result in at least a year of almost non-existant government as the Tories tear themselves apart. All because Cameron in his ivory tower thought a referendum would fix the divisions in the Tory party (and to Hell with the UK economy to do that).
 
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
If immigration is a concern, leaving the EU will only curb part of it.

Not true.

If we leave the EU, no immigrant will ever arrive on our shores again.

Haven't you been listening to Farage?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. 'That’s easy,' he replied. 'When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.'

 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
The Phantom Flan Flinger

But he hasn't said that, has he? I thought he'd said something about making certain kinds of immigration from the Commonwealth easier.

Of course, he might just have said so to encourage BAME voters to choose Brexit. And that would be clever of him, because black and Asian voters may not all see EU membership, and in particular more immigration from the EU, as entirely in their own interests.

[ 14. June 2016, 13:05: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Presumably the pound will completely tank in the vent of a Brexit and will in all likelihood tank overnight. It's already showing frightening signs of being jittery on the markets. What would be the result of that? Would the UK be looking at a financial crash?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Brexit could lead to a total collapse of our economy, already under strain from the evil Tory austerity measures. We could face mass unemployment, inflation, collapse of public services, and looking towards Greece dreaming of being that prosperous. But, we'll be free of control from the EU (until the European banks start demanding we repay the money they loaned us) so that's alright then. The cost will be worth it, as we will move from being a sovereign nation that's part of a larger international organisation to being a sovereign nation on our own. What a bargain we would have got.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Even the arch Euroskeptic tool John Redwood says that there is a trade deficit to the rest of the EU of £107 billion - which bizarrely he seems to think would somehow vanish post-Brexit.

We want all their stuff more than they want ours by a factor of £107 billion.

And they're still talking as if the £10 billion cost of being part of the EU is important. It isn't.

I mean, really.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
You're talking as though you expect Brexiteers to be able to do simple arithmatic. You fool.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
I love the argument of sovereignty. Ireland adores the sovereignty argument. Anytime anything comes up and you don't have any reasonable argument you can always declare, 'It's an attack/erosion/defiance/affront against our sovereignty'. It's an amazing thing really. Even priests say it here in relation to the revision of the abortion laws. It seems like everywhere these days everyone is suddenly worried about sovereignty when it never seemed to bother anybody for the last few millennia. Anything difficult that requires people to think, and my God, we all go and shit ourselves about 'sovereignty'. But what the fuck is sovereignty; there appears to be little consensus? My own view is that it has a lot to do with Chewbacca
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
But what the fuck is sovereignty

The ability to make your own laws regardless of whether anybody on the other side of the continent agrees with them or not.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
But what the fuck is sovereignty

The ability to make your own laws regardless of whether anybody on the other side of the continent agrees with them or not.
So, basically the status quo. In or out of the EU our ability to pass our own laws will be the same.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
But what the fuck is sovereignty

The ability to make your own laws regardless of whether anybody on the other side of the continent agrees with them or not.
Ask Norway how that's working for them.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
Not true.

If we leave the EU, no immigrant will ever arrive on our shores again.

Haven't you been listening to Farage?

No, is he planning to build a wall to keep them out?
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Alan:
quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
But what the fuck is sovereignty
The ability to make your own laws regardless of whether anybody on the other side of the continent agrees with them or not.
So, basically the status quo. In or out of the EU our ability to pass our own laws will be the same.


Exactly!
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
But what the fuck is sovereignty

The ability to make your own laws regardless of whether anybody on the other side of the continent agrees with them or not.
So, basically the status quo. In or out of the EU our ability to pass our own laws will be the same.
Cool. Tell me about the UK parliament's ability to legislate for the sale of 1,700W vacuum cleaners. Or the elimination of tariffs on Australian imports.

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
But what the fuck is sovereignty

The ability to make your own laws regardless of whether anybody on the other side of the continent agrees with them or not.
Ask Norway how that's working for them.
Considering that Norway doesn't have an application to join the EU, and possibly over 70% of Norwegians are opposed to EU membership presumably pretty well?
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
But, you utter moron, in order to retain their favourable trading status with the EU, they are not able to pass any legislation which contradicts EU directives in a pretty wide swathe of competency which is connected with trade according to a pretty creative definition of the term.

As such, they are members by the back door; they are cutting off their nose in the belief that it honors their face.

Something which might start to sound familiar unless people snap out of their childish collective fantasy.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Anglican't:
quote:

Cool. Tell me about the UK parliament's ability to legislate for the sale of 1,700W vacuum cleaners. Or the elimination of tariffs on Australian imports.


This is an absolutely perfect example of what I mentioned in an earlier post that comes under the heading of straight bananas and driving on the right. It's just utter nonsense. And let's just say it was true; is that what this really boils down to? What vacuum cleaners you're allowed to sell?

Ridiculous
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I still fail to understand who actually needs a 1,700W vacuum cleaner.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
[Norway] are not able to pass any legislation which contradicts EU directives in a pretty wide swathe of competency which is connected with trade according to a pretty creative definition of the term.

It seems odd to me that Norway isnt free to pass such legislation when, according to Alan, the UK is free to do so. One of you must be wrong.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
When in a free trade area there will be some restrictions. Obviously one nation within that area can't unilaterally negotiate trade deals with other nations, within the EU the UK can't negotiate a deal with Australia because the UK then becomes a low-tariff route into the EU. If we leave the EU, but arrange some sort of free-trade treaty with the EU that won't change.

If you want to trade with other nations then you will have to abide with their product standards and codes - and things are an awful lot easier if those are the same as your own. Whether in or out of the EU, so long as the EU is a major customer of our goods and supplier to our market, there will still be no market for over-powered vacuum cleaners.

The only way to avoid those sort of restrictions is to close our borders entirely and trade with no one.

But, I challenge anyone to point to an example of UK legislation that was blocked by the EU, or because of EU opposition didn't even get to a white paper, outwith the remit of international trade. There's been no imposition of same-sex marriage from Brussels, nor any blocks on that from those EU nations which don't recognise same sex marriage. No objections from Brussels when a few years ago the UK put VAT on gas and electricity. Nothing forcing us to change our electoral system, having an elected upper house, which side of the road we drive on, the voltage of our mains electricity supply ...
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
My point was more that we lose or gain no freedom to legislate by leaving the EU. The restrictions, such as they are, come from the creation and maintenance of a free-trade zone, which is the EEA, not the EU. Being part of the EEA creates all of those restrictions.

Human rights come from the council of Europe, not the EU. Again, therefore, no increase or decrease in freedom, but not unfettered freedom either.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
My point was more that we lose or gain no freedom to legislate by leaving the EU. The restrictions, such as they are, come from the creation and maintenance of a free-trade zone, which is the EEA, not the EU. Being part of the EEA creates all of those restrictions.

Human rights come from the council of Europe, not the EU. Again, therefore, no increase or decrease in freedom, but not unfettered freedom either.

BTW, unfettered freedom to legislate = parliamentary dictatorship. A terrifying concept.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
possibly over 70% of Norwegians are opposed to EU membership presumably pretty well?

For Norway if they joined the EU they would pay more money into the budget and get a table to discuss the laws which they are obliged to follow if they wish to trade with the EU. If the UK went the Norwegian way we would probably end up paying the same amount into the pot but with no say and an obligation to follow the rules. If we left the EU we would be losing the rebate because we have left the EU and applying to join the EEA.

If anybody things that the UK is going to get a good deal in the 2 years in which we have to negotiate they are fools.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
I enjoyed this story where

'Vote Leave said a new settlement - including a UK-EU free trade deal - would be possible by May 2020'

I suspect this is about correct but they have only 2 years to do it after invoking article 50 so that they can start to leave. In 2018 we leave and in 2020 we have a trade deal.

So the Vote leaves plan is that the UK is left in limbo for 2 years with no trade deal with the EU. Possibly the worst idea since Napoleon decided to invade Russia.

[ 15. June 2016, 21:37: Message edited by: Nightlamp ]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
I enjoyed this story where

'Vote Leave said a new settlement - including a UK-EU free trade deal - would be possible by May 2020'

I suspect this is about correct but they have only 2 years to do it after invoking article 50 so that they can start to leave. In 2018 we leave and in 2020 we have a trade deal.

So the Vote leaves plan is that the UK is left in limbo for 2 years with no trade deal with the EU. Possibly the worst idea since Napoleon decided to invade Russia.

I'm pretty sure the timeline goes something like this.

After the UK Parliament ratifies a Brexit vote, we give notice to the EU that we intend to leave. At this point Article 50 has been invoked, and we have 2 years to negotiate our new (out) relationship with the EU.

The 2-year deadline can be extended by a unanimous vote of the 27 remaining countries. If it isn't extended, then at the end of 2 years all of our existing treaties with the EU lapse.

During the 2 years, the UK has a seat at the negotiating table, but doesn't have a vote. During this time, the big question is, how nice will the 27 be to us? Nice, in order to get their hands on our money, or nasty in order to demonstrate to other member states that this is a Very Silly Thing To Try?

One of the likely outcomes is that if we want a high-profile relationship - say along the lines of the EFTA countries - then the 27 will insist on us becoming part of the Schengen Area. All of the EFTA countries are.

If at any point after the original invocation of Article 50 we decide that we've made a big mistake and want back in, then we have to reapply from scratch under Lisbon Article 49. We would have the status of a new applicant, and all new applicants must become part of Schengen, and must commit to eventual membership of the Eurozone. (As things stand, we have a permanent opt-out on both of those.)

I read one economic commentator the other day who said that Article 50 seemed to have been drafted so that no-one would ever dare invoke it, the economic and political consequences being so dire.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Anglican't:
quote:

Cool. Tell me about the UK parliament's ability to legislate for the sale of 1,700W vacuum cleaners. Or the elimination of tariffs on Australian imports.


This is an absolutely perfect example of what I mentioned in an earlier post that comes under the heading of straight bananas and driving on the right. It's just utter nonsense. And let's just say it was true; is that what this really boils down to? What vacuum cleaners you're allowed to sell?

Ridiculous

They can take away our economic prosperity, they can take away our export capacity, but they will never take away our vacuum cleaners!
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I still fail to understand who actually needs a 1,700W vacuum cleaner.

What people actually "need" is a vacuum cleaner that sucks. How hard does it need to suck? Well, that depends on the flooring you have, the dirt you have, and of course the size of the head.

'Cause you can make a half-power vacuum cleaner by making it smaller, and the you'll have to run it twice as long to clean the same floor area.

(There's also a big "efficiency" type number between the power the cleaner consumes and how much it sucks, and some of the high-power models aren't necessarily as sucky as one might expect.)
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Presumably the pound will completely tank in the vent of a Brexit and will in all likelihood tank overnight. It's already showing frightening signs of being jittery on the markets. What would be the result of that?

Me buying an enormous amount of CDs from Presto Classical at an improved exchange rate.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
They can take away our economic prosperity, they can take away our export capacity, but they will never take away our vacuum cleaners!

First they came for our light bulbs, next it's to be hairdryers and vacuum cleaners. I'm still annoyed about the light bulbs. They now cost three times as much and are measured in lumens instead of watts. By the time the EC's finished with us, I'll be sitting there in the dark with wet hair and a filthy floor.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
When in a free trade area there will be some restrictions. Obviously one nation within that area can't unilaterally negotiate trade deals with other nations, within the EU the UK can't negotiate a deal with Australia because the UK then becomes a low-tariff route into the EU.

Assuming Australia, NZ, Canada or anywhere else for that matter would want to enter into a deal. The way that the UK went into the EU caused very considerable hardship to NZ and the Aust state of Tasmania in particular. Why either country would be rushing into an agreement has not been explained.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
When in a free trade area there will be some restrictions. Obviously one nation within that area can't unilaterally negotiate trade deals with other nations, within the EU the UK can't negotiate a deal with Australia because the UK then becomes a low-tariff route into the EU.

Assuming Australia, NZ, Canada or anywhere else for that matter would want to enter into a deal. The way that the UK went into the EU caused very considerable hardship to NZ and the Aust state of Tasmania in particular. Why either country would be rushing into an agreement has not been explained.
However, and I say this as someone minded to vote Remain, I suppose the point is more that at the moment negotiation of any such deal is a legal impossibility, so it doesn't even get to the point of whether other parties want it because it can't be done.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:


After the UK Parliament ratifies a Brexit vote, we give notice to the EU that we intend to leave. At this point Article 50 has been invoked, and we have 2 years to negotiate our new (out) relationship with the EU.

Interestingly enough article 50 doesn't have to be brought to parliament, the Prime Minister can do it on his own.
Imagine the Prime Minister invoking it on the 24th June & resigning on the 25th.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Looks like the Tory party break-up may have started:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36543091

Watching the Tories tear each other to shreds, when this thrice-damned referendum started out as a Hameron ruse to keep them together, has been wonderful popcorn entertainment. Unfortunately the second act may be more of a tragedy than a farce.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Looks like the Tory party break-up may have started:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36543091

Watching the Tories tear each other to shreds, when this thrice-damned referendum started out as a Hameron ruse to keep them together, has been wonderful popcorn entertainment. Unfortunately the second act may be more of a tragedy than a farce.

I think there's a different story actually taking shape here. Someone in the pub last night asked an interesting question from an angle I'd not considered - viz "when Cameron dreamed up the referendum, did he realise he was finishing off the Labour party?"

There are Labour MPs currently pounding the streets of economically depressed constituencies, with the Remain leadership having belatedly realised that they may just hold the key to ensuring we stay in the EU.

And, anecdotally, but reported almost daily in the Graun and other papers, they're getting the doors slammed in their faces. Reading BTL in the latest Giles Fraser column in Comment Is Free, there's a fragmentation opening up between the British Left(TM), and the working class, which this referendum is merrily putting the tin lid on.

It's Scotland all over again, Labour are manfully having to shoulder (for the greater good - I'm voting remain) being on the right side in a vote which divorces them from their own voters.

The Tories have, whatever else they have, a track record of pragmatism and coming together to achieve victories. I'll stick my neck out and say this time will be no different. Labour are the ones really shafting themselves here, and I think that penny, with some Labour MPs, has started to drop in the last couple of days.

*If* we vote to Remain - and with increasingly sadness I suspect that's going to be a big if - Cameron will yet again have (presumably accidentally) played an absolute blinder. The Tories get to rebuild themselves - and let's not forget that a majority of Tory MPs and donors are Remainers, while Labour are pushed further than ever from their own core voters, and find it harder to get a hearing in their own safe seats at the next election.

If we vote to Remain, then the beneficiaries are the Tory party, if we vote to Leave, the beneficiaries are the Tory right. Either way I suspect that the real victims are the Labour Party. It looks like the left press (such as it is) is starting to wake up to that.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
I think you may have just swung my vote for leave, Betjemaniac.

LOL not really. I have no particular love for either of the two main parties, if all this nonsense sets in train a major realignment of UK politics than some good will have come of it.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I have no particular love for either of the two main parties, if all this nonsense sets in train a major realignment of UK politics than some good will have come of it.

That does rather depend on which way the realignment proceeds...
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Cameron has definitely not played a blinder. He's played a blunder. I'm sure he thought the scare stories would win the day. Like many a PM before him, he simply didn't realise how much trust he had lost.

Working class Labour (or former Labour) supporters heading for UKIP and/or joining the little Englanders is a bit like the rust-belt Democrats voting for Donald Trump. Sad, sad, sad. Selling their souls for a mess of pottage? Well, a mess anyway.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Cameron has definitely not played a blinder. He's played a blunder. I'm sure he thought the scare stories would win the day. Like many a PM before him, he simply didn't realise how much trust he had lost.

Whilst I entirely agree with you, *if* he does manage to pull it off then it's another tick in the "lucky general" box because he'll have got what he wanted largely despite himself. Just like last year's GE, the Scotland referendum, the AV vote, etc.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
within the EU the UK can't negotiate a deal with Australia because the UK then becomes a low-tariff route into the EU.

And that's a problem because...

quote:
If we leave the EU, but arrange some sort of free-trade treaty with the EU that won't change.
I don't see why we shouldn't be free to trade with whomever we want, on whatever terms we want. If I buy my fruit from Tesco that shouldn't mean that if I buy my vegetables from Morrison I have to pay the same price as I would at Tesco, even though Morrison are selling them for far less.

quote:
If you want to trade with other nations then you will have to abide with their product standards and codes - and things are an awful lot easier if those are the same as your own. Whether in or out of the EU, so long as the EU is a major customer of our goods and supplier to our market, there will still be no market for over-powered vacuum cleaners.
The problem is that as long as we have to abide by EU standards then we aren't allowed to make and sell overpowered vacuums at all. But if there are British companies that want to make them and British people who want to buy them then what has that got to do with anywhere else?

quote:
The only way to avoid those sort of restrictions is to close our borders entirely and trade with no one.
There are many countries that seem to manage it. I wonder what their secret is.

quote:
But, I challenge anyone to point to an example of UK legislation that was blocked by the EU, or because of EU opposition didn't even get to a white paper
Of course there won't be any such examples. Parliament is busy enough as it is, why on earth would any of them bother even starting to write a paper that they knew would be blocked?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
within the EU the UK can't negotiate a deal with Australia because the UK then becomes a low-tariff route into the EU.

And that's a problem because...

quote:
If we leave the EU, but arrange some sort of free-trade treaty with the EU that won't change.
I don't see why we shouldn't be free to trade with whomever we want, on whatever terms we want.
Because by making trade deals with some nations we automatically restrict what deals we can make with others. If the UK makes a trade deal with Australia that means that Australian companies can ship their goods into the UK with reduced (or zero) import tariffs. But, we also have a free trade agreement with the EU. Therefore, those imported goods can be re-exported to the rest of the EU without incurring tariffs. That means that the trade agreement the UK has made with Australia is a de-facto agreement with the whole of the EU - and the rest of the EU had no say in it. Which isn't right, and is why trade deals are negotiated by the whole EU.

quote:
If I buy my fruit from Tesco that shouldn't mean that if I buy my vegetables from Morrison I have to pay the same price as I would at Tesco, even though Morrison are selling them for far less.
A more reasonable analogy would be if you ran a restaurant, and had an arrangement with the local baker to supply all your bread at a 20% discount on condition that (subject to the baker meeting his end of the agreement by baking enough bread at a specified quality) the arrangement is exclusive. You've got a good deal - reduced price, locally baked bread with a guaranteed supply. The baker has a good deal - a guaranteed daily sale. But, it does mean that if you decide to buy your rolls from someone else because they're cheaper then your existing arrangement with the local baker is invalid, and he can now start to charge full price for what he does sell.

You're not under any sort of contract with Tesco or Morrisons to buy their fruit or veg. International trade is subject to treaties, and those treaties have implications that can't be easily dismissed.

quote:
The problem is that as long as we have to abide by EU standards then we aren't allowed to make and sell overpowered vacuums at all. But if there are British companies that want to make them and British people who want to buy them then what has that got to do with anywhere else?
Because we're in a free trade zone. By definition that means anyone in the zone can freely buy from anywhere else in the zone. If the UK sells over-powered vacuum cleaners that means they can be bought in France, Germany or anywhere else in the EU (even if they need to be shipped). Of course, if we leave the EU and the free trade zone then we can make and sell over-powered vacuum cleaners. But, the Leave campaign seem to want to keep the UK within the European free trade area - in which case, no over-powered vacuum cleaners.

quote:
quote:
The only way to avoid those sort of restrictions is to close our borders entirely and trade with no one.
There are many countries that seem to manage it. I wonder what their secret is.
Which countries are you thinking of that trade with no one? North Korea, and ... ?

quote:
quote:
But, I challenge anyone to point to an example of UK legislation that was blocked by the EU, or because of EU opposition didn't even get to a white paper
Of course there won't be any such examples. Parliament is busy enough as it is, why on earth would any of them bother even starting to write a paper that they knew would be blocked?
As I said, examples of bills that never got formulated because they would be blocked by the EU. Anything that was proposed for a party election manifesto but didn't make the cut because it was recognised as unachievable because of EU regulations? If the EU is preventing Westminster from acting as a sovereign government there should be plenty of examples.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The problem is that as long as we have to abide by EU standards then we aren't allowed to make and sell overpowered vacuums at all. But if there are British companies that want to make them and British people who want to buy them then what has that got to do with anywhere else?


Why are we still talking about vacuum cleaners? the Directive is sensible, and any sensible government in the UK would restrict their sale as well. Only the daft British public could be hookwinked by the idea that they somehow need a totally overpowered and unnecessary cleaner. Nobody else thinks they're at all necessary.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If the UK makes a trade deal with Australia that means that Australian companies can ship their goods into the UK with reduced (or zero) import tariffs. But, we also have a free trade agreement with the EU. Therefore, those imported goods can be re-exported to the rest of the EU without incurring tariffs.

But those are two different transactions. If we want to export a widget to somewhere else in the EU, then why does it matter if said widget was made in Britain or bought by Britain from somewhere else?

quote:
A more reasonable analogy would be if you ran a restaurant, and had an arrangement with the local baker to supply all your bread at a 20% discount on condition that (subject to the baker meeting his end of the agreement by baking enough bread at a specified quality) the arrangement is exclusive. You've got a good deal - reduced price, locally baked bread with a guaranteed supply. The baker has a good deal - a guaranteed daily sale. But, it does mean that if you decide to buy your rolls from someone else because they're cheaper then your existing arrangement with the local baker is invalid, and he can now start to charge full price for what he does sell.
Yes. But if I've found a cheaper supplier then I'm still going to do it! Why would I want to stay locked into a deal that's no longer the best one for me?

quote:
quote:
The problem is that as long as we have to abide by EU standards then we aren't allowed to make and sell overpowered vacuums at all. But if there are British companies that want to make them and British people who want to buy them then what has that got to do with anywhere else?
Because we're in a free trade zone. By definition that means anyone in the zone can freely buy from anywhere else in the zone. If the UK sells over-powered vacuum cleaners that means they can be bought in France, Germany or anywhere else in the EU (even if they need to be shipped).
Which, in turn, means that if France, Germany or wherever doesn't like the idea of overpowered vacuums then we can't have them either. Which sucks (pun intended) for us, and is a good example of the restrictions EU membership puts on our freedom to buy and sell the things we want.

quote:
Which countries are you thinking of that trade with no one? North Korea, and ... ?
Lots of countries trade with whomever they want. The bulk of New Zealand's trade is with Australia, but NZ is still free to deal with other countries without asking the Aussies for permission.

quote:
As I said, examples of bills that never got formulated because they would be blocked by the EU. Anything that was proposed for a party election manifesto but didn't make the cut because it was recognised as unachievable because of EU regulations? If the EU is preventing Westminster from acting as a sovereign government there should be plenty of examples.
There probably are, but if they were never formulated or published then how the hell would I know about them?

I could speculate about all kinds of good, bad and ugly things various parties might want to do if it weren't for the EU, but that's all it would be - speculation.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Marvin:
quote:

The problem is that as long as we have to abide by EU standards then we aren't allowed to make and sell overpowered vacuums at all. But if there are British companies that want to make them and British people who want to buy them then what has that got to do with anywhere else?

Let's break down the vacuum myth.

There is no ban on powerful vacuum cleaners.

There is a recommendation from Europe that vacuums are not energy wasters using old, inefficient motors (it covers a lot of other things too, but since we're talking about vacuum's I'll leave it at that).

There is a standardised labelling system at use throughout Europe to indicate to buyers which products are energy efficient and so encourage them to buy products which are more energy efficient. Old, wasteful models cannot avail of this labelling system.

UK manufacturers (what's left of them) supported this move whole heartedly. It was applied through UK legislation, operational at the national level. The UK could have (and still can) block or exempt this recommendation if it so desired. It didn't.


Many moons ago the same system was used for fridges and freezers and nobody complained. Essentially nobody complained because they used two thirds less electricity than before and they were cheaper to produce - it was a bonus for the manufacturer and seller and a double bonus for the buyer. It was a bonus too for the UK economy, for retailers and for the environment of the entire planet.

On the back of the vacuum argument, the straight banana nonsense and driving on the right etc, we have people citing these things as a reason to leave Europe. It's stupid, I know, but some see it as being of immense importance that they shouldn't have efficient energy saving vacuum's. And that's the rub. Every argument I've heard so far in regards to the leave campaign centres around insular selfishness. It's all about what 'we' get. There is no concept of being on this planet together with anyone else. This underlying concept of insular selfishness is shrouded in political, social and economic arguments that deliberately twist the truth for a different means. There's a lot of talk about sovereignty and democracy and as far as I can see, there is more to be lost in these two areas with a leave vote than there is with a remain vote.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But if I've found a cheaper supplier then I'm still going to do it! Why would I want to stay locked into a deal that's no longer the best one for me?

Quality. Reliability of supply. The business relationship that means when you phone them up and say "I need another gross of buns by tonight", they don't laugh in your face.

You get what you pay for. The Brexit campaign is based on getting what we currently pay for, for nothing. They, and you, are wrong.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

*if* he does manage to pull it off then it's another tick in the "lucky general" box

Nicely put. I hope he turns out to be lucky, not for his sake, but for the rest of us. But if he turns out to be unlucky, he'll manoeuvre without too much difficulty behind "the people have spoken, I am their servant". He doesn't need to resign. At least not straight away.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Why are we still talking about vacuum cleaners?

They're a proxy for the wider debate.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Why are we still talking about vacuum cleaners?

They're a proxy for the wider debate.
Marvin, have you forgotten that while you can draw from the general to the specific, you can't draw from the specific to the general.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Sioni:
quote:

Marvin, have you forgotten that while you can draw from the general to the specific, you can't draw from the specific to the general.

Especially when you start with a specific myth.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If the UK makes a trade deal with Australia that means that Australian companies can ship their goods into the UK with reduced (or zero) import tariffs. But, we also have a free trade agreement with the EU. Therefore, those imported goods can be re-exported to the rest of the EU without incurring tariffs.

But those are two different transactions. If we want to export a widget to somewhere else in the EU, then why does it matter if said widget was made in Britain or bought by Britain from somewhere else?
It matters to people importing widgets elsewhere in the EU. How about if the boot was on the other foot? In the UK we import a lot of lamb from NZ, there are UK businesses that do good business importing lamb and reselling it to our supermarkets (and, supermarkets elsewhere in the EU). But, being outside the EU there is an import tariff charged on that lamb. What if France decided to cut a deal with NZ and then imported NZ lamb without charging a tariff? Supermarkets across the EU can now buy their NZ lamb from French importers for less. Good for the French importers, good for consumers (lamb costs fall), good for the NZ sheep farmers. Bad for the UK lamb importers who now go out of business, bad for UK sheep farmers who now have to compete with NZ lamb that is even cheaper than it was before. Do you not think it unreasonable that those in the UK who lose out if that happens to think that it does matter what someone else inside a free trade area does? Because trade affects everyone within a free trade area, trade deals need to be applied across the whole area, which in the case of Europe means that trade deals are negotiated by the EU on behalf of all members of the free trade area - even those who are not EU members and have no say in those negotiations.

quote:


quote:
A more reasonable analogy would be if you ran a restaurant, and had an arrangement with the local baker to supply all your bread at a 20% discount on condition that (subject to the baker meeting his end of the agreement by baking enough bread at a specified quality) the arrangement is exclusive. You've got a good deal - reduced price, locally baked bread with a guaranteed supply. The baker has a good deal - a guaranteed daily sale. But, it does mean that if you decide to buy your rolls from someone else because they're cheaper then your existing arrangement with the local baker is invalid, and he can now start to charge full price for what he does sell.
Yes. But if I've found a cheaper supplier then I'm still going to do it! Why would I want to stay locked into a deal that's no longer the best one for me?
Yes, of course you can switch supplier. Although there is more than just price in the decision to do so (there may be benefit to your business to be known to support local business, supporting local business contributes to the local economy and means people may have more money to spend in your restaurant, if you're seen to suddenly cancel your deal with the baker would that affect your chances of striking a good deal with the local wholesale fruit and veg merchant?).

But, to come back from the analogy, the Brexit campaign seems to want to break our trade deals with the EU (to open up trade with the Commonwealth in particular) but then expect the EU to agree to reinstate the same deal. It's like telling the baker "I can get rolls cheaper elsewhere. But, I still want the 20% discount on the cakes and sandwich bread." The baker has lost some of his guaranteed sales, and now knows that the rest is not as guaranteed as he thought - is that deal still as good for him? Of course not.

quote:
Which, in turn, means that if France, Germany or wherever doesn't like the idea of overpowered vacuums then we can't have them either. Which sucks (pun intended) for us, and is a good example of the restrictions EU membership puts on our freedom to buy and sell the things we want.
Except that isn't the way the EU works. If France and Germany want to ban overpowered vacuum cleaners then they need to convince all the other nations in the EU of the benefits of such a ban, and form a consensus that this is a good idea. If a nation is strongly opposed to such a ban then the EU gets into a stalemate and the ban doesn't come into force, or a compromise is reached (eg: the threshold for the power of vacuum cleaners is increased, so that the number of cleaners included is reduced). The whole of the EU structures are built around establishing consensus. Of course, for that to work it means that everyone should be involved. If one nation decides to sit out of the discussions establishing a consensus then they can't really complain when the consensus of everyone is isn't what they want. If an MEP has a seat on a fisheries committee he can't just take his pay and expenses but not turn up at the meetings, and then complain that the committee isn't doing what he wants.

quote:
I could speculate about all kinds of good, bad and ugly things various parties might want to do if it weren't for the EU, but that's all it would be - speculation.
It's good to get that admission. The supposed restrictions on UK sovereignty imposed by EU membership are just speculation.

[ 16. June 2016, 10:59: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It's stupid, I know, but some see it as being of immense importance that they shouldn't have efficient energy saving vacuum's.

I couldn't give a fuck about the vacuums themselves. It's the principle that matters to me, and that principle is that if I want to buy something and someone else is willing to sell it to me then it shouldn't be up to some Brussels bureaucrat to tell us we can't.

quote:
And that's the rub. Every argument I've heard so far in regards to the leave campaign centres around insular selfishness. It's all about what 'we' get. There is no concept of being on this planet together with anyone else.
Oh boo hoo hoo, the perfect socialist paradise of everybody in the world working together for the good of all doesn't exist.

Get over it.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It's stupid, I know, but some see it as being of immense importance that they shouldn't have efficient energy saving vacuum's.

I couldn't give a fuck about the vacuums themselves. It's the principle that matters to me, and that principle is that if I want to buy something and someone else is willing to sell it to me then it shouldn't be up to some Brussels bureaucrat to tell us we can't.
How far do you want to push that principle?

If a 12 year old want to buy some cheap cider, and someone is willing to sell it, should someone tell them they can't?

If you want to buy some crack cocaine, and someone is willing to sell it, should some police officer tell you you can't?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[QUOTE]I couldn't give a fuck about the vacuums themselves. It's the principle that matters to me, and that principle is that if I want to buy something and someone else is willing to sell it to me then it shouldn't be up to some Brussels bureaucrat to tell us we can't.

Oh FFS. It was the British government who signed up for this. The one you vote for. Us. We said we shouldn't have stupidly powerful and inefficient vacuum cleaners, not Brussels.

If all your arguments are this stupid, myopic and vindictive, then ... sorry, but you're an idiot.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I don't follow your logic, Marvin. Heck, I work personally on "caveat emptor" (let the buyer beware) recognising ultimately that the responsibility for choosing is, in the end, mine. But I don't have the least problem in having the choice "seatbelts or no seatbelts" taken away from both manufacturers and me. There was excellent evidence and excellent social policy reasoning behind that restriction on my personal freedom.

Caveat emptor has always been qualified, been the subject of legislation, for social policy reasons. And to make those qualifications stick, there are legal and bureacratic mechanisms in place.

I can see you might not like the vacuum cleaner restrictions as an example of a particular restriction. But surely you don't insist on an absolute application of caveat emptor? If we come out of the EU, there will still be restrictions on caveat emptor applied by the UK government.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Marvin:
quote:

I couldn't give a fuck about the vacuums themselves. It's the principle that matters to me, and that principle is that if I want to buy something and someone else is willing to sell it to me then it shouldn't be up to some Brussels bureaucrat to tell us we can't.

Which Brussels bureaucrat would that be? I've yet to hear of this new European dictator who has overthrown the powers of Europe and gone over everyone else's head, including the UK government. More myths perhaps?

quote:

Oh boo hoo hoo, the perfect socialist paradise of everybody in the world working together for the good of all doesn't exist.

Get over it.

You're quite; it doesn't. But I'd much rather live in a world where people at least try to have concern for the planet and the people on it than live only for myself and my little insignificant country that builds a wall around itself and only ever thinks about what it can get for itself.

I know this debate is touching upon a constitutional crisis for the UK with those old hangovers of colonialism, earlier world domination and notions of empire and 'greatness', but really that world has well and truly gone. Perhaps you could try getting over that and start to see how the UK could be great without the need to dominate, control and subject. We are moving into a new era of partnership and I think the UK has a vital role on that. I'd be very sad if it couldn't see any way in which it could contribute.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Which countries are you thinking of that trade with no one? North Korea, and ... ?
Lots of countries trade with whomever they want. The bulk of New Zealand's trade is with Australia, but NZ is still free to deal with other countries without asking the Aussies for permission.

Actually they are not, to get the mutual beneficial agreements they have to ask each others permission to deal with third party countries (hence this deal) When a country enters trade deals with another country they take on obligations & commitments which they may rescind but then of course the trade deals end to everyone's pain.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In the UK we import a lot of lamb from NZ, there are UK businesses that do good business importing lamb and reselling it to our supermarkets (and, supermarkets elsewhere in the EU). But, being outside the EU there is an import tariff charged on that lamb. What if France decided to cut a deal with NZ and then imported NZ lamb without charging a tariff? Supermarkets across the EU can now buy their NZ lamb from French importers for less. Good for the French importers, good for consumers (lamb costs fall), good for the NZ sheep farmers. Bad for the UK lamb importers who now go out of business, bad for UK sheep farmers who now have to compete with NZ lamb that is even cheaper than it was before.

Tough titties. That's business.

quote:
Do you not think it unreasonable that those in the UK who lose out if that happens to think that it does matter what someone else inside a free trade area does?
I think that if they can be put out of business so easily by a simple trade deal then they either need to improve their product, lower their prices or diversify their holdings. If I can get good quality lamb at a competitive price then I don't really care if it comes from New Zealand or Cumbria, and I certainly don't want to have to pay more just so that the Cumbrian shepherds can stay in business.

quote:
Yes, of course you can switch supplier. Although there is more than just price in the decision to do so (there may be benefit to your business to be known to support local business, supporting local business contributes to the local economy and means people may have more money to spend in your restaurant, if you're seen to suddenly cancel your deal with the baker would that affect your chances of striking a good deal with the local wholesale fruit and veg merchant?).
The thing with all those decisions you put in parentheses is that they're mine to make. If I think the saving on bread outweighs any bad publicity that might come from the deal then so be it.

quote:
But, to come back from the analogy, the Brexit campaign seems to want to break our trade deals with the EU (to open up trade with the Commonwealth in particular) but then expect the EU to agree to reinstate the same deal. It's like telling the baker "I can get rolls cheaper elsewhere. But, I still want the 20% discount on the cakes and sandwich bread." The baker has lost some of his guaranteed sales, and now knows that the rest is not as guaranteed as he thought - is that deal still as good for him? Of course not.
I guess it depends on how important the restaurant is to the baker's bottom line, and whether the baker thinks he can get by without any trade with it at all. If the baker needs to sell his cakes and sandwich bread to the restaurant in order to break even then he'll cut a deal.

quote:
Except that isn't the way the EU works. If France and Germany want to ban overpowered vacuum cleaners then they need to convince all the other nations in the EU of the benefits of such a ban, and form a consensus that this is a good idea.
Not a difficult proposition, since France and Germany have all the power in the EU anyway.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
How far do you want to push that principle?

If a 12 year old want to buy some cheap cider, and someone is willing to sell it, should someone tell them they can't?

If you want to buy some crack cocaine, and someone is willing to sell it, should some police officer tell you you can't?

That question is probably worthy of a separate thread. I'll happily follow to Purg if you agree.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I couldn't give a fuck about the vacuums themselves. It's the principle that matters to me, and that principle is that if I want to buy something and someone else is willing to sell it to me then it shouldn't be up to some Brussels bureaucrat to tell us we can't.

I would suggest you get a greater choice of things that you can buy or sell if you are in a free trade zone than if you are out of it.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
France and Germany have all the power in the EU anyway.

They have exactly 1/14th of the power. Which means 13/14ths of the power lies outside of France and Germany.

Do you actually believe this shit, or is this performance art?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
France and Germany have all the power in the EU anyway.

They have exactly 1/14th of the power.
Assuming they agree on the matter at hand.
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
quote:
Tough titties. That's business.
Martin - don't mind me saying so, but don't you (like me) work in the public sector? Your and my whole working world is a mile away from the kind of testosterone trip you're describing, notwithstanding ham-fisted attempts to marketize(TM) higher education over the last 20 years. If Wallmart/ASDA bought your institution, your life would become more shit. Is a 'no it wouldn't' all you've got?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
And that's the rub. Every argument I've heard so far in regards to the leave campaign centres around insular selfishness. It's all about what 'we' get. There is no concept of being on this planet together with anyone else.
Oh boo hoo hoo, the perfect socialist paradise of everybody in the world working together for the good of all doesn't exist.

Get over it.

Absolutely not - to believe it can't exist is to deny Christianity, its social teaching and the guidance of bishops in both the C of E and the RCC.

Perhaps you'd like the words 'thy kingdom come....on earth' removed from the Lord's prayer.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
It's a prayer, leo, not an assertion.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I think that if they can be put out of business so easily by a simple trade deal then they either need to improve their product, lower their prices or diversify their holdings. If I can get good quality lamb at a competitive price then I don't really care if it comes from New Zealand or Cumbria, and I certainly don't want to have to pay more just so that the Cumbrian shepherds can stay in business.

What you are basically arguing now is that tariffs and import barriers shouldn't exist at all. Which is a fine and respectable position. But, apart from the fact that it is as utopian as Socialist peace and love -

It is not what the Leave campaign are offering you! Plenty of Leave campaigners have explicitly stated they think tariffs are a price worth paying.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Also... I do find it odd having all this talk about the inability to create trade deals with Australia, when I know for certain that there are at least some trade deals between Australia and the EU.

Of course they are not on the same level as the whole free trade thing within the EU, but there are definitely some agreements on things like meat and wine, because I've drafted laws related to those agreements.

Such as... well, annual quotas for tariff-free export of goods to the EU. I believe the quota increases each year.

Just sayin'. And this is despite the fact that I have some sympathy and understanding for the Leave vote. Although complaining about bureaucrats in Brussels... bear in mind that you'd often just be trading them for a bureaucrat in London.

[ 16. June 2016, 13:08: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
It is not what the Leave campaign are offering you! Plenty of Leave campaigners have explicitly stated they think tariffs are a price worth paying.

Moreover, tariffs are good for us to impose, but terrible for others to impose on us. The formidable British manufacturing sector, the one which the Tories have done everything in their power to sell off to foreign companies or shut down, will be able to flood the world with their reasonably-priced, tariff-free excellence.

Oh, wait... [Disappointed]
 
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Oh boo hoo hoo, the perfect socialist paradise of everybody in the world working together for the good of all doesn't exist.

Get over it.

So that's it then, it doesn't exist, so we should all just look out for ourselves and fuck the rest.

What a great world to live in.

[ 16. June 2016, 13:43: Message edited by: The Phantom Flan Flinger ]
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I want to post this here because a) it is mainly about exiters and b) I am sure the hosts don't want the foetid Glastonbury cess-pit that is this referendum from seeping it's putrid way across too many threads on the board.

I am ashamed to be British at the moment.

Irrespective of which side you are on in the decision (and many have made it very clear, including myself), this has been one of the most vile, unpleasant, deceitful, manipulative campaigns ever. And that is saying something after the last election campaign.

I read a leave pamphlet and even I can find clear mistakes and problems in it (apparently, by leaving the EU, our security will be improved because we will no longer be subject to the ECHR? I mean, where do I start?). I don't read them anymore, so that is the only one I can remember.

I once thought we were better than this. I thought our long history of parliament, of bringing democracy (of some sort) to other nations across the world would mean we have a clue as to how to conduct ourselves with at least a degree of respectability.

But apparently no. Our football supporters are less embarrassing than our politicians. Heck, out football teams are less embarrassing.

So to all of those in the spotlight in this campaign - Farage, Gove, Cameron, Osborne and the rest of you, FUCK YOU for being a total disgrace. FUCK YOU for having the morals that a nematode worm would be ashamed of. FUCK YOU for being such despicable, vile, obnoxious and rancid examples of humanity that you make me wonder about whether we are worth it. FUCK YOU ALL for making me ashamed to be British. I can cope with what we did in India, our role in the slave trade, our damaging imperialism and our 1970s football fans, but you make me utterly sick. And that pile of vomit would be more amenable than you are.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Tough titties. That's business.

No, it's just fucking unrealistic to think that you can impose such an order of things whether or not the EU existed or not.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
this has been one of the most vile, unpleasant, deceitful, manipulative campaigns ever. And that is saying something after the last election campaign.

I read a leave pamphlet and even I can find clear mistakes and problems in it

Some of what Remain has produced has hardly been better.

A few months ago, when there was a Republican race on before it was Trumped, I made a comment on Facebook in response to one of those "lies told by the candidates" links to the effect of it looked like all the leading Republicans were confused and thought they were competing for the "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire" award rather than to be a candidate for the White House. Sometimes I look at our referendum campaign and think there was a secret meeting where it was decided that rather than campaign on EU membership there should be a concerted effort to show-up the Republicans as rank amateurs at lies, smears, stupidity, personal slander and downright nastiness.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Although complaining about bureaucrats in Brussels... bear in mind that you'd often just be trading them for a bureaucrat in London.

Yes, but we have more control over the bureaucrats in London.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's a prayer, leo, not an assertion.

Why pray if God doesn't answer prayer?

Was not Jesus 'asserting' how to pray and what to pray for?

Perhaps he was deluded?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's a prayer, leo, not an assertion.

Why pray if God doesn't answer prayer?

Why keep praying if He has already answered it?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's a prayer, leo, not an assertion.

Why pray if God doesn't answer prayer?
God can bring His Kingdom any time He wants. Until He does, though, we appear to be on our own.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Although complaining about bureaucrats in Brussels... bear in mind that you'd often just be trading them for a bureaucrat in London.

Yes, but we have more control over the bureaucrats in London.
A charming belief, but is it borne out by the evidence?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
On the evidence of Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister it's the bureaucrats in Whitehall who have the control.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
And I thought we'd established that Rupert Murdoch was in charge of much of the English-speaking world.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I thought we'd established that Rupert Murdoch was in charge of much of the English-speaking world.

Nope, George Soros. He made a billion dollars on Black Wednesday back in 1992 and given the uncertainty now, I'm sure he is rubbing his hands at the possibility of a leave vote.

*Other avaricious market-makers are available.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Lizards. Lizards everywhere.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Although complaining about bureaucrats in Brussels... bear in mind that you'd often just be trading them for a bureaucrat in London.

Yes, but we have more control over the bureaucrats in London.
A charming belief, but is it borne out by the evidence?
In as much as bureaucrats are controlled by government and government is controlled by the people, yes.

If one or both of those things is not true then our problems go way beyond membership (or not) of the EU.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
this has been one of the most vile, unpleasant, deceitful, manipulative campaigns ever. And that is saying something after the last election campaign.

I read a leave pamphlet and even I can find clear mistakes and problems in it

Some of what Remain has produced has hardly been better.

I don't doubt this. I don't bother reading them, and one stuck out. My rant is about both sides, who are as despicable as each other.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, a very unpleasant campaign all round, culminating in the shooting of a Labour MP. Fuck it.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
In as much as bureaucrats are controlled by government and government is controlled by the people, yes.

If one or both of those things is not true then our problems go way beyond membership (or not) of the EU.

Ah. You've noticed.

Actually from my days as a Civil Serpent, I expect papers are even now being written* on the various policies the Minister will confidently announce on whichever result eventuates.

*or perhaps not actually written but certainly murmured about among the high hied yins.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Although complaining about bureaucrats in Brussels... bear in mind that you'd often just be trading them for a bureaucrat in London.

Yes, but we have more control over the bureaucrats in London.
A charming belief, but is it borne out by the evidence?
In as much as bureaucrats are controlled by government and government is controlled by the people, yes.

If one or both of those things is not true then our problems go way beyond membership (or not) of the EU.

Yeah. Government controlled by the people.

Rupert Murdoch quote, previous page.

I'm being damned cynical this evening, but there it is. To the extent that government is controlled by the people, it often feels like what it's actually controlled by is what opinion polls indicate "the people" are thinking, and rather large quantities of "the people" are easily manipulated by what they are told to think by a series of 30-second soundbites and shouty headlines.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, a very unpleasant campaign all round, culminating in the shooting of a Labour MP. Fuck it.

Keen as I am to tar Brexit with any brush going, do we actually know anything for certain about the motive for the attack?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, a very unpleasant campaign all round, culminating in the shooting of a Labour MP. Fuck it.

While I'm commenting on shouty headlines and 30-second soundbites, is there a verified report as to the cause of the shooting?

I ask not least because the first report I've seen here started with a headline of her being "attacked" but then included one witness report suggesting she had intervened in a scuffle between two other people, which would mean it would be misleading to suggest she was the target.

They've since amended their headline to say that she has been shot and stabbed, removing the term "attacked". But as it's the small hours of the morning here I doubt I'll see a more detailed source without going to UK sites.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Rumours that the shooter shouted 'Britain First', presumably, about the EU campaign.

She's died.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Rumours that the shooter shouted 'Britain First', presumably, about the EU campaign.

She's died.

Right, where I can find these rumours. Trustworthy sources? So far I've looked at the BBC.

Sorry, but I am still so massively pissed off at aspects of the Orlando shooting reporting (most of my dealing with that have occurred off-ship) that I am cautious when it comes to declarations of motive.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I've answered my own question by finding articles at the Telegraph and the Independent so far. EDIT: And the Guardian.

[ 16. June 2016, 16:33: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, most are saying he 'allegedly shouted 'Britain First''. The neo-Nazi organization, Britain First, have denied any involvement.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Stupid fucking referendum.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Well, campaigning has been suspended.

And two little girls ages 3 and 5 have just lost their mum. God help them.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Rumours that the shooter shouted 'Britain First', presumably, about the EU campaign.

If true then it's probably safe to say goodbye to the Leave Campaign.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, most are saying he 'allegedly shouted 'Britain First''. The neo-Nazi organization, Britain First, have denied any involvement.

No direct involvement. Funny how killings like these tend to be perpetrated by like-minded people, though.
 
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :
 
Yes. It's almost as if rhetoric stirring up fear and hatred can actually have violent consequences. Thank goodness we have history telling us this never happens.

[Mad]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I think it's best not to jump to conclusions. I set up a condolence thread in All Saints.
 
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :
 
I'm probably too angry for "best".

But I'll try.

My "best" self tells me that even if what I've read is wrong and this is entirely unrelated to the current political debate - even then we've lost someone who was balancing out the crazy and hateful voices. Someone who was for inclusion and compassion. Someone who... I dunno. But she was one of the good ones.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
Some media outlets have named the suspect arrested, who appears to be a man with a history of mental health problems. If this is the case, I'd be wary of drawing any connection to the current campaign or indeed with politics generally.

[ 16. June 2016, 18:11: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005506;p=34#001689

Of course, people with mental health problems have political views and are influenced by what goes on around them.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
And conversely, some people with political views have mental health issues.

I dare say we will find out what the altercation the MP tried to stop was about. It may not have been about her at all.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
Oh look, the same thing they have in the US when some white right-winger flips out and shoots someone after being stirred up by the right's disgusting rhetoric: the polite face of the right crawls out of their sewer blaming mental illness for the way they've poisoned the political discourse and incited hatred. Mental illness doesn't make you kill people. And in the rare cases it does, it doesn't generally involve planning a political assassination.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
Alex Massie is a Conservative journalist who writes for The Spectator - this is what he has to say

A Day of Infamy

quote:
But, still. Look. When you encourage rage you cannot then feign surprise when people become enraged. You cannot turn around and say, ‘Mate, you weren’t supposed to take it so seriously. It’s just a game, just a ploy, a strategy for winning votes.’

When you shout BREAKING POINT over and over again, you don’t get to be surprised when someone breaks. When you present politics as a matter of life and death, as a question of national survival, don’t be surprised if someone takes you at your word. You didn’t make them do it, no, but you didn’t do much to stop it either.

Sometimes rhetoric has consequences. If you spend days, weeks, months, years telling people they are under threat, that their country has been stolen from them... that their problem is they’re not sufficiently mad as hell, then at some point, in some place, something or someone is going to snap. And then something terrible is going to happen.

We can’t control the weather but, in politics, we can control the climate in which the weather happens. That’s on us, all of us, whatever side of any given argument we happen to be. Today, it feels like we’ve done something terrible to that climate.


 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
'kin hell. God help us if Farage and his Brexit minions have unleashed a hoard of unbalanced people from whom anyone who disagrees is a target.

When Farage was campaigning in South Thanet, he was walking the streets with about 6 men in suits who looked like bodyguards. One day I passed him in the street somehow getting between him and his people.

"Hey you, man," he said, as if I was some kind of serf or dog he could bring to attention.

I walked swiftly away looking only at the road ahead of me, thinking how easily it would have been to brain the country's most brainless politician.

Later I sat at the count in Margate as he chortled over his beer a table away from me.

The moral of this story is that I had two opportunities to do everyone a favour and to give Farage a knuckle sandwich in 24 hours.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
The sight of political enemies suddenly giving beautiful eulogies to a MP who they've previously done everything in their power to frustrate is beyond nauseating.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I think - until there is any definitive evidence - it is fucked up to link the tragic death of Jo Cox with the referendum campaign.

Having said that, my immediate gut reaction (from early reports) is that this is the sort of thing that you get when racists like Farage are given a platform. This is the result of the hatred that has been such a part of politics for the last few years.

BUT - crucially - this is my interpretation, nothing has been demonstrated. There may have been a Britain First involvement (and it does seem to match their attitude), but that is not clear.

The campaign has been such a fuck up, I think Jo should be remembered for all the good she did, not as a victim of this crap. Good politicians are increasingly rare. Today we lost another one.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Eye-witnesses report that the alleged killer was involved in an altercation in the street with an elderly man. Mrs Cox went to try to intervene and that was when she was shot and, possibly, stabbed.

There are conflicting reports as to whether the alleged killer shouted anything at the time of shooting Mrs Cox.

The alleged perpetrator has posted online various statements about the way that outdoor activity, specifically gardening, has helped with his mental health issues.

Any attempt to link the killing of this young mother with any political standpoint, on any issue or none, seems at this stage to be wide of the mark: at present it would seem she died while trying to resolve an argument in the street between two constituents.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Thing is that Farage has said that "violence is the next step" if his supporters don't get their way.

see this
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
His internet history is out there and it shows he subscribed to white supremacist groups. What an amazing coincidence that a politician known for speaking up for refugees and immigrants would intervene in an a random altercation in a British street and find a white supremacist carrying a gun. As the old Northern Ireland joke goes* 'Sure he must be the luckiest white supremacist in Birstall...'


* A man was walking down a street at night in Northern Ireland, when a masked gunman jumped out and yelled, "Stop! Are you Catholic or Protestant?!"

Thinking fast, the man said, "Neither! I'm Jewish!"

“Great" says the gunman, "Sure I'm the luckiest Palestinian terrorist in all of Northern Ireland!"
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Thing is that Farage has said that "violence is the next step" if his supporters don't get their way.

see this

The link appears too have been taken down.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
What the cat and the organist said.

Let's be careful out there...
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
His internet history is out there and it shows he subscribed to white supremacist groups. What an amazing coincidence that a politician known for speaking up for refugees and immigrants would intervene in an a random altercation in a British street and find a white supremacist carrying a gun. As the old Northern Ireland joke goes* 'Sure he must be the luckiest white supremacist in Birstall...'

Yes, wasn't it lucky he remembered to take his gun with him when he left the house! I usually need to leave a note on the fridge to remind me.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I'm glad to see that the campaign has been suspended. When it resumes, I hope that it will be conducted in a calmer manner, and that inflammatory rhetoric will be put to one side. That hope applies not just to politicians, but media headline-writers and editors.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Thing is that Farage has said that "violence is the next step" if his supporters don't get their way.

see this

The link appears too have been taken down.
Try this one.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
Or you might say the 'luckiest neo-Nazi in Birstall'

quote:
According to records obtained by the Southern Poverty Law Center, Mair was a dedicated supporter of the National Alliance (NA), the once premier neo-Nazi organization in the United States, for decades. Mair purchased a manual from the NA in 1999 that included instructions on how to build a pistol.

Mair, who resides in what is described as a semi-detached house on the Fieldhead Estate in Birstall, sent just over $620 to the NA, according to invoices for goods purchased from National Vanguard Books, the NA’s printing imprint. Mair purchased subscriptions for periodicals published by the imprint and he bought works that instruct readers on the “Chemistry of Powder & Explosives,” “Incendiaries,” and a work called “Improvised Munitions Handbook." Under “Section III, No. 9” (page 125) of that handbook, there are detailed instructions for constructing a “Pipe Pistol For .38 Caliber Ammunition” from components that can be purchased from nearly any hardware store.


 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
What the cat and the organist said.

Fuck that. What Louise said. That Jo Cox was shot is the only thing which might be chance.
What is known is than a racist who subscribed to racist, violence encouraging propaganda was carrying a weapon and used it during a time of racially charged rhetoric. Pretty damn lot of coincidence.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
One of the Radio 4 programmes yesterday (about 5:50 p.m.) played the whole of her excellent maiden speech in the House of commons.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Or you might say the 'luckiest neo-Nazi in Birstall'

quote:
According to records obtained by the Southern Poverty Law Center, Mair was a dedicated supporter of the National Alliance (NA), the once premier neo-Nazi organization in the United States, for decades. Mair purchased a manual from the NA in 1999 that included instructions on how to build a pistol.

Mair, who resides in what is described as a semi-detached house on the Fieldhead Estate in Birstall, sent just over $620 to the NA, according to invoices for goods purchased from National Vanguard Books, the NA’s printing imprint. Mair purchased subscriptions for periodicals published by the imprint and he bought works that instruct readers on the “Chemistry of Powder & Explosives,” “Incendiaries,” and a work called “Improvised Munitions Handbook." Under “Section III, No. 9” (page 125) of that handbook, there are detailed instructions for constructing a “Pipe Pistol For .38 Caliber Ammunition” from components that can be purchased from nearly any hardware store.


That fits with the observation from a man who keeps a shop over the street who thought the gun looked homemade. Though I still wonder how he knew enough to tell.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
That fits with the observation from a man who keeps a shop over the street who thought the gun looked homemade. Though I still wonder how he knew enough to tell.

"Pipe Pistol For .38 Caliber Ammunition" sounds fairly homemade and I think if I saw someone obviously shooting someone else with something that looks like a bit of pipe, I might be forgiven for describing it in the various ways that witnesses did - given they were various distances from the incident.

I'm at a bit of a loss to understand why it is important to understand why a witness thought it was handmade.

On the face of it, and if those documents are genuine (and they seem to be, although I'm curious why that organisation has them to hand to the extent that they can publish them this quickly) this guy sounds like he has been messing about with white supremacist groups and has been treated for mental illness.

I suggest we now need to build a large wall around Millwall football stadium to keep the white supremacists out. We also need to ensure that no more white people enter the country, so we must clamp down on anyone who has blond hair and blue eyes. Anyone meeting that description will be interviewed ruthlessly by Border Control and if they happen to speak English with a funny accent we don't recognise, they will be turned back.

All white people henceforth will be subject to a monthly spelling test. Those who are heavily tattooed, wear golden necklaces, drink beer and can't spell will go straight to jail for public protection purposes.

Police have been told to be ruthless with white people who look a bit funny walking down the street. They have been issued with tear gas and tasars and have a daily quota which they must use. Any officer returning to the station without using their quota will be thoroughly punished.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
L'organist:
quote:
at present it would seem she died while trying to resolve an argument in the street between two constituents.
...one of whom just happened to be carrying a gun and a knife. In a country where this is illegal.

Yeah, right.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Most of the witnesses interviewed in the various media reports seem to be clear that the one guy attacked the MP and another guy tried to fend him off. I've not seen anything to suggest that there was an altercation which the MP tried to intervene to stop. That would have been a weird thing to happen if it turns out it was that way around.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
What the cat and the organist said.

Fuck that. What Louise said. That Jo Cox was shot is the only thing which might be chance.
What is known is than a racist who subscribed to racist, violence encouraging propaganda was carrying a weapon and used it during a time of racially charged rhetoric. Pretty damn lot of coincidence.

My point - perhaps I could have made it clearer - was that we should be very careful before we attribute the murder specifically to the referendum "climate" - or to anything else at this stage, for that matter. The fact that we know her murderer had (by his own admission) serious mental heath problems and a very long-standing attachment to politically extremist organisations disinclines me even further to attribute his actions to the "bloody Brexiteers".

I think he was probably a disaster waiting to happen, but to attribute the trigger to the referendum campaign seems massively premature and prima facie questionable - to a person in that state, who knows what else could or might possibly have triggered such an irrational action? If he had been carrying a leaflet from the local parish church which cited a thorny biblical passage, words from which he muttered as he attacked Ms Cox, would we now be blaming the "bloody bible-bashers"?

Seriously, we have nothing like the kind of information that would justify such an attribution. I get that there is visceral hatred out here for the Brexit campaign/ers but let's maintain a bit of a grip here, peeps.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
On the face of it, and if those documents are genuine (and they seem to be, although I'm curious why that organisation has them to hand to the extent that they can publish them this quickly)

AFAICT the SPLC have a practise of digitising documents that come into their possession, which means they are easily able to search them when something like this comes up.

It would be relatively easy for them to search for a particular name, eliminating duplicates by location, and come up with a list of activities.

Most of the documents actually bought would have been legal or quasi-legal in the US, so it isn't as if what they had in their possession constituted clear evidence of a crime.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

Most of the documents actually bought would have been legal or quasi-legal in the US, so it isn't as if what they had in their possession constituted clear evidence of a crime.

True, although if they have a dump of documents via wikileaks (etc), they'd still have to prove the general authenticity of them and the specific authenticity of this invoice

For example, how do we know that the address is for the suspect? Could there not have been someone else with the same name in the vicinity?

It seems quite inconceivable that even if they could be sure that they have a genuine dump of documents they could possibly be 100% sure that this is the same person from several thousand miles away and after a few hours of the incident.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

It seems quite inconceivable that even if they could be sure that they have a genuine dump of documents they could possibly be 100% sure that this is the same person from several thousand miles away and after a few hours of the incident.

I presume they were looking for someone of that name and cross correlated against people living in the Fieldhead area in Birstall.

As I said above, they have the information already available, as part of their work to build up databases of extremists and their connections, it's just a case of searching it.

Richard Barth doing the same thing on the internet, dug up this link:

https://twitter.com/Barthsnotes/status/743473590897623041

[ 17. June 2016, 09:39: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I presume they were looking for someone of that name and cross correlated against people living in the Fieldhead area in Birstall.

I understand. My point is that there could be someone else of the same name in the area, and there is little chance that the SPLC could be able to due the verification necessary to be sure this was the same person.

In practice there appears to be only one person of that name in the town on the electoral roll, but I'm not sure if they'd have checked first from the USA.

I'm not saying it is incorrect, I'm just saying a rush to publish these invoices might not be helping in this instance and writing with a little less detail and a bit more circumspection about the chance it could be someone else might have been more healthy - until the proper authorities can confirm a link.

quote:
As I said above, they have the information already available, as part of their work to build up databases of extremists and their connections, it's just a case of searching it.

I mean, Richard Barth doing the same thing on the internet, dig up this link:

https://twitter.com/Barthsnotes/status/743473590897623041

That's a little different as the suspect himself appears to have implicated himself with that organisation and the organisation has named him.

Even there a little more circumspection might help as there is still a chance they could be speaking of someone else with the same name or something.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I think he was probably a disaster waiting to happen, but to attribute the trigger to the referendum campaign seems massively premature and prima facie questionable

So, we have a person with a history of mental health issues and links to far-right extremists. As you say a disaster waiting to happen.

But, he also chose to murder his local MP, a prominant campaigner for human rights and advocate for an open and welcoming multi-ethnic society. An MP who was due to campaign to remain in the EU after her surgery. And, he chose to do this a week before the referendum - the last of her surgeries before then. And, he did it when Farage is producing Nazi-inspired posters and proclaiming that a remain vote will lead to violence in the streets.

A coincidence? Not bloody likely.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Seriously, we have nothing like the kind of information that would justify such an attribution. I get that there is visceral hatred out here for the Brexit campaign/ers but let's maintain a bit of a grip here, peeps.

The Spectator is urging its readers to vote Leave. But it's also published this.
quote:
Sometimes rhetoric has consequences. If you spend days, weeks, months, years telling people they are under threat, that their country has been stolen from them, that they have been betrayed and sold down the river, that their birthright has been pilfered, that their problem is they’re too slow to realise any of this is happening, that their problem is they’re not sufficiently mad as hell, then at some point, in some place, something or someone is going to snap. And then something terrible is going to happen.

 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
This is also suggestive that there was some kind of link:

Britain First were having an "activist training event" recently in Wales - including classes in "Knife Defence"
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I guess the police are looking at the evidence for premeditation, for various reasons associated with the UK criminal law. Clearly there is information which points to that. But I'd let them do their job.

On reflection, I'm with Alan re the EU referendum. The febrile atmosphere and some of the really nasty Brexit publicity seem very likely to have contributed to this tragedy. But I think that is a separate issue to the nature of the crime itself, and the state of mind of the perpetrator. All of which seem to me to relate to the question of premeditation.

One thing you can be sure of. Given the very high profile, the police will be bending over backwards to do this by the book. So it may be a while before all of the relevant facts emerge.

[ 17. June 2016, 10:01: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
More or less what Barnabas just said, really. I'm a bit gobsmacked that so many people seem so keen to jump to immediate conclusions on this one - in many cases, conclusions that very conveniently seem to fit their own engrained attitudes.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This is also suggestive that there was some kind of link:

Britain First were having an "activist training event" recently in Wales - including classes in "Knife Defence"

And is there any evidence whatsoever that Cox's murderer had even heard of this event, let alone attended?

[ 17. June 2016, 10:12: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, he also chose to murder his local MP, a prominant campaigner for human rights and advocate for an open and welcoming multi-ethnic society.

Do we even know if he knew this about Ms Cox, let alone that it influenced his attack?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
And is there any evidence whatsoever that Cox's murderer had even heard of this event, let alone attended?

None and I wasn't suggesting that he did necessarily.

However here we have someone who murders someone in broad daylight, who has apparently strong patterns of interaction with Neo-nazis, who apparently shouted "Britain First". And to top it all, it turns out that Britain First clearly think it necessary to carry knives for defensive purposes.

Possibly a total coincidence that this training event happened recently. Maybe it is totally random that Neo-Nazis want Brexit and advocate street violence. Utterly unconnected that Farage claims there will be violence on the streets if the popular vote doesn't go his way. Maybe it has nothing to do with Farage's recent visual rhetoric about migrants.

The attacker may have not recognised her as his MP, he may have been so high on something that he saw her as a slug etc and so on. These things happen.

But it isn't a stretch to say that there are rather a lot of coincidences here and it doesn't take a genius to think that they might be connected.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:


I mean, Richard Barth doing the same thing on the internet, dig up this link:

https://twitter.com/Barthsnotes/status/743473590897623041

That's a little different as the suspect himself appears to have implicated himself with that organisation and the organisation has named him.

Well, it would look like the SPLC made their statement on the basis of a receipt with a name and address on it from the organisation concerned listing the items ordered. So I don't see what the difference is - in fact the SPLC actually had more information.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Barnabas:
quote:
I guess the police are looking at the evidence for premeditation, for various reasons associated with the UK criminal law.
IANAL, but I would have thought the fact he was carrying a gun and a knife around with him was clear evidence of premeditation to kill or injure *somebody*.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, he also chose to murder his local MP, a prominant campaigner for human rights and advocate for an open and welcoming multi-ethnic society.

Do we even know if he knew this about Ms Cox, let alone that it influenced his attack?
No, we don't know.

He clearly knew when and where she held here surgeries, which probably puts him in a minority of the population. I assume her maiden Parliamentary speech had been widely reported in the local paper, possibly the local TV and radio. And, that the local papers had reported on her other activities. But, we don't know if he read the local papers recently, although I thought I'd seen something about him reading about the need for volunteers in the local press.

There's certainly no reason why he wouldn't have known the views of Ms Cox. I would suspect that it's likely that even if he didn't know the details that he was aware that she was a left-leaning MP supporting Remain. Whether that influenced his attack? We can't say. But, it's still a lot of coincidences.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
@ Jane R

It points that way, I agree, but neither you nor I know whether this was just something he always did. Nor do we know whether the man in custody had a prior intention to attack Jo Cox, or this was (horrible of phrases) an "opportunist crime". No doubt the police will investigate both any history of violence and any evidence of mental instability.

Meanwhile, I am very much on board with the statement issued by Jo Cox's widowed husband. I've always thought that in highly charged situations, it's best to think and speak carefully, and not add fuel to fires. Hatred is contagious.

[ 17. June 2016, 11:08: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Alan and mr cheesy: then all you've got is piss-and-wind speculation. Not so very different from the people who cry in other situations, "He was a Muslim so it must have been an Islamist attack!".

For the time being, they're only "suspicious co-incidences" which it "doesn't take a genius" to draw specific conclusions from to those who insist on reading them that way.

We simply don't know enough to make any such judgement at this stage - that's the plain truth of the matter.
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
Unless

a) the underlying principles upon which people will vote has been changed in light of yesterday's killing

or

b) the Leave or Remain campaigns are overwhelmingly seen poorly in their reactions to this tragic event


this tragic event will not change people's minds about Remain or Leave.


Somebody will be seen and chastised by the other side, likely today or tomorrow, for "using these events". Whether that is enough to swing votes is another matter.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Like as with the Arch Duke Ferdinand, one person dies violently and everyone is holding their breath. The same thing with the Kennedy assassination, fortunately that did not trigger an imminent disaster.

Fear and tension is in the air, this bloody referendum. Hands up who'll be glad when it is over.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's a prayer, leo, not an assertion.

Why pray if God doesn't answer prayer?
God can bring His Kingdom any time He wants. Until He does, though, we appear to be on our own.
Extremely unscriptural Mt 28:20
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Alan and mr cheesy: then all you've got is piss-and-wind speculation. Not so very different from the people who cry in other situations, "He was a Muslim so it must have been an Islamist attack!".

For the time being, they're only "suspicious co-incidences" which it "doesn't take a genius" to draw specific conclusions from to those who insist on reading them that way.

We simply don't know enough to make any such judgement at this stage - that's the plain truth of the matter.

Yes, it's speculation. But, there seems to be enough information for some of that to be more than "piss-and-wind". We know he walked into a busy market area with a gun and a knife and shot Ms Cox. There are only two options:
  1. He was going to kill someone, it didn't matter who, and he didn't know he killed the local MP
  2. He deliberately targetted Jo Cox
Option A is possible, but ... oh look, there's the porcine aerobatics display team in action.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
You can't make friends with a snake and then act surprised when it bites you. It was only a matter of time considering how this whole referendum has gone. It's become a thoroughly ugly, filthy buisness. Regardless of what happens next week there are a lot of things that won't go back in the box.
 
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Like as with the Arch Duke Ferdinand, one person dies violently and everyone is holding their breath. The same thing with the Kennedy assassination, fortunately that did not trigger an imminent disaster.

Fear and tension is in the air, this bloody referendum. Hands up who'll be glad when it is over.

:Waves hand in the air:
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Alan and mr cheesy: then all you've got is piss-and-wind speculation.

The only piss-and-wind here is you hoping beyond hope that a man with neo-nazi links armed with a gun and a knife who stabbed and shot his internationalist, refugee-welcoming, Remain-supporting MP while shouting 'put Britain first' wasn't influenced by the toxic, deeply racist, mendacious Leave campaign.

Good luck with that.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Alan and mr cheesy: then all you've got is piss-and-wind speculation. Not so very different from the people who cry in other situations, "He was a Muslim so it must have been an Islamist attack!".

Muslims are a much larger and more variable demographic than far-right neo-nazis.

The equivalent speculation would be "It must have been a far-right killing, he was white British."

For the appropriate Islamist parallel try "It must be Islamic terror, he was a member of an extremist Islamic group."
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I think we have to be clear that there is absolutely a difference between a position which describes a lone murderer as "a Muslim" compared to one which describes him as "a fascist".

Fascism in and of itself is a system of rule by the strongest. That's what it is. So violence is ingrained right through it.

Islam is not fundamentally violent.

So if you are describing someone as being a Neo-Nazi who has committed political violence, then that is no way inconsistent with the political view they hold as a Neo-Nazi. Indeed, it would be very difficult to be a fascist who didn't believe that violence was the way to get power.

But someone who self-identifies as Muslim who has committed political violence is different because it is clearly very easy to be a Muslim with a wide range of political views.

So if Trump was to say something about excluding fascists from entering the USA, that might be fair enough. The chances of them being violent are high because that's the bedrock of their political view.

But in saying something about refusing entry to Muslims, he's saying something quite different.

For another thing - even if this guy never intended to attack the MP, it would be hard to say that he wasn't indoctrinated by violence if he was part of a fascist or neo-Nazi group in the past. But even that's a stretch, because there would be no political benefit from taking out a random person in the street if an MP was in the vicinity. Why would you do that?

And ultimately this is why the Leave side is so fundamentally evil. Whilst there are surely some within the group who are just misguided idiots, the way the debate is framed is about foreigners, about immigration, migrants and "British sovereignty". By taking exaggerated positions on these issues you cannot help but be sharing a platform with fascists. When you start talking about the possibility of you losing the democratic vote and that leading to violence by people who don't accept it, then you're at very least giving unintentional backing to the worst aspects of those on your side of the argument.

[ 17. June 2016, 13:24: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
It seems to me that, unlike with the atrocity in Orlando, at least the perpetrator is still alive, so the police can at least attempt to discover why he did it.

As to whether the tragedy will affect the outcome of the referendum, I'm inclined to think that it might sway some waverers (of whom there appear to be many) towards the Remain camp. If the "Britain First"/neo-Nazi connection is proven to be right, the Leave campaigners will probably be damaged by association (real or imagined).
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, there seems to be enough information for some of that to be more than "piss-and-wind". We know he walked into a busy market area with a gun and a knife and shot Ms Cox. There are only two options:
  1. He was going to kill someone, it didn't matter who, and he didn't know he killed the local MP
  2. He deliberately targetted Jo Cox
Option A is possible, but ... oh look, there's the porcine aerobatics display team in action.
You're missing my point. Whether he deliberately targeted Jo Cox or not, there is as yet no evidence that he targeted her (a) precisely because she was a remain supporter - that that was what motivated him - or (b) that it was the nasty leave campaign stuff wot made him do it.

Really, there isn't. It may all be as you say. But would it kill us to suspend judgement until we have a bit more solid stuff to go on rather than scoring angry political points about this tragedy right from the get-go?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
It seems to me that, unlike with the atrocity in Orlando, at least the perpetrator is still alive, so the police can at least attempt to discover why he did it.

As to whether the tragedy will affect the outcome of the referendum, I'm inclined to think that it might sway some waverers (of whom there appear to be many) towards the Remain camp. If the "Britain First"/neo-Nazi connection is proven to be right, the Leave campaigners will probably be damaged by association (real or imagined).

We won't know what connections and motivations there were until the case comes to trial. By which time the referendum will be done. So any damage to the Leave campaign will be on the basis of supposition and speculation. Of which there is plenty at the moment on every news broadcast, newspaper article and FB share. I can't see how it won't damage the Leave campaign. Which is a pity, I would much rather the weaknesses in the Leave campaign (over their dodgy arithmatic, impossible promises, the suggestion that immigration is a problem etc) were the reason for their failure on Thursday than a lone crazy man gunning down an MP.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, there seems to be enough information for some of that to be more than "piss-and-wind". We know he walked into a busy market area with a gun and a knife and shot Ms Cox. There are only two options:
  1. He was going to kill someone, it didn't matter who, and he didn't know he killed the local MP
  2. He deliberately targetted Jo Cox
Option A is possible, but ... oh look, there's the porcine aerobatics display team in action.
You're missing my point. Whether he deliberately targeted Jo Cox or not, there is as yet no evidence that he targeted her (a) precisely because she was a remain supporter - that that was what motivated him - or (b) that it was the nasty leave campaign stuff wot made him do it.

Really, there isn't. It may all be as you say. But would it kill us to suspend judgement until we have a bit more solid stuff to go on rather than scoring angry political points about this tragedy right from the get-go?

Yet even proponents of Brexit have admitted that the nature of the Leave campaign, especially the focus on immigration, made something like the murder of Jo Cox inevitable. Whether or not this particular case was a direct result of that climate, there is no denying that the Leave campaign have generated that climate and it has consequences. Even members of the Leave campaign are admitting that. If we follow the climate analogy, we know that global warming will increase the frequency and severity of storm events, but we can't point a finger to a particular storm and say "that was caused by climate change".

And, FWIW, I think that Trump and Cruz, and other Republicans, appear to be creating a similar climate in the US at the moment. A climate that is creating a fear of immigrants - Mexicans who are "drug-dealing rapists" or Muslims who are "gun wielding terrorists" - of ethnic minorities, of the LGBT community etc. A climate in which atrocities against those minority communities, or against people who oppose that climate, will be inevitable.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
I would suggest that if the murderer had shouted 'Allahu akbar', and had previously subscribed to Dabiq magazine, and some commentator said 'Oh we must not jump to conclusions about motives', then 'political correctness gone mad' is probably the kindest thing that would be said about that commentator.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I would suggest that if the murderer had shouted 'Allahu akbar', and had previously subscribed to Dabiq magazine, and some commentator said 'Oh we must not jump to conclusions about motives', then 'political correctness gone mad' is probably the kindest thing that would be said about that commentator.

Yes, the tabloids would be screaming about terrorism, probably, whereas this case is a 'crazed loner'. Well, the media are generally on the right, and support Leave, so they are not going to highlight any possible connection with that.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yet even proponents of Brexit have admitted that the nature of the Leave campaign, especially the focus on immigration, made something like the murder of Jo Cox inevitable.

Inevitable? I don't buy that. And "something like" the murder of Jo Cox is almost offensively general. The murder of Jo Cox was a very specific, highly contingent and deeply personal tragedy.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Whether or not this particular case was a direct result of that climate, there is no denying that the Leave campaign have generated that climate and it has consequences. Even members of the Leave campaign are admitting that.

So far I have only seen Allan Massie "admit" that. And any "climate" that has been created is the product of the interaction between one side and the other - the ramping up of rhetoric and of accusation and counter-accusation. No one "side" can claim that it was blameless. But both "sides" are actually blameless of the actual murder of this one specific individual person.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
It's interesting that they've gone for the crazed loner thing - since he spoke to neighbours, worked on their gardens, got involved with a local conservation project and helped people at the Job Centre with computers, he doesn't seem like a loner to me. Apart from not being married with a family, and living alone. Like me.

[ 17. June 2016, 14:33: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I don't think this murder was inevitable. But I have been worried recently by the racism and xenophobia generated by Leave recently. These are poisonous fumes, which seem much worse, than in the normal political campaigns. As others have said, I can't wait for this referendum to end, and hopefully the fumes will be dispelled to some extent.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
It's interesting that they've gone for the crazed loner thing - since he spoke to neighbours, worked on their gardens, got involved with a local conservation project and helped people at the Job Centre with computers, he doesn't seem like a loner to me. Apart from not being married with a family, and living alone. Like me.

Well, 'crazed loner' tends to depoliticize it, I think, and switches off his links to neo-Nazis. But of course, this can be switched on and off like a tap. One of Lee Rigby's killers had mental health problems, but I don't think that was emphasized by the right-wing media, was it?
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I would suggest that if the murderer had shouted 'Allahu akbar', and had previously subscribed to Dabiq magazine, and some commentator said 'Oh we must not jump to conclusions about motives', then 'political correctness gone mad' is probably the kindest thing that would be said about that commentator.

Yes, the tabloids would be screaming about terrorism, probably, whereas this case is a 'crazed loner'. Well, the media are generally on the right, and support Leave, so they are not going to highlight any possible connection with that.
But just as it would be wrong to jump to a conclusion that a murder by a Muslim must be a Islamist attack just because the assailant was a Muslim, it is wrong to jump to the conclusion that not only was Mair motivated by his political opinions (the opinions of an very mentally vulnerable person) to kill Jo Cox specifically because of her political stance on immigration but that it was the Brexit campaign specifically wot did it.

It the italicised bits which I think people are being far too quick to jump to.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I note that it is now reported that Trump has said that "More attacks will follow Orlando" - apparently borrowing rhetoric from Farage.

My goodness, what the fuck is the world coming to?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Inevitable? I don't buy that. And "something like" the murder of Jo Cox is almost offensively general. The murder of Jo Cox was a very specific, highly contingent and deeply personal tragedy.

Yes, it was a specific event. A tragedy for her friends, family and constituents. And, until the trial we won't know all that can be known about the circumstances. As I said, we can't attribute causes to the murder of Jo Cox at the moment, maybe even after the facts are presented at trial we won't be able to. Which is why I was trying to open things up to the more general.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Whether or not this particular case was a direct result of that climate, there is no denying that the Leave campaign have generated that climate and it has consequences. Even members of the Leave campaign are admitting that.

So far I have only seen Allan Massie "admit" that.
Farage has also been banging on about violence in the streets.

Again, the specific consequences are difficult to predict. But, leading politicians within the government, not just nutters like Farage, keep on pounding out the lies that immigration is bad for the country, that immigrants take "our jobs", that they scrounge off the welfare system, that refugees fleeing Daesh are all potential terrorists etc. Is it not reasonable to expect that such poisonous rhetoric will encourage the Nazi thugs of organisations like Britain First to take to the streets, to organise more marches outside mosques? And, that some members or sympathisers of such organisations will take things further than just marching and chanting obscenities? Maybe some bricks through the windows of the homes of immigrants, maybe petrol bombs? Maybe targetting not just immigrants but those of us who support a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural society as being the best thing for Britain?

And, when the rhetoric of politicians in a referendum campaign creates a climate where the Nazi thugs feel encouraged to increase their vile activities, do those politicians not bear some blame over those actions?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, 'crazed loner' tends to depoliticize it, I think

That isn't, IMO, a bad thing in the current circumstances. I don't think anyone wants this atrocity to become part of the referendum campaign.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
As I said, we can't attribute causes to the murder of Jo Cox at the moment[.]

Right. My whole point in a nutshell. Which is precisely why I think those seeking to do so by their "it doesn't take a genius to work it out" speculations should knock it off.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
No, that's not true. Jo Cox's husband wants it, for a start.

(in reply to Alan's comment above)

[ 17. June 2016, 14:50: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
Mention has been made of where the killer lived and his relationship with neighbours, also that he'd lived there since he was 12 with parents and then grandmother who died a few years ago. He apparently worked voluntarily in gardens, but I wonder what his source of income is. I shall be interested to read this, but realise that it is not particularly relevant in connection with the murder.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Right. My whole point in a nutshell. Which is precisely why I think those seeking to do so by their "it doesn't take a genius to work it out" speculations should knock it off.

Before you misquote me again, you might try reading what I actually wrote in a post which said all this supposition could be wrong.

quote:
The attacker may have not recognised her as his MP, he may have been so high on something that he saw her as a slug etc and so on. These things happen.

But it isn't a stretch to say that there are rather a lot of coincidences here and it doesn't take a genius to think that they might be connected.

That's right, I acknowledged that the general view could be wrong and that there may turn out to be some other cause of the attack.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, 'crazed loner' tends to depoliticize it, I think

That isn't, IMO, a bad thing in the current circumstances. I don't think anyone wants this atrocity to become part of the referendum campaign.
Well, thanks for cutting off the rest of my post, which pointed out that it's the right-wing media which want to depoliticize this killer, as they don't want any connection with Leave.

I agree that it should not form a part of the referendum campaign now, but the behaviour of the right-wing media is certainly worth noting, as they are playing a part in generating large amounts of racism and xenophobia, and of course, support Leave.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No, that's not true. Jo Cox's husband wants it, for a start.

(in reply to Alan's comment above)

Well, he certainly wants her good work to be remembered, and for others to carry it forward. He also doesn't want people to respond towards those who hold similar political views as her murderer with hate.

Has he said anything specifically about the referendum? If so, I missed it. I would be surprised if he would want pictures of his wife circulated with a "Remember her sacrifice, vote Remain" or "Don't let her killer get what he wants, vote Remain" type message. But, perhaps if she was particularly passionate about the referendum that would be a fitting response. Though I think the Remain campaign would be crucified if they tried it.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, 'crazed loner' tends to depoliticize it, I think

That isn't, IMO, a bad thing in the current circumstances. I don't think anyone wants this atrocity to become part of the referendum campaign.
Well, thanks for cutting off the rest of my post, which pointed out that it's the right-wing media which want to depoliticize this killer, as they don't want any connection with Leave.

I agree that it should not form a part of the referendum campaign now, but the behaviour of the right-wing media is certainly worth noting, as they are playing a part in generating large amounts of racism and xenophobia, and of course, support Leave.

I didn't quite the rest of your post because there was nothing in there for me to disagree with, nor anything that I thought I could say better. I just picked the small point I wanted to expand on.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
No problem, Alan.

I suppose there is a parallel with Orlando, which the right-wing seemed to 'degay', by saying that it was an attack on all Americans, or all people, or even young people (!). Anything but a bigoted anti-gay attack. I suppose Trump made it all about himself as usual.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Got that in one. Didn't know even have to check the news, did you? [Big Grin]

Interesing how racists are tediously alike the world over. Must be a lizard brain devolutionary thing.
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
....
As to whether the tragedy will affect the outcome of the referendum, I'm inclined to think that it might sway some waverers (of whom there appear to be many) towards the Remain camp. If the "Britain First"/neo-Nazi connection is proven to be right, the Leave campaigners will probably be damaged by association (real or imagined).

Its pretty easy to disavow a lunatic and distance your campaign from the extreme and refocus on a particular message based on "the issue", however that is defined.

What you need to do that is the right spokesperson to get that across - there's the real question Leave is probably asking itself.

Who do they put in front of the camera's to soothe the fears when their campaign has largely been based on fear?
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Right. My whole point in a nutshell. Which is precisely why I think those seeking to do so by their "it doesn't take a genius to work it out" speculations should knock it off.

Before you misquote me again, you might try reading what I actually wrote in a post which said all this supposition could be wrong.

quote:
The attacker may have not recognised her as his MP, he may have been so high on something that he saw her as a slug etc and so on. These things happen.

But it isn't a stretch to say that there are rather a lot of coincidences here and it doesn't take a genius to think that they might be connected.

That's right, I acknowledged that the general view could be wrong and that there may turn out to be some other cause of the attack.

Come off it. Given the deeply ironic tone of you whole post I'm pretty sure you meant that it was fairly safe to speculate that Jo Cox's death was indeed deeply influenced by the Brexit "climate". Are you really telling us now that you meant no such thing and that you meant to imply no such thing?

Let others read that post and decide for themselves.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Has he said anything specifically about the referendum?

quote:
unite to fight against the hatred that killed her
I think you'd have to have a particularly tin ear not to interpret that as an explicit call.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I've not seen anything to suggest that there was an altercation which the MP tried to intervene to stop.

This is just one example of posts over the last day, but I find it genuinely odd that people didn't spot that I specifically noted the initial reports I read included statements that Jo Cox intervened in an altercation.

Now I'm not saying that it's true, because there are plenty of other statements of witnesses to the media that frame it squarely as an attack on Jo Cox. But I raise this because it's a vivid example of just how damn unreliable our media is, and how much of it is no more than a repetition of what other people said with no investigative element to it at all.

Straight from the get-go, there have been conflicting accounts of what happened on this rather crucial point. Was this an attack on Jo Cox, or was this a fight/attack that Jo Cox was caught up in?

Shouting something out doesn't necessarily resolve it, because Jo Cox is not the only person in the whole of the UK you might want to shout something at.

In this particular case the police have a decent chance at getting to the bottom of things. The perpetrator is alive, as is the injured man who was directly involved. There also appear to be a considerable number of witnesses.

One of the worst things about our current age of short term reporting and social media, though, is that we're simply not prepared to wait for the police to tell us what they've uncovered.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I've seen the same phenomenon with Orlando, of course. People declaring there was something fishy about there being no security at the club simply because they haven't read the news reports that say there WAS security at the club. People saying "why didn't people escape out the back" when a whole lot of people did escape out the back.

All the news reports about the gunman claiming allegiance to ISIS that don't mention he also claimed allegiance to ISIS' Muslim enemies and showed a complete lack of knowledge of the politics of the Arab world.

We all seem to think that one day's news reports is enough to tell us everything there is to know about an event, and time and again I think that it's utter bullshit.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
We all seem to think that one day's news reports is enough to tell us everything there is to know about an event, and time and again I think that it's utter bullshit.

Preach it, brother.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
I learn far more about news events by scrolling the Ship than I ever do by listening to radio news every day of every working week.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
They have just had some Brexit spokesperson from a political consultancy on France Info. Repeatedly challenged on the violence of the Leave campaign in particular, he kept repeating "no no, there hasn't been any physical violence" and all the time sneaking in campaign-oriented comments [Mad]

Whatever the murderer's motivations and state of mind, it seems indubitably clear to me that his actions were fuelled by the environment both campaigns have sought to create and feed on.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Whatever the murderer's motivations and state of mind, it seems indubitably clear to me that his actions were fuelled by the environment both campaigns have sought to create and feed on.

So you don't accept even the possibility that he was a man involved in, say, an ongoing dispute with a neighbour or the local council or was upset at his local MP because of something else?

Why are we reducing Jo Cox to a meme? Seriously. It's become "Jo Cox was known to be strongly in favour of the Remain campaign, therefore this is the only thing that Jo Cox has ever done and the only possible reason for her death".

Don't get me wrong, I agree it's a likely reason for her death. But blanket 'indubitable' statements that simply don't allow for any other possible reason make me tilt my head quizzically.

People do kill people over the most personal, local things, and there's no law of physics that prevents them from doing so at the same time as some Big Thing is going on. Day-to-day life in the UK hasn't miraculously stopped.

And Lord knows there are a thousand crime show scripts based on the idea that the first motive people leap to is not the correct one, either because the real killer is terribly cunning or because of sheer coincidence. And while real life is not the same thing as a crime show script, and sometimes things really are quite straightforward, we wouldn't buy into those crime show scripts if we didn't recognise that what they presented was at least possible.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
And really, the reason this is bothering me so much is because after days of challenging the immediate "Islamic terrorist" meme for Orlando, and seeing the gay community on social media arguing for a gay hate crime focus, I'm not that comfortable with leaping onto the "Violent supporter of Leave campaign" meme so darn readily.

Yes, there are many things that point that way, I agree. But there are a few things that don't, and I'd be much less disturbed if people didn't treat it like an open and shut case.

I struggle to find much difference in tone between "You see? Proof the Leave campaign is nasty" and "You see? Proof we have to take action against Muslims". They're both variations of "I told you so" that lack nuance.

Now if you'll excuse me I desperately need to go sleep.

[ 17. June 2016, 16:28: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
FWIW it is being reported that police have found Neo-Nazi materials at the suspecrs' address.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Whatever the murderer's motivations and state of mind, it seems indubitably clear to me that his actions were fuelled by the environment both campaigns have sought to create and feed on.

So you don't accept even the possibility that he was a man involved in, say, an ongoing dispute with a neighbour or the local council or was upset at his local MP because of something else?
Of course I do. But it seems well-attested that he shouted "Britain first".

I never said Brexit was the primary or the unique cause of the murder, and very likely there was some pre-existing grudge (as it seems there may well have been for the murderer of the two police officers here in France recently).

But the climate fuels and legitimises hatred, and increases the likelihood of unstable individuals going beyond words and acting out.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I've seen the same phenomenon with Orlando, of course. People declaring there was something fishy about there being no security at the club simply because they haven't read the news reports that say there WAS security at the club. People saying "why didn't people escape out the back" when a whole lot of people did escape out the back.

Wow, that's bananas. I must have the right FB friends, because I never caught a whiff of those particular rumors.

And rolyn-- straight up. If something newsworthy happens and I want to know more about it, I look for the inevitable Ship thread, with the confidence that bullshit sifting will already be well underway.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I also read that the labour vote in her constituency was overwhelmingly against her stand on the EU, which was well known locally. She went back on Wednesday from Westminster to try to persuade people to change their minds.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And rolyn-- straight up. If something newsworthy happens and I want to know more about it, I look for the inevitable Ship thread, with the confidence that bullshit sifting will already be well underway. [/QB]

I was lurking the Ship at the time of the Brevic killings in Norway. The way a running thread dealt with that terrible terrible event was awesome. The first thing to be debunked was that the fellow was a Christian nutter.

Total bollocks as it turned out. A lone wolf who had pumped himself with shit off the Net was how it panned out.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
FWIW it is being reported that police have found Neo-Nazi materials at the suspecrs' address.

The BBC is also now reporting that the older man wounded in the abdomen had intervened trying to protect Jo Cox.

Also that the suspect has had a specialist health assessmnet and been deemed fit to be interviewed and detained.

So he may have been mentally ill, but not currently acutely so.

[ 17. June 2016, 18:58: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
If you want to do something more positive in response to the murder of Jo Cox, please check out my sig.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

Fear and tension is in the air, this bloody referendum. Hands up who'll be glad when it is over.

If we vote to leave it will not be all over it will be just the start of an economic & political roller coaster.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Has he said anything specifically about the referendum?

quote:
unite to fight against the hatred that killed her
I think you'd have to have a particularly tin ear not to interpret that as an explicit call.

It presupposes that "the hatred that killed her" is the Brexit campaign. I read it as racism/xenophobia more generally, that filthy undercurrent in British society that she was fighting in her maiden speech proclaiming the wonders of her multi-cultural, multi-ethnic home town. A general hatred of others that has found a voice in the Brexit campaign, but exists independently of it (and, which won't be silenced by a Brexit, nor even if the UK enforces draconian anti-immigrant legislation).
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A general hatred of others that has found a voice in the Brexit campaign, but exists independently of it (and, which won't be silenced by a Brexit, nor even if the UK enforces draconian anti-immigrant legislation).

No it won't. Especially now it's been legitimised by supposedly respectable political parties.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
They get no respect from me.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Maybe not, but in our social theatre, they play the role of "what is respectable". In abusing that role, they lose respect, but so, indirectly, do the institutions they represent.

The problem is that while it's easy to lose respect in such circumstances, finding something viable to respect that will actually hold a country and a democracy together is a lot harder.
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A general hatred of others that has found a voice in the Brexit campaign, but exists independently of it (and, which won't be silenced by a Brexit, nor even if the UK enforces draconian anti-immigrant legislation).

No it won't. Especially now it's been legitimised by supposedly respectable political parties.
This is just a different form of the racism that has existed in Europe for decades. I remember attempting to have discussions of multiculturalism and immigration 10 years ago with Europeans (on another site) and they thought I was nuts to suggest people of different faiths and cultures could get along. Even when I pointed out to them the different backgrounds of people I worked with, they scoffed at the idea of acceptance of others, suggesting I was just being tolerated.

Don't get me wrong.

Multiculturalism is not easy or simple to do. My wife (white, older, of a generally cheery disposition and not petite) is subject to racism on transit routinely by some non-whites both male and female who expect her to give in to their demand for her to get up for them. They seem to think she has white person's guilt and thus will do whatever they want. Now she has a cane she is getting slightly less of this but it still occurs - 30 year old people telling her to stand up so they can have a seat.

The idea that dealing with people of different groups is easy is a myth. Just as the idea that only whites can be racist or feel privilege.

Dealing with differences takes hard work.

But it is doable.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
Just in case anyone's still trying to spin this as random, the police are now saying that Jo Cox was the victim of a targeted attack:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/17/jo-cox-killing-suspect-far-right-links-a-priority-line-of-inquiry

They're also saying that the investigation of the perpetrator's links to the far right are major line of inquiry.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
That's the line of enquiry they are pursuing, and personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the police haven't already found a lot of supporting evidence. The question of premeditation is key to resolving the nature of the crime and the charge. Whether there are accessories before the fact (e.g. in the supply of weapons, or in the planning) will also be of interest to the police.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:


I struggle to find much difference in tone between "You see? Proof the Leave campaign is nasty" and "You see? Proof we have to take action against Muslims". They're both variations of "I told you so" that lack nuance.

Absolutely. And how about this:

"Don't vote Leave because if you do you are complicit in facism and murder".

I can see that one going down really well on the doorsteps.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Just in case anyone's still trying to spin this as random, the police are now saying that Jo Cox was the victim of a targeted attack:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/17/jo-cox-killing-suspect-far-right-links-a-priority-line-of-inquiry

They're also saying that the investigation of the perpetrator's links to the far right are major line of inquiry.

That's negative politics for you. The more politicians talk about what they are against the more the nutjobs that support them will do something stupid.

The sad irony is that Jo Cox was a politician who campaigned positivity. We need more politicians to act as passionately and compassionately as she did.
 
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
The sad irony is that Jo Cox was a politician who campaigned positivity. We need more politicians to act as passionately and compassionately as she did.

I actually think a lot do. Cox seems to have been an example par excellence but I believe/hope not the only one by far.

I'm really hoping that this incident and the spotlight it's cast on a good hard-working principled politician will dispel some of the "they're all as bad as each other" attitude - which is often just a way of disengaging with the process and abdicating responsibility.

The danger is she'll become a martyr, a secular saint, and therefore a special case. So far above the rest of them (us!) we don't see her as someone to emulate, merely to venerate. (which I'd argue is always the tension with Saints but that's another thread for another place)
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
That's the line of enquiry they are pursuing, and personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the police haven't already found a lot of supporting evidence. The question of premeditation is key to resolving the nature of the crime and the charge. Whether there are accessories before the fact (e.g. in the supply of weapons, or in the planning) will also be of interest to the police.

I think it's going to be bloody hard for him to avoid the conclusion he premeditated SOMETHING. In the UK carrying those weapons is not a casual event.

PS "Bullshit sifting" is one of the most perfect descriptions of the Ship ever. Thank you Kelly.

[ 18. June 2016, 00:01: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
He's facing several charges; murder,gbh, possession of a firearm with intent, possession of another offensive weapon.

I think the speed of charging and the range of the charges are both indicators that the evidence is substantial and strong.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Just in case anyone's still trying to spin this as random, the police are now saying that Jo Cox was the victim of a targeted attack:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/17/jo-cox-killing-suspect-far-right-links-a-priority-line-of-inquiry

They're also saying that the investigation of the perpetrator's links to the far right are major line of inquiry.

Thank you for posting that link - I've read through it - very interesting.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I posted before about the problems in comparing Islam with Britain First. To go through the comparable elements;

Islam => Christianity
Britain First => Finsbury Park Mosque (i.e. place where radical Islamist doctrine is being preached but not necessarily incontrovertible evidence of Jihadi activity)
Lone wolf murderer of Jo Cox => Omar Mateen.

So we don't start saying that Christianity or UK culture generally is to blame and we shouldn't say that Islam generally is to blame.

We can locate elements of intemperate political discourse in Britain First and other political aspects of life in the UK which don't help the environment in which troubled individuals decide what to do, and we can do the same over Finsbury Park Mosque. But it probably isn't that useful to tar the entire leave campaign or large swathes of Islamic society in the UK.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
I would suggest that atmosphere surrounding a referendum, particularly one on an issue which many people care so passionately about, is not helpful for troubled individuals. A referendum is about a binary choice, unlike a general election where there are multiple parties competing, often offering similar policies. A referendum invites us to divide into "us" and "them", and invites rhetoric and slogans that reflect this.

I happened to notice a Scum headline a few days ago alleging that the "anti-brexit gang" had published a porn video as part of the campaign. Can't say what it was about because I would never intentionally read that benighted rag, but a case in point. Things like this influence people, if only subliminally.

This country is not currently a healthy environment for people who already have tendencies towards paranoia and aggression.

How do I hate this fucking referendum...let me count the ways.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
It seems like we're in for a period where the suspect shouts fascist slogans in court.

Which is more than slightly disturbing but also darkly hilarious.

The one thing fascists and Neo-Nazis can't stand is being laughed at. Haha. You think you can kill a young mother in the street and that proves your argument.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
My last post was far too balanced. The guy's a murdering fascist dickhead, hope he gets gang-raped in whatever hellhole he spends the rest of life in.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
My last post was far too balanced. The guy's a murdering fascist dickhead, hope he gets gang-raped in whatever hellhole he spends the rest of life in.

The best thing we could do is give him a fair trial and then smother him with kindness. Reacting with anger and violence is exactly what he wants.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
What an awful outburst. For overseas Shipmates, here is the BBC account.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What an awful outburst. For overseas Shipmates, here is the BBC account.

I want to know how he is spelling that. Is it hyphenated?
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What an awful outburst. For overseas Shipmates, here is the BBC account.

I want to know how he is spelling that. Is it hyphenated?
[Killing me] It's prounounced "luxury-yacht"
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What an awful outburst. For overseas Shipmates, here is the BBC account.

And just to draw a comparison here. This is a quote from a Britain First newsletter just before the London mayoral election:

"They think they can get away with ruining our country, turning us into a Third World country, giving away our homes, jobs and heritage, but they will face the wrath of the Britain First movement, make no mistake about it!

We will not rest until every traitor is punished for their crimes against our country. And by punished, I mean good old fashioned British justice at the end of a rope!
"
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
And just to draw a comparison here. This is a quote from a Britain First newsletter just before the London mayoral election:

"They think they can get away with ruining our country, turning us into a Third World country, giving away our homes, jobs and heritage, but they will face the wrath of the Britain First movement, make no mistake about it!

We will not rest until every traitor is punished for their crimes against our country. And by punished, I mean good old fashioned British justice at the end of a rope!"

Haha haha.

Ooo the wrath of British First. Ooo we're all pooing our pants.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I predict Britain First will find its way rapidly onto the list of banned organisations, and its organisers will retreat back under the stones where they hide during daylight hours. Everyone connected will migrate to the EDF (if they're not already there) and it'll begin again.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I predict Britain First will find its way rapidly onto the list of banned organisations, and its organisers will retreat back under the stones where they hide during daylight hours. Everyone connected will migrate to the EDF (if they're not already there) and it'll begin again.

Oh probably. The one good thing about fascists is that they're fairly easy to identify because they just don't shut up about it.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
Anyone now in any doubt at all that this suppurating arsehole was inspired and driven by the same sort of rhetoric that has spewed forth from the leave campaign?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Was Tommy Mair a member of "Britain First"? I think the accounts of what he said (or didn't say) during the attack on Jo Cox are confused; at least that's how I read them. I've seen no evidence that he was in fact a member of "Britain First".

I think "Britain First" is an appalling organisation and indeed there may be grounds (hate speech) for banning it. The outburst in court gives some grounds for believing that Tommy Mair may indeed have read some of the "Britain First" propaganda.

But I'm happy again to leave to police investigators to see if there has been any direct criminal involvement (including aiding and abetting, or incitement) between "Britain First" or any of its members and this shooting.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62: Was Tommy Mair a member of "Britain First"? I think the accounts of what he said (or didn't say) during the attack on Jo Cox are confused; at least that's how I read them. I've seen no evidence that he was in fact a member of "Britain First".

I think "Britain First" is an appalling organisation and indeed there may be grounds (hate speech) for banning it. The outburst in court gives some grounds for believing that Tommy Mair may indeed have read some of the "Britain First" propaganda.

But I'm happy again to leave to police investigators to see if there has been any direct criminal involvement (including aiding and abetting, or incitement) between "Britain First" or any of its members and this shooting.

I predict Mr Britain will be shouting his allegiance to various groups in court, so I don't suppose there will be much to investigate.

I'd forgotten how how vocal these idiots are and how proud of what they've done.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Anyone now in any doubt at all that this suppurating arsehole was inspired and driven by the same sort of rhetoric that has spewed forth from the leave campaign?

Nope. I'm sold.

I hope he's never released.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I apologise for being flippant, I know this is serious. I just refuse to kowtow to these fascist bastards. If they win and succeed in dragging this country down, they'll do so with me laughing manically in their faces.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I predict Mr Britain will be shouting his allegiance to various groups in court, so I don't suppose there will be much to investigate.

An easy prediction to make,
This was published at 10.33 today, an hour before you made that prediction.

[ 18. June 2016, 10:58: Message edited by: balaam ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
An easy prediction to make,
This was published at 10.33 today, an hour before you made that prediction.

I was talking about his allegiance to fascist and neo-Nazi groups. Today's case was in the magistrate's court, on Monday it is moved to the Crown Court where he'll have more opportunities to shout inanities.

In time, my bet is that his "defence" will be a quasi-political scree about the rightness of his cause and who all his mates are - probably written in crayon and littered with spelling mistakes.

Because, y'know, those fascists are morons.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
In the interests of fairness, there is a picture going around social media of someone who appears to be Tommy Mair standing behind a Britain First banner.

I have been able to find almost the same picture without Mair, it looks like it has been photoshopped. It doesn't mean Britain First are not a set of bastards though.

I just think that fighting bullshit with bullshit makes you just as bad as those you are opposing.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
He needs a proper PR consultant. Surely
Mr Death-to-Traitors McTraitorface would sound better?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[snip] probably written in crayon and littered with spelling mistakes.

Because, y'know, those fascists are morons.

[Roll Eyes]

And you're a child.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

I just think that fighting bullshit with bullshit makes you just as bad as those you are opposing.

Yes, that's not helpful.

That said, the idea of photoshopping his image into different backgrounds is a fine idea. The least congruous the better.

I'm thinking a picture of him in his fatigues looking cross in front of a calm scene of wind blowing across a field would be good.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Anyone now in any doubt at all that this suppurating arsehole was inspired and driven by the same sort of rhetoric that has spewed forth from the leave campaign?

Nope. I'm sold.
Me too. It's so much easier to make reasonable judgements when the actual evidence begins to come in.

Depending on what sort of mental health problems he's got (I haven't seen that specified anywhere) his fixation on this hateful crap may of course be in part attributable them. To the extent that they are, to that same extent his imputability for his terrible crimes may be diminished. I'd be reluctant to rush to judge him as a despicable person until we know to what extent his despicable notions and horrible actions were influenced by his mental health problems.

Giving him a fair trial and then treating him with humanity sounds about right to me too. Hatefully wishing horrible things upon him doesn't.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
My last post was far too balanced. The guy's a murdering fascist dickhead, hope he gets gang-raped in whatever hellhole he spends the rest of life in.

And just how is that different from the kind of violent rhetoric spouted by Britain First?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[Roll Eyes]

And you're a child.

Yes I am. I'm a child who believes fascists are actually comedy characters who given a chance will just prove how idiotic they are without any assistance from anyone else.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I attended Child Protection and Prevent training * last Friday (13 June). The trainer was fairly dismissive about the Prevent legislation (supposed to protect young people against radicalisation) and listed a number of organisations that we should keep an eye on, including the far right neo-Nazi groups, continuing IRA and ISIS/Daesh. Guess which one the legislation was drafted to deal with? Guess which one we encounter more?

I know far more teenage boys radicalised by the far right than I do Muslim boys radicalised by Daesh - and I work with a very multicultural group. Prevent was aimed at followers of ISIS/Daesh

* third time this academic year for this lot.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Since he seems to think himself in the mould of Anders Breivik, treating him like Anders Breivik is treated might be appropriate. Big hero picking on a five foot tall unarmed woman.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[Roll Eyes]

And you're a child.

Yes I am. I'm a child who believes fascists are actually comedy characters who given a chance will just prove how idiotic they are without any assistance from anyone else.
So, let me get this straight. You're the bloke who just agreed that photoshopping isn't helpful, but you want to paint an image of comedy characters who are poor spellers and use crayons.

Give me a break. You are being no more mature than the photoshoppers.

Let's go straight to the top "fascist" and to hell with anyone who criticises me for invoking him. Do you think Hitler rose to power and influenced millions because he was a drooling idiot? No, he got there by being bloody cunning and a magnificent orator. However much I might label his view of the world as 'insane' that is a very different thing from thinking that he was stupid.

You're painting a caricature to make yourself feel better about dismissing a set of views that you find abhorrent. Suggesting that only a moron could believe such things. I'll happily agree with you that the view is moronic, but for God's sake think about what you are doing when you choose to portray a man who planned and committed a murder as some kind of incompetent clown.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So, let me get this straight. You're the bloke who just agreed that photoshopping isn't helpful, but you want to paint an image of comedy characters who are poor spellers and use crayons.

Give me a break. You are being no more mature than the photoshoppers.

There is quite a difference between deliberately trying to tie the guy with a group deceptively via photoshopping the image and the poor spelling of fascists. Which is a known phenomena.

quote:
Let's go straight to the top "fascist" and to hell with anyone who criticises me for invoking him. Do you think Hitler rose to power and influenced millions because he was a drooling idiot? No, he got there by being bloody cunning and a magnificent orator. However much I might label his view of the world as 'insane' that is a very different thing from thinking that he was stupid.
Nope, you're quite right, he was absolutely sane. No question.

As Chaplin proved, however, he was also hilariously funny. If more people had laughed at him rather than taking him seriously, it is possible that he wouldn't have got so far.

quote:
You're painting a caricature to make yourself feel better about dismissing a set of views that you find abhorrent.
That's absolutely true. I happen to believe that this is a more positive way forward than wishing upon him gang rape or quacking at the thought of further violence every time I leave the house.

But YMMV.

quote:
Suggesting that only a moron could believe such things. I'll happily agree with you that the view is moronic, but for God's sake think about what you are doing when you choose to portray a man who planned and committed a murder as some kind of incompetent clown.
Oh I don't think fascists are incompetent. I'm mostly just making fun of them. Because, y'know, Life is Beautiful.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
My last post was far too balanced. The guy's a murdering fascist dickhead, hope he gets gang-raped in whatever hellhole he spends the rest of life in.

And just how is that different from the kind of violent rhetoric spouted by Britain First?
Never said it was, it's just what I want right now. I was also attempting in a rather flippant way to balance out my previous post which has been completely overtaken by events.

I don't believe this guy's mental health problems, which don't sound terribly severe, made him kill Jo Cox. It was a premeditated, targeted act and he knew exactly what he was doing. I may mellow a bit over time, but in this particular case I seriously doubt it. I don't think compassion achieves anything with these malignant narcissists, they just think it's their due. (look at Anders Breivik). Let him suffer a bit (a lot?), perhaps then he might come to some appreciation of the enormity of what he's done. And if he doesn't, well I for one don't really care. I don't believe in hell but for people like this it would be appropriate.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Was Tommy Mair a member of "Britain First"?

There's a picture doing the rounds on twitter, of him standing in the centre of 5 BF activists, in front of a mosque.

So, yes, as much as there are records of membership.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Did you see this?
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Mr Cheesy:
quote:

Yes I am. I'm a child who believes fascists are actually comedy characters who given a chance will just prove how idiotic they are without any assistance from anyone else.

Yes, that concept has worked out really well for the fascists in Europe in the past. [Roll Eyes]

I'll grant you, they were certainly idiotic, I just didn't see anyone laughing.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Yes, but there are many, many pictures of BF people (usually in their twos and threes) standing behind a BF banner in all manner of locations. Often the same people, for that matter. It's what they do: turn up, unfurl the banner, tweet the picture, get jeered off the street by the locals (though they're less likely to tweet that...).
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Also, the link I saw first was on a wayback machine thread, started in 2012 or so. If that's Mair deliberately photoshopped in, then someone has a time machine, and a better use to put it to than photoshopping.

I grant you this is the internet, and things can be fixed.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I was also attempting in a rather flippant way to balance out my previous post which has been completely overtaken by events.

Wishing gang rape on somebody in prison is an odd way of being flippant.
quote:
Let him suffer a bit (a lot?), perhaps then he might come to some appreciation of the enormity of what he's done.
If you're championing the idea that physical suffering is an appropriate and constructive response to wrongdoing, forget Brexit, you might as well tear up the European Convention on Human Rights while you're at it (much as many Brexiters would, apparently, be keen to).

I'll say it before and I'll say it again, however much of a monster anyone may be, the day we think they deserve to stop being treated as a human being, we have forgotten our own humanity.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Yes, that concept has worked out really well for the fascists in Europe in the past. [Roll Eyes]

I'll grant you, they were certainly idiotic, I just didn't see anyone laughing.

I think a large number of people who saw Chaplin's Great Dictator thought it was funny in 1940.

And that was by no means the only comedy about fascists. The defeat of Mosley and the British Union of Fascists was in no small part from people laughing him off the stage.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I find all these references to prison rape as a justifiable part of punishment deeply disturbing. The perpetrators of those crimes should be tried for them and imprisoned in solitary confinement, possibly in Broadmoor, or somewhere where they can be treated. They should see their release vanish into the distance, because they are not fit to be outside.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Fascist comedy included the goosestepping 'Lambeth Walk', didn't it?

If you don't want to look a fool, don't develop a foolish marching style
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Also, the link I saw first was on a wayback machine thread, started in 2012 or so. If that's Mair deliberately photoshopped in, then someone has a time machine, and a better use to put it to than photoshopping.

I grant you this is the internet, and things can be fixed.

Thanks Doc. To my untutored eye, the photos looked genuine and they contain someone who looks like Tommy Mair.

Boldly going where I have never gone before, I found (link to Britain First website) this denial. The photos, if genuine, may have some legal significance. So I guess they will be looked at forensically. In the present age, seeing is not necessarily believing.

[ 18. June 2016, 14:40: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Could we label that last link nsfw - really didn't want the Britain First site on my browsing history.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Good point, well made.

DT
HH


(God forbid my computers ever get forensically examined. [Ultra confused] )
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Cheesy:
quote:

I think a large number of people who saw Chaplin's Great Dictator thought it was funny in 1940.

Weel, I really hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but you aint no Chaplin.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Weel, I really hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but you aint no Chaplin.

I never said I was. I was responding to your facetious argument that comedy had never had an effect on fascism - in fact it has.
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
Two instances from 70+ years ago where comedy has had an affect on public opinion do not compare to the amount of people killed by facism, even in the last 10 years in places like Hungary.

I get that comedy is a decent weapon but many of our governments have been complicit in allowing facism to grow in other countries for the sake of things like trade or, in the case of the recently departed Conservative government of Canada, raking in money from supporters when being seen to be tough and keeping out the "other".

Outrage and nasty pointed "WTF" discussions with God are probably better ways of going about things.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Two instances from 70+ years ago where comedy has had an affect on public opinion do not compare to the amount of people killed by facism, even in the last 10 years in places like Hungary.

I'm confused why you are making that comparison. All I'm saying is that fascists don't like being made fun of, and that in the past this has had an impact so in the same vein we should point and laugh at this current idiot.

quote:
I get that comedy is a decent weapon but many of our governments have been complicit in allowing facism to grow in other countries for the sake of things like trade or, in the case of the recently departed Conservative government of Canada, raking in money from supporters when being seen to be tough and keeping out the "other".
Who is disagreeing with that?

It is all very well for Cameron to praise Jo Cox's stand on refugees when it is his government which is refusing to do anything meaningful about it.

In the same way it is the height of hypocrisy for the French government to praise her whilst today they've blocked an aid convoy from bringing relief to those unfortunates in Calais.

quote:
Outrage and nasty pointed "WTF" discussions with God are probably better ways of going about things.
That's fine, I respect your view and your inclination. I still maintain that a better way is to point and laugh.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
While watching various versions of the 'Lambeth Walk', I read the comments underneath, and, apparently, the film was much enjoyed by Danish resistance, so much so, that they would hold showings of it. Also apparently, I haven't been able to check, some of these showings were to German soldiers, and some of the soldiers were members of an internal not-exactly-enamoured-of-der-fuhrer group, and some of the soldiers' weapons ended up with the resistance.

I assume this was towards the end.

I want to check - and also how the film got there. Physical copies must have been smuggled in.

If true, humour against fascists was useful.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Page 149 - cinema in Denmark, No Germans.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
I accept that my previous comments were inappropriate, even for Hell, and I apologise for any offence caused. I can't remember the last time I was so angry about something, and I hate that feeling.

I have decided to stay away from the internet and avoid news coverage until this fucked-up abomination of a referendum is over. I won't vote and I no longer care about the outcome. It doesn't seem important any more.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
And now for a touch of light humour: Brexit would make Britain like Guernsey, says French minister [Killing me] I'm not sure how the government of Guernsey (several members of which I know) will take that...
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Is that the same or different from Jersey - cos my immediate thought was of detective Bergerac.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I won't vote and I no longer care about the outcome.

One more victory for the enemies of democracy.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And now for a touch of light humour: Brexit would make Britain like Guernsey, says French minister [Killing me]

Warmer weather and lower taxes? I think quite a lot of Britons would sign up to that...
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Good point, well made.

DT
HH


(God forbid my computers ever get forensically examined. [Ultra confused] )

Sorry, Hosts and Shipmates. A retired person's blindspot.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Is that the same or different from Jersey - cos my immediate thought was of detective Bergerac.

Now you have insulted both Jersey AND Guernsey. That's like confusing Australians and New Zealanders.

One senior official in Jersey delights in telling visitors that the States of Jersey has a mace given to them by Charles II, and showing them, and invites them to ask the States of Guernsey where their mace is.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And now for a touch of light humour: Brexit would make Britain like Guernsey, says French minister [Killing me]

Warmer weather and lower taxes? I think quite a lot of Britons would sign up to that...
Primary healthcare is not free at the point of use, over 20% of the population are on £20,000 a year or less, with a state average income of £60,000 a year, this tells you there is a significant income gap. I'll pass thanks.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Is that the same or different from Jersey - cos my immediate thought was of detective Bergerac.

Now you have insulted both Jersey AND Guernsey. That's like confusing Australians and New Zealanders.

One senior official in Jersey delights in telling visitors that the States of Jersey has a mace given to them by Charles II, and showing them, and invites them to ask the States of Guernsey where their mace is.

Both places have also been very late to the table on civil rights.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I won't vote and I no longer care about the outcome.

One more victory for the enemies of democracy.
you will care about the income if it means that if we leave the EU the economy tanks so much that teh UK no longer has the money to do things you think are valuable like a free NHS.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I find all these references to prison rape as a justifiable part of punishment deeply disturbing. The perpetrators of those crimes should be tried for them and imprisoned in solitary confinement, possibly in Broadmoor, or somewhere where they can be treated. They should see their release vanish into the distance, because they are not fit to be outside.

Given the known, brutal, psychological effects of solitary confinement, I'm not sure advocating that is a significant improvement on advocating rape.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Except that it removes the rapists from the opportunity to abuse other prisoners. So their well-being trumps others?

They can have activities to fill their time. They can have TV and edited internet. They can have visits from therapists and so on, under guard.

But not the opportunity to destroy others.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I think it's possible to restrict opportunities to assault other prisoners without going all the way to solitary confinement.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
In a properly run and staffed prison, no one should be having the opportunity to rape anybody.

This does not require solitary confinement.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Quite. So why do people keep gloating about it going to happen to people they don't like? It's obscene.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Any prison in which there is zero risk of sexual assault cannot be considered to be well-run, because it would be inhumane for all sorts of other reasons.

Solitary confinement is psychologically deleterious (I know someone in for 20 days right now). The European Prison Rules (p79) state that solitary confinement
quote:
should not be considered an appropriate punishment other than in the most exceptional circumstances
Rule 60.5 says
quote:
Solitary confinement shall be imposed as a punishment only in exceptional cases and for a specified period of time, which shall be as short as possible.
In other words, if it were to be applied to someone like Thomas Mair indefinitely, it would be considered inhumane and justifiably so.

Wishing someone like him could be locked up in solitary for ever is not just inhumane, it flies in the face of the rights that signatories to the European Charter of Human Rights are supposed to stand up for. It is typical of the muddled, pitchfork-wielding mob thinking that typefies this debate.

All that said, solitary confinement is not comparable to violent sexual assault.

My qualifications for pontificating? I have been locked in solitary with a violent inmate and been forgotten about for well over an hour (they only remembered where I was when they started wondering where the chaplain had got to). I have also known prison rape victims placed in solitary after the fact for their own protection.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
So punishing the victim for being a victim.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
So punishing the victim for being a victim.

Your ignorance of how prison actually works in practice is becoming more apparent with every post.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And now for a touch of light humour: Brexit would make Britain like Guernsey, says French minister [Killing me] I'm not sure how the government of Guernsey (several members of which I know) will take that...

I see their former chief minister has responded in kind...
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
This week's More or Less on Radio 4 looked at the numbers being bandied about in the EU Referendum. One of the biggest possible savings comes from the UK opting out from the ECHR and some of the environmental standards. Which will stuff us asthmatics, for starters.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Perhaps it's time somebody told them that the ECHR has nothing to do with the European Union.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I had a horrible feeling I should have double checked that one before posting, rather than trying posting from a bus just before disappearing into the Blackwall Tunnel. I'll have to check it when I'm home.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I think you might mean the European Health Insurance Card (EHIC).

According to the BBC the EHIC exists not just within the EU but within the European Economic Area, another thing a lot of people don't seem to know about (the now notorious Guernsey and Jersey are, for instance, part of the EEA and not the EU. Have you ever tried importing a car from there? I have. Ever tried shipping translation equipment there for a short job? I've been dissuaded by the customs hassle).

Whether EHIC survives a possible Brexit depends, I think, on whether whoever's left in charge decides to leave the EEA as well. But I'm sure they'll cross that bridge when they come to it and suddenly reach unanimity on this divisive issue. Unless, just possibly, they haven't thought their plan all the way through.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Helpful diagram

Whoever thought a yes/no question would be the most sensible way to address the complex world we live in?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Whoever thought a yes/no question would be the most sensible way to address the complex world we live in?

An idiot.

It makes one wonder about the value of a "good education" when Eton and Oxford can produce someone with the total lack of common sense of Cameron.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

It makes one wonder about the value of a "good education"

Endows one with a lack of self-doubt and boundless confidence in your abilities, Dunning-Kruger is a thing because it is rewarded at many levels.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
That More or Less programme spoke about savings dependent on the removal of employee/employer regulations, among others, as though discussing them were either neutral, or the employers of the likes of Ashley and Green were reasonable in expecting them. In the interests of balance, I suppose.

Peonage and serfdom await.

And the only place to expect Health and Safety would be from the elves.

[ 18. June 2016, 22:01: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

It makes one wonder about the value of a "good education"

Endows one with a lack of self-doubt and boundless confidence in your abilities, Dunning-Kruger is a thing because it is rewarded at many levels.
The sense of entitlement is not to be underestimated either.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Helpful diagram

Whoever thought a yes/no question would be the most sensible way to address the complex world we live in?

I find that sometimes direct yes/no questions are about the only way to get a meaningful answer out of a client. The problem is that I often have a chain of several yes/no questions, depending on what the answer to the 1st one was.

It's not having a yes/no question that's the problem, it's having a single one that's the problem. Certainly, if the Leave vote wins, there are going to be a myriad of further questions to sort out. Possibly some even if the Remain vote wins.

PS That diagram is unnecessarily complicated. Some of the categories it uses are fairly trivial ones, groups of countries that agree to talk to each other without much that is binding.

[ 19. June 2016, 03:38: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Helpful diagram

Whoever thought a yes/no question would be the most sensible way to address the complex world we live in?

I find that sometimes direct yes/no questions are about the only way to get a meaningful answer out of a client. The problem is that I often have a chain of several yes/no questions, depending on what the answer to the 1st one was.

It's not having a yes/no question that's the problem, it's having a single one that's the problem. Certainly, if the Leave vote wins, there are going to be a myriad of further questions to sort out. Possibly some even if the Remain vote wins.

PS That diagram is unnecessarily complicated. Some of the categories it uses are fairly trivial ones, groups of countries that agree to talk to each other without much that is binding.

True. But what is really driving me mad is how the Leave campaign are able to promise all sorts of different things to different people despite them being mutually exclusive.

The most likely scenario of a post-Brexit Britain is to be in the EEA without being in the EU. Hence still paying a big contribution and still accepting freedom of movement.

Hence the two biggest promises of the Leave campaign are a lie.

AFZ
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
The most likely scenario of a post-Brexit Britain is to be in the EEA without being in the EU.

As I understand it, that's provided only that the other 27 agree to those terms. Which is not a given, seeing as how the 27 don't exactly want a relatively painless Brexit giving ideas to other members.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
The most likely scenario of a post-Brexit Britain is to be in the EEA without being in the EU.

As I understand it, that's provided only that the other 27 agree to those terms. Which is not a given, seeing as how the 27 don't exactly want a relatively painless Brexit giving ideas to other members.
On the other hand, if there are countries thinking of quitting the EU over immigration and/or the cost of supporting the EU (which seem to be the main arguments for Brexit) then the precedent of the only country leaving being in a situation where it's still open for all EU nationals to live and work there, and they still pay the same amount to the EU - but, get less back from the EU and no longer have MEPs, a seat on the Council and the chance to appoint members of the Commission ....

I can see why that would deter others from leaving the EU. It should deter the UK from leaving.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Whoever thought a yes/no question would be the most sensible way to address the complex world we live in?

An idiot.

This appears to be a common view here, but I don't recall it being expressed here in relation to the Scottish independence referendum, which concerned similar issues of sovereignty, economic performance in changed circumstances, etc.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
This appears to be a common view here, but I don't recall it being expressed here in relation to the Scottish independence referendum, which concerned similar issues of sovereignty, economic performance in changed circumstances, etc.

I think the distinction is that there was already a majority in the Scottish Parliament for independence. There's a difference between putting a question to the country to ask them to confirm a change you believe in and giving them the option of a change you believe to be disastrous. It's a reasonable question but I think the solution lies in that for a change to occur there ought to be agreement between parliament and the country. If you can't get a majority in parliament and a majority in a referendum then it's probably not a change that should be made right now.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
The Gospel reading today was the one about the demons being cast into the herd of pigs.

I noticed that the guy said his name was "legion" which made me think of Mr Britain.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Whoever thought a yes/no question would be the most sensible way to address the complex world we live in?

An idiot.

This appears to be a common view here, but I don't recall it being expressed here in relation to the Scottish independence referendum, which concerned similar issues of sovereignty, economic performance in changed circumstances, etc.
Really? I remember plenty of people complaining that the Scots should have been offered a three-way choice between the status quo, devo-max, and independence.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Whoever thought a yes/no question would be the most sensible way to address the complex world we live in?

An idiot.
So much for democracy, then. The people are asked their opinion, for once given a voice and have the chance to say yes or no, and because some of them want to say no, the person who suggested the idea is an idiot?

What question in your considered opinion should have been posed, if not a simple yes/no one?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Really? I remember plenty of people complaining that the Scots should have been offered a three-way choice between the status quo, devo-max, and independence.

And in the event, were offered a choice between devo-max and independence. Those who wanted the status quo were effectively disenfranchised.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
So much for democracy, then. The people are asked their opinion, for once given a voice and have the chance to say yes or no, and because some of them want to say no, the person who suggested the idea is an idiot?

We're a representative democracy. We vote for representatives to represent us in parliament.

If you're so fired up for democracy, for people being asked their opinion and being given a voice, I'd like to remind you how few people voted for the Tories, and ask you just how they became a majority in parliament? Where was your rhetoric, your passion, to demand the people were listened to then?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If you're so fired up for democracy, for people being asked their opinion and being given a voice, I'd like to remind you how few people voted for the Tories, and ask you just how they became a majority in parliament? Where was your rhetoric, your passion, to demand the people were listened to then?

I'm not particularly fired up for democracy (or anything else), I just assumed the left-wing types on the board would be and if so your post above would apply to them.

Btw, I voted Conservative at the last election because it was the least worst option. Maybe one day there will be a political party I can vote for because I like them and they represent my views, but I suspect that won't happen in my lifetime.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
So much for democracy, then. The people are asked their opinion, for once given a voice and have the chance to say yes or no, and because some of them want to say no, the person who suggested the idea is an idiot?

What question in your considered opinion should have been posed, if not a simple yes/no one?

Democracy isn't a simple yes/no question. It is an assemblage of sometimes complex yes/no final answers. Thinking in terms of yes/no, black/white, on/off does a disservice to democracy and oneself.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
So what question should have been posed then?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I don't think it's because some people want to vote no, that has dismayed me. It's because great clouds of poisonous racism and xenophobia have been disseminated, so that the debate has become toxic. I don't know whether referendums always do this - presumably, Switzerland manage to keep theirs civilized, but this one has been vile.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I'm not particularly fired up for democracy

Clearly not, since you voted Tory.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
So what question should have been posed then?

I'm with lilbuddha here. This referendum was never about going to the people to settle the issue once and for all. This referendum was a stupid, stupid, stupid and opportunistic miscalculation by Cameron to gain better control over his own destiny and that of his party.

If you have a system of democracy with elected representatives, calling referendums effectively undermines that system.

(over here, François Hollande recenly called a "territorial" referendum to try and resolve a longstanding argument about a major new international airport. He did not specify which "territory" would be called to vote for several months after the announcement, and few people doubt that the territory chosen has been solidly found to ensure the government's preference wins and can be shown by dint of this farce to be "the will of the people").
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't know whether referendums always do this - presumably, Switzerland manage to keep theirs civilized...

Well, as civilized as you can be when you're passing the kind of ballot measures that would make Nigel Farage come in his pants.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Switzerland is a case apart. It has a much smaller population than the UK and has historically been isolationist inasmuch as everyone with any money has vast amounts of it stashed away there, as remote from international legislation as possible. As a result, unlike the UK, its interest is to stay as clear of as many international cooperative agreements as it reasonably can and be reasonably sure its territorial integrity will remain intact.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
The whole point of democracy is choice - even bad choices. It's yer free will thing, innit?

I can't say I'm ecstatic about some of the people or options I've voted for over the years, but the answer has always seemed to me to become more of a grassroots activist rather than walk away, complaining Jack's as bad as Nancy aa my mother would say.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Switzerland is a case apart. It has a much smaller population than the UK and has historically been isolationist inasmuch as everyone with any money has vast amounts of it stashed away there, as remote from international legislation as possible. As a result, unlike the UK, its interest is to stay as clear of as many international cooperative agreements as it reasonably can and be reasonably sure its territorial integrity will remain intact.

Yes, but the referendum I linked to was about restricting the construction of minarets within Switzerland itself. As such, it had little if anything to do with staying out of international agreements.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Firenze:

The question is what the best way of expressing that choice is. I'm all for grassroots engagement, but at a national level, I think the issues best solved by referendum are vanishingly small simply because the world at that level is such a complex place.

Stetson:

I know. But the Swiss aren't the British, anyway.

[ 19. June 2016, 15:35: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
The Vote Now Show, which is going out at 7:15pm tonight, asked the audience what the next referendum should be about; several said banning referenda. (This won't go out. They had more than enough material and not enough time to edit.)

Current polls are neck and neck. One has both sides at 44%, another has Leave just ahead and a third has Remain just in the lead.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Meanwhile, Farage has said he is a victim of political hate.

Thing is, Nig, it isnt just about the politics, people hate you because you are a thoroughly nasty little man who wants to associate himself with the death of a genuinely good person to cover over the fact that you are an apologist for fascists.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Partially true I would think, but making it all about him at this particular point in time is fairly narcissistic.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
If political hatred is a term that implies we should have to feel sorry for the privately-educated, European parliament expenses taking, ex-City, beer swilling, mouthy, racist, two-faced bastard - then I'm going to suggest the term is a bit devalued.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Utter contempt is more appropriate. His public and political persona is that of a terrible human being.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Firenze:

The question is what the best way of expressing that choice is. I'm all for grassroots engagement, but at a national level, I think the issues best solved by referendum are vanishingly small simply because the world at that level is such a complex place.

My response was more to the suggestion that voting Tory was not believing in democracy. Not voting is not believing in democracy.

I am not for referenda in general: they're a debased form of politics. You do need political passion and conviction, if only to see you through the evenings on hard chairs in church halls or draughty vigils outside polling stations, but in referenda it is too often just the sound and the fury without the hard thinking about why, and how, and who and how much.

[ 19. June 2016, 17:44: Message edited by: Firenze ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
In this specific instance, voting Tory meant voting for the abject abandonment of parliamentary sovereignty and representative democracy, known as the EU referendum.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Whoever thought a yes/no question would be the most sensible way to address the complex world we live in?

An idiot.

This appears to be a common view here, but I don't recall it being expressed here in relation to the Scottish independence referendum, which concerned similar issues of sovereignty, economic performance in changed circumstances, etc.
Well, in the run-up to the Independence referendum I said several times that my preference was for a vote to establish (or not) a desire for independence to allow the Scottish government to enter negotiations with a mandate from the people of Scotland, which would be followed by a second referendum on whether to accept the particular proposal on the table. So, not a simple yes/no question, but a yes/no to see if there was sufficient support in Scotland for the hard work of the national discussion on what independence means followed by a vote to confirm that.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
What question in your considered opinion should have been posed, if not a simple yes/no one?

I think there is a place for a simple yes/no question. But, the time for that is after a national discussion on the issues in hand. Probably to ratify (or reject) an Act of Parliament, with the government wanting a specific constitutional change.

At this stage the nation is just starting the debate (in the context of a non-specific and ill-timed question). We need a Parliament that has debated the issues in an intelligent and serious manner (yeah, I can dream), and that probably means we need some MPs specifically elected on an "out-of-EU" ticket (even if that means UKIP).
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
So punishing the victim for being a victim.

Your ignorance of how prison actually works in practice is becoming more apparent with every post.
Eutychus, I acknowledge my ignorance. But I don't think that disqualifies me from expressing disgust with the glee which some people outside express about particular potential inmates having to deal with rape.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
It doesn't. I was dismissing as ignorant your suggestions that a) solitary confinement would or should form part of any conventional sentencing b) being isolated from the general prison population after having been raped is "punishing the victim for being the victim".

However, to get this back on track, if it makes you feel any better, if Britain seeks to opt out of the European Convention on Human Rights (as many Brexiters seem to want to do and indeed Cameron appears to be committed to), I see no reason why you should not look forward to indefinite solitary confinement and who knows what other human rights abuses, free of pesky interference from "Strasbourg", i.e. the European Court of Human Rights.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
So what question should have been posed then?

In this case there was no direct need to ask a question at this time. As Eutychus and Alan have stated.
But you missed my point. Though the choice on the ballot might be a yes/no choice, what leads up to it shouldn't be that simple.
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
What on earth has the European Court of Human Rights got to do with the EU?

M.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Nothing at all, as I have already pointed out.

Except that in the minds of many, I'm sure that achieving Brexit means breaking free of the jurisdiction of the ECHR, since it has the word "European" in its title and is located in one of those nasty foreign places. And that to my mind at least, the arguments advanced for decoupling from the Convention on Human Rights appear to be about as equally misguided as those for leaving the EU.

[ 20. June 2016, 06:42: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Nothing at all, as I have already pointed out.

Except that in the minds of many, I'm sure that achieving Brexit means breaking free of the jurisdiction of the ECHR, since it has the word "European" in its title and is located in one of those nasty foreign places. And that to my mind at least, the arguments advanced for decoupling from the Convention on Human Rights appear to be about as equally misguided as those for leaving the EU.

I'm not sure it is "nothing at all", although you are correct to say that leaving the EU is not to leave the ECHR.

The complication is that there are overlaps with the different ideas; all members of the EU are members of the Council of Europe. All members of the CoE are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights, of which the European Court of Human Rights rules. Article 6(2) of the Maastricht Treaty codifies that the Union "shall respect fundamental human rights as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights".

So they are all tied together.

But in a sense this is a bit of a red herring. The truth is that the Tories want out of the European courts (both the European Court of Justice and the ECHR) over and above the Brexit Tories dislike of the EU. At present there isn't a way to be part of the EU and not be a signatory to these courts.

This does illustrate the idiocy of having a binary vote. If the majority go with Brexit, does that mean that there is a mandate to leave the ECHR? It is quite possible that there is a majority who somehow seem to think that the ECHR (a document written by British Tories, ironically) is a bad thing, but it seems to me that there may be pressure within the Tories to leave the ECHR even if Remain win. How that'd work, nobody seems to know.
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
Not very hellish, I know, but here is
my blog take on the Referendum and what it's doing to our politics.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Not very hellish, I know, but here is
my blog take on the Referendum and what it's doing to our politics.

Not really very anything. Who cares what you think?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I thought that was pretty good, Pete. Particularly this.

quote:
In the midst of that deep distrust of our democratic institutions, we lob a time bomb - a referendum which allows all that distrust to be expressed, exacerbated by a free-for-all without rules in the social media and in the press. Result - a campaign where fear, misrepresentation, and paranoia become the currency of public discourse.

 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Who cares what you think?

And, who cares what you think?

If you think people are reading and thinking about what you write, then a) everyone else has the right to expect that and, b) you're delusional.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, who cares what you think?

If you think people are reading and thinking about what you write, then a) everyone else has the right to expect that and, b) you're delusional.

If you think the purpose of this thread/board is for someone to come along and simply post a link to their blog, on the expectation that we should be interested because they're a bishop, then I suggest it is you that is delusional.

This isn't reddit, we don't typically have drive-by posting of links to people's blogs.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
So what question should have been posed then?

In this case there was no direct need to ask a question at this time. As Eutychus and Alan have stated.
But you missed my point. Though the choice on the ballot might be a yes/no choice, what leads up to it shouldn't be that simple.

It hasn't been.

If Cameron hadn't held the referendum you can bet he would have been jumped on for not doing so and breaking an election promise. So he holds one and up goes the cry of what a stupid idea. If people really don't want a referendum, don't vote. You don't have to be part of it.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
So what question should have been posed then?

In this case there was no direct need to ask a question at this time. As Eutychus and Alan have stated.
But you missed my point. Though the choice on the ballot might be a yes/no choice, what leads up to it shouldn't be that simple.

It hasn't been.

If Cameron hadn't held the referendum you can bet he would have been jumped on for not doing so and breaking an election promise. So he holds one and up goes the cry of what a stupid idea. If people really don't want a referendum, don't vote. You don't have to be part of it.

That'll be nothing compared to the outcome. It will be divisive if the result is to Remain and chaotic if the result is to Leave.

That's not just my preference: for 40 years our legislation in areas such as employment, welfare, health, agriculture in addition to border controls, the economy and trade has been affected by EEC/EU directives on those subjects. We'll have to rewrite a lot of law if we pull out.
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
Cameron on the TV was evasive on what happens on 24th June. He used it as yet another "I want to make your flesh creep" opportunity - which of course he now has to do.

But the public debate would have been better served if both sides had been forced to produce a proper manifesto spelling out the consequences of the possible scenarios as they saw them.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
So what question should have been posed then?

In this case there was no direct need to ask a question at this time. As Eutychus and Alan have stated.
But you missed my point. Though the choice on the ballot might be a yes/no choice, what leads up to it shouldn't be that simple.

It hasn't been.

If Cameron hadn't held the referendum you can bet he would have been jumped on for not doing so and breaking an election promise. So he holds one and up goes the cry of what a stupid idea. If people really don't want a referendum, don't vote. You don't have to be part of it.

Cameron's election promise was to negotiate a substantive new deal for the UK in Europe and then put it to the vote. He failed to negotiate a deal for the UK, why then does he still want to hold the referendum?

But, on one thing I agree. If we didn't want a referendum then the time to vote for that was last year, by note voting for a Tory in the general election - which is what I would have done if my postal ballot had arrived (for a whole load of reasons, but the pledge for a new deal in Europe and a referendum were among the policies in the Tory manifesto I disagreed with).
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Cameron's election promise was to negotiate a substantive new deal for the UK in Europe and then put it to the vote. He failed to negotiate a deal for the UK, why then does he still want to hold the referendum?

I have to agree with Cameron that if the EU needs reform you need to be a member of it to put your point of view across and try to get it implemented.

I know it didn't work last time and he emerged with a pale shadow of what he'd hoped to get. That is one reason for voting Leave. If it can't be reformed from the inside then the best option is to cut your losses and go. But if other nations are agreed that it needs reform and are prepared to work together on this then it is a possibility. I'm not convinced it will happen but voting Remain gives that second chance.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
This by Paul Mason is on the money.

quote:
For many people, the Brexit campaign feels, for one brief moment, like the first time they have had control. But the clue is in the word “brief”. Once the vote is over, it will be the rightwing Tories in control. Ask Ukip; ask Boris Johnson: will Brexit guarantee a rise in wages, a cap on rents, a fall in NHS waiting times or class sizes? Ask the leave camp to put targets on these things – not for the longterm, but within 12-18 months. They can’t.

What can is a left-led Labour party, combined with the progressive nationalist parties and the Greens, which will institute real change. There will be no dilemmas in the newsrooms of the Times and Telegraph if that happens: they will unite to crush it.

That’s how you know the difference between a real revolt and a fake one: by its enemies.

This is a fake referendum where the Tory grandees are fighting it out in a way that means they'll get what they want whichever side wins.

I think Corbyn had it right all along; being part of the EU is better than leaving, but neither of the options are particularly palatable.

And it is certainly true that the Brexit Tories are deliberately pandering to working people with lies.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The EU, like any political structure, has it's own set of internal cycles - they just aren't synched with the UK political cycles. There are points when issues of reform naturally raise their head, and other times when the cycle is in "business as usual". And, different parts of the EU also operate on different cycles, and have their own reform mechanisms.

The big point of reform will arise when expansion is considered. Which was the point at which the UK government negotiated restrictions on the rights to work in the EU for the new nations joining. To try and put additional restrictions on the rights of EU nationals to work at a point where expansion is not being considered, and only a few years after the previous negotitations on worker rights is out of synch with the rest of the EU. So, it's not surprising that many other nations were not interested - especially when they're focussed on the pressing need of handling an unrelated crisis (actually, two - the economic difficulties of Greece and other nations, and the large number of refugees).

In other areas of EU policy there are standing committees who are constantly (if in amny cases rather slowly) reforming policy - recent changes to fisheries policy are an example (changes that the UK largely opted out of contributing too since the lazy sod who should have been on that committee couldn't be bothered to turn up, let alone contribute).
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In other areas of EU policy there are standing committees who are constantly (if in amny cases rather slowly) reforming policy - recent changes to fisheries policy are an example (changes that the UK largely opted out of contributing too since the lazy sod who should have been on that committee couldn't be bothered to turn up, let alone contribute).

I think you might be talking about Farage, who is on the European Parliament fisheries committee.

AFAIU the actual changes to the fisheries policy were mainly negotiated by the parties to the European Council, so I'm not sure whether Farage's presence or absence really made a whole lot of difference.

It seems perfectly correct to me to state that the European Parliament is a rather defunct organisation given that some members like Farage take all possible funds without regularly attending and some (like, IIRC a Bulgarian member) just keep pressing the 'yes' button when voting in every debate.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The European Parliament is an essential part of the EU structure, it's one of three legs of the legislative tripod. The Council of ministers reflects the views of the individual nations in the EU, the Commission is an a-political bureacracy, the Parliament represents the people of Europe. Which doesn't mean it's perfect, of course.

There does appear to be a substantial amount of abuse of the system within the European Parliament. Personally I would like to see the establishment of some form of job description with a performance evaluation for MEPs - expected minimum number of days spent on Parliamentary business, minimum expected contribution to debates (through asking questions, tabling motions, expressing the views of their constituents etc) both in the chamber and on committees, and so on. With loss of expenses and/or salary for failure to meet the required performance levels. Of course, people should be free to vote for individuals and parties who explicitely disagree with the EU and make it clear they will not take their seat - but, any MEP who takes that line should also be happy to not take any European money for the job they're not doing.

I would also make a similar suggestion for the House of Commons.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Really? I remember plenty of people complaining that the Scots should have been offered a three-way choice between the status quo, devo-max, and independence.

And what would happen if the three options got something like 40%, 30% and 30%?

The best thing about yes/no questions is you know which answer won. Anything else becomes fraught with difficulty.

Are you using first past the post? That might work for, say, choosing a national anthem. Apparently in some places such as the UK it's good enough for picking an MP. But for something as core as the constitutional arrangements of a country, heaven help you if none of the options makes the 50% mark.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Not very hellish, I know, but here is
my blog take on the Referendum and what it's doing to our politics.

Your comments are spot on
 
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Really? I remember plenty of people complaining that the Scots should have been offered a three-way choice between the status quo, devo-max, and independence.

And what would happen if the three options got something like 40%, 30% and 30%?

The best thing about yes/no questions is you know which answer won. Anything else becomes fraught with difficulty.

Are you using first past the post? That might work for, say, choosing a national anthem. Apparently in some places such as the UK it's good enough for picking an MP. But for something as core as the constitutional arrangements of a country, heaven help you if none of the options makes the 50% mark.

Transferable vote?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
In the current sort of situation there are really only two ways that might be sensible.

1. Do the hard work in advance, produce a white paper (or similar) that will describe in detail the intention of the government in regard to the proposed constitutional change. Which is what happened in Scotland, where the Scottish Government produced a hefty document describing their vision for an Independent Scotland and the process by which they would attempt to enact that vision if there was a Yes vote (given that large parts of that would require negotiation with other parties there was always a recognition that not all of the white paper might be achievable).

In the current EU referendum we have no equivalent white paper. Which is mainly because the government is not proposing the change, and so there is no competant authority to write such a policy document and be in a position to attempt to fulfill the policies it would contain.

We don't have that, so we come to option 2.

Which is to produce a multi-question ballot and have some form of preferential/transferable vote system to best gauge the views of the UK electorate, with a commitment from the government to draw up policies that best reflect those views.

Which we also don't have.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
I see the problem there Alan. Your post supposes that the intention of the referendum is to achieve policy for the United Kingdom. It's a kind of proof by contradiction.

Of course, as you you know, the intention of the referendum was to achieve a united Conservative Party.

Not only are with governed by right wing zealots. We are also governed by incompetents.

YMMV

AFZ
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
It wasn't even intended to unite the Conservative Party. It was put in the manifesto to keep the party together long enough to stop them collapsing during the general election. It was always going to tear the party down the middle during the campaign - even Cameron must have realised that having members of the same party on different sides of the argument would do that. The only hope the Conservatives ever had of coming back together after the referendum was a very substantial vote one way or the other (70-30 or similar), a very close vote would be a disaster for the Conservative Party.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
On a tangent; while a lot of Brexit stuff sucks, what sucks even more is Dispensational Brexit stuff.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Can you actually have a government by incompetents? Doesn't the word government imply something about being able to do the job - even if one doesn't approve of the sort of job it is doing.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
As per the Peter principle, "managers rise to the level of their incompetence."

The idea that politicians must be competent because they've achieved high office is clearly bunk.
 
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on :
 
Kakistocracy is government by the worst or least competent. It's the antonym of aristocracy. Government means only governing; it doesn't imply governing well, as generations of politicians in just about every nation in the history of society have proved.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
On a tangent; while a lot of Brexit stuff sucks, what sucks even more is Dispensational Brexit stuff.

And/or charismatic Brexit stuff. According a prophecy snagged on Mrs Eutychus' Facebook feed just now, "God wants NO ONE in the EU".

I presume that means all 28 nations have to disband?
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
According a prophecy snagged on Mrs Eutychus' Facebook feed just now, "God wants NO ONE in the EU".

I presume that means all 28 nations have to disband?

Disband and go back to blowing the shit out of each other. Is this what God wants? Rather thought He'd had a fill of that prior to the EU.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
With the conservatives in a not so Civil war one should see the labour party emerging as the new dominate party but they are not.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
apparently I am living in one of the most pro Brexit places in the UK.

I have this vision that after this modern equivalent of the English civil War is over. People will be saying in 20 years time they were Brexiters over there & in that village they were Remainers & they still don't speak. (I once went to a place where the villages were noted whether they were Roundhead or Cavalier).
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
With the conservatives in a not so Civil war one should see the labour party emerging as the new dominate party but they are not.

At the moment so many of the Parliamentary Labour Party are Blairites and they detest Jeremy Corbyn. That Corbyn was elected leader by an overwhelming majority only serves to upset them further.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Don't know where's the best place to say this, but I'm hoping and praying (from across the Pond) for whatever's best to happen. (No idea what that might be.)
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
With the conservatives in a not so Civil war one should see the labour party emerging as the new dominate party but they are not.

Largely because the Labour Party's currently engaged in a Cold War of its own. Parliamentary Labour Party vs the Leader and the rest of the party; Leader and the rest of the party vs the PLP and (probably) the electorate...

I've said before that I think the Labour Party could end up being the real casualties of the referendum, but there's also a strong line of thinking that says the only reason the Tories feel able to be so brutal to each other is because they know Labour is in such disarray that they simply can afford to.

I mean, that's enormously arrogant, and they may well be wrong in their calculations, but there again they might equally be right.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And/or charismatic Brexit stuff. According a prophecy snagged on Mrs Eutychus' Facebook feed just now, "God wants NO ONE in the EU".

Yes, a post that came up on my feed claimed that the writer had been to the 'throne room of the father' and had had a vision of Europe 'a few thousand years ago' when God split the UK from the mainland of Europe. With the implication that we shouldn't try to join together that which God had split apart [Roll Eyes]

So it was that and the various posts that claim that the European Parliament looks like the Tower of Babel (but only as depicted by one particular Renaissance artist in one particular painting), and that the statue of Europa outside the Parliament is actually a statue of the Whore of Babylon.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
I've just posted this link on the In/Out thread in Purg, but thought I'd put it here too.* Wel worth listening to Prof Michael Dougan explain the law.
*Is that okay, Host?
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
... and I've just noticed that David Icke is on the OUT side!! I wonder how many exiters realise this weird fact!!!!
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
... and I've just noticed that David Icke is on the OUT side!! I wonder how many exiters realise this weird fact!!!!

Apparently Anjem Choudary is backing Remain. Score draw?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
There are nutters on both sides of the debate. A "nuttiness" metric of each side is a very poor method of deciding which way to vote.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I've just posted this link on the In/Out thread in Purg, but thought I'd put it here too.* Wel worth listening to Prof Michael Dougan explain the law.
*Is that okay, Host?

Yes. I would have preferred a link to a video of Michael Gove being forcefed Boris Johnson's hair and Farage's cigar ash while the latter are taunted by foreign-born NHS employees shouting "you ain't no British, bro". But it'll have to suffice.

DT
HH

 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are nutters on both sides of the debate. A "nuttiness" metric of each side is a very poor method of deciding which way to vote.

Actually, I'm not sure about that. Leave are so chockful of nuts it could be squirrel shit.

Bluntly put, not every Leaver is a racist, but every racist will vote Leave.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are nutters on both sides of the debate. A "nuttiness" metric of each side is a very poor method of deciding which way to vote.

Actually, I'm not sure about that. Leave are so chockful of nuts it could be squirrel shit.

Bluntly put, not every Leaver is a racist, but every racist will vote Leave.

Let me clarify. My "nuttiness" metric applies to names of people. I'm willing to hold open the possibility that a total nutter like Farage, Johnson, Gove or Cameron might produce a sensible argument (although I'm still awaiting any evidence of that happening).

Making a decision on which of the campaigns is producing arguments that are least nutty is perfectly valid.

Basically, decide to vote on the strength of arguments and issues rather than personality. And, IMO that also applies to anyone who might be swayed to vote one way or another on the endorsement of sports personalities and others with no previous track record for interest in and knowledge of politics, economics or anything else relevant to the question.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I would say the appropriate metric to judge on is the mean nuttiness of each group. The maximum or highest percentile of nuttiness is not very informative.

I'm pretty clear where the means lie: Sciurus faeces vs fruit-n-nut-bar occasional contamination.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I've noticed that on various forums and comment columns, the nutters and trolls tend to be for Leave. These are the people who think that MI5 are running the Remain campaign, and are even now, installing bugs in your bedroom.

This is probably completely without value in general terms, as these nutters tend to be voluble. So there are without doubt shy nutters, who may be for Remain, and think that MI5 is a chocolate bar (with nuts).
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
These are the people who think that MI5 are running the Remain campaign, and are even now, installing bugs in your bedroom.

You've let your guard down now. How else could you know about that?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
These are the people who think that MI5 are running the Remain campaign, and are even now, installing bugs in your bedroom.

You've let your guard down now. How else could you know about that?
Oh, my brother-in-law has a contract putting the bugs in, and taking them out, when no longer needed. They don't actually listen to people having sex, well, not usually.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
So it was that and the various posts that claim that the European Parliament looks like the Tower of Babel (but only as depicted by one particular Renaissance artist in one particular painting), and that the statue of Europa outside the Parliament is actually a statue of the Whore of Babylon.

I was actually in Brussels not long ago, paid for by the European Commission (this may well push my detractors straight to a Leave vote [Devil] ).

I quite like the European Parliament building in Strasbourg, and the new-look Berlaymont building in Brussels, but I have to admit the other institutional edifices in Belgium are quite forbidding in a Metropolis-like sort of way.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

Yes. I would have preferred a link to a video of Michael Gove being forcefed Boris Johnson's hair and Farage's cigar ash while the latter are taunted by foreign-born NHS employees shouting "you ain't no British, bro". But it'll have to suffice.

DT
HH

Thank you, Host. [Big Grin] [Big Grin] [Big Grin]
I have a busy day today fortunately, so I shal not be thinking about what's happening with voting!
Voting first, then tap class, coffee afterwards, hair do, finish packing - I'm off on Friday morning. At least I'll know the results before I go.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Yes, a post that came up on my feed claimed that the writer had been to the 'throne room of the father' and had had a vision of Europe 'a few thousand years ago' when God split the UK from the mainland of Europe. With the implication that we shouldn't try to join together that which God had split apart [Roll Eyes]

So it was that and the various posts that claim that the European Parliament looks like the Tower of Babel (but only as depicted by one particular Renaissance artist in one particular painting), and that the statue of Europa outside the Parliament is actually a statue of the Whore of Babylon.

Seen that too. And read the Adrian Hilton book. At the request of some confused Christian friends. I did a serious critique but observed at the end that the pervasive partial success of such drivel depended on fear. Fear can and does make folks more vulnerable, more easily manipulated. That 'demon' is best cast out by love. I have that on good authority.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Yes, I've read the Adrian Hilton book (IIRC it's all tied up with the Catholic Church and the Habsburgs and the Holy Roman Empire). Have also read Hal Lindsay.

Barking, both of them...
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Has anyone else noticed that Boris Johnson's hair is looking more and more like Donald Trump's as the campaign progresses?

Coincidence? I think not...
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
I'm looking to stay up tonight, but with a huge sense of foreboding. Voted at 7.00, and live in a Borough where support for Remain is just too obvious even to have to worry about canvassing. But the Outside London factor makes it impossible to call.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... [who] think that MI5 is a chocolate bar (with nuts).

A nutbar then? [Big Grin]

There's a picture on the Daily Telegraph web-site this morning showing Nigel Farage looking like such a swivel-eyed loon you'd think it would send even the most dedicated of Brexiteers scuttling off to vote "remain".
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
There's a picture on the Daily Telegraph web-site this morning showing Nigel Farage looking like such a swivel-eyed loon you'd think it would send even the most dedicated of Brexiteers scuttling off to vote "remain".

Yes, I saw that - it was distinctly unnerving to the point of even sinister. I nearly posted it on FB but I figured people had had enough.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Has anyone else noticed that Boris Johnson's hair is looking more and more like Donald Trump's as the campaign progresses?

Coincidence? I think not...

Perhaps it is the natural consequence of plying on ignorance, fear and hate? The true mark of the beast?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
I like Boris, but I'm increasingly convinced he doesn't actually believe any of the stuff he's been saying.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
but I'm increasingly convinced he doesn't actually believe any of the stuff he's been saying.

I'm not sure I'd go that far. I would say that reaction matters more to him than reality. Another Trumpish characteristic.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Bollocks. This is going to be one of the scariest election nights I've ever experienced.

Whatever happens tonight, there is going to be carnage tomorrow. I still believe a GE is in the offing.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Well, I hope so. Chews nails down to the quick.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Well, I hope so. Chews nails down to the quick.

I don't. The Tories are bad, but a wind blowing in a bunch of crazed Brexiters in a rushed GE would be the worst.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I like Boris, but I'm increasingly convinced he doesn't actually believe any of the stuff he's been saying.

I've been convinced of that for some time - watch any interview where he is pressed hard and resorts to bluster - watch the video on youtube of him being questioned by Andrew Tyrie - there are moments where he seems somewhat sheepish to be questioned about something he previously said.

(And I don't like him - I think he's a nasty piece of work, who has lied repeatedly. The buffoon act is studied - and it doesn't speak well of this country that so many people assume that it is a form of charm).
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
I'm looking to stay up tonight, but with a huge sense of foreboding. Voted at 7.00, and live in a Borough where support for Remain is just too obvious even to have to worry about canvassing. But the Outside London factor makes it impossible to call.

The outside London areas I've been inhabiting (work and home) all feel as if Leave is ahead. There is certainly a lot of noise about Leave in those areas. The MP in Romford, Andrew Rossindale, is very publicly supporting Leave together with the UKIP MEP. The Leave mob in the High Street last Saturday here were getting a lot of support from the noise from passing cars. Lots of Leave posters up and not so many Remain in both those areas.

It was very busy in the polling station at 7am this morning, even though it was tipping it down with rain, and it was also busy as I walked past tonight at 8pm.

(I wasn't expecting to be back this early, but I ran for home as it started raining this evening: the journey in was not good around the flooding and subsequent transport disruption.)
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
I knew when I'd arrived in Kent last weekend by the proliferation of posters saying "Leave". Which I felt was a little unkind when I'd only just arrived.

Well, we'll see what the dawn brings, I suppose. Anyone likely to stay up late listening to the results as they come in? I shall have the radio on, but that's nothing new.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The buffoon act is studied - and it doesn't speak well of this country that so many people assume that it is a form of charm).

To me the Boris charm offensive has become increasingly lacking in charm as the campaign has progressed.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
To me the Boris charm offensive has become increasingly lacking in charm as the campaign has progressed.

The British public have been steadily giving up on charm and stuffed shirts for well over a decade.
Can't see Boris being too worried on that score.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I'm hoping that the Scots and the great majority of Labour voters together will save the UK from Tory Shires isolationism and UKIP xenophobia. But I'm not counting my chickens. I do reckon that poster and Jo Cox's murder may in the end make sufficient difference. But it's nail-chewing time for the next several hours.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Bollocks. A significant Leave win would be the worst possible result.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
And the fucking morons vote to cut their own throats. Lord what fools these voters be.
 
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :
 
Are these people actually completely fucking insane?

Time to grieve for my country I think.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I feel physically ill. This is going to be godawful
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Are these people actually completely fucking insane?

Time to grieve for my country I think.

Fear sells. This should be a wake up for the US, Trump fits the same mold.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
I'm seriously hoping that the negotiations breakdown completely and the exit has to be abandoned.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm seriously hoping that the negotiations breakdown completely and the exit has to be abandoned.

How is that going to work, though? How can negotiations "break down" preventing an exit?

I'd like to believe massive street protests might force the MPs to refuse to ratify the referendum, but the reality is that whichever scenario you look at, the result is the same.

If the UK doesn't quickly set in motion the process to leave the EU then there are going to be riots.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm seriously hoping that the negotiations breakdown completely and the exit has to be abandoned.

This would be better than the alternative, but still will cause strife.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I can't even begin to process this.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm seriously hoping that the negotiations breakdown completely and the exit has to be abandoned.

How is that going to work, though? How can negotiations "break down" preventing an exit?

I'd like to believe massive street protests might force the MPs to refuse to ratify the referendum, but the reality is that whichever scenario you look at, the result is the same.

If the UK doesn't quickly set in motion the process to leave the EU then there are going to be riots.

Setting wheels in motion are one thing but the Leave campaigners have always stressed the need for continued trade treaties such as EEA or EFTA. If we don't get terms for that, we're shafted and if we do then we still won't get many of the purported benefits of leaving the EU.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Setting wheels in motion are one thing but the Leave campaigners have always stressed the need for continued trade treaties such as EEA or EFTA. If we don't get terms for that, we're shafted and if we do then we still won't get many of the purported benefits of leaving the EU.

For sure, but there is little chance of "negotiations breaking down" which means that we don't now leave the EU. That would be absurd.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
The Leave guys will be partying. They have been very active campaigning where they have. And both areas I was thinking of were voted nearly 70% leave, 30% remain.

I wonder how it is going to affect our staff members who are EU citizens ...
 
Posted by Mrs Shrew (# 8635) on :
 
So, are more than half of the UK voters morons who believe that money can be spent multiple times over on different things, or are they xenophobic arseholes, who believe in the myth of Schroedinger's immigrant?

I suspect we will never know.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
My hopes were ill founded and it looks as though traditional Labour areas voted in the main to Leave. I'm very sad and more than a little worried about this collective and resentful shooting of the U.K. in the foot - as Thunderbunk put it in Purgatory.

A Hellish result with massive political and economic consequence.

[ 24. June 2016, 05:27: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
How utterly fucking ghastly.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The Bloody Brexiters have stolen my country from me.
 
Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on :
 
I came on here to express my dismay that the Little Englanders have won, and to note that the Leave campaigners are headed by leaders who are thicker than pigshit. The results make Donald Trump's vitriol look almost sane.

So Ireland reunites, and Scotland leaves the Union and England and Wales remain alone and increasingly insignificant.

YMM, of course, V.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Pete:


So Ireland reunites, and Scotland leaves the Union and England and Wales remain alone and increasingly insignificant.

Ireland is not going to unite. That's a very silly thing to say: there are hardline unionists who will never ever ever join the ROI.

Clearly there is now going to be horrendous instability in NI, but the chances of joining the Republic any time soon are zero.
 
Posted by anne (# 73) on :
 
Perhaps even more appalling than the news this morning is the thought of what our politicians may have learned from the campaign.

If they have been paying attention, they will have learned that blaming 'them', encouraging hatred of refugees, economic migrants and foreigners generally, lying consistently about easily checked facts and promising things that you have no ability (let alone intention) to deliver, all these things win elections.

I am not saying that everyone who voted Leave agreed with this stance, but from the campaigners' point of view, it worked.

Whenever it happens, I'm afraid that the next General Election will be conducted by people who have learned these lessons and will be viler and still more hate-fuelled even than this campaign.

I could weep for the UK today.

anne
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The Bloody Brexiters have stolen my country from me.

I'm clutching my French passport with both hands, and wondering what lasting damage they may have done to Europe.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The Bloody Brexiters have stolen my country from me.

Exactly. I feel like I am in a strange land.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
{{{{Everyone of the UK}}}}
[Votive]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Oh, no. So sorry, you all. [Frown]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
The people have spoken.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Farage: "even the weather's improved". (He also seems to think it's an "election"...)

[ 24. June 2016, 06:26: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The people have spoken. But, they have spoken the way they have in part because they were persuaded by a bunch of liars, charlatans and bigots. (though there were liars and charlatans on the other side as well)
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
As Dr Sam Beckett used to say (in Quantum Leap), oh boy.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I offer up all the swearwords in my vocabulary to the service of my Britmates. Jesus, how fucked up.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The people have spoken.

Martin, the full quote is: 'The people have spoken. The bastards.'
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I've been told I'm over-reacting about this, but I'm slipping into some form of manic dream where all of my worst nightmares are happening.

Farage just said that the promise - y'know that one where Leave said that Brexit would leave £xmillion for the NHS - well, actually that wasn't strictly accurate and y'know maybe there won't be any more money for the NHS after all.

And SURPRISE, how about a NEW PUBLIC HOLIDAY!?!

I've also heard that now the country has to come together to find consensus. How exactly does one find consensus on an issue when nearly 48% of voters believe in the diametrically opposite of the rest? What the fuck does that even mean?

Meanwhile faced with a plunging sterling, one UKIP MEP was asked this morning how he could be so chipper when the indications from the market were that this was going to be another Black Friday.

"Oh," he said (I'm paraphrasing slightly), "I don't give a shit because I'm paid in Euro."

That there is the problem. These idiots are only interested in themselves. The fucking plutocrats have found their dupes. Take to the streets.

[ 24. June 2016, 06:46: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Soddit, soddit, soddit.

3.8% of the electorate who can't be bothered to turn out for elections otherwise turn out and bugger up everything for the rest of us.

Cameron resigning.

Boris in??????

I keep thinking of Kipling - 'If England was as England seems, and not the England of our dreams, How quick we'd leave her, but she ain't." And he was clearly wrong.

I can't, anyway, because of my pension. And my now reduced lump sum.

Soddit, soddit, soddit. Nastiness wins. And almost half of us dragged down with it.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
we have just had a collective Brain Fart.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Cameron resigning.

Boris in??????

I can't believe I'm about to say this. But, I'd prefer Gove.

I feel all unclean for having typed that.
 
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
How utterly fucking ghastly.

I'll second that.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
If we have to have a new Tory PM, let it be Ruth Davison. But she isn't even an MP.

Heaven help us if it's Mr. B. Johnson.
 
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :
 
Fuck.

Fuck, fuck, fuck.

(never has the sign off message "please wash your hands" felt so... apt)

[ 24. June 2016, 08:04: Message edited by: kingsfold ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
Well, congratulations to the most dishonest and xenophobic UK political campaign that I remember.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
If we have to have a new Tory PM, let it be Ruth Davison. But she isn't even an MP.

Heaven help us if it's Mr. B. Johnson.

She has said there is no chance that she will go to Westminster. She is popular here partly because she has distanced herself from the main Westminster party. In the General Election all the Tory leaflets had "Ruth Davidson" in large letters and "Conservatives" in small letters, tucked away somewhere unobtrusive.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Plus, Ruth Davidson campaigned for "Remain" which must rule her out as PM in the immediate future.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
The only words that went rattling through my head this morning were 'fuck me'.

Welcome to 1920's Germany.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
BUGGER. Or as I suppose I shall be saying from now on, merde. French passport, here I come.

(Actually for practical reasons, I shan’t apply immediately – much easier to wait until I become eligible on grounds of marriage. But in a couple of years from now, I am definitely going to become a proud citizen of la République. I’m so pissed off at the minute I even feel like abjuring my British nationality because this morning I am frankly quite ashamed of my country.)
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
On the other hand, the value of having both passports has just gone up dramatically.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
BUGGER.

The first words out of my mouth this morning too..
 
Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
BUGGER. Or as I suppose I shall be saying from now on, merde. French passport, here I come.

(Actually for practical reasons, I shan’t apply immediately – much easier to wait until I become eligible on grounds of marriage. But in a couple of years from now, I am definitely going to become a proud citizen of la République. I’m so pissed off at the minute I even feel like abjuring my British nationality because this morning I am frankly quite ashamed of my country.)

Well you and I are exactly the kind of Europhile many in the UK would happily say good riddance to.

And now the Brexiteers have encouraged the Netherlands' own charming xenophobe, Geert Wilders, to call for a Nexit referendum.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
BUGGER.

The first words out of my mouth this morning too..
Much politer than the reaction of the North East household.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Well done British Electorate. You had one job to do. One. Just one. Tell Farage and his rag-tag of xenophobes, rich-boy cronies and swivel-eyed loons to fuck off.

And you buggered it up.

This is why we can't have nice things.
 
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :
 
[Overused]


For the first time ever, I have found myself wanting a "like" button.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
Democracy! Love it...

[Smile]

Aww, you;re all sad. Never mind.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
If you embody the face of democracy it's not much wonder we're sad.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If you embody the face of democracy it's not much wonder we're sad.

Democracy is ugly if you are on the LOOSING side.

I'm not. You are.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
We're all on the losing side.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If you embody the face of democracy it's not much wonder we're sad.

Democracy is ugly if you are on the LOOSING side.

I'm not. You are.

If you and your gullible, xenophobic, stupid and avaricious pals can pay for the difference between Britain in and Britain out, you're welcome. If we don't get a damn good deal through EFTA or EEA, trade will be fucked thanks to import and export tariffs. It'll make the EU contribution look like pocket change.
 
Posted by hilaryg (# 11690) on :
 
So Brexiters, when the immigration and terrorism doesn't stop, and when the industry and jobs don't come back, and the schools and hospitals are still over-streched - who are you going to blame then?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If you embody the face of democracy it's not much wonder we're sad.

Democracy is ugly if you are on the LOOSING side.

I'm not. You are.

Typical little Englander. Bangs on about forners and can't fucking spell his own language.

It's "LOSING", you loser. Now go and play on the A617.

[ 24. June 2016, 10:13: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If you embody the face of democracy it's not much wonder we're sad.

Democracy is ugly if you are on the LOOSING side.

I'm not. You are.

I didn't have a vote in this referendum, you illiterate idiot.

Democracy is ugly when the public face of the majority, and the arguments that led to it being achieved, are so nasty.
 
Posted by Mad Cat (# 9104) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If you embody the face of democracy it's not much wonder we're sad.

Democracy is ugly if you are on the LOOSING side.

I'm not. You are.

Enjoy your moment. I'm afraid this will be a hollow victory, late or soon.

....and remember to clean up when you're done humping that squeaky Boris toy. No-one wants to be left with your mess. Except we all will be! Thanks for that. Fuck muppet.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Democracy is ugly when the public face of the majority, and the arguments that led to it being achieved, are so nasty.

And, might I add, there is so little consideration for the minority.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Democracy is ugly when the public face of the majority, and the arguments that led to it being achieved, are so nasty.

And, might I add, there is so little consideration for the minority.
There is a long dishonourable history of "other" groups being targeted by unscrupulous politicians.

(I should mention that my target group drive large silver cars and wear those stupid long shorts)
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Just shared on twitter:

quote:
Leave voter on BBC: "I'm shocked & worried. I voted Leave but didn't think my vote would count - I never thought it would actually happen."
[brick wall]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
And now the Brexiteers have encouraged the Netherlands' own charming xenophobe, Geert Wilders, to call for a Nexit referendum.

Along with the other far right politicians in Europe. Lovely.

It’s all very well voting on a wave of nostalgia and idealism and saying “We were fine 43 years ago” but you can't turn the clock back. The culture has changed. Modern Britain is a different proposition to early Seventies Britain. There are going to be a lot of shattered illusions in the coming days.

It could work – it won't work in the way it did years ago but it could be made to work, but only if people are prepared to put quite a lot of effort into it and to accept more austerity until things straighten out. I don’t see that happening.
 
Posted by Kittyville (# 16106) on :
 
I reckon there's a lot of that about, mr cheesy. And a few on the Remain side who couldn't be arsed to vote that now wish they had.

I was entitled to vote, but didn't think I ought to, as I have no intention of returning to the UK. I wish I'd voted now, even though I have another EU citizenship to fall back on. This just feels like a fucking terrible result for the UK. A correspondent in the FT is wondering how long it will be before until the regret kicks in. How long, indeed?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:


It could work – it won't work in the way it did years ago but it could be made to work, but only if people are prepared to put quite a lot of effort into it and to accept more austerity until things straighten out. I don’t see that happening.

That could be interesting. Service industries have only been able to continue during this period of "austerity" because of migrant labour, which usually undercuts the UK workforce.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
We'll probably still have migrant labour. They don't all come from the EU.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
We'll probably still have migrant labour. They don't all come from the EU.

We certainly will. A friend of ours married a Canadian a couple of years ago. They have decided to settle in the UK and he has taken a job here (bit of a fiasco getting his visa and he's an electrical engineer).
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kittyville:
A correspondent in the FT is wondering how long it will be before until the regret kicks in. How long, indeed?

Middle class Brexiters have the most to lose, so they might be regretful. For less successful Brexiters, there's not much point worrying. Life is already challenging for them.

Most of the unhappiness will come from people who were keen to remain in the EU anyway.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Just shared on twitter:

quote:
Leave voter on BBC: "I'm shocked & worried. I voted Leave but didn't think my vote would count - I never thought it would actually happen."
[brick wall]
Which is why Mr. C was a fucking idiot to allow us to do the equivalent of throwing a bottle/brick in the street on a ballot paper.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Just shared on twitter:

quote:
Leave voter on BBC: "I'm shocked & worried. I voted Leave but didn't think my vote would count - I never thought it would actually happen."
[brick wall]
But that's not the same as saying that he/she didn't want it to happen.

There are probably a lot of Brexiters who didn't expect this day to come. After all, most of our leaders and public commentators were firmly against Brexit.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[qb] Just shared on twitter:

quote:
Leave voter on BBC: "I'm shocked & worried. I voted Leave but didn't think my vote would count - I never thought it would actually happen."
[brick wall]

But that's not the same as saying that he/she didn't want it to happen.

Well, usually when people use words like "shocked" and especially "worried", it means they are unhappy, or at least uncomforable, with what had happened or is going to happen.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Just shared on twitter:

quote:
Leave voter on BBC: "I'm shocked & worried. I voted Leave but didn't think my vote would count - I never thought it would actually happen."
[brick wall]
Someone I know has said this too. FFS.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Ah sure, only Ireland can see the funny side
here
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
steston

I think there was some ambivalence there, true. The British people prefer to avoid revolutions, but OTOH there was clearly a desire for some sort of significant change. The trouble is you can't have both.

But I'm less and less concerned, the more I think about it. London in particular is 'too big to fail', too important to be set adrift in favour of Berlin, or wherever.

European govts struggling with disaffected populations won't want to encourage Britain to send migrants back to create even more competition for jobs at home.

As for Scotland, it'll decide what to do next, but it's not going to float away. Close historical and family ties will still be there. Good relations will be encouraged, for many pragmatic reasons.

The disaffected among us will probably remain disaffected. Those with money will worry about losing some it, but the rest won't get their violins out.

And some entrepreneurs, perhaps as yet unknown, will find a way to make it pay for them. There are always some who do.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Which is why Mr. C was a fucking idiot to allow us to do the equivalent of throwing a bottle/brick in the street on a ballot paper.

I take it "Mr.C" refers to Mr Cameron and not mr cheesy. I'm not aware of having thrown any bottles for a while.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Looks like June1940. The continent united under German leadership. Please continue to avoid the wars which the EU was designed to prevent repeat of.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
That is grossly unfair to Mrs Merkel.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Just shared on twitter:

quote:
Leave voter on BBC: "I'm shocked & worried. I voted Leave but didn't think my vote would count - I never thought it would actually happen."
[brick wall]
Someone I know has said this too. FFS.
This is like voters in Kentucky who voted for a governor that promised to dismantled the social safety net, and then acted all surprised and offended when he went and did it.
 
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :
 
Speaking of the loosing side, anyone fancy a quick British holiday while their currency tanks...but before they take our own economies down too?

Great work, Wakefield. Jolly good, Bolsover.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If you embody the face of democracy it's not much wonder we're sad.

Democracy is ugly if you are on the LOOSING side.

I'm not. You are.

Well done gloating on the misfortune of others, on the chaos for the UK and the EU!
Wow, God must be so proud of you. Bet he's going to kick out that "love your neighbor", "help the less fortunate" loser Jesus so he can put you in JC's old chair.
Surprised you had the time to post, with the near-constant wanking you must be going.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
On the other hand, the value of having both passports has just gone up dramatically.

I am the only person in my family who is not eligible for another European country. Someone hates me.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The people have spoken.

& we don't understand why they have decided to say this.

PS damn flood control when I was host that didn't apply!
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Just shared on twitter:

quote:
Leave voter on BBC: "I'm shocked & worried. I voted Leave but didn't think my vote would count - I never thought it would actually happen."
[brick wall]
Someone I know has said this too. FFS.
In all fairness, had I been convinced that Remain would win then I would have voted Leave as well. That way I would have been able to register my deep dissatisfaction with the EU and give the eurocrats a kick up the arse while also avoiding the economic repercussions of actually leaving.

I guess that's the problem with a protest vote. Sometimes so many other people want to protest as well that it actually ends up winning.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Just shared on twitter:

quote:
Leave voter on BBC: "I'm shocked & worried. I voted Leave but didn't think my vote would count - I never thought it would actually happen."
[brick wall]
Someone I know has said this too. FFS.
In all fairness, had I been convinced that Remain would win then I would have voted Leave as well. That way I would have been able to register my deep dissatisfaction with the EU and give the eurocrats a kick up the arse while also avoiding the economic repercussions of actually leaving.

I guess that's the problem with a protest vote. Sometimes so many other people want to protest as well that it actually ends up winning.

It is a mind-numbingly stupid voting strategy. Do you think the Brexiteers will keep in mind all the Remain voters? No, the only thing they will see is they won. And there is nothing to hold them to their obviously bullshit promises.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Can we please fucking write "losing" when we mean "failing to win" and "loosing" when we mean "turning loose"? This is supposed to be an English language board. Let's try to act like it.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Hey now, come on. Just because you're no longer the dumbest country in the room doesn't mean you can start acting all high and mighty.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
MT, cupcake, anyone who wasn't deano was deliberately misspelling to mock deano. Join the fun.

Ariston, you little shit, who makes a cold blooded, mercenary, yet oddly compelling proposal.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Kelly, poppet, I don't read minds.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
MT, sweetcheeks, you skipped a page.

I miss tomb.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Kelly, bumcakes, you expect me to read every single page of every single thread?
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If you embody the face of democracy it's not much wonder we're sad.

Democracy is ugly if you are on the LOOSING side.

I'm not. You are.

Well you lot have loosed something.


Learn some English, ya mook.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Kelly, bumcakes, you expect me to read every single page of every single thread?

MT, sugarballs, it's called following a discussion.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Three people have phoned me today on our dedicated "basket case" line (we have three numbers, and yes that is what we refer to that one as).

One wanted to know if our Sterling finances would be affected (we have lived in France for over 30 years).

Another announced to me that we'd now need a passport to go to the UK (since it's not in Schengen, some offical form of identity has always been required).

The third (who is far from alone) thought the UK had left the Euro. It wasn't clear whether they meant the currency or the ongoing soccer tournament.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Dare I ask why these people are phoning a dedicated number?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Well, that's an in-household term, not a generally publicised one.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I'm thinking a dedicated basket case line might come in handy.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
One thing that has been quite interesting is how fast we've moved through the stages of grief since 4am this morning.

I'm moving out of anger, via a quick stop at bargaining and now speeding into depression.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I'm thinking a dedicated basket case line might come in handy.

Be prepared for 52% of the UK population to phone it, asking what the fucking EU is.
 
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I'm thinking a dedicated basket case line might come in handy.

For so many situations.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Kelly, bumcakes, you expect me to read every single page of every single thread?

MT, sugarballs, it's called following a discussion.
Kelly, honeytits, that's called making a self-deprecating joke.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
One thing that has been quite interesting is how fast we've moved through the stages of grief since 4am this morning.

I'm moving out of anger, via a quick stop at bargaining and now speeding into depression.

Pans out with what I have been seeing on my Facebook feed. Never have so many British folk I love have been so collectively sad. It really sucks. Fuck the Brexiters for making my friends sad.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Kelly, honeytits, that's called making a self-deprecating joke.

Hey chocolate-knob, we've got more important things to moan about than some other prick's spelling.

If you had an ounce of sense, you'd be spending every waking moment in the fear of Trump doing the same to you.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If you had an ounce of sense, you'd be spending every waking moment in the fear of Trump doing the same to you.

Uh, yeah, living every waking moment in fear would accomplish what, exactly? At least twitting twats gives a sort of sophomoric satisfaction. Living in fear just leads to ulcers and overeating. FTS.

(But full points for chocolate-knob. Melts in your mouth.)

[ 24. June 2016, 17:34: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Kelly, bumcakes, you expect me to read every single page of every single thread?

MT, sugarballs, it's called following a discussion.
Kelly, honeytits, that's called making a self-deprecating joke.
MT.... (Thinks).... Molasses...scrotum, I can't read minds.

HA! Checkmate! [Yipee]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Uh, yeah, living every waking moment in fear would accomplish what, exactly? At least twitting twats gives a sort of sophomoric satisfaction. Living in fear just leads to ulcers and overeating. FTS.

(But full points for chocolate-knob. Melts in your mouth.)

I honestly don't know what good it would do, marsh-mallow manboobs, but I'm pretty sure it is a better use of everyone's time.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Kelly, honeytits, that's called making a self-deprecating joke.

Hey chocolate-knob, we've got more important things to moan about than some other prick's spelling.

If you had an ounce of sense, you'd be spending every waking moment in the fear of Trump doing the same to you.

Well, I for one have had about a 200% increase in worrying about a Trump win since yesterday, because if anyone would exploit a European division...
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I'll get you next time, Gadget -um - crotch!
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Uh, yeah, living every waking moment in fear would accomplish what, exactly? At least twitting twats gives a sort of sophomoric satisfaction. Living in fear just leads to ulcers and overeating. FTS.

(But full points for chocolate-knob. Melts in your mouth.)

I honestly don't know what good it would do, marsh-mallow manboobs, but I'm pretty sure it is a better use of everyone's time.
So you want people to do something, the benefits of which you have no idea. Kind of like people voting Leave who didn't even know what the EU was. You are a walking, talking dipfuck.

(And marshmallow manboobs is really stupid, as well as fat-shaming. Fucking jerk.)
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Yeah, ok the difference here is (a) I was up at 4am and (b) my country is now up shit creek.

I'm running on fumes, if I was overly offensive, it was unintentional and I'm sorry.

I'm going to see my daughter's last school concert now.

[ 24. June 2016, 17:42: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Yeah, ok the difference here is (a) I was up at 4am and (b) my country is now up shit creek.

I'm running on fumes, if I was overly offensive, it was unintentional.

Thank you. I wish I could wave a magic want and fix your country's creek/paddle problem. It's going to be rough times and I don't envy you. And as you point out if we manage to elect the Donald, we'll be right there with you.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

(But full points for chocolate-knob. Melts in your mouth.)

...and not in your hand?
 
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

(But full points for chocolate-knob. Melts in your mouth.)

...and not in your hand?
[Overused]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Yeah, ok the difference here is (a) I was up at 4am and (b) my country is now up shit creek.

I'm running on fumes, if I was overly offensive, it was unintentional.

Thank you. I wish I could wave a magic want and fix your country's creek/paddle problem. It's going to be rough times and I don't envy you. And as you point out if we manage to elect the Donald, we'll be right there with you.
If we manage to elect the Donald, combined with this it could imperil the phrase " free world".

I cannot think of a worse time in history for a pond war.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Donald and Boris, what's with the weird blond hair on those two?
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Suddenly I see a sort of double act, in striped blazers as for Henley, with boater hats in hand.

"I'm Boris,"
"I'm the Donald"
"We're here to rule your lands"....

When it all dissolves into a mess...
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
There are some pretty scary side by side pics going around today.
 
Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Donald and Boris, what's with the weird blond hair on those two?

It's their particular brain metabolism and the hair-raising ideas and behavioural attitudes it produces.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
... Never have so many British folk I love have been so collectively sad ...

I was thinking that - I imagined Facebook metaphorically drowning under all the " [Waterworks] ' icons being used.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

(But full points for chocolate-knob. Melts in your mouth.)

...and not in your hand?
[Killing me] [Overused]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
... Never have so many British folk I love have been so collectively sad ... ]

I was thinking that - I imagined Facebook metaphorically drowning under all the " [Waterworks] ' icons being used.
Facebook's been like a river in full spate.

Still, I'm sure we'll cope. At the risk of sounding like a Brexiteer there must surely be something of that Blitz spirit left (looks in cupboards and under table).
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Brexiteers certainly would not be my choice as avatars of the spirit of England. Sometime yesterday morning someone on FB posted something that provided me a perfect image, for me, anyway-- the Spirit of England is a quiet lady making herself a strong cup of tea and resolving to sort out "What next?"

[ 25. June 2016, 07:52: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
Oh well the most obvious issue of all migrants in France moving to Kent is now going to happen. At least we will be in control of it.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
I have to say I see her point.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Oh well the most obvious issue of all migrants in France moving to Kent is now going to happen.

That hasn't actually been decided yet.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
In what way is it in France's national interest to allow Brtain to operate its border on French territory ? Brexiteers seem to think that European countries are obligated to act in UK interests - this is a delusion.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I'll tell you something, if one other fucking arsewipe Tory or UKIP prick performs another u-turn on national television today, I'm going to totally lose it.

How can they seriously stand there and make out that this campaign wasn't about releasing money from the EU to pay for the NHS and wasn't about reducing EU migration.

FFS. This is increasingly looking like a fascist take-over. Once they have the power, fuckkit, they just do whatever the hell they like.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
This is what Corbyn said in April in one of those public appearances apparently people think he wasn't making:

quote:


Just imagine what the Tories would do to workers’ rights here in Britain if we voted to leave the EU in June. They’d dump rights on equal pay, working time, annual leave for agency workers, and on maternity pay, as fast as they could get away with it. It would be a bonfire of rights that Labour governments secured within the EU.

Not only that, it wouldn’t be a Labour government negotiating a better settlement for working people with the EU. It would be a Tory government, quite possibly led by Boris Johnson and backed by Nigel Farage, that would negotiate the worst of all worlds: a free market free-for-all shorn of rights and protections.


 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
This is what Corbyn said in April in one of those public appearances apparently people think he wasn't making:

Unless you have verifiable proof that this has been promised to happen, this is scaremongering.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Unless you have verifiable proof that this has been promised to happen, this is scaremongering.

No just a second, this isn't about "verified proof", this is about a politician making a statement about what would happen in a future scenario given what we know about the people in the Tory party who will be in charge.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the Tories really don't want to change the deal with regard to labour conditions? Because if you are, you're deluded.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
No just a second, this isn't about "verified proof", this is about a politician making a statement about what would happen in a future scenario given what we know about the people in the Tory party who will be in charge.

Not "would": "might" or "could". If there is no verification for something, it is not a certainty, only a possibility or probability. It should not be promoted as a fact when it isn't one. It might become one, but it hasn't yet and passing it off as one when it isn't is irresponsible.

quote:
Are you seriously trying to tell me that the Tories really don't want to change the deal with regard to labour conditions? Because if you are, you're deluded.
I'm reserving judgement on the specifics until I see how things play out.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Do you take a consistent line when people say Corbyn would be a disastrous prime minister? (i.e. "show me the proof or that's just scare-mongering"?)
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
The Tories want to reduce workers rights. That's not a controversial statement.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Fascists are only interested in power and are willing to do anything to get and keep it.

It isn't about immigration for them, it is totally about power.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'll tell you something, if one other fucking arsewipe Tory or UKIP prick performs another u-turn on national television today, I'm going to totally lose it.

How can they seriously stand there and make out that this campaign wasn't about releasing money from the EU to pay for the NHS and wasn't about reducing EU migration.

FFS. This is increasingly looking like a fascist take-over. Once they have the power, fuckkit, they just do whatever the hell they like.

The kind of 'fascist take-over' that approves of immigration? I think you'll have to find another word to describe that.

But it's certainly hard to know what their real agenda is.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Do you take a consistent line when people say Corbyn would be a disastrous prime minister? (i.e. "show me the proof or that's just scare-mongering"?)

People are entitled to their opinions. Yes, I would usually ask why they think so - although those that think so aren't usually backward in coming forward!
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Oh well the most obvious issue of all migrants in France moving to Kent is now going to happen.

That hasn't actually been decided yet.
I agree but as the declaration that founded it was based on EU solidarity & the principle of the Dublin agreement all of which we have just rejected. How long will it last?
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:


quote:
Are you seriously trying to tell me that the Tories really don't want to change the deal with regard to labour conditions? Because if you are, you're deluded.
I'm reserving judgement on the specifics until I see how things play out.
all EU law is going to be up for grabs. No one can seriously believe that a right wing tory party which has said they want to get rid of EU law will then implement the EU law they hate.


so it is farewell To Tupe, to equal pay, pregnancy protection & all those unwanted European laws..
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Do you take a consistent line when people say Corbyn would be a disastrous prime minister? (i.e. "show me the proof or that's just scare-mongering"?)

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
People are entitled to their opinions. Yes, I would usually ask why they think so - although those that think so aren't usually backward in coming forward!

Asking why they think that is not really the same as asking for the proof or declaring it scare-mongering.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
[...] Still, I'm sure we'll cope. At the risk of sounding like a Brexiteer there must surely be something of that Blitz spirit left (looks in cupboards and under table).

Unfortunately, the Luftwaffe wasn't involved this time. Today's spit-fires appear to shoot their own people.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
We are actually still in the EU. We haven't left yet. We've only announced that we want to. There is a(n unspecified) time frame on that and laws can't just be scrapped overnight. Some may be retained, some may be amended, some may be scrapped, we simply don't know. We don't even know yet whether there will be an election in the autumn. In short, the whole thing is uncertain.

(I can only add that there is now no credible political party that I feel I could vote for.)
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Asking why they think that is not really the same as asking for the proof or declaring it scare-mongering.

I don't understand what kind of proof one needs when thinking about how right-wing Tories will act in the future.

They want to reduce regulations around labour to make business easier, they rejected the EU because it constrains their ability to get tough with the unions.

That's not scaremongering, that's just a fact.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
We are actually still in the EU. We haven't left yet. We've only announced that we want to. There is a(n unspecified) time frame on that and laws can't just be scrapped overnight. Some may be retained, some may be amended, some may be scrapped, we simply don't know. We don't even know yet whether there will be an election in the autumn. In short, the whole thing is uncertain.

(I can only add that there is now no credible political party that I feel I could vote for.)

This is true, but we're in uncharted waters here and the EU leaders are saying they want a speedy divorce.

It might be true to say that there are three or six months or longer to negotiate Leave - or it might be sooner than we all think. The fact is that it takes two parties to make an agreement, so this bollocks which says the UK can take its own sweet time about it might just prove to be wishful thinking if the other EU leaders decide it must be done quicker to stop the rot.

If nothing else, there is a certain irony that the European Central Bank is propping up the Brexit-caused slump at the moment. I don't know how that is being paid for (funnily enough nobody is talking about the detail), but my guess is that the EU states want to get the fuck away from this contagious plague victim as quick as is humanly possible before the UK drags everyone else down with it.

As to the other shit; there is zero chance that the Tories and UKIP would have voted to leave the EU if the intention wasn't to get rid of the laws they don't like.

And we all know which laws they don't like.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

It might be true to say that there are three or six months or longer to negotiate Leave - or it might be sooner than we all think. The fact is that it takes two parties to make an agreement, so this bollocks which says the UK can take its own sweet time about it might just prove to be wishful thinking if the other EU leaders decide it must be done quicker to stop the rot.

The two parties have already made an agreement. It is enshrined in Article 50, which provides that once a member state has requested to leave there is a timeframe of two years, or sooner, if agreed.

So bollocks yourself.

quote:
If nothing else, there is a certain irony that the European Central Bank is propping up the Brexit-caused slump at the moment. I don't know how that is being paid for (funnily enough nobody is talking about the detail), but my guess is that the EU states want to get the fuck away from this contagious plague victim as quick as is humanly possible before the UK drags everyone else down with it.
They are monitoring the market, as central banks tend to do when there is a bit of turbulence.

quote:
As to the other shit; there is zero chance that the Tories and UKIP would have voted to leave the EU if the intention wasn't to get rid of the laws they don't like.

And we all know which laws they don't like.

Only the public has voted so far. But in any event it is quite normal to vote to get rid of the laws one doesn't like. I presume you do the same when you cast your vote.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
The two parties have already made an agreement. It is enshrined in Article 50, which provides that once a member state has requested to leave there is a timeframe of two years, or sooner, if agreed.

So bollocks yourself.

Article 50 only applies when a country requests to leave, there does not appear to be any kind of system if the other countries insist that one of the EU countries leave.

My guess is that the other countries will try to insist, the Tory government will try to put it off for at least 3 months and then we'll get ourselves into unknown territory and a battle of wills.

quote:
They are monitoring the market, as central banks tend to do when there is a bit of turbulence.
They're doing a damn site more than "monitoring", the Bank of England has put in £250 billion of liquidity and the European Central Bank has said it is ready to supply cash to banks if it is needed.


quote:
Only the public has voted so far. But in any event it is quite normal to vote to get rid of the laws one doesn't like. I presume you do the same when you cast your vote.
I don't understand your point. Others were asking how we can be sure of what the Tories will do post-Brexit with regard to repealing EU labour laws. Well, we know what they want to do - they're Tories. They want to reduce business red tape and row back on worker rights. Nobody needs a crystal ball to see that.

[ 25. June 2016, 14:25: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Still, I'm sure we'll cope. At the risk of sounding like a Brexiteer there must surely be something of that Blitz spirit left (looks in cupboards and under table).

It was the Blitz spirit that cause the Leave win. The Remain's area scare-bombing did no more to break the resolve of half the Electorate than real bombs did in WW2.
If there is a bloody mess to follow Thursday's vote, and I don't see one yet, then mr. C and his Tory party from 30 years ago are solely responsible.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
I thought the joyous feeling of brexit would be dissipating by now, but it isn't.

In fact the whining and whinging from the LOSING remainers is actually sustaining my enjoyment.

I like the online petition as well. I really hope that it does well because the thought of the signatories slowly realising that it is going to be completely ignored is making me even happier.

Can I just say thank you to all you out of touch lefties for providing me with a fantastic demonstration of desperate unhappiness. It does my old heart good.

I especially like the "no borders" type of lefty, who wants to let in as many immigrants as we can cram in until it hurts. It really isn't going your way at the moment is it?

[Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Well from the leave campaign was saying on newsnight, it sounds like they want to retain free movement of labour.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

But it's certainly hard to know what their real agenda is.

The anti-EU Tories have basically always been anti-EU over the wider European Social Contract. They see the EU as a socialist brake on a vibrant free-market UK.

Immigration has always been a populist smokescreen - rather like it is in the US. (The Republicans talk a lot about illegal immigration, and opposing a path to citizenship and so on, but not because they actually want all the illegal immigrants to up sticks and go home. They mostly want to keep the illegal immigrants here, as oppressed cheap labour with minimal rights, and certainly no pathway to becoming a Democratic voter.)

I rather suspect that some of the Brexit politicians were hoping for a narrow Remain victory, so they could have a bigger stick to wield in Brussels (Look how we almost voted to leave - you'd better produce a few more concessions.) If that was their plan, it just rather spectacularly backfired, and we all have to deal with the consequences.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I thought the joyous feeling of brexit would be dissipating by now, but it isn't.

In fact the whining and whinging from the LOSING remainers is actually sustaining my enjoyment.

I like the online petition as well. I really hope that it does well because the thought of the signatories slowly realising that it is going to be completely ignored is making me even happier.

Can I just say thank you to all you out of touch lefties for providing me with a fantastic demonstration of desperate unhappiness. It does my old heart good.

I especially like the "no borders" type of lefty, who wants to let in as many immigrants as we can cram in until it hurts. It really isn't going your way at the moment is it?

[Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]

You really are a thoroughly nasty piece of work aren't you? I mean, politics aside, you really, really are a complete cunt.

Now please fuck the hell off. You contribute fuck all to this community; you're like someone who comes in, eats the food, shits in the sink and pisses up the walls. Quite why you've not yet had your marching orders I don't know, unless Admin feel we need to know just how deeply unpleasant humanity can get. Your utter disdain and hatred o those who you disagree with is so palpable. I don't know how you have the utter gall to claim Christianity as your allegiance. It makes as much sense as being an anti-semitic Orthodox Jew. God knows, you desperately need some Christianity, and I pray to God one day you actually understand what it means, but for now you really are a very unpleasant, loathsome individual.

[ 25. June 2016, 17:19: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I'm going to enjoy watching Chesterfield burn as the economy craps out and there's no money left to pay for civilisation.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I thought the joyous feeling of brexit would be dissipating by now, but it isn't.

In fact the whining and whinging from the LOSING remainers is actually sustaining my enjoyment.

I like the online petition as well. I really hope that it does well because the thought of the signatories slowly realising that it is going to be completely ignored is making me even happier.

Can I just say thank you to all you out of touch lefties for providing me with a fantastic demonstration of desperate unhappiness. It does my old heart good.

I especially like the "no borders" type of lefty, who wants to let in as many immigrants as we can cram in until it hurts. It really isn't going your way at the moment is it?

[Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]

You really are a thoroughly nasty piece of work aren't you? I mean, politics aside, you really, really are a complete cunt.

Now please fuck the hell off. You contribute fuck all to this community; you're like someone who comes in, eats the food, shits in the sink and pisses up the walls. Quite why you've not yet had your marching orders I don't know, unless Admin feel we need to know just how deeply unpleasant humanity can get. Your utter disdain and hatred o those who you disagree with is so palpable. I don't know how you have the utter gall to claim Christianity as your allegiance. It makes as much sense as being an anti-semitic Orthodox Jew. God knows, you desperately need some Christianity, and I pray to God one day you actually understand what it means, but for now you really are a very unpleasant, loathsome individual.

Oooh Karl. Calm down. Little hissy fits like that will raise your blood pressure something terrible.

I am here to ensure that you don't all drown in the ocean of political self-deception that you socialist type posses in such volume.

Someone needs to keep pointing out that the western world finds your political ideas risible and it might as well be me. Think of it as a public service.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
You call it a hissy fit, I call it pointing out to a hateful shit that he's a hateful shit.

You've admitted yourself how you enjoy winding people up. How you enjoy other seeing other people's disappointment.

That doesn't make you a public service, or even a legitimate dissenting voice. It makes you an obnoxious turd. But you know that's what you are, you revel in being one.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm going to enjoy watching Chesterfield burn as the economy craps out and there's no money left to pay for civilisation.

Nah. Deano'll enjoy that; civilisation's not his thing. Bear in mind I live there too, and I'm not going to let proximity to Deano stop me, although it'd be understandable. I find air freshener, or failing that a can of flyspray, does the job.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
I am going to open a marriage bureau.

Several British expat friends of mine are urgently looking for love with a citizen of an EU member state.

I am charging very modest rates.

[ 25. June 2016, 18:03: Message edited by: la vie en rouge ]
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You call it a hissy fit, I call it pointing out to a hateful shit that he's a hateful shit.

You've admitted yourself how you enjoy winding people up. How you enjoy other seeing other people's disappointment.

That doesn't make you a public service, or even a legitimate dissenting voice. It makes you an obnoxious turd. But you know that's what you are, you revel in being one.

Karl, Karl, Karl...

I don't revel in the unhappiness of everyone. Just socialists. I do find it pleasurable when their bubble of entitlement and self deception is pricked.

I love to see the likes of Keith Vaz crying on live TV because more people voted against his politics than did for them. Wonderful.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
You're not worth it Deano. You're not worth it.

I give up. Drown in your own cuntishness.
 
Posted by Beenster (# 242) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I am going to open a marriage bureau.

Several British expat friends of mine are urgently looking for love with a citizen of an EU member state.

I am charging very modest rates.

Well I'm "engaged" on the back of the vote. Nice Austrian girl, feeling nervous. We will bring her boyfriend on the honeymoon and as a thank you, she will bring a chap along for me. The consummation will therefore be a little unorthodox but it's public service. I am doing it free - for the country.

I've also considered setting up a marriage bureau so perhaps we could go into business?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm going to enjoy watching Chesterfield burn as the economy craps out and there's no money left to pay for civilisation.

Nah. Deano'll enjoy that; civilisation's not his thing. Bear in mind I live there too, and I'm not going to let proximity to Deano stop me, although it'd be understandable. I find air freshener, or failing that a can of flyspray, does the job.
Karl, every-time you respond to him, you save him the cost of a Viagra. Might be a good idea to divest in Pfizer stock right now. Sir Wanks-a-Lot is driving up tissue stocks, though.

You have to admire what a shining example of Christianity he is, though.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm going to enjoy watching Chesterfield burn as the economy craps out and there's no money left to pay for civilisation.

Nah. Deano'll enjoy that; civilisation's not his thing. Bear in mind I live there too, and I'm not going to let proximity to Deano stop me, although it'd be understandable. I find air freshener, or failing that a can of flyspray, does the job.
Karl, every-time you respond to him, you save him the cost of a Viagra. Might be a good idea to divest in Pfizer stock right now. Sir Wanks-a-Lot is driving up tissue stocks, though.

You have to admire what a shining example of Christianity he is, though.

Yes because I remember that part of the Sermon on the Mount when Christ said "Blessed are the remainers for they will ensure the Brussels gravy train shall continue rolling on."
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
You also seem to be able to remember the bit where He says "Blessed are the arrogant tossers" judging by the way you seem to consider your ejaculations to be the greatest blessing you can bestow upon us.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:

I especially like the "no borders" type of lefty, who wants to let in as many immigrants as we can cram in until it hurts. It really isn't going your way at the moment is it?

Not me, but perhaps you need to have a chat with Dan Dan the Oratory Man. Sounds like you bought a pig in a poke.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I love to see the likes of Keith Vaz crying on live TV because more people voted against his politics than did for them. Wonderful.

Keith Vaz, recognised by both sides of the house as a committed Christian and good constituency MP?
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:

I especially like the "no borders" type of lefty, who wants to let in as many immigrants as we can cram in until it hurts.

Interestingly enough Daniel Hannan MEP leading Brexiter has confirmed that he would expect open borders to remain in the future & that leaving the EU will not stop immigration ( see here ) & of course he is correct as the only realistic option for the UK is a poor persons version of the Norway model. If you voted leave to close the borders that ain't going to happen.

If you voted to leave to end equality laws, to encourage poisoning bees, for greater air pollution & for our country to become poorer then you have chosen the right way forward.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I think we're on a the road to Castle Fruitcake if we think deano responds to reason and logic.

Even though the Brexit Tories and UKIPpers have admitted to lying through their back teeth, he'd rather live in the delusion that this referendum has been "won" and that all those fucking foreigners will be sent back home by Christmas.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
{Tangent, for those of us not of the UK, who want to understand.}

"Brexit: The story of an island apart" (Mark Mardell Presenter, The World This Weekend, BBC News).

I found this helpful in understanding varying British views of Britain, mainland European views of Britain, and why they don't necessarily mesh. FWIW, YMMV.

{/tangent}

[ 26. June 2016, 07:56: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :
 
So the coverage over here has two distinct slants:

1. "If the British could vote for this, we could elect Trump. Be Afraid."
2. "Dear Britain: seriously, how fucking stupid are you people?"

Now, I'll grant you, Slant #1 is a bit of "let's make a parallel to a situation in our own country to help people understand what's going on in another one, and drive up our clicks with a juicy, contrarian headline" job. We may be scared of a Trump presidency, but By God, we're not going to let it happen.

Angle #2, though...maybe it's just because the Greatvasmajority of Britons I know came out for Remain*, often very eloquently, and often drawing upon their own immigrant experiences (with a bit of "but nobody's trying to throw out my ex-Saffa/'Murican ass from this country...hmmm..." thrown in for emphasis), but I have trouble joining in the mocking tone of some of the coverage. Okay, fine, so my experience is colored by British friends and associates, and I realize it's a bit of post-colonial "who's the land of extremism, stupidity, gun violence, and political dysfunction NOW, bitches!" glee on our part, but still. Still. The whole "ohshit, we voted for WHAT? WE did that? Maybe we should have looked up what the EU was before we left it" angle is being played for yuks a bit much here, especially given how frankly frightening the consequences may be both personally and globally.

*Isolationism not exactly being a popular political position among those with foreign friends and associates and all...
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
It's amazing, isn't it. Even without an empire to wreek havoc they still manage to fuck everyone over.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
Ian duncan Smith said today "Our promises were a series of possibilities" basically they sold a fantasy which ain't going to happen.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
A friend of mine has just posted on FB, witnessing a white child spit in the face of a black child and shout "Leave!" at her. In a McDonalds. And the manager asked the black family to go, because they hadn't ordered their food yet.

Well done, Brexit! *golf claps*
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Merde.

Give me my country back. As they said.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
There's been a few other things posted:

 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I've kept hearing Derek Jacobi over the past few weeks. "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out" and here they come.

That manager should be sacked. And the white family barred from any McDonalds.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There's been a few other things posted:

Yes, and the Polish community centre in Hammersmith now has graffiti in large letters saying "Get Out". Wtf? Has this level of xenophobia really been simmering beneath the surface all along?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Fuck. Somehow we need to mobilise to protect our neighbours from these fascists. Not sure how exactly..
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
It feels depressingly reminiscent of early 1930s Germany.

[ 26. June 2016, 15:12: Message edited by: Ariel ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Has this level of xenophobia really been simmering beneath the surface all along?

Yes, of course it has. What's changed now is that it's acceptable to voice it, because the racist and xenophobic believe that over 50% of the population agree with them.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
It feels depressingly reminiscent of early 1930s Germany.

Yes. Very much so.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
Ariston wrote:

quote:
The whole "ohshit, we voted for WHAT? WE did that? Maybe we should have looked up what the EU was before we left it" angle is being played for yuks a bit much here, especially given how frankly frightening the consequences may be both personally and globally.

Well, the global consequences of George W. Bush's foreign-policy were pretty horrible, but I don't recall that this led to any reticence on the part of Brits about making fun of HIS stupidity, or that of the Americans who voted for him.

Personally, though, I'd be surprised if it were actually proven that a large number of Brexiters didn't know what they were voting for. My guess is that the narrative about dumb-assed Leave voters is based on anecdotal evidence(real cases, but not neccessarily representative) that the media is spinning in order to advance any number of agenda.

I mean, not that I assume everyone in the UK is a philosopher-king. But even I, a distant observer who has never set foot in blessed Albion, know that the alleged immigration overflow is often cited as a reason for opposing the EU. So I'm really having a tough time imagining a Leave voter watching the analysis the next day and saying "Bloody hell, these guys are anti-immigrant?! I had no IDEA!!"

[ 26. June 2016, 15:40: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
A friend of mine has just posted on FB, witnessing a white child spit in the face of a black child and shout "Leave!" at her. In a McDonalds. And the manager asked the black family to go, because they hadn't ordered their food yet.

Well done, Brexit! *golf claps*

The genie is now out of the bottle.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
A friend of mine has just posted on FB, witnessing a white child spit in the face of a black child and shout "Leave!" at her. In a McDonalds. And the manager asked the black family to go, because they hadn't ordered their food yet.

Well done, Brexit! *golf claps*

The genie is now out of the bottle.
I'm wondering if there has been an actual increase in this type of racism, or if the media is just reporting it more often because of the vote.

I'd also speculate that people who would have been inclined to do or say racist things anyway are now adding a "Brexit" label to their bile, which helps garner media attention.

Off the top of my head, I can think of about half a dozen racist incidences that took place in Canada within the past few months, including a physical assault just a few days ago. So it's not like this sort of thing requires an electoral catalyst. (Though the arrival of the Syrians last year might have played a part.)
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
We don't normally post links to other discussion forums in answer to questions, Stetson, but you might wish to take a look at this.

If you can.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I've been elsewhere, and found Facebook - Worrying signs* a page of submissions of incidents. Not nice, but including a link to a group called "The 48" which has badges... to show they are not part of what has been going on.
Also #Postrefracism for more of the same. This includes police advice to report incidents which will be treated as hate crimes. So not quite like 1930s Germany.

Some of this isn't new. I went, some time ago, to a recommended transport caff for breakfast once, and it had up a sign saying "England. Love it or leave it." It was a good breakfast, but I didn't go back.
And a nearby garden centre lost my custom. It made a point at one time of stocking golliwogs, but it wasn't that, or the male stripper nights, but a notice about payments that put it on my avoid list. There was something that I found so offensive that I haven't remembered it! And I wasn't going back to check, either. But it seemed clearly designed to put off non-natives. Or so I thought. Can't find anything on their website, and they've won awards.
When Friends Reunited started, its message boards were rapidly adopted as a communication centre for the NF and the BNP, with a lot of hate stuff, mostly aimed at travellers. The facility was closed, which was a nuisance for people not of that sort.
But the thoughts have been about. And now they are in the open. I hope Farage, Gove, Johnson, Duncan-Smith and co are proud. (And at least two of them would be covered by some of the bilious demands being made currently themselves.)
I half want to make myself one of the 48 badges. And half am afraid of the result. I no longer trust my neighbours. (Well, my nearest are OK, and the chap on the corner from the fellowship church, but I have my doubts about the woman with the St George flag on her car.)

*Cross posted with Barnabas, and I think my link has superseded his, since I couldn't open that from within mine - if that makes sense!

[ 26. June 2016, 16:21: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Here's the Huffington Post and its comments.

I'm sad to see that the Gravesend Sikh temple has been attacked - I was concerned after seeing the Leave notices on the entrance to the town, and interviews on the TV, briefly. Huffington post

[ 26. June 2016, 16:32: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
The Huffpost article provides a link to Sarah Childs who has created a "Worrying Signs" album, a compilation of incident reports. That's what I linked to. There are very many of them from across the UK and they are indeed scary, as the HuffPost article indicates.

That's what I meant by the genie out of the bottle.

[Wearing my hairshirt, I've notified HellHosts about these links because I'm not sure whether they may cross some of our guidelines.]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Stetson: the stuff I was reporting came from social media, not the mainstream media. And I've spoken to two people in the last 24 hours who voted leave as a protest against EU bureaucracy, without an inkling how close the vote would be, and are pretty horrified that the Brexiters won, and/or we've unleashed this uncertainty. These guys aren't in the areas where the EDL and UKIP have such a voice, living in one of the areas that voted to Remain.

Some of Cameron's gerrymandering to ensure a return Conservative government seems to have backfired here. The rewriting of the voter registration rules meant that short term tenants, ie students, had to reregister between the General Election and the EU Referendum. So something like 20% of eligible voters in my daughter's university town could.

What chance we continue to have car manufacturing in the UK? Nissan are only in Sunderland / Washington for access to Europe, ditto Ford. Are we still going to have a banking sector when the International banks relocate to Frankfurt? What about EU funded research departments, such as the IRR? They are likely to up sticks to somewhere where they can continue to receive EU funding without complication.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I did wonder.

And my Facebook link is to a second one started by Sarah Childs. Right down at the bottom.

There's a twit on one of them arguing that there's no proof that racism has increased since Friday, and if it has it is not necessarily related to the vote, even if the abusers say it is. Basically posting over and over again and removing the site's function as a record.

[ 26. June 2016, 16:58: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

I'm wondering if there has been an actual increase in this type of racism, or if the media is just reporting it more often because of the vote.

POSK has been in Hammersmith for decades. This is the first time I've ever heard of it being daubed in racist graffiti though.

Also, I fucking love it how when distorting stories were pushed about millions of Turks were coming here, it was all about 'listening to very real concerns', and now it's all about 'show me the evidence'.

[Mad]

[ 26. June 2016, 18:03: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
If y'all want nightmares, you can also check out #PostRefRacism on twitter. Some seriously nasty stuff.

I think it's time we stopped kidding ourselves about a "tiny minority" - racism is a big problem in Britain (particularly England) and there's a lot more of it than many of us would like to think.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
If y'all want nightmares, you can also check out #PostRefRacism on twitter. Some seriously nasty stuff.

I think it's time we stopped kidding ourselves about a "tiny minority" - racism is a big problem in Britain (particularly England) and there's a lot more of it than many of us would like to think.

I've said before that racism is a larger problem than most white people wish to admit.
But I think some of what seems to be occurring now is fear-based reaction than dyed-in-the-wool racism being revealed.
Doesn't excuse anything, of course.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
Apparently Boris is now saying "Immigration wasn't the #1 reason people voted for Brexit, so it's OK if we don't do anything about it".

Which is technically true - if you believe the Ashcroft poll, immigration was #2.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...: There's been a few other things posted:

That one was worse than I remembered - the t-shirt says "Yes we won, now send them back".
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Racist attacks or abuse, regardless of which race is doing it, will continue to be punishable by the Law. Talk of 1930s Germany is hysterical nonsense.
Doubtless there is a small and regrettable wave of nasty stuff going on in the wake of the referendum similar to what was seen after 7/7 terror attacks.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
This morning's journey to work was enlivened by the sight of a large bin next to the railway tracks, with the words "GO HOME" painted in large letters on it. I'm not sure what was on the other side, but it certainly wasn't there on Friday.

I think the English branch of Pegida is going to attract a lot more members and be more open about what they do. Farage will be increasingly active (he's already promised that) and Ukip will probably continue to campaign on a platform of further demands. The way I see it, the country is likely to become increasingly polarized, and racial (and other forms of) harassment incidents will become increasingly common.

That may well be a short-term thing but in the short-term it is likely to be nasty.

Brexit could still work. It needs people to put aside their differences and make it work, though. I'm not optimistic.

[ 27. June 2016, 07:10: Message edited by: Ariel ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Racist attacks or abuse, regardless of which race is doing it, will continue to be punishable by the Law. Talk of 1930s Germany is hysterical nonsense.
Doubtless there is a small and regrettable wave of nasty stuff going on in the wake of the referendum similar to what was seen after 7/7 terror attacks.

I hope you are right, but I fear you are not.

I was watching Children of Men yesterday. Now that's some scary-arsed crap right there.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Racist attacks or abuse, regardless of which race is doing it, will continue to be punishable by the Law.

Yes - if you can catch who's doing it. When stuff appears mysteriously overnight and the perpetrators can’t be traced, and there’s a series of this in the same locality, it creates an atmosphere of intimidation.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
Very sadly, this is another of the fundamental problems that the Brexit vote exposes.

We have, for some years now, passed unenforceable laws which are, in practical terms, little more than an expression of disapproval. We now seem to be in the process of discovering this, and finding that disapproval is insufficient to prevent them from happening.

Saying "Boo to this kind of thing" is not the purpose of law.

The obvious forms of enforcement would require a kind of intrusive policing which almost assumes criminality in advance of evidence which is a prospect I, for one, find abhorrent, as well as resources the police simply doesn't, and now can't, have.

Anyone have any idea how this kind of law can be enforced in a pluralist kind of way?
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I love to see the likes of Keith Vaz crying on live TV because more people voted against his politics than did for them. Wonderful.

Keith Vaz, recognised by both sides of the house as a committed Christian and good constituency MP?
Would that be a different Keith Vaz from the one sanctioned by the house and the one involved in the passports for cash row? I don't suppose that would be the same Vaz who is rather better off than most of his constituents, living in London and nor Leicester?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Down with every MP with a better living standard than their constituents. To the Tower with them or failing that the guillotine.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Madame la Guillotine is too European to be used in Britain.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Alan:
quote:
Madame la Guillotine is too European to be used in Britain.
Ahem. We did it here first. Doesn't anybody know anything about history nowadays?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Pah! Who wants to let facts get in the way?
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
That's how we got into this mess in the first place, you know... [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Yep.

If you can't beat them ...
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
... retreat into talking Bollocks..?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Keep going. It's always best to learn at the feet of a master.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Keep going. It's always best to learn at the feet of a master.

Fair enough, good to see you and Boris getting on so well at last.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
If y'all want nightmares, you can also check out #PostRefRacism on twitter. Some seriously nasty stuff.

I think it's time we stopped kidding ourselves about a "tiny minority" - racism is a big problem in Britain (particularly England) and there's a lot more of it than many of us would like to think.

And it's become more brazen. I'm having to start not just ignoring all the golliwog posts on Facebook and actually call people on it now. I fear I will lose friends.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
What a nightmare. Get 'em, Karl!
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I can no longer decide which side of this debate is stupider.

The side that won appears to have a fair share of nasty xenophobic assholes. The side that lost is taking denial to ridiculous levels.

[ 27. June 2016, 15:13: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I can no longer decide which side of this debate is stupider.

The side that won appears to have a fair share of nasty xenophobic assholes. The side that lost is taking denial to ridiculous levels.

It's a recognised stage in grieving. We're also doing a fair bit of bargaining. Rage is mixed in there somewhere.

Give us a break - the bereavement was sudden and brutal.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I can no longer decide which side of this debate is stupider.

The side that won appears to have a fair share of nasty xenophobic assholes. The side that lost is taking denial to ridiculous levels.

It's a recognised stage in grieving. We're also doing a fair bit of bargaining. Rage is mixed in there somewhere.

Give us a break - the bereavement was sudden and brutal.

Sudden and brutal? It's not like space-aliens came down one day and ordered the UK to leave the EU or else.

No, the government called a referendum on what it knew to be a highly controversial issue, with public opinion roughly divided. In such circumstances, both Leave and Remain should have been foreseeable consequences to anyone.

I agree with Orfeo that many of the Remainers are in serious denial. I mean, we need a second referendum because people weren't thinking about the negative consequences the first time they voted? Possible negative consequences were discussed all over the media for months on end.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
I completely disagree, and I have heard and had conversations which make these ideas credible.

There is plenty of evidence that the Leave vote was treated by many who voted that way purely as a protest vote. To have a protest vote driving such a ridiculous decision would have the country doing unnecessary violence to itself.

I agree that some of these ideas are unusual, but so are the circumstances.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I can no longer decide which side of this debate is stupider.

The side that won appears to have a fair share of nasty xenophobic assholes. The side that lost is taking denial to ridiculous levels.

I'm fimly on the Remain side but I won't be signing *that* petition. Referendums are stupid but holding them until you get "the right result" is worse.

Let's just hope the negotiations really do turn into the humungous clusterfuck I mentioned a couple of weeks ago and the whole thing gets nowhere.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
You mean negotiations about negotiations? So that the UK doesn't actually have a negotiating position with the EU? Doesn't sound very hopeful to me.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
There is plenty of evidence that the Leave vote was treated by many who voted that way purely as a protest vote. To have a protest vote driving such a ridiculous decision would have the country doing unnecessary violence to itself.

If, in a two-choice referendum with both options running neck-and-neck, people were stupid enough to vote for the choice they didn't really want just to stick it to the elites, that's their goddam problem. Votes are tallied according to what is marked on the paper, not according to what you speculate the hidden intention of all the voters really was based on anecdotal evidence.

[ 27. June 2016, 16:41: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I can no longer decide which side of this debate is stupider.

The side that won appears to have a fair share of nasty xenophobic assholes. The side that lost is taking denial to ridiculous levels.

I'm fimly on the Remain side but I won't be signing *that* petition. Referendums are stupid but holding them until you get "the right result" is worse.

Let's just hope the negotiations really do turn into the humungous clusterfuck I mentioned a couple of weeks ago and the whole thing gets nowhere.

Likewise, I was not prepared to sign the petition for a second referendum. Its clearly a very bad idea.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Likewise, I was not prepared to sign the petition for a second referendum. Its clearly a very bad idea.

There is no good road forward, ISTM. Not in the short run. But the best strategy is to fill the potholes in the road chosen as best that can be done.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
I don't know about how pathetic one option is or another.

I just want to ensure that all avenues have been explored to avoid a ridiculously stupid action.

Yes, ok, we have already decided to take it, but wouldn't you rugby tackle a family member if you saw them running towards the edge of a cliff? Isn't that deliberate sabotage of a decision freely made?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
The problem, as I've already said, is that all the consequences of trying to reverse the decision look worse than the consequences of going through with it, not least because there is even less of a plan for how to reverse it and what should happen next than there is to act on it.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
There are lots of really good positions the UK could be in relation to the EU. The problem is, to get there I wouldn't start from where we are. But, start where we are is the only option we have. Since all the alternatives I can see getting to from here are crap, the challenge is to pick the least crap of those. Added to which, that option will be chosen by a PM I have no voice in the election of. Which is more crap. And, adding yet more crap on the pile is that I don't trust any of the potential candidates for PM (or, anyone they're likely to put in the team trying to work out a solution to the hole they're put us in) to work towards one of the marginally less crap options. Crap.

So, I'm left here moaning about the bloody Brexiters who inflicted this upon us all. And, fantasising that someone might come along and declare the Referendum invalid, or that since the question wasn't defined that we need a confirmatory vote on a real question, or that the UK falls apart and at least some of us have a hope of living in a country that isn't totally fucked up. But, it's all fantasy.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
Aside from the sense of having been fucked and immediately dumped, what is real at the moment?
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
Thunderbunk wrote:

quote:
Yes, ok, we have already decided to take it, but wouldn't you rugby tackle a family member if you saw them running towards the edge of a cliff? Isn't that deliberate sabotage of a decision freely made?

That's a pretty crazy comparison. In order to be comparable to the referendum, there would have to have been a law passed by parliment saying "On such and such a date, Joe Bloggs will be taken to a cliff, and read a statement giving him the option of either running off, or staying put." In other words, the government has openly recognized running off the cliff as a legitimate choice for Mr. Bloggs.

As it stands, in a lot of democracies(and I'm assuming the UK) attempting suicide, while not a crime per se, is grounds for medical intervention of a psychiatric nature. So, the government has already decided that suicide is subject to official disapproval, even before I made the choice to do the rugby tackle.

Like it or not, when Leave was included as a choice on the ballot, the government was recognizing that as a valid choice that deserves to be respected.

[ 27. June 2016, 17:57: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
"Second Referendum" arguments in a nutshell

[ 27. June 2016, 18:01: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
In this case, the pills were sold as Smarties. Those who swallowed them are finding that they have a fierce kick.

Yes, ok , it all sounds a little pathetic, but they were, and the speed at which the merchants are backtracking is frightening.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
In this case, the pills were sold as Smarties. Those who swallowed them are finding that they have a fierce kick.

Yes, ok , it all sounds a little pathetic, but they were, and the speed at which the merchants are backtracking is frightening.

Again, not a good comparison. The sale of medication is regulated by strict laws, laws which would certainly preclude their being labelled as candy. Not so electoral promises, about which voters are expected to maintain a significant measure of critical thought.

The alleged drawbacks of a Brexit were discussed all over the place throughout the campaign. If people chose to ignore them, that's not the fault of the process.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
What the hell has process got to do with this? There are no badges available for running referendums, and this one has left us with an outcome that sucks arse in hell.

I don't give a flying fuck about the process (which I think, btw, was sabotaged by a toxic combination of opportunism and complacency). I'd be happy for the outcome to be sabotaged by the means currently under consideration.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
What the hell has process got to do with this?

Well, as I see it, the only way you can justify a re-vote is if the original process were somehow unfair. And I'm saying it wasn't; it was as valid as any other election or referendum, almost all of which involve questionable promises and statements of one form or another.

quote:
I don't give a flying fuck about the process
Well, you were the one who brought up things like alleged lying by the Leave side, so it would seem that you did indeed care about the process, at least a few posts back...

quote:
In this case, the pills were sold as Smarties

 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
Yes, OK, that is an argument which needs to be used with a serious amount of discretion.

Look. I'm 44 (by a curious coincidence as of the day on which the result was announced). This decision could fuck up the country for the rest of my working life. I could probably find work elsewhere if I wanted to but (a) most of the viable possibilities are about to get harder and (b) there are reasons to stay here, and I'd rather it were in an unfucked country.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I'd be happy for the outcome to be sabotaged by the means currently under consideration.

And I find that far scarier than going through with it. Far scarier. Because it means that you're prepared to throw what's left of the UK's democratic institutions under the bus in order to achieve a notional result that you prefer.

Yes those institutions have been sorely abused. But ditching them is orders of magnitude more stupid than voting to leave the EU.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
This decision could fuck up the country for the rest of my working life.

It doesn't have to. I think a UK Norway is workable even if I'm pro-EU. Achieving such a solution relies on accepting the outcome and acting on it, the sooner the better. The fastest and surest road to ruin that I can see is if y'all don't do precisely that.

[ 27. June 2016, 18:28: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I'd be happy for the outcome to be sabotaged by the means currently under consideration.

And I find that far scarier than going through with it. Far scarier. Because it means that you're prepared to throw what's left of the UK's democratic institutions under the bus in order to achieve a notional result that you prefer.

Yes those institutions have been sorely abused. But ditching them is orders of magnitude more stupid than voting to leave the EU.

Like I say, sometimes you have to say something in order to hear yourself saying it. Then you realise what you have said.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Yes, OK, that is an argument which needs to be used with a serious amount of discretion.

Look. I'm 44 (by a curious coincidence as of the day on which the result was announced). This decision could fuck up the country for the rest of my working life. I could probably find work elsewhere if I wanted to but (a) most of the viable possibilities are about to get harder and (b) there are reasons to stay here, and I'd rather it were in an unfucked country.

I understand. For what it's worth, I live contract to contract, in a pretty hardscrabble industry, in the Republic Of Korea, and I'm always one non-renewal away from getting sent home packing, with few prospects, to Canada.

And the Korean press has been ALL OVER Brexit, with one of the sub-themes being that this could have an impact on the already precarious Korean economy.

So, yes, I do have some understanding of the reality you're talking about.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
What a nightmare. Get 'em, Karl!

I can't work out if you're being supportive or taking the piss [Biased]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
This decision could fuck up the country for the rest of my working life.

It doesn't have to. I think a UK Norway is workable even if I'm pro-EU.
I would love to think that this was achievable, sadly I think it isn't though. It's not on offer, no one will go for it because of the role of the press as outrage generating machines, and no one will try and negotiate for it, based on the same principle.

I absolutely hope I am wrong. We would need an extraordinarily capable political figure to pull it off - and they are sadly in short supply.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
What a nightmare. Get 'em, Karl!

I can't work out if you're being supportive or taking the piss [Biased]
To be clearer, fuck those assholes. If you are getting in fights with some of your friends because you protest racists grotesqueries, they ain't friends worth having.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
What a nightmare. Get 'em, Karl!

I can't work out if you're being supportive or taking the piss [Biased]
To be clearer, fuck those assholes. If you are getting in fights with some of your friends because you protest racists grotesqueries, they ain't friends worth having.
Clarification appreciated. The tricky part is when you've got people who aren't inherently bad people, but without thinking they share the superficially convincing.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
There is plenty of evidence that the Leave vote was treated by many who voted that way purely as a protest vote. To have a protest vote driving such a ridiculous decision would have the country doing unnecessary violence to itself.

If, in a two-choice referendum with both options running neck-and-neck, people were stupid enough to vote for the choice they didn't really want just to stick it to the elites, that's their goddam problem. Votes are tallied according to what is marked on the paper, not according to what you speculate the hidden intention of all the voters really was based on anecdotal evidence.
Bingo. And if people are that idiotic that they can't figure out their vote on the first attempt, why the hell does anyone believe having a second go will get a better one?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Yes, ok, we have already decided to take it, but wouldn't you rugby tackle a family member if you saw them running towards the edge of a cliff?

And it's this kind of sense of melodrama that I find so pathetic from the Remain side.

As Eutychus says, you've got a bunch of people who are prepared to throw democratic processes under a bus because those processes didn't give the social media-twittering classes the result they wanted.

If you think the UK is going to be such a bloody awful mess, go move to Norway. Or Switzerland. Assuming either country will accept you, possibly not as they might see you as a threat to social cohesion.

[ 27. June 2016, 22:34: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :
 
Orfeo - I'm a native Brit now settled happily in NZ.

This isn't a black and white issue - many of the things that people are concerned about, uncontrolled immigration and strain on public resources DO need to be addressed. They haven't been addressed for so long they've now resulted in this cluster fuck of a vote.

My problem with the result isn't the result itself its that many people who voted for it are now loudly demonstrating all over their twittering social media feeds (a right not restricted to some fabled rich remainer sect) that they don't understand what they voted for.

They don't understand what the EU is, they don't understand how the EU functions.

BOTH campaigns were so full of shit that even now objective factual headlines of decline in the Pound and the FTSE 250 are being dismissed as 'scaremongering' by people who can't seem to tell the difference between what is NOW happening and what the politicians told them may happen.

They still think they're going to 'get immigrants out' despite what Boris Johnson is (now) telling them. They have voted based on misinformation and lies.

It's complete fucking horseshit. The entire thing.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
This isn't a black and white issue - many of the things that people are concerned about, uncontrolled immigration and strain on public resources DO need to be addressed. They haven't been addressed for so long they've now resulted in this cluster fuck of a vote.

With the tiny, distant glimpse of things I have from over here in California, this makes some sense. From what I've seen/read over the last few days, ISTM there's a lot of festering stuff that needs to be aired and cleaned up--maybe on all sides. And that there are many, many threads to this whole thing.

I wish there were a way for the UK to use this situation in the business sense of "falling forward": it's a mess; but, as long as it's happened, use it to make things better.

If there were a way to listen to each other and clean things out, maybe the UK (visible or invisible) might be stronger going forward, whether in the EU or not.

{Humbly offered from a former colony, full of its own problems.}
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
My problem with the result isn't the result itself its that many people who voted for it are now loudly demonstrating all over their twittering social media feeds (a right not restricted to some fabled rich remainer sect) that they don't understand what they voted for.

And this is no different to every single election, referendum, plebiscite or elimination from a television talent quest.

We simply do not operate on a system whereby those who think they know the 'right' answer get to discount the value of the votes of those who gave the 'wrong' answer. That isn't how democratic voting works. The vote of the person who we either think or know is a complete moron who doesn't have a clue counts for exactly the same amount as the vote of the person who has a PhD in political theory.

I am a left-leaning member of the educated classes, but the whingefest that is unfolding at the moment over Brexit is one of the most unedifying things I've seen from 'my' side of the intellectual fence in a long time. It's a pile of people who live in a self-affirming social media echo chamber unable to accept that people get a vote even when we think they're voting for entirely the wrong reasons.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:


There is plenty of evidence that the Leave vote was treated by many who voted that way purely as a protest vote. To have a protest vote driving such a ridiculous decision would have the country doing unnecessary violence to itself.

I agree that some of these ideas are unusual, but so are the circumstances.

Well I guess those who voted to leave as a protest will learn a valuable lesson. The ones who voted to leave because they thought the U.K. would be better off may or may not learn a valuable lesson.

The awful and terrible thing about a democracy is that on average people get the government they deserve. Is there really room at this point to fudge away the results claiming it's a very special case?
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
What the hell has process got to do with this? There are no badges available for running referendums, and this one has left us with an outcome that sucks arse in hell.

I don't give a flying fuck about the process (which I think, btw, was sabotaged by a toxic combination of opportunism and complacency). I'd be happy for the outcome to be sabotaged by the means currently under consideration.

Well maybe there will be someone to Rugby tackle you before you run off the cliff. As long as there's a valid sizeable group that voted for this result, why do you think they would let you stop at a second election if they lost? They would demand a third.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Actions have consequences, and sometimes you have to live with the consequences of your choices. Isn't that what we want our kids to learn, unless our kids are uber-rich rapists?
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
orfeo, what is your problem with the commentary you're seeing here? The despair of what has happened to the country, with all the racism that has been unleashed? Or the wriggling around trying to find a way out?

I am one of the people who pointed to the unleashed racism, but I am really not surprised, it's nothing new to me, the openness is what is new. This racism is something I've seen pretty much daily, working with disaffected youth.

I am frustrated by the idiots I've spoken to who voted leave thinking it would be a protest vote that wouldn't matter and now have horrified expressions wondering what they have done. Sadly not only they, but I, have to live with the consequences of that stupidity. (This was in York at the weekend.) I voted remain, knowing that I was voting against the tide in the outer London fringe and that every vote for remain would count. But ... I have not signed the petition asking for a second referendum and I posted that it had started in Hell when I saw it because I thought it was stupid when I first read about it. What we need to do now is get on with sorting out the best result we can as we leave.

I am hugely concerned that we don't actually have anyone prepared to negotiate as the UK political system is falling to pieces around our ears: the PM resigning, the Parliamentary Labour Party in free fall with a no confidence vote in Jeremy Corbyn planned for today and the Brexiteers stepping back from all promises made in the campaign. Why can we not continue to bemoan the stupidity of those leaders - Gove, Farage, IDS, Boris - who led us into this mess and now seem to have no plan to lead us forward and are doing their best to weasel out of anything they said?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
people who can't seem to tell the difference between what is NOW happening and what the politicians told them may happen.

To use the Economist's line again, it's symptomatic of post-truth politics.

I think it also informs our debates here on truth. Many people say that the important and compelling aspects of truth are bound up with the "narrative" rather than the facts themselves. What's playing out here shows just how opposed the narrative and the reality-shaping facts can be.

Also, I think we've all got more used to a world in which Control + Z usually undoes the last stupid thing you did.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And this is no different to every single election, referendum, plebiscite or elimination from a television talent quest.

We simply do not operate on a system whereby those who think they know the 'right' answer get to discount the value of the votes of those who gave the 'wrong' answer. That isn't how democratic voting works. The vote of the person who we either think or know is a complete moron who doesn't have a clue counts for exactly the same amount as the vote of the person who has a PhD in political theory.

No, there is a difference - the representative democracy that we have doesn't made binary decisions based on the popular vote, probably for the sensible reason that the majority can simply railroad the minority even when the result is close.

As I said on Friday (and boy that feels like a long time ago now), this does also feel to me like a doomed project and a stage of grief.

But that doesn't make the point wrong; in the UK system Parliament is sovereign and so referenda are almost always advisory.

To me the solution out of this particular constitutional mess is the traditional way we solve divisions in British political life - a General Election, not another stupid referenda.

All of that said, the results of this referendum can't simply be swept under the carpet or kicked indefinitely away. For one thing that's a pretty stupid thing to do and would likely lead to trouble on the streets. For another that's pretty rude on everyone else in the world who is affected by the uncertainty it has provoked.

But the bottom line is that this referendum is not the end of the line. There is nothing to say that it should be, there is every reason to ask searching questions about the result.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
To me the solution out of this particular constitutional mess is the traditional way we solve divisions in British political life - a General Election, not another stupid referenda.

Can you really not see that if this happens on a ticket to disregard the referendum result, the legitimacy of its outcome (especially if it were close in any respect) would immediately be just as suspect as people are claiming the referendum result was?

Again: regardless of whether the referendum, the required majority, the campaigning, or the outcome sucked, disregarding the result (clearly billed in advance as definitive) wouldn't be a universal admission of "having got it wrong that time round". It would be a further devaluation of the worth of a democratic vote - irrespective of the type of contest. A future outside the EU may look bleak, but that prospect looks much bleaker to me.

[ 28. June 2016, 05:28: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Can you really not see that if this happens on a ticket to disregard the referendum result, the legitimacy of its outcome (especially if it were close in any respect) would immediately be just as suspect as people are claiming the referendum result was?

Well that's very likely true too - if the result was overturned because of a majority in the HoC that may well also cause trouble in the streets.

quote:
Again: regardless of whether the referendum, the required majority, the campaigning, or the outcome sucked, disregarding the result (clearly billed in advance as definitive) wouldn't be a universal admission of "having got it wrong that time round". It would be a further devaluation of the worth of a democratic vote - irrespective of the type of contest. A future outside the EU may look bleak, but that prospect looks much bleaker to me.
I suppose it depends on which way you look at it - from my POV, any legal tactic to try to stop a disasterous result is worth trying. And you can't tell me that the Brexit supporters wouldn't have done the same if they'd lost - we know they would have because Farage has said so.

A single binary referendum question is not democracy. And fascists regularly use the ballot box to gain initial power. Those are both reasons to do everything possible to try to stop this happening.

Ultimately, I'm pretty sure Brexit isn't going to be stopped, but it is still very important that everything possible is tried.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
As profound as the changes are to the country and the economy, now acknowledged by, it seems, many of the people who voted for it: the patient is allowed to overdose, and the medics are allowed to use a stomach pump.

You might feel that it's a gross act of intrusion against individual agency. I think it's a cry for help.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
from my POV, any legal tactic to try to stop a disasterous result is worth trying.

From my POV, that is precisely the kind of ends-justifies-the-means thinking that produced this mess in the first place. Cameron attempted to use the referendum as a party political tactic and to hell with the consequences. Now you're saying any tactic is worth trying to unfix it, without really weighing all the possible outcomes of that, including the imponderables.

Aside from all the consequences of further abuse of the democratic process, you're forgetting the consequences outside the UK. A Leave vote may look dumb to many outside the UK; pretending it didn't happen looks beyond dumb. If Cameron has a shred of dignity left after the vote, it's that he acknowledged the will of the people and said their decision should be respected. Abandon that, and I'm not sure the UK will have much respect left at all with anybody else. Its word will be totally suspect.

I understand there's pain here, and despite having left my native shores many years ago I'm going through the trauma too; it's also triggering other stuff for me. But try to step back and think about this a bit. Trying to unfix this is worse than living with it.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
From my POV, that is precisely the kind of ends-justifies-the-means thinking that produced this mess in the first place. Cameron attempted to use the referendum as a party political tactic and to hell with the consequences. Now you're saying any tactic is worth trying to unfix it, without really weighing all the possible outcomes of that, including the imponderables.

No, sorry, that Parliament is sovereign is not something I dreamed up, it is a fact. Nobody is suggesting doing anything which is contrary to the tradition that Parliament is sovereign.

The tactics under discussion are those which are fully justified under the normal rules that apply in the British system.

quote:
Aside from all the consequences of further abuse of the democratic process, you're forgetting the consequences outside the UK. A Leave vote may look dumb to many outside the UK; pretending it didn't happen looks beyond dumb. If Cameron has a shred of dignity left after the vote, it's that he acknowledged the will of the people and said their decision should be respected. Abandon that, and I'm not sure the UK will have much respect left at all with anybody else. Its word will be totally suspect.
No, once again this is not abuse of the parliamentary democratic system we have in the UK.

Yes it would look dumb and yes it might lead to unfavourable reactions from some other EU leaders - however the club rules are what they are, so just as the UK has to abide by them, so does everyone else. If the rules are that Article 50 can only be officially enacted by the British government and it appears to be true that constitutionally accurate that the British government needs support of Parliament and the British parliament vote needs a simple majority of MPs then the EU will just have to wait until the UK government is ready to give Article 50 notification once it has sorted out the mess. No amount of angry rhetoric can make any difference to that if the rules are any guide.

quote:
I understand there's pain here, and despite having left my native shores many years ago I'm going through the trauma too; it's also triggering other stuff for me. But try to step back and think about this a bit. Trying to unfix this is worse than living with it.
I can tell you for absolutely certain that the pain you're feeling is nothing as to the pain we're experiencing. So you don't get to start weighing your ex-pat pain against those of us who have to live with it.

[ 28. June 2016, 06:57: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
the EU will just have to wait until the UK government is ready to give Article 50 notification once it has sorted out the mess.

I'm not sure the question of exactly who has the authority to invoke article 50 is as settled as you think, but here, unlike previously, you are implicitly conceding it will happen.

You can argue it's Parliament's right to ignore the referendum, but again, if it does it will have lost still further legitimacy. This game is not worth the candle. It will reinforce the impression that Westminster is an elite that tramples the expressed will of the people. Which is grist to the mill of the populist views espoused by the Leave campaign and used to turn people against the EU.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
The other problem that we are currently facing is one of accountability. The whole model used by the Leave campaign as it was structuring itself was clearly that it could dump a whole pile of steaming shit on the doorstep of the Houses of Parliament and someone else would use it to fertilise the fields of our green and pleasant lands (including those not in Blake's vision). The idea that they should have to have an account themselves of how this was going to happen clearly did not occur to them. There is no reason why it should have occurred to anyone else, so please could it be noted that the current surreal hiatus is caused by the complete fuckwitted cluelessness of Boris and chums, and not by any fault of the Remain side.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not sure the question of exactly who has the authority to invoke article 50 is as settled as you think, but here, unlike previously, you are implicitly conceding it will happen.

I guess we'll see what happens today, but given the statements by the Germans, it sounds likely that it is now agreed that Article 50 can only be set in motion with an official statement by the British government.

And no, I'm not conceding that it will happen - I think it is very likely it will. British politicians have said this morning that they think Article 50 should only be invoked in 2020 (!?) and from what some experts are saying, there is nothing the other EU countries could do to stop this delay.

If it got to the next election in 2020 (which personally I think it utterly ridiculous) and a party got to power that didn't have a mandate to give Article 50 notice, then it may never be given.

quote:
You can argue it's Parliament's right to ignore the referendum, but again, if it does it will have lost still further legitimacy. This game is not worth the candle. It will reinforce the impression that Westminster is an elite that tramples the expressed will of the people. Which is grist to the mill of the populist views espoused by the Leave campaign and used to turn people against the EU.
You keep saying that as if it is obviously true. Has the Republic of Ireland lost legitimacy as an EU state because they have repeated referenda? Have they been excluded from the EU club because the results of the one referenda are the opposite of the previous one?

You might think trying to save the UK's position in the EU isn't worth the candle, which is fine that's your lookout from a position outside of the UK. From our position within it, it is worth taking these very mild steps to see if the result can be challenged. If you don't like it, well hard cheese and tough tittie.

[ 28. June 2016, 07:16: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
British politicians have said this morning that they think Article 50 should only be invoked in 2020 (!?)

Yes, Jeremy Hunt has said that. Just to reinforce his right the the rhyming slang name.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Apparently that man is thinking of standing for the post of Prime Minister.

I don't know what to say. I don't know which would be worse as PM, him or Boris.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The other problem that we are currently facing is one of accountability. The whole model used by the Leave campaign as it was structuring itself was clearly that it could dump a whole pile of steaming shit on the doorstep of the Houses of Parliament and someone else would use it to fertilise the fields of our green and pleasant lands (including those not in Blake's vision). The idea that they should have to have an account themselves of how this was going to happen clearly did not occur to them. There is no reason why it should have occurred to anyone else, so please could it be noted that the current surreal hiatus is caused by the complete fuckwitted cluelessness of Boris and chums, and not by any fault of the Remain side.

Oh fuck. I have just discovered that I agree with George Osborne. My viability as a human being is in question.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
British politicians have said this morning that they think Article 50 should only be invoked in 2020 (!?) and from what some experts are saying, there is nothing the other EU countries could do to stop this delay.

Not politically there isn't, but this kind of talk is why not a few voices in the EU-27 want the UK to put its money where its mouth is sooner rather than later.

The longer the UK waits to invoke Article 50, the longer the period of uncertainty. If there's one thing the markets hate more than anything else, it's uncertainty. This reality will start to bite on both sides of the Channel.

Prolonging that uncertainty because of a domestic crisis in the UK also imperils the rest of the EU economy and (again) reduces the UK's negotiating power with the (rest of the) EU - even if it were ultimately to attempt to wriggle out of the referendum result.

Yes other referendums have been reneged on, but not ones with so much immediately at stake due to the result, or ones for which it has been clearly spelled out that this was a one-shot choice.

You cannot go back. There is no Ctrl+Z. Even if the referendum result could suddenly be magicked away you do not go back to your previous restore point.

quote:
From our position within it, it is worth taking these very mild steps to see if the result can be challenged. If you don't like it, well hard cheese and tough tittie.

You're welcome to try, but I think it's madness.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Ariel:
quote:
I don't know what to say. I don't know which would be worse as PM, him or Boris.
Makes Theresa May (aka Thatcher Mk II) look like the moderates' choice, doesn't it.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
That's what I just said in Purg.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
We kicked ourselves out of the EU, in part as a complaint about lack of democracy. The irony of having no vote in our own PM.

But, I suppose it could be worse - we could live on the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And this is no different to every single election, referendum, plebiscite or elimination from a television talent quest.

We simply do not operate on a system whereby those who think they know the 'right' answer get to discount the value of the votes of those who gave the 'wrong' answer. That isn't how democratic voting works. The vote of the person who we either think or know is a complete moron who doesn't have a clue counts for exactly the same amount as the vote of the person who has a PhD in political theory.

No, there is a difference - the representative democracy that we have doesn't made binary decisions based on the popular vote, probably for the sensible reason that the majority can simply railroad the minority even when the result is close.

That's true. Normally you provide people with a range of candidates and a first-past-the-post voting system, so that the minority can railroad the majority instead.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
we could live on the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands.

I don't know for sure about the IoM, but the Channel Islands have their own elected first ministers and government, and are not part of the EU. They are part of the EEA.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
orfeo, what is your problem with the commentary you're seeing here? The despair of what has happened to the country, with all the racism that has been unleashed? Or the wriggling around trying to find a way out?

You mean I only get to choose one?

I'm not commenting much on the racism aspect because plenty of other people will say how bad that is without me. What I'm primarily commenting on is how many of my lefty progressive friends are trying to wriggle out of the popular mood because it turns out they're not on the side of the popular mood this time around.

It's sore losing on a colossal scale, and whether it's driven by wailing about how right they were or having got into a winners mindset based on opinion polls, it's a deeply unedifying spectacle and it's making me wish I was a little more right wing and racist because then I could at least gloat at my opponents' misfortune. As it is I'm just finding myself deeply embarrassed at how people I generally side with are behaving.

I fully agree with Eutychus that not implementing the wish of the British people as expressed in the referendum would be a fucking disaster. It would be a colossal blow to the democratic process.

The only next step I'm on board with, apart from Article 50, is any move by Scotland to remain in the EU, because that would be in accordance with the wish of the Scottish people. But that's also because departing the EU would be a highly significant change from the situation during the previous Scottish independence referendum.

For the UK as a whole, all that's happened is that a pile of people lost a vote and they can't handle it so they want another go. Would you like a replay against Iceland as well? How many times do you get to rewrite history and pretend that what happened didn't happen?

People knew what the decision was. People's basis for making the decision doesn't fucking matter. A ballot paper doesn't ask me whether I'm voting for a particular bloke because I like his policies or because I like his hairstyle, it just asks me whether I'm voting for him. Asked and answered. The verdict is in. Anyone who tries to change the verdict is betraying notions of democracy far more than a foreign bureaucrat could hope to manage.

[ 28. June 2016, 08:16: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
we could live on the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands.

I don't know for sure about the IoM, but the Channel Islands have their own elected first ministers and government, and are not part of the EU. They are part of the EEA.
They are all Crown-dependencies. As such, changes in the relationship between the UK and the EU will impact their own positions. Especially if the UK doesn't end up within the EEA, in which case it would be difficult for the Crown dependencies to maintain their position within the EEA.

The point about democracy was that despite the potential for Brexit to change their position in Europe the Channel Islands and Man did not get to participate in the referendum. I'm not sure how Gibraltar got to participate when they didn't. It wouldn't have made a difference - even if they voted 100% in favour of Remain there wouldn't have been enough votes to tip the balance.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
For the first time ever, I'm watching a live debate in the European Parliament. And seeing Juncker dressing down Farage.

That's a cage fight which would sell tickets.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Zing. They're slapping Farage about in the European parliament.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Farage turned up? Wait - guaranteed chance to get his smug, gloating face all over TV sets across the EU. Of course he turned up.

Someone probably got an asthma attack clearing out the dust and cobwebs from his office though.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I bet he's wishing he hadn't. Been called a blatant liar.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
This is great, he just got called a fascist as well.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Duck's back. Water.

I agree that Parliament should not ignore the result of the referendum. I think our relationship with the rest of the EU is so badly damaged now that the best we can hope for is to exit as gracefully as possible.

I have detected one small glimmer of a silver lining; this should put paid once and for all to the myth that the Conservatives can be trusted with the economy.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I have detected one small glimmer of a silver lining; this should put paid once and for all to the myth that the Conservatives can be trusted with the economy.

Forget about the economy. They can't be trusted with the Government.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Oh shut up Farage. He says the EU is in denial.
 
Posted by Beenster (# 242) on :
 
I'm watching Farage. He is red rag to the bull. He's terrifying and blaming the EU. So doesn't help. He's a disgrace and making things worse.

What we need is someone to negotiate quietly and not calmly and not blame EU. "none of you have ever done a proper job in your lives ..." i can't believe he said that. How to antagonise.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Says the man who takes all possible benefits for sitting and doing bugger-all in an elected body he doesn't believe in.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I have detected one small glimmer of a silver lining; this should put paid once and for all to the myth that the Conservatives can be trusted with the economy.

Forget about the economy. They can't be trusted with the Government.
Forget the Government, they couldn't be trusted to give out the pencils and collect the dinner money.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
You'd contemplate giving them two jobs? Isn't that just setting them up to fail?
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I can't read the FB page worrying signs any more - I wanted to quote that FB seemed to have removed some posts while failing to remove out and out racist posts on other pages, and that there was a campaign to remove the whole Sarah Page. But I can't. Because a pop up appears saying I have to sign in to read more. Yesterday this happened a long way down. Now it happens right at the top.

I don't want to join Facebook.

I thought it was a public page!
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
Yesterday I apologised to some Brexiteers that my hysterical estimate that our about our economy would be downgraded by the rating agencies by two points had been shown to be wrong & far to pessimistic.

Within half an hour of my apology it happened.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Farage turned up? Wait - guaranteed chance to get his smug, gloating face all over TV sets across the EU. Of course he turned up.

Someone probably got an asthma attack clearing out the dust and cobwebs from his office though.

Plus he gets his expenses
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I think I may have found a reason for all the anti-Polish stuff, that makes posting pictures of aircrew unlikely to change things. Or Enigma machines. It also explains the anti-American and Australian stuff as well.

There are some of these abusers that wish we had become part of the Third Reich. They abuse the people whose forebears prevented it.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's sore losing on a colossal scale

You’re missing something important though. We lost the referendum to ourselves. I think that’s the reason many of us couldn’t quite believe this would ever happen. We just couldn’t accept that we the British people could really be that racist and thick. I’m still staggered by it. Good grief, how do you get nineteen million people to act so completely against their own best interests while simultaneously trying to be totally selfish??

The reason many of us are so upset is the humiliation of knowing that we are citizens of demonstrably the most stupid nation in the world. It stings. I personally don’t think another referendum is a good idea, but I kind of understand it. People want another go at proving that we’re not that kind of country.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
demonstrably

The Lord looks on the heart, and I think the chances are it's little better elsewhere. Besides, come November 8...
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
People want another go at proving that we’re not that kind of country.

The mirror is a very harsh device.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's sore losing on a colossal scale

You’re missing something important though. We lost the referendum to ourselves. I think that’s the reason many of us couldn’t quite believe this would ever happen. We just couldn’t accept that we the British people could really be that racist and thick. I’m still staggered by it. Good grief, how do you get nineteen million people to act so completely against their own best interests while simultaneously trying to be totally selfish??

The reason many of us are so upset is the humiliation of knowing that we are citizens of demonstrably the most stupid nation in the world. It stings. I personally don’t think another referendum is a good idea, but I kind of understand it. People want another go at proving that we’re not that kind of country.

There are 28 countries in the EU.

Every statement about how this is an utter disaster makes me wonder just how you all think the other 200-odd countries in the world manage to function.

Okay, sure, they're not all a bed of roses, but do you shrink in horror at how calamitous Norway is? Switzerland? Canada? Australia?

These are some of the best countries in the world to live in. They all somehow manage it without being part of an organisation like the EU.

The whole reaction continues to feel hyperbolic.
 
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by orfeo:
[qb] It's sore losing on a colossal scale

Good grief, how do you get nineteen million people to act so completely against their own best interests while simultaneously trying to be totally selfish??[/Q]

Total selfishness is quite often against our best interests, being self-defeating both in the short- and the long-term.

Edited to try and correct codes, but failing abysmally.

[ 28. June 2016, 13:50: Message edited by: jacobsen ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Okay, sure, they're not all a bed of roses, but do you shrink in horror at how calamitous Norway is? Switzerland? Canada? Australia?

Yes, but they didn't just arrive in that state as the result of a xenophobic campaign which it would be charitable to describe as dishonest.
Clearly not everyone who voted to Leave was xenophobic and racist. Equally clearly, Leave only went ahead in the polls once they started playing the racist and xenophobic card unashamedly.
Oh, and one of the Remain campaigners was assassinated.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

Okay, sure, they're not all a bed of roses, but do you shrink in horror at how calamitous Norway is? Switzerland? Canada? Australia?

The first two of which are in the EEA (and as part of that accept free movement), and the second two didn't just decide to throw all their trade agreements in the air and start again.

Besides, there are important psychological differences between never being part of an organisation, and being part of something and then deciding to quit overnight.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
I don't think a second referendum is a realistic possibility but the democratic problem is no one is going to get what they voted for.

48% of us voted to stay. They won't get that.
Of the 52% they voted for lots of reasons such as
- A reduction in immigration (unlikely to actually happen)
- More money for the NHS (Not going to happen)
- A stronger economy (No)
- More control (Not likely)

I could go on, but basically a campaign of lies has won. I see nothing to celebrate there.

I may be wrong but there are objective, factually-based reasons why I think this is the wrong decision.

How can I possibly be happy about it? How will those who voted for it and won't get what they voted for react?

This is the problem.

AFZ
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
I don't think a second referendum is a realistic possibility but the democratic problem is no one is going to get what they voted for.

48% of us voted to stay. They won't get that.
Of the 52% they voted for lots of reasons such as
- A reduction in immigration (unlikely to actually happen)
- More money for the NHS (Not going to happen)
- A stronger economy (No)
- More control (Not likely)

A bit of a category error here. On the one hand you talk about the bare result. On the other hand you talk about the anticipated consequences of the result.

I do also find it quite interesting that, depending on who you ask, a vote to Leave simultaneously won't achieve anything and is the greatest disaster to befall the UK in several generations.

Also, I'm not asking anyone to be happy about the referendum result. But there's a difference between being unhappy and proposing various means of deliberately sabotaging the expressed will of the British voting public.

[ 28. June 2016, 14:22: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

Okay, sure, they're not all a bed of roses, but do you shrink in horror at how calamitous Norway is? Switzerland? Canada? Australia?

The first two of which are in the EEA (and as part of that accept free movement), and the second two didn't just decide to throw all their trade agreements in the air and start again.

Besides, there are important psychological differences between never being part of an organisation, and being part of something and then deciding to quit overnight.

Overnight?

I'm sorry, was my news media not full of this thing for months? That makes about as much sense as saying that the Olympics are organised overnight. Sure, the opening ceremony happens on a particular night, but we all knew about it for a long time beforehand.

For fuck's sake, it is the hyperbole I am irritated by, and this thread regularly serves up more doses of pathetic childish melodrama to irritate me. I'll stop telling you all off when you start growing the fuck up and behaving like adults.

I know what the EEA is. I know no-one has never left the EU before. And? Tell me something I don't know. Or would you prefer to just shriek in panic at doing something that hasn't been done before?

Right now, I'd say the thing that is most likely to wreck the UK is not a decision to leave the EU, it's a decision to go to water at the prospect of leaving the EU. The inability to cope with the outcome of a vote that was not sprung on anyone 'overnight' is going to do worse damage than anything else.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's sore losing on a colossal scale

You’re missing something important though. We lost the referendum to ourselves. I think that’s the reason many of us couldn’t quite believe this would ever happen. We just couldn’t accept that we the British people could really be that racist and thick. I’m still staggered by it. Good grief, how do you get nineteen million people to act so completely against their own best interests while simultaneously trying to be totally selfish??

The reason many of us are so upset is the humiliation of knowing that we are citizens of demonstrably the most stupid nation in the world. It stings. I personally don’t think another referendum is a good idea, but I kind of understand it. People want another go at proving that we’re not that kind of country.

So, I guess prior to this vote, you figured that all the people who bought the Sun, the Daily Mail, and the Telegraph were just doing so to have a good laugh at how stupid those papers were?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Okay, sure, they're not all a bed of roses, but do you shrink in horror at how calamitous Norway is? Switzerland? Canada? Australia?

Yes, but they didn't just arrive in that state as the result of a xenophobic campaign which it would be charitable to describe as dishonest.
Clearly not everyone who voted to Leave was xenophobic and racist. Equally clearly, Leave only went ahead in the polls once they started playing the racist and xenophobic card unashamedly.
Oh, and one of the Remain campaigners was assassinated.

Australian history had plenty of xenophobia and racism. Parts of Canadian history as well I believe. The Swiss told everyone to stay the hell away. Norway? Probably just too cold.

Again, all I'm hearing is this wild flailing as if one vote on one day has determined the entire fate of the UK to the extent that you've all been reduced to helplessness. That you can't possibly be a prosperous country now without Brussels. That some switch has been flicked and everything has gone from great to dismal like it's the book of Job.

You don't want to see that life outside the EU is possible, you want to snivel on the ground and say that the world is ruined and come up with reasons why you're doomed.

As for the assassination, with all due respect to a woman whom I admire from what little I know about her, are you seriously arguing that the entire prosperity of the UK is determined by her death? If anything I would have thought the circumstances would have aided the Remain campaign. If that's your idea of arguing why you can't possibly be a functioning highly developed country outside the EU, then I'll respond by pointing out we had a Prime Minister disappear once and another one sacked by the Governor-General. By your logic, those blows ought to have been enough to send us back to subsistence farming.

[ 28. June 2016, 14:42: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I ended up with a wry smile on my face after reading this part of the Guardian's analysis of England's loss to Iceland in the football. Italics for emphasis are mine.

quote:
4) In times of crisis the naivety is exposed

Just as disappointing was the initial response to Ragnar Sigurdsson’s equaliser. As soon as England were pegged back they began chasing the game in such frantic fashion that one wondered if they had actually been expecting a walkover and assuming energy alone would be enough to prevail. This was a team exposed as wide-eyed and desperate as their attacks broke down so often upon organised, rugged defence. There was a desperation to the approach and a distinct lack of composure, a failing Hodgson attempted to address at the break, to little effect, with Jack Wilshere’s introduction. Certainly chasing the game with anxiety on the rise did little for players whose confidence has been suddenly so brittle. Sterling won the early penalty but was sacrificed before the hour-mark. Kane’s touch has deserted him and Alli snatched at opportunities and even tumbled dubiously in search of a penalty. This was a brutal education.

The journalist is talking about the English team, but so much of this reflects my perception of the Remain supporters.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Did you see the voting Margin, orfeo? A damn lot of people exercised their vote to Remain. And now the people who have control of government with less oversight are the same who've been working against their interests all along.
And those who voted Leave didn't even do so in their own best interest.
This should have been nipped in the bud, or at least better managed and planned from the outset. The public should have demanded this be so.
But this is not how the electorate work. Not in the UK, US or Australia. The bulk of people don't give enough of a shit to be informed or care unless it negatively affects them.
So, those of us who do pay attention, those of us who work to educate others, those of us who care about our countries as a whole; we have a right to complain. We have a reason to be frustrated.
Whoever programmed your AI did a fairly decent job, but s/he did get the outrage module wrong. Or perhaps there is a bug, you might want to get that serviced.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

I know what the EEA is.

So fuck off with your inaccurate comparisons.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
Gloat at a distance and be satisfied. What is your beef? Why the contempt? If we were Leave supporters desperately trying to escape from the consequences of our own actions that would be one thing. Trying to avoid being shafted by fellow countrymen who shouldn't be trusted with anything sharper than a plastic teaspoon is perfectly legitimate.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
You’re still missing the point. I personally am not nearly so badly off as many people. I’m sitting pretty. I have the option of throwing my lot in with our age-old enemies the French and intend to avail myself of it. This is not all that catastrophic for me. Indeed, my holidays in London are about to get a whole lot cheaper.

That still doesn’t stop me feeling deeply upset about what my country’s become, because like most people I feel quite attached to my country. Xenophobic bigotry is all over the place these days, as I remarked in Hell a while back. Nonetheless, it’s thoroughly humiliating to see the UK become the first Western democracy to make a monumentally stupid far-reaching electoral decision on the back of it. I wanted us to be better than that. This is not about how it hurts me, because it doesn’t, particularly. (It does hurt people I care about, notably many of my fellow expats who have been right royally thrown under the Brexit bus.)
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Did you see the voting Margin, orfeo?

Yes. Did you see the margin in most elections?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

I know what the EEA is.

So fuck off with your inaccurate comparisons.
Tell me what's inaccurate about it. Some of the best countries in the world to live in are not in the EU. That includes countries that could very readily be in the EU. Not being in the EU is clearly no barrier to being in the EEA.

Switzerland is not in the EEA, by the way, so before telling me to fuck off with "inaccurate" comparisons, you should do your own homework.

Switzerland is in EFTA. Like the UK used to be.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Whoever programmed your AI did a fairly decent job, but s/he did get the outrage module wrong. Or perhaps there is a bug, you might want to get that serviced.

This does read rather like code for "goodness me orfeo, stop thinking for yourself and fall into line with the social media zeitgeist".

It's the inability to conceive that other people think differently that got the shocked supporters of the Remain campaign in this pickle in the first place. They were so sure of the rightness of their position, they couldn't conceive of losing.

Again: I'm not telling anyone to be happy about the result. What I am saying is that there are ways to lose with some dignity and many Remain supporters are throwing those away in order to have tantrums. Plotting to overturn the result of the referendum is based on nothing more than being upset that people didn't exercise their right to vote in the "correct" fashion.

And that's pretty damn frightening. It leads to elections where the party in power refuses to concede defeat. It leads to elections with only one officially approved candidate. I think I'm perfectly within my rights to be upset, outraged even, that there are Remain supporters loudly advocating steps in the direction of saying that a vote is only acceptable if it produces the pre-planned "correct" outcome.

[ 28. June 2016, 16:55: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

I know what the EEA is.

So fuck off with your inaccurate comparisons.
Tell me what's inaccurate about it. Some of the best countries in the world to live in are not in the EU. That includes countries that could very readily be in the EU. Not being in the EU is clearly no barrier to being in the EEA.

Switzerland is not in the EEA, by the way, so before telling me to fuck off with "inaccurate" comparisons, you should do your own homework.

Switzerland is in EFTA. Like the UK used to be.

It's not in the EEA but there are any number of agreements that say "The EEA plus Switzerland". I'll bet that phrase is only there when the Swiss choose it to be too, but the UK won't have the political or economic clout to be so selective. Not any more.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'll bet that phrase is only there when the Swiss choose it to be too, but the UK won't have the political or economic clout to be so selective. Not any more.

So let me get this straight. You believe that Switzerland has more clout than the UK.

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid everybody. The crisis of confidence is developing nicely.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'll bet that phrase is only there when the Swiss choose it to be too, but the UK won't have the political or economic clout to be so selective. Not any more.

So let me get this straight. You believe that Switzerland has more clout than the UK.

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid everybody. The crisis of confidence is developing nicely.

Since Friday morning Switzerland hasn't needed very much clout to have more clout than the UK.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

Tell me what's inaccurate about it. Some of the best countries in the world to live in are not in the EU. That includes countries that could very readily be in the EU. Not being in the EU is clearly no barrier to being in the EEA.

Because it becomes increasingly less likely with every passing day that the UK is going to be in either the EEA or EFTA.

All of those countries are either in regional trading blocks, or have worked hard over the years to draw up numerous bilateral agreements - the UK will be in a Year Zero situation due to the actions of a number of selfish individuals. It's fixable over time, but in the meantime there will be a huge cost in human suffering.

If you want to breeze in and shit everywhere because you think it's all an exercise in mawkish sentimentality then fuck off.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
The UK will not be in a Year Zero situation. Several decades of history is not miraculously erased from the history books. All of the trading that currently exists between the UK and other countries will not evaporate, for the simple reason that businesses quite like trading with existing customers and will continue to do it where possible.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The UK will not be in a Year Zero situation. Several decades of history is not miraculously erased from the history books. All of the trading that currently exists between the UK and other countries will not evaporate, for the simple reason that businesses quite like trading with existing customers and will continue to do it where possible.

It won't evaporate, but it will almost inevitably be more difficult. The only way it would continue in exactly the same way would be if it was part of the common market - and Germany is clear that without freedom of movement for EU labour, that idea is dead in the water.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
Since the Referendum result was called, I've been surprised by the number of people who would normally claim to believe in fairness, equality, democracy, etc. who have i) trash-talked the working classes; ii) branded anyone who voted Leave as a racist or a thicko or a racist thicko; and iii) claimed with a straight face that a free and fair vote should be disregarded simply because they don't like the result.

I can appreciate that some people must be really gutted by the result (some of my best friends are Remainers, etc.) but the condescension and hypocrisy is stunning.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
No hypocrisy here.

I'm very happy to be condescending, even scathing, about stupid people who vote to leave something they can't be arsed to understand. Who vote to take control back (what the fuck of, who knows) without understanding how a veto works, or for that matter, qualified majority voting.

Equally, to stupid people who can't tell the difference between an opinion poll, an election and a decision which can only be made once but which will affect the way this country works for several generations.

I'm equally scathing about them irrespective of their socio-economic background. Find me a landowner who is so high on nostalgia that he won't look beyond the end of tiresome bureaucracy, and I'll very happily direct my scorn towards him for his lack of the foresight to see what else the EU does and how it is useful to him before voting. Likewise the resident of a Welsh town that has just been redeveloped using funds from the EU, and now wants to cut ties because they are paying more than they are getting. Apparently.

All wilfully stupid, all deserving scorn.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Interesting thing by Malcolm Gladwell (yeah, I know - I find him incredibly annoying but unfortunately he reels me in each time) on This American Life about people who do fucking stupid things.

link

[ 28. June 2016, 18:17: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Fuck, he's done it again.

from Gladwell's article on this in the New Yorker

quote:
In a famous essay published four decades ago, the Stanford sociologist Mark Granovetter set out to explain a paradox: “situations where outcomes do not seem intuitively consistent with the underlying individual preferences.” What explains a person or a group of people doing things that seem at odds with who they are or what they think is right? Granovetter took riots as one of his main examples, because a riot is a case of destructive violence that involves a great number of otherwise quite normal people who would not usually be disposed to violence.

In his view, a riot was not a collection of individuals, each of whom arrived independently at the decision to break windows. A riot was a social process, in which people did things in reaction to and in combination with those around them. Social processes are driven by our thresholds—which he defined as the number of people who need to be doing some activity before we agree to join them.

..a righteous upstanding citizen who nonetheless could set his beliefs aside and grab a camera from the broken window of the electronics store if everyone around him was grabbing cameras from the electronics store.

That's what happened here. Suddenly it became socially acceptable to do something fucking stupid.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Whoever programmed your AI did a fairly decent job, but s/he did get the outrage module wrong. Or perhaps there is a bug, you might want to get that serviced.

This does read rather like code for "goodness me orfeo, stop thinking for yourself and fall into line with the social media zeitgeist".
Nope. It is code for your incredulity and scorn for the reaction you disdain shows a failure to quite grasp normal, human behaviour. I don't expect you to applaud it or excuse it, but it is pretty normal.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
As for the assassination, with all due respect to a woman whom I admire from what little I know about her, are you seriously arguing that the entire prosperity of the UK is determined by her death?

Fuck the entire prosperity of the UK. I don't care about the entire prosperity of the UK. Well, I do. But there are other things I'd sacrifice it for. And it seems that there are other people who would sacrifice the entire prosperity of the UK for something entirely opposite to my values. And, yes, gross overstatement, they just won.

The US is a damn sight more prosperous than the UK ever was. And you don't need to spell out that it isn't in the EU. That doesn't mean I want to live in a country whose health service is as dysfunctional as the US's health service.
And it looks like the UK is about to end up in the hands of people who want to take it there.

But you know what is even more important? Not being a country where racists and neo-Nazis feel emboldened to try and dictate public policy. Where if a neo-Nazi kills a politician, the side the neo-Nazi supported doesn't go on to win the vote. It's got really very little do with prosperity. It's got a lot to do with our national identity.

It's an outside possibility that the new government will abolish the right of people to marry people of the same sex. It's not likely. But under Cameron it was impossible. The kind of people who want to abolish it are among the people who've just won.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Stephen Crabb is running for the Tory leadership, he who claims homosexuality is a sickness that can be cured.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Since the Referendum result was called, I've been surprised by the number of people who would normally claim to believe in fairness, equality, democracy, etc. who have i) trash-talked the working classes;

Just the ones who have voted against their own benefit. But in that I include the middle-class and the rich who voted in what they think to be their own interest at the expnase of the country as a whole.
quote:

ii) branded anyone who voted Leave as a racist or a thicko or a racist thicko;

Not everyone. A fair chunk, but not everyone.

quote:

and iii) claimed with a straight face that a free and fair vote should be disregarded simply because they don't like the result.

Free, yes. Fair depends upon your definition. And not not everyone is calling for it to be disregarded.

But go ahead, a prejudiced, ignorant misrepresentation is apropos.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's an outside possibility that the new government will abolish the right of people to marry people of the same sex. It's not likely. But under Cameron it was impossible. The kind of people who want to abolish it are among the people who've just won.

At least the UK is still going to be in the ECHR. A government trying to do that will get it in the ear from a higher court.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Where if a neo-Nazi kills a politician, the side the neo-Nazi supported doesn't go on to win the vote. It's got really very little do with prosperity. It's got a lot to do with our national identity.



Well I can't speak for all 17,000,000 of us who voted Leave but, fyi, I didn't go to the polls after listening to the Horst Wessel Song and sticking a pin in my Jo Cox voodoo doll.

quote:
It's an outside possibility that the new government will abolish the right of people to marry people of the same sex. It's not likely. But under Cameron it was impossible. The kind of people who want to abolish it are among the people who've just won.
Well that would be quite something given that the party that Cameron leads is still in government and, based on how Labour's performing at the moment, isn't leaving office anytime soon.
 
Posted by anne (# 73) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

Well that would be quite something given that the party that Cameron leads is still in government and, based on how Labour's performing at the moment, isn't leaving office anytime soon.

I think that that sentence should read "...the parties that Cameron leads are still in government..."

You are right about the disarray of Labour, but let's not pretend that Dave is captaining the happy bus at the moment - and which gang of Tories is likely to come out on top following the power struggle is far from clear.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Well I can't speak for all 17,000,000 of us who voted Leave but, fyi, I didn't go to the polls after listening to the Horst Wessel Song and sticking a pin in my Jo Cox voodoo doll.

You keep saying this like we don't already know this.

It is, however, an incontrovertible fact that all the racists voted Leave, and that if racists hadn't all voted Leave, Remain would have won by a handy margin.

You can feel as pious as you like. You voted on the same side as all the racists, and now the racists think they've won.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
At least the UK is still going to be in the ECHR. A government trying to do that will get it in the ear from a higher court.

Theresa May is on record as saying that it's the ECHR the UK needs to leave, not the EU.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It is, however, an incontrovertible fact that all the racists voted Leave, and that if racists hadn't all voted Leave, Remain would have won by a handy margin.



How many of the 17,000,000 do you think were racist and how many do you think weren't racist?

quote:
You can feel as pious as you like.
I can't say I do really. Surprised, mainly.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
It's apparently very difficult to tell, guy on the radio addressing a British female reporter of Indian descent, British birth, this afternoon as a paki went on to explain to her that "I'm not a racist".
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I think the guy in Leeds doing a vox pop on the tv with a tattoo'd on his arm did acknowledge he was a nazi though.

[ 28. June 2016, 21:30: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
That was a tattoo'd symbol of Indian descent, wasn't it? No longer generally usable.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
At least the UK is still going to be in the ECHR. A government trying to do that will get it in the ear from a higher court.

Theresa May is on record as saying that it's the ECHR the UK needs to leave, not the EU.
Well, strike her off the list of people I'd vote for to be PM.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
I am old enough to remember the UK pre the Common Market/EC/EU. As a nonegenarian rellie in Canada puts it - 'I've been poor and I've been rich - and rich is better. But if I had to be poor again, I reckon I could do it'. Similarly, we will doubtless continue to travel to Europe, eat its food, drink its wine, follow its fashions, even live and work there. We did before.

From the figures I can find, roughly 62% of the electorate did not vote Leave. Unfortunately a proportion of those did not vote at all. But still.

So. Live as Europeans. Express the receptivity, tolerance and diversity you consider the European ideal embodies. Go out of your way to eat garlic and take up flamenco and smile at everyone in a hijab. As it says on the Canongate Wall, work as if you live in the early days of a better nation.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It's apparently very difficult to tell, guy on the radio addressing a British female reporter of Indian descent, British birth, this afternoon as a paki went on to explain to her that "I'm not a racist".

This reminds me of a survey conducted amongst college men in the US, where large numbers of them say how horrible rape is, and then go on to talk about how reasonable it is to force a woman to have sex if you bought her dinner, or if she got drunk with you or whatever.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
How many of the 17,000,000 do you think were racist and how many do you think weren't racist?

Given that immigration was the #1 reason for voting Leave, and that the Leave campaign deliberately used immigration (although apparently they intend to have open borders anyway) to gather support, and given that racists really hate immigration, I'm supposing a sizeable portion voted Leave based on anywhere from their fear of the Other to out-and-out fascism.

Bluntly put, the Leave campaign won because it pandered to racists. You think you've used them to win. They think they used you to win. And they're far more certain about what ought to happen post-referendum than anyone who voted Leave for economic or constitutional reasons. Leave will find it now very difficult to put the racist genie back in the bottle, where we'd (more or less) contained it.

My white European friends are frankly cacking it, thanks to your principled and high-minded stance to vote Leave. My non-white friends, more so. Perhaps you should explain yourself to them?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Given that immigration was the #1 reason for voting Leave,

According to the Ashcroft poll, it was #2.

Which I don't think changes your argument much, mind.

I think some of the leave vote was because people are feeling poor in a crappy economy. People in crappy economies vote against the incumbent government, basically everywhere, all the time. In this vote, the EU was the incumbent, and so there was a swing against it.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The UK will not be in a Year Zero situation. Several decades of history is not miraculously erased from the history books. All of the trading that currently exists between the UK and other countries will not evaporate, for the simple reason that businesses quite like trading with existing customers and will continue to do it where possible.

It won't evaporate, but it will almost inevitably be more difficult. The only way it would continue in exactly the same way would be if it was part of the common market - and Germany is clear that without freedom of movement for EU labour, that idea is dead in the water.
Agreed. Yet again you are using rational, measured language to discuss this.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
As for the assassination, with all due respect to a woman whom I admire from what little I know about her, are you seriously arguing that the entire prosperity of the UK is determined by her death?

Fuck the entire prosperity of the UK. I don't care about the entire prosperity of the UK. Well, I do. But there are other things I'd sacrifice it for. And it seems that there are other people who would sacrifice the entire prosperity of the UK for something entirely opposite to my values. And, yes, gross overstatement, they just won.

The US is a damn sight more prosperous than the UK ever was. And you don't need to spell out that it isn't in the EU. That doesn't mean I want to live in a country whose health service is as dysfunctional as the US's health service.
And it looks like the UK is about to end up in the hands of people who want to take it there.

But you know what is even more important? Not being a country where racists and neo-Nazis feel emboldened to try and dictate public policy. Where if a neo-Nazi kills a politician, the side the neo-Nazi supported doesn't go on to win the vote. It's got really very little do with prosperity. It's got a lot to do with our national identity.

It's an outside possibility that the new government will abolish the right of people to marry people of the same sex. It's not likely. But under Cameron it was impossible. The kind of people who want to abolish it are among the people who've just won.

And I have no problem with any of that. But you decided to throw in a line about the death of Jo Cox into a response about whether the UK was comparable to countries with high standards of living (countries that in fact regularly outscore the US on such matters).

I'm not arguing in favour of gross acts of racism and political assassination. I'm actually arguing in favour of the Remain side holding itself together instead of descending into the kind of base mentality that inspires people to think victory can be achieved by any means necessary.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You voted on the same side as all the racists, and now the racists think they've won.

Whereas you voted on the same side as the people who think it's okay to rig a vote. And now those people refuse to accept that they've lost.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Guardian suggestions of 6 practical things to do to improve the mess (following the Brexit fallout), #1 is stop asking for a second referendum. It does also suggest a general election should happen before 2020 too.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re Curiosity Killed's article link:

IMVHO, this might be the most important bit:

"3 Show solidarity with immigrants and refugees".
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
After the headless chickening mass hysteria, it has been quite good to spend the last couple of days in meetings with business people and politicians, who whatever they voted (some openly expressed, some reasonably inferrable from what they said, mostly neither), who have just said 'whatever we think, let's get on with it'. And common consent is that rule no. 1 for getting on with it is not talking the country down.

M.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You voted on the same side as all the racists, and now the racists think they've won.

Whereas you voted on the same side as the people who think it's okay to rig a vote.
If that was the case, Remain wouldn't have lost, would they? [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
And common consent is that rule no. 1 for getting on with it is not talking the country down.

Yes, because critique of vacuous policies is a sign of 'the enemy within'. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
After the headless chickening mass hysteria, it has been quite good to spend the last couple of days in meetings with business people and politicians, who whatever they voted (some openly expressed, some reasonably inferrable from what they said, mostly neither), who have just said 'whatever we think, let's get on with it'. And common consent is that rule no. 1 for getting on with it is not talking the country down.

M.

From inside the "machinery of government" that's exactly what is going on. Not "press on regardless" because the baseline for many things has been reset, but getting on with it is key, and whether we like it or not is immaterial.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You voted on the same side as all the racists, and now the racists think they've won.

Whereas you voted on the same side as the people who think it's okay to rig a vote. And now those people refuse to accept that they've lost.
Oh come off it. No-one is suggesting the army move in, send Johnson, Gove and Farage to the Tower and set up internment camps for racists and UKIP supporters (but I repeat myself). What we want now is for a vote that was achieved by legal, constitutional and democratic means to be set aside by legal, constitutional and democratic means when it becomes obvious that the consequences of said vote will be horrible and that the prospectus of the Leave campaign (and end to free movement and access to the Single Market) is frankly not achievable. Or, failing that, access to the EEA.

As a democrat I think the people should be allowed to make their own mistakes. I also think they should be allowed to try and rectify them when they realise what they have done.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Once again we're forgetting that violence is an integral part of the fascist mentality. Saying the two sides are equal is utter crap - one side is outward looking and trying to protect their brethren from racist attacks and the other side is being led by the nose by actual fascists.

If you don't want to be associated with fascists then start talking sense.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I don't think UKIP are fascists. But there is a queasy resemblance between recent events and the 30s, hopefully this will not be our proto-fascist period. Depends on the economy, no doubt.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think UKIP are fascists. But there is a queasy resemblance between recent events and the 30s, hopefully this will not be our proto-fascist period. Depends on the economy, no doubt.

Within UKIP there is a continuum of people, but some certainly are barely hidden premium grade fascist. And their whole schtick is at root fascist. The leadership is not only interested in "getting out of the EU", they're interested in getting power in any way to push their extreme agenda.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think UKIP are fascists. But there is a queasy resemblance between recent events and the 30s, hopefully this will not be our proto-fascist period. Depends on the economy, no doubt.

Within UKIP there is a continuum of people, but some certainly are barely hidden premium grade fascist. And their whole schtick is at root fascist. The leadership is not only interested in "getting out of the EU", they're interested in getting power in any way to push their extreme agenda.
You are probably right. If the economy crashes again, I expect the brownshirts on the street toot sweet.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think UKIP are fascists. But there is a queasy resemblance between recent events and the 30s, hopefully this will not be our proto-fascist period. Depends on the economy, no doubt.

UKIP is neither disciplined nor organised enough. Mosley, Mussolini, Franco and the rest were heavy on organisation and could keep discipline among their followers (pretty much in the way the Mob or certain hard-line biker gangs do). Farage cannot, mostly because while every party has some loose cannons, UKIP has nothing but.

I doubt EDL and the like could either. Any group that devises policy while swilling lager isn't going to deliver much discipline, however nasty they may be.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I have no problem with any of that. But you decided to throw in a line about the death of Jo Cox into a response about whether the UK was comparable to countries with high standards of living (countries that in fact regularly outscore the US on such matters).

No. I wasn't talking about whether those countries had comparably high standards of living. Neither were you explicitly. You were responding to a post in which La Vie en Rouge was explicitly complaining about racism.

Confining ourselves to the standards of living argument: the problem is not that we're now going to have standards of living comparable to that of Norway; as you point out that would be quite nice. The problem is that any attempt to get to Norway from here looks likely to be stimied by xenophobia stoked by right-wing politicians who are demonstrably unconstrained by reality or even consistency with their previous utterances.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
UKIP is neither disciplined nor organised enough. Mosley, Mussolini, Franco and the rest were heavy on organisation and could keep discipline among their followers


I agree that the level of organisation is (currently) different. But:

a) I don't see it making much difference to people being abused because of mis-conceptions about where home is. Does it matter to someone being told to "go home" or finding their local place of worship or community vandalised that the culprits were a disorganised mob encouraged by the growing racist-climate or a more organised group?

b) As it becomes to be more socially acceptable to express racist bull-shit then racist organisations will also become more socially acceptable. And, existing organisations may take on more racist views.

UKIP are currently a disorganised rabble losely united around a desire to bring the UK out of the EU. They certainly contain some racist members. If they continue to exist post-EU they will shed some of their membership (those who hold principalled views on sovereignty, for example, may well see that it's "job done"), but others will stay on. And, they'll need to find a new reason to exist. It's not inconceivable that the only card left in their deck is to continue to campaign for reduced immigration, and if so they will slide inevitably into the arms of the more vocal racists and become more organised on that issue.

quote:
I doubt EDL and the like could either. Any group that devises policy while swilling lager isn't going to deliver much discipline, however nasty they may be.
Especially when they devise policies to "protect British culture and values" while drinking a beverage from the European continent without, apparently, seeing the irony. I bet some of them stumble out of the pub and grab a curry or a kebab on the way home too.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
A bit of a category error here. On the one hand you talk about the bare result. On the other hand you talk about the anticipated consequences of the result.

No it's not.

I described what people voted for i.e. their intentions, expectations and hopes as a result of their votes.

Strictly speaking of course people voted for or against staying in the EU, but that's not actually very meaningful.

Why did I vote remain? Not because I love the EU but because I believe the benefits massively outweigh the costs.

Why did my friend vote to leave? Because he bought into the idea that our economy will be stronger outside the EU. It won't.

Now, I could, of course be wrong, but there's nothing wrong with my analysis here.

People voted with the intention of certain ends. Virtually no one will get the ends they wanted - no one will get what they voted for. Please show me why I am wrong in these assertions?

AFZ
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Interesting that 51.9% of a 72% turnout is not considered to be democratic for industrial action under the Trade Union Act 2016.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You are probably right. If the economy crashes again, I expect the brownshirts on the street toot sweet.

I suspect you mean brownshorts .. but anyway, I don't credit them with that level of organisation.

However, I do think they'll try to blame some other group. In that sense, their calls on social media for people to 'unite' sounds more like a method to set the stage for blaming 'the enemy within' when it all goes wrong.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I have some positive news today. I went into Dartford, home of Poles, Sikhs, Africans, and a particularly nasty nest of far right in the past. Nothing but smiling people from many backgrounds, despite the wind squalls whipping up the pedestrian precinct. I went into the Polski Sklep for smatana, and found some nice dried mushrooms as well, and chatted about how nice it was that I could get these things which have disappeared from supermarkets. (These were not the posh mushrooms which cast a huge amount.)
Then I dropped by the garden centre. The odd notice which had annoyed me before has gone, so I cannot get at what it was. The only possibly offensive notices were about not giving change from garden centre vouchers and not accepting Scottish bank notes.
All happy - except that they didn't sell vegetable plants.
And it wasn't male strippers. It was drag queens.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:


There are some of these abusers that wish we had become part of the Third Reich. They abuse the people whose forebears prevented it.

In the words of the Beatles [re WWII] "Bet you're sorry you won."
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You voted on the same side as all the racists, and now the racists think they've won.

Whereas you voted on the same side as the people who think it's okay to rig a vote. And now those people refuse to accept that they've lost.
Oh come off it. No-one is suggesting the army move in, send Johnson, Gove and Farage to the Tower and set up internment camps for racists and UKIP supporters (but I repeat myself). What we want now is for a vote that was achieved by legal, constitutional and democratic means to be set aside by legal, constitutional and democratic means when it becomes obvious that the consequences of said vote will be horrible and that the prospectus of the Leave campaign (and end to free movement and access to the Single Market) is frankly not achievable. Or, failing that, access to the EEA.

As a democrat I think the people should be allowed to make their own mistakes. I also think they should be allowed to try and rectify them when they realise what they have done.

Come off it yourself. Scotland is proposing a new referendum because circumstances have changed significantly.

Circumstances have not changed one iota when it comes to the EU since the last time you voted on the EU, which was less than a week ago. The only thing that has happened is a vote on the exact same question that you want to have another vote on.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You voted on the same side as all the racists, and now the racists think they've won.

Whereas you voted on the same side as the people who think it's okay to rig a vote.
If that was the case, Remain wouldn't have lost, would they? [Roll Eyes]
I'm sure they'll try harder the next time.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You voted on the same side as all the racists, and now the racists think they've won.

Whereas you voted on the same side as the people who think it's okay to rig a vote. And now those people refuse to accept that they've lost.
Oh come off it. No-one is suggesting the army move in, send Johnson, Gove and Farage to the Tower and set up internment camps for racists and UKIP supporters (but I repeat myself). What we want now is for a vote that was achieved by legal, constitutional and democratic means to be set aside by legal, constitutional and democratic means when it becomes obvious that the consequences of said vote will be horrible and that the prospectus of the Leave campaign (and end to free movement and access to the Single Market) is frankly not achievable. Or, failing that, access to the EEA.

As a democrat I think the people should be allowed to make their own mistakes. I also think they should be allowed to try and rectify them when they realise what they have done.

Come off it yourself. Scotland is proposing a new referendum because circumstances have changed significantly.

Circumstances have not changed one iota when it comes to the EU since the last time you voted on the EU, which was less than a week ago. The only thing that has happened is a vote on the exact same question that you want to have another vote on.

Friday morning, I got up and heard the news we were out. Made breakfast, took my daughter to school, went to the gym. Came home to the news that the UK had gone from being the 5th largest economy in the world to the 6th. That was between 6.30 and 10.30 on the first day of Brexit. Nothing that has happened since has convinced me that we are headed for the broad sunlit uplands. Pretty much the totality of informed economic opinion thinks that we are headed for a recession. It is entirely clear that no-one in the Leave campaign has the slightest bloody clue what we do next because the central plank of their campaign is entirely fraudulent. Over the next few months I expect this to start percolating into the popular consciousness. There will be a backlash. At which point it would be entirely legitimate to revisit the issue.

Of course the converse could be true. Angela Merkel and the other 26 EU heads of state, determined to trade freely with the UK, will grant us access to the single market without freedom of movement. The economy will rally and the good times will begin to roll. At which point I will, of course, look rather silly. The Leavers will be entirely vindicated. No-one will publicly admit to joining Remain at dinner parties and those politicians who campaigned for it will see their stock drop. In which case, great, I don't like to be afraid for my country and would rather not see my opinions vindicated at the expense of the prosperity of my fellow counterpersons.

But, if I am right and things do turn out to be disastrous and public opinion swings decisively behind remain then it is absurd to say that there is no process which could give this change of mind democratic legitimacy. Electorates change their minds about stuff all the time. Can't see why this decision is any different to implementing the Poll Tax or joining the ERM.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
If Ireland have had a second referendum, and if Scotland intend to have a second referendum then why can't we have one as well?

If the result of our (theoretical) second referendum is still Leave then fair enough, no further ones should be held on the subject - at least not for a long time. But this one has been and continues to be particularly divisive and controversial and there is predecent for having another crack at it to clarify the position.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Just because I found it this morning, the official Leave campaign postcard through my door before the Referendum promised the £350 million paid to the EU could support the NHS and immigration control. And that my street was one of those most likely to vote Leave.

There may a case to answer on false campaigning as both those campaign promises were retracted the day after the vote.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
But, you're still only saying that all we have is more information on one part of the short term consequences of exit - information that had been available prior to going to the polls last week. Which means that a further referendum today would still be on the same non-question. The only way a further referendum would ask a different question would be when there is a definition of what form of exit we get, which is something we should have had at least 6 months before going to the polls. At present we're in the limbo land of having voted in a government and waiting for them to pick their leader and write their manifesto.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
The only conceivable scenario in which I can imagine a second referendum being held (what would the question be??) would be after a General Election, which is itself months away at the earliest.

During all this time the rest of the world is not standing still. Contracts are being terminated, investment decisions are being made, the business of the EU is continuing without the involvement of the UK.

There is no Bagpuss option of putting everything back the way it was. Any reversal of the wishes expressed by the referendum will not get the UK's relationship with the EU back to where it was this time last week.

In addition, domestically, you have the issues exposed and the prejudices legitimised by the Leave vote. You can't put them back in the bottle just like that.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Indeed, last week one option was defined - Remain was clearly a vote for what we had at the time, with some small changes over time as the EU evolved.

A second referendum today with the same options would also need to have a manifesto for the Remain option, a statement of what relationship we would have with the rest of the EU since we can't go back to where we were.

On top of which we need a political commitment to campaign against the un-British racism and xenophobia that has surfaced recently. But, that's domestic policy and needs to be done regardless of the EU relationship.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, you're still only saying that all we have is more information on one part of the short term consequences of exit - information that had been available prior to going to the polls last week. Which means that a further referendum today would still be on the same non-question. The only way a further referendum would ask a different question would be when there is a definition of what form of exit we get, which is something we should have had at least 6 months before going to the polls. At present we're in the limbo land of having voted in a government and waiting for them to pick their leader and write their manifesto.

It's a bit like when my daughter became aware of the concept of stinging nettles. I told her she ought not to touch them but, blithely dismissing a 'Project Fear' based on expert opinions she decided to touch one anyway and promptly burst into tears. She now avoids stinging nettles. Given that the government's attitude and that of the Leave campaign to activating Article 50 presently appears to be "touch these two wires together and I destroy the EU forever... but do I have the right?" there may well be sufficient time for "information in the public domain" to turn into "why didn't people tell me this would happen!?"

I think the most likely scenario, at this point, is a Tory government with a working majority, membership of the EEA on not terribly advantageous terms, an economic downturn and a bunch of angry nativists banging on about betrayal and taking out their frustrations on immigrants and foreign nationals but until it happens the only justifiable stance that I can see is pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the will. If we fight, we'll probably lose but if we don't fight we'll certainly lose.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Indeed, last week one option was defined - Remain was clearly a vote for what we had at the time, with some small changes over time as the EU evolved.

Strictly speaking, Remain was a vote for the EU as modified by the epoch-making and fundamental reforms Cameron had negotiated.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
there may well be sufficient time for "information in the public domain" to turn into "why didn't people tell me this would happen!?"

Except people did say it would happen. Repeatedly.

If you fail an exam you don't get to resit the paper by claiming that you now know the answers and weren't told them before - especially when your teacher gave you all the information you needed to answer the questions. There are times when you can't go back, but only forward.

(And, I know you can resit exams - but you'll get a different set of questions. Any "resit" of the referendum would also have different questions)
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Indeed, last week one option was defined - Remain was clearly a vote for what we had at the time, with some small changes over time as the EU evolved.

Strictly speaking, Remain was a vote for the EU as modified by the epoch-making and fundamental reforms Cameron had negotiated.
True, they were a remarkably extensive set of reforms. But, it was still known.

It doesn't alter the fact that the referendum itself was a unique democratic exercise (at least in my adult lifetime in the UK). When else have we entered an election where the candidates don't have a manifesto?
 
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Given that the government's attitude and that of the Leave campaign to activating Article 50 presently appears to be "touch these two wires together and I destroy the EU forever... but do I have the right?"

[Overused] for the Doctor Who reference.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
If Ireland have had a second referendum, and if Scotland intend to have a second referendum then why can't we have one as well?

Because you want a referendum in exactly the same situation as your first referendum on exactly the same question. This is not the case for Ireland or Scotland.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
If Ireland have had a second referendum, and if Scotland intend to have a second referendum then why can't we have one as well?

Because you want a referendum in exactly the same situation as your first referendum on exactly the same question. This is not the case for Ireland or Scotland.
Same question but in a different situation. Since the result was announced any number of market indicators have shown that the UK is going to be less properous for some years and that many of the Brexiteers promises were hollow. I doubt many votes will switch but many who didn't vote before may vote given a second chance.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
But, it was known that the economy was going to tank (at least in the short term). The voters were told this. It was also known that many of the promises of the Leave campaign were not going to be fulfilled, and based on lies. The voters were told this too. The facts on which people chose to vote haven't changed, they've just happened rather than being predicted to happen. What will actually change the question is for the Leave campaign to appoint their leader and write their manifesto, both of which they should have done at least 6 months ago.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
And a warm thank-you to Boris for landing us in this mess then deciding he doesn't want to take responsibility for sorting it out. A lot of people are going to be quite annoyed with him after today.

Boris sold a lot of people a dream. Unfortunately, in the later stages of the campaign it was looking increasingly threadbare. At least he had the sense to admit he wasn't the right person for the job.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
We need a "Johnson you utter sack of shit" thread, the only slight consolation is that it's all blown up in his face and now he'll never be PM. Resigning his seat tomorrow?
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Resigning his seat tomorrow?

That would be the honourable thing. So I think it's safe to say he won't.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Resigning his seat tomorrow?

That would be the honourable thing. So I think it's safe to say he won't.
Hope not. I'm looking forward to the bit when he stands up outside Downing Street, after meeting a victorious Teresa May, to explain to the assembled hacks that his lifetimes ambition has always been to serve as a Parliamentary Undersecretary at the Department of Work and Pensions.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Dave has run, Boris has run.
Leaders of men/women? I trowe not.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
What the fuck do the Tories have to do for the mud to stick? How many souls have been sacrificed to Satan to create this much Teflon?

FFS. They are about to use Johnson as the scapegoat, meaning the rest of them save their miserable, worthless hides and sail on in government as if nothing has happened. Apart from the fact that a fair chunk of them were involved in peddling the worthless lies for which Johnson acted as mouthpiece.

What a shower of shits. Skillful ones, but total excrement nonetheless.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Since the result was announced any number of market indicators have shown that the UK is going to be less properous for some years and that many of the Brexiteers promises were hollow.

One of the claims made before the vote was that the stock market would crash. Of course, the stock market can go down as well as up but I think I'm right in saying that the FTSE-100 recovered all its post-Referendum losses yesterday, i.e. stock market armageddon lasted six days. We'll see what the future holds.

I almost wish we could all vote again so that Britain could vote Leave for a second time. That would hopefully shut up most of the complainers. Not all of them, though, probably.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I think I'm right in saying that the FTSE-100 recovered all its post-Referendum losses yesterday, i.e. stock market armageddon lasted six days. We'll see what the future holds.

It depends if you take into account the fall in the value of the pound, apparently. (In other words, the price in pounds has recovered, but if you converted it into other currencies the value has fallen.)
The FTSE-250 hadn't recovered as of this afternoon. That is, the value of the very secure companies is recovering; that of only moderately secure companies less so.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Also, what happened to the stock so far is just from the initial shock. Regardless of the final levels, expect more dips and surges as the process continues.
Even if the markets were exactly the same today as before the vote, it would be fairly stupid to claim a recovery.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
The Bank of England wouldn't be considering interest rate cuts if they weren't afraid the British economy will go into recession.
 
Posted by Beenster (# 242) on :
 
A recession has been predicted, but nothing is certain at the moment - not even some of the doom. My sense is that it will come, but it will take a while to kick in, partly due to the two quarters - ie 6 months - needed to measure a recession by definition.

I woke up this morning early. A week ago I woke up at 3am and watched the results pour in. Today I woke up at 5am and wondered where we were - and how far we had come or gone in a week. It's no time at all but the week has been so bruising.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
One of the claims made before the vote was that the stock market would crash. Of course, the stock market can go down as well as up but I think I'm right in saying that the FTSE-100 recovered all its post-Referendum losses yesterday, i.e. stock market armageddon lasted six days. We'll see what the future holds.

I almost wish we could all vote again so that Britain could vote Leave for a second time. That would hopefully shut up most of the complainers. Not all of them, though, probably.

If you listen carefully, it is the media who have made a fuss about the stock market, no economist as far as I know has even mentioned it. It's not really relevant. As said above, you need at least 6 months to see the real effect. In reality it's the medium term that people are worried about.


This is a good summary. (Wren-Lewis uses the term 'Mediamacro' to describe how economic issues are reported which is completely at odds with the way economics actually works)

You may be right that a majority of people would still vote leave. It does however remain a bad idea.

AFZ
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
5 years time will be the real test when trade deals with the rest of the world are reaping the rewards. And of course the effect of the EU shutting us out, if indeed they do.
That is presuming we still have an EU.

If Leavers and Remainers are still bickering after all that time someone can say --- nah, nah nan nah...told you so [Razz] [Razz]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
It'll take more than 5 years to arrange trade deals with anyone. For a start, we'll need to find people to conduct trade negotiations on our behalf, it's been 40 years since we've needed people to do that (at present some of that £250m or so per week pays people to do that for the whole EU). Although we could go into such negotiations without a qualified negotiating team, but that would rely on the goodwill of others to strike a deal that's good for the UK.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Not sure why we are bothering to explain. If reason or logic were a factor, they wouldn't have voted to Leave
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Possibly the same reason why I still have the REMAIN poster in my window. To remind people that we didn't all vote for this mess, we weren't all fooled by the lies and deceit.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I can see why the old industrial areas voted Leave. They feel abandoned, unheard. For 40 years they have been derelict, with low-paid jobs, poor services, and then austerity on top of that. Voting Labour or UKIP tends to get absorbed into the cotton wool of Parliament, so here was a chance to say fuck off to the Establishment. It might be cutting off your nose to spite your face, as well.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Possibly the same reason why I still have the REMAIN poster in my window. To remind people that we didn't all vote for this mess, we weren't all fooled by the lies and deceit.

Yep, that's the same reason why during the Junior Doctors' dispute I started using my "Don't blame me, I voted Labour" mug at work...

AFZ

[ 01. July 2016, 17:17: Message edited by: alienfromzog ]
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beenster:
A recession has been predicted, but nothing is certain at the moment - not even some of the doom. My sense is that it will come, but it will take a while to kick in, partly due to the two quarters - ie 6 months - needed to measure a recession by definition.

I got to hear Mark Zandi's (Moody's Analytics) talk this Tuesday on the forecast economic effects of the Brexit, and he puts the chance of UK recession at 50% for 2017 (and, as you say, he's putting the first signs of the impact at the end of this year). Their macro model puts the impact on the UK GDP at about -0.5%. The impact should be limited largely to the UK with a relatively minor impact on the rest of the EU. The US and the rest of the world will hardly notice the change economically (unless a bunch of other countries follow suit which would be bad for the world economy as a whole).
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It'll take more than 5 years to arrange trade deals with anyone. For a start, we'll need to find people to conduct trade negotiations on our behalf, .....

Well we'd better get weaving because word is the several Countries have already expressed a strong interest in doing business with us. Big fish like India, Australia and New Zealand.

The popular notion pedalled since last week that a bunch of KKK coffin dodgers and racist chavs have unwittingly voted Britain into financial oblivion is, I think, total balderdash . In fact some are already saying that Mr. C himself was a closet Leaver with sections of the press calling him Dodgy Dave

[ 01. July 2016, 19:57: Message edited by: rolyn ]
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
In fact some are already saying that Mr. C himself was a closet Leaver with sections of the press calling him Dodgy Dave

And he was willing to sacrifice his career and reputation in order to bring about a Leave victory? Or was he planning to quit anyway?
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It'll take more than 5 years to arrange trade deals with anyone. For a start, we'll need to find people to conduct trade negotiations on our behalf, .....

Well we'd better get weaving because word is the several Countries have already expressed a strong interest in doing business with us. Big fish like India, Australia and New Zealand.

The popular notion pedalled since last week that a bunch of KKK coffin dodgers and racist chavs have unwittingly voted Britain into financial oblivion is, I think, total balderdash . In fact some are already saying that Mr. C himself was a closet Leaver with sections of the press calling him Dodgy Dave

Well, I have to say this is the first time in my life I've heard my country referred to as a 'big fish'. It feels like a bit of a backhanded compliment, though, to be honest. And as I noted on the Farage thread, in reference to his metaphorical greasy hand of friendship being stuck in our face - why would you go back for seconds?
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
[QUOTE]Well we'd better get weaving because word is the several Countries have already expressed a strong interest in doing business with us. Big fish like India, Australia and New Zealand.

Don't forget that here in Aust, today's election day. I don't know what "the word" might be, certainly no publicity to it here, but if there's a vote in it, a pollie may say anything.

[ 01. July 2016, 23:18: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The only way a further referendum would ask a different question would be when there is a definition of what form of exit we get, which is something we should have had at least 6 months before going to the polls. .

Article 50 is set up so that you only know the terms when you are halfway out of the exit door with no way to come back. On leaving for trade purposes the UK will be a brand new country following WTO rules which will hollow out our financial industry.

Only a fool would activate Article 50 but this is where we have come to.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Anyone at today's Brexit protest? If it was organized on social media I never saw anything about it.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The only way a further referendum would ask a different question would be when there is a definition of what form of exit we get, which is something we should have had at least 6 months before going to the polls. .

Article 50 is set up so that you only know the terms when you are halfway out of the exit door with no way to come back. On leaving for trade purposes the UK will be a brand new country following WTO rules which will hollow out our financial industry.

Only a fool would activate Article 50 but this is where we have come to.

So what would happen, in terms of UK-EU relations, were the UK to just ignore the results of the referendum, and never ask for the activation of Article 50? Could they just continue on in the EU as before, or is there some rule that in the event of a Leave vote, the country which held the referendum has to leave?
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
And he was willing to sacrifice his career and reputation in order to bring about a Leave victory? Or was he planning to quit anyway?

No one said he had to go. In fact most wanted him to stay so as to avoid the political turmoil we are now seeing. He knew that Referendum was going to be tight so he'd been a fool not to have a plan B.

I'm somehow sure that if the behind-the-scenes Power mongers really feared throwing this bone to the masses, esp in light of the refugee crisis, could go the wrong way then somehow they'd have found a way to shelve it. A bit like the Westminster paedo business, just fudge it and fudge it until everyone forgets about it.

This whole malarkey stinks more than the dead fish the EU made us throw back in the sea.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Anyone at today's Brexit protest? If it was organized on social media I never saw anything about it.

It was on Facebook apparently - I knew about it from the Guardian article linked to earlier on this thread. I didn't go, but knew people there according to my Twitter feed.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
So what would happen, in terms of UK-EU relations, were the UK to just ignore the results of the referendum, and never ask for the activation of Article 50? Could they just continue on in the EU as before, or is there some rule that in the event of a Leave vote, the country which held the referendum has to leave?

That's an easy one legally. Tricky politically.

The EU is a organisation made up of sovereign nations. There is no mechanism as I understand it for throwing countries out. The provision of Article 50 is that countries notify the rest of their intent to leave. The mechanisms leading up to that are absolutely a matter for the sovereign nation and no-one else's business.

The UK constitution is clear that Parliament is sovereign. The activation of the article falls within the royal prerogative - i.e. execute powers that are exercised by the government in the form of the Prime Minister and/or the Cabinet. The bill that created the referendum could have compelled the PM to act in the a event of a Leave vote. It didn't and hence it has no legal power. Parliament could pass a bill to stop the PM from activating Article 50. Or the PM (whoever that is) could just do nothing.

That's the legal facts. The internal and external politics are somewhat different and very unpredictable. However, much as I would love to see some way back, I do not think it conceivable. However I will still mourn for my country when it actually happens.

AFZ
 
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It'll take more than 5 years to arrange trade deals with anyone. For a start, we'll need to find people to conduct trade negotiations on our behalf, .....

Well we'd better get weaving because word is the several Countries have already expressed a strong interest in doing business with us. Big fish like India, Australia and New Zealand.

The popular notion pedalled since last week that a bunch of KKK coffin dodgers and racist chavs have unwittingly voted Britain into financial oblivion is, I think, total balderdash . In fact some are already saying that Mr. C himself was a closet Leaver with sections of the press calling him Dodgy Dave

Well, I have to say this is the first time in my life I've heard my country referred to as a 'big fish'. It feels like a bit of a backhanded compliment, though, to be honest. And as I noted on the Farage thread, in reference to his metaphorical greasy hand of friendship being stuck in our face - why would you go back for seconds?
That was exactly my response too anoesis [Smile]

Although...Te Ika a Maui and all that.

I hear that John Key and the government have offered our trade negotiators to the UK. So that's something.

*Te Ika a Maui is the Maori name for the North Island of New Zealand and translates roughly as 'the Fish of Maui'.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
I enjoyed this comparison between two leave campaigns despite depressing me.

https://medium.com/@kirstymhall/brexit-was-a-con-67532113a7c#.kr5fj8dj0
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
I enjoyed this comparison between two leave campaigns despite depressing me.

https://medium.com/@kirstymhall/brexit-was-a-con-67532113a7c#.kr5fj8dj0

The first part of the essay seems to be a rehashing of the argument that the voters got conned, because the Leave side didn't present a detailed enough plan about how the Brexit would work.

Thing is, though, the Leave plan apparently WAS detailed enough for the 52% who voted for that option, otherwise they wouldn't have voted that way.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Thing is, though, the Leave plan apparently WAS detailed enough for the 52% who voted for that option, otherwise they wouldn't have voted that way.

OK, go and run a survey. Ask the 52% what they voted for, and find out if there is an identifiable detailed plan for Brexit there. Did all 52%, for example, vote for significant reductions in immigration? Did they all vote for remaining in a free trade area with the rest of the EU? Did they vote for £350m per week to be spent on the NHS?
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
I think many hands strayed to the Leave box because somewhere in our heads we could hear Cameron's voice saying The EU needs reforming . Problem for mr. C being most suspected he had no more chance of reforming it than he did of keeping yunnkers out.

It would be interesting to know where the loyalties of the media mogels lie. For quite some time there have been subliminal messages, particularly from radio news bulletins, that I get the feeling may have helped the sucess of UKip and the Brexit campaign. Then of course there is the Internet .....
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

It would be interesting to know where the loyalties of the media mogels lie.

Fear sells, this is the main motivation.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
Good news as the EU give up on TTIP we might get it in the brand new Brexit world.

[ 09. July 2016, 08:04: Message edited by: Nightlamp ]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
It would be interesting to know where the loyalties of the media mogels lie.

Was that a mis-type for "moguls" or "mongrels"? Could easily be either or both.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
OK, go and run a survey. Ask the 52% what they voted for, and find out if there is an identifiable detailed plan for Brexit there. Did all 52%, for example, vote for significant reductions in immigration? Did they all vote for remaining in a free trade area with the rest of the EU? Did they vote for £350m per week to be spent on the NHS?
I have an elderly relative who voted for Leave and his reasons were vague in the extreme; just a general "let's make Britain great again." He was quite clear that he didn't have any specific short term reasons, indeed he doesn't expect to live to see the "benefits" of Leave. He's always had a distrust of "over-regulation" and "red tape" so I guess he thought he was voting for less of that.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
When I first thought about voting Leave my reason was basically that the EU needed reform, attempts so far had been unsuccessful, we seemed to have continually negotiated opt-outs for this, that and the other, and there was no guarantee that any further attempts at reform would be any more successful. I was uncomfortable with the idea of "ever closer union" and a European superstate and would have been happier with just a simple, single trading market.

Also I quite liked the idea that more money could be spent on the NHS.

It then occurred to me that if you're outside the door you have no say in what goes on inside the room, the money that could be spent on the NHS probably wouldn't be, TTIP would very likely be on the cards, and the loss of EU grants would hit agriculture (round here it's farming country). Also, Boris was starting to come across as flaky and delusional, and I didn't like or trust his line-up, so I changed my mind.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Also I quite liked the idea that more money could be spent on the NHS.

This one puzzles me. Why would one trust this promise as it was given by the very people who would dismantle th NHS? It is like the Three Little Pigs buying home security systems from the Big Bad Wolf.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Yes, but I didn't realize that at first.

I suspect the same was true for a lot of people who tend not to take a close interest in politics. It wasn't until I started looking more closely at it that I realized things weren't going to pan out as promised.

It was a horrible campaign on both sides anyway which left a lot of people feeling disillusioned. Boris's side was the one that seemed to offer hope and change, while Cameron's just promised more of the same and "don't you DARE vote Leave or the sky will fall in". Certainly amongst the people I talked to we were all getting quite sick of the campaign long before it ended and not wanting to hear any more doom and gloom.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Cameron's just promised more of the same and "don't you DARE vote Leave or the sky will fall in". Certainly amongst the people I talked to we were all getting quite sick of the campaign long before it ended and not wanting to hear any more doom and gloom.

Alec salmond put it that way too on the night of the count. And he should know a thing or two about campaigning having come close with Scottish Independence.
Campaigning for things to remain as they were, knowing the level of discontent among voters, was a recipe for defeat.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Campaigning for things to remain as they were, knowing the level of discontent among voters, was a recipe for defeat.

I think the biggest mistake was to assume that the vote would concentrate on issues relating to the EU. A very large proportion of discontent in the UK has nothing to do with the EU - lack of funding for the NHS, schools, housing, welfare reforms, the "bedroom tax", etc. Add to that a whole load of discontent with the political system - millions marching against a war in Iraq, and the war then going ahead anyway, MPs salaries and expenses, a large number of people in safe seats feeling their vote is worthless, even in marginals a feeling that the candidates are all as bad as each other, a general disconnect between politicians and the people they're supposed to represent.

The referendum gave people who have never felt they had a political voice a say, and they basically said "fuck you" to the political system that had never seemed to take-up their concerns. The arguments for or against the EU are secondary in that situation, it's simply that the Government and Opposition are campaigning to Remain - therefore the protest against the whole UK system is to vote Leave.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Thing is, though, the Leave plan apparently WAS detailed enough for the 52% who voted for that option, otherwise they wouldn't have voted that way.

OK, go and run a survey. Ask the 52% what they voted for, and find out if there is an identifiable detailed plan for Brexit there. Did all 52%, for example, vote for significant reductions in immigration? Did they all vote for remaining in a free trade area with the rest of the EU? Did they vote for £350m per week to be spent on the NHS?
I didn't say the voters were well-informed in absolute terms. I said the Leave plan was "detailed enough for them".

If you listened to the Leave arguments, and thought that there was something missing, or that some of the points were over-simplified, or sound good on paper but wouldn't work in real life, and if these shortcomings were dire enough to make a Leave victory seem like a disquieting prospect, then you should have voted Remain. But if you voted Leave, we can assume that you viewed the arguments as satisfactory, or at least not as bad as the Remain arguments.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I didn't say the voters were well-informed in absolute terms. I said the Leave plan was "detailed enough for them".

They were not informed on any terms. There were some arguments with the potential to have validity, but I'd be shocked if you found 5% of the Leavers who understood them.

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Yes, but I didn't realize that at first.

I suspect the same was true for a lot of people who tend not to take a close interest in politics.

And this is why we cannot have nice things.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
[qb]I didn't say the voters were well-informed in absolute terms. I said the Leave plan was "detailed enough for them".

They were not informed on any terms. There were some arguments with the potential to have validity, but I'd be shocked if you found 5% of the Leavers who understood them.


Well, then, apparently, zero accurate information was enough for those voters. Like I said. Enough.

I got this started because the article said that people were "conned". But in a campaign where both sides are openly presenting their arguments to the public, and voters decide that they don't need to pay much attention to any of the arguments, where is the con?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
The promises about the NHS, for one.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The promises about the NHS, for one.

But there are dodgy claims made all the time in campaigns, and in an adversarial system, it's the responsibility of the opposing sides to point out what's wrong with the others arguments. Did no one on the Remain side counter the promises made about the NHS?

Or was it that the Leave supporters simply did not care to listen?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Yes, but I didn't realize that at first.

I suspect the same was true for a lot of people who tend not to take a close interest in politics.

And this is why we cannot have nice things.
Welcome to democracy. Why has it taken people until this vote to figure out how it works?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The promises about the NHS, for one.

But there are dodgy claims made all the time in campaigns, and in an adversarial system, it's the responsibility of the opposing sides to point out what's wrong with the others arguments. Did no one on the Remain side counter the promises made about the NHS?

Or was it that the Leave supporters simply did not care to listen?

Can't see how that makes a con not a con. You're basically saying if people fall for a con, it must not have been a con.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And this is why we cannot have nice things.

...? [Confused]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
[qb]I didn't say the voters were well-informed in absolute terms. I said the Leave plan was "detailed enough for them".

They were not informed on any terms. There were some arguments with the potential to have validity, but I'd be shocked if you found 5% of the Leavers who understood them.


Well, then, apparently, zero accurate information was enough for those voters. Like I said. Enough.

I got this started because the article said that people were "conned". But in a campaign where both sides are openly presenting their arguments to the public, and voters decide that they don't need to pay much attention to any of the arguments, where is the con?

The main attractions of the "Leave" campaign, apart from the opportunity to give the political establishment a kick up the arse, were a) Sovereignty and b) Better border controls while c) retaining the trading relationship with the EU/EEA.

These haven't been tested one way or the other yet as there will be at lest two years of negotiations, but it's my belief that we don't stand a cat in hell's chance of getting a) + b) + c), or anything remotely like it. An awful lot of Leave voters really thought, and I believe still think, that Britain can keep the trading links while discarding the other obligations that the single market entails, such as those involving employment. I don't think the Leave leadership ever thought Britain could get all or even most of that, which explains why scum like Farage aren't hanging around for the hard work.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And this is why we cannot have nice things.

The point being that to have nice things we have to have the emotional, conceptual and intellectual tools needed to deal with them. The decision to leave the EU demonstrates the capacity of one who has to be restricted to smooth-edged plastic utensils on all three grounds.

It is so far beyond stupid, and demonstrates a pathetic level of gullibility on the part of those are, geographically and by custom, my fellow citizens. This is the level which is driving a desire to enquire about hitching my wagon elsewhere. I don't want fellow citizens who are this stupid.

There, I said it. As the sig says, still angry as fuck.

[ 10. July 2016, 15:13: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And this is why we cannot have nice things.

...? [Confused]
When people can't be arsed to understand the decisions being made which affect their future, it is inevitable that those making the decisions will not consider the people's benefit.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The promises about the NHS, for one.

But there are dodgy claims made all the time in campaigns, and in an adversarial system, it's the responsibility of the opposing sides to point out what's wrong with the others arguments. Did no one on the Remain side counter the promises made about the NHS?

Or was it that the Leave supporters simply did not care to listen?

Can't see how that makes a con not a con. You're basically saying if people fall for a con, it must not have been a con.
A confidence scheme is a deliberate attempt at deception to convince the mark to ignore their own interest in the favour of the con artist. The quality of the con is irrelevant to categorising it as such.
Cannot see how the Leave campaign was anything except a con.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
It is so far beyond stupid, and demonstrates a pathetic level of gullibility on the part of those are, geographically and by custom, my fellow citizens. This is the level which is driving a desire to enquire about hitching my wagon elsewhere. I don't want fellow citizens who are this stupid.

Wherever you go there are always going to be an element of people who are like this. If you're looking for a country with a sizeable majority of well-educated, politically literate, sensibly behaved citizens you're going to be looking in vain. I can't think of anywhere that fits that description. The EU countries wouldn't have voted our way because continental Europe perceives the EU differently - less as an oppressor and more as a benefactor. Some of that is tied to having been part of continental Europe, with all its wars and conquests and invasions, now largely prevented by membership of the EU. It doesn't mean that a class of politically illiterate people doesn't exist in these countries.

Also, the far right seems to be on the increase in quite a lot of places. As edginess increases so too will the boundaries of what the far right consider "acceptable". The visibly different, then the audibly different, then people from neighbouring countries or even provinces. If you're thinking of relocating, think ahead.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The promises about the NHS, for one.

But there are dodgy claims made all the time in campaigns, and in an adversarial system, it's the responsibility of the opposing sides to point out what's wrong with the others arguments. Did no one on the Remain side counter the promises made about the NHS?

Or was it that the Leave supporters simply did not care to listen?

Can't see how that makes a con not a con. You're basically saying if people fall for a con, it must not have been a con.
Well, I guess it might tenchnically qualify as a con. But I would say that the moral import of a con is pretty close to negligible if it takes place within the parameters of an adversarial system, in which it is understood that both sides will be presenting their claims to the public, and critiquing those of the other side.

I mean, for example, the people who voted against Obama because they thought he was born in Kenya, even though there was ample evidence presented right from the beginning that he was born in the USA. Would you really consider them to be victims of a con in any morally meaningful way?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And this is why we cannot have nice things.

...? [Confused]
When people can't be arsed to understand the decisions being made which affect their future, it is inevitable that those making the decisions will not consider the people's benefit.
Thanks for the explanation. Google said it was an internet meme used when someone is considered to be derailing a thread, which didn't quite fit.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I had long and interesting conversation with a friend of mine who has learning difficulties & asd who voted leave.

He had asked some of his friends with degrees in politics to explain the issues to him, and he had watched either a debate or an interview on Sky about the vote. (Difficult to tell from his description.). What had stuck with him, was that he didn't think the stay person answered the questions they were asked.

He thought more immigration would bring more violence, based on a family member having been shot abroad. He thought that at least if we left, if we failed at stuff it would be us making the choices - he quoted taking back control.

Unfortunately, many of the things he wanted to be different had nothing to do with the EU. (E.g. The release dates for Pokemon Go.)

He hadn't really thought about how the country would work after the vote or who would be in charge - he didn't really know who the key players were. He felt politicians didn't know what they are doing and maybe it would be better if the Queen ran the country, with some experts to help her. Or some other new person.

He remains optimistic about the decision, because things are better for his family since the vote - as this week his mum was able to buy 3 weeks worth of food from tescos for the amount she usually spends on one.

I have to admit, he did more active research about his vote than I would have guessed. Ultimately, if you disect his reasons they come down to gut instinct, distrust of politicians, fear of terrorism, and absorbing a simple message oft repeated.

But. He did not know what the EU actually does - and he is likely to be totally stuffed by the next government - as he struggles to find employment due to his disabilities.

(On further discussion he'd rather have May than Leadson because he believes in gay rights. I can also tell you with some certainty he is not racist.)

[ 10. July 2016, 15:58: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
[QUOTE] Google said it was an internet meme used when someone is considered to be derailing a thread, which didn't quite fit.

Urban dictionary says it's used when somebody ruins something you had that was good, eg. a child knocking an antique vase off the table. I guess that, applied to internet threads, it means the person who derailed the thread has wrecked a nice thing.

I'd imagine it was something that was said once by an adult to a child on a TV show or something, and took off from there.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Want to add, I am really pleased my friend voted. I hope he stays engaged with politics, and continues to find people help him understand the issues at stake.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I mean, for example, the people who voted against Obama because they thought he was born in Kenya, even though there was ample evidence presented right from the beginning that he was born in the USA. Would you really consider them to be victims of a con in any morally meaningful way?

Yes. Part of the con was explaining away the evidence.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The referendum gave people who have never felt they had a political voice a say, and they basically said "fuck you" to the political system that had never seemed to take-up their concerns. The arguments for or against the EU are secondary in that situation, it's simply that the Government and Opposition are campaigning to Remain - therefore the protest against the whole UK system is to vote Leave.

I agree with that analysis
There was always a Leave hardcore, 30% maybe less, who were going to vote for Out come hell or high water. Cameron hoped against hope that he could sway that crucial section of floaters. Common opinion is he used too much stick and not enough carrot, but given the level of dissatisfaction evident at last year's General it could be that even a carrot shower would not have worked.

What's done is done. Now we await M. Theresa with her healing balm. The knife-wielders will no doubt reappear when they feel the time is right.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Did Tory MPs vote for Leadsome as a no-hoper candidate just to knock Gove out of the race? Then, job done she decides she doesn't want the job after all. Which gives us a Remain campaigner (admittedly not a very prominant one) in No. 10. We might as well have kept Cameron.

I'm getting really fed up with all these games being played by the Tory Party at our expense. It's a ridiculous shambles. And, Labour aren't being any more mature, with their own silly little games.

Can we just sack the lot of them and start over? Please?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I think that's very short-sighted. A newly minted right-wing government will work wonders, and all signs of blood and massacre will be cleaned away. It's a brave new Britannia, sorry, I mean England!
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
With leadsom stepping aside at lunchtime an ugly jostling for Power in the Tory camp has been avoided. I would say Plan B, (the outcome of a Leave Victory), has now landed safely .

A 2020 Election will be best for all concerned. Not least for Labour who look like needing good long while to get their shit together in order to mount something that resembles an effective challenge.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
A 2020 Election will be best for all concerned. Not least for Labour who look like needing good long while to get their shit together in order to mount something that resembles an effective challenge.

Yes, it will probably take them the best part of 4 years to get Corbyn out at this rate.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Corbyn's major sin is that he is not slick enough for most people. But the Damn fool Tory's that got this mess going are, so what does that tell you?
 
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :
 
I see that May has chosen Boris Johnson to be Foreign Secretary. With him in charge of your diplomacy, all I can say is, Good luck! It seems like a move calculated to make the rest of the EU say to the UK, "Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out" - as we say in the US.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
I see that May has chosen Boris Johnson to be Foreign Secretary. With him in charge of your diplomacy, all I can say is, Good luck! It seems like a move calculated to make the rest of the EU say to the UK, "Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out" - as we say in the US.

Thankfully, most of the sharp implements are in other people's hands. David Davis has been appointed to deal with the EU, and our esteemed Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has other deputies, including hopefully a minister for hiding the best Sabatier knives when his boss comes into the room, lest there be blood all over the floor - probably mostly Boris's, but still.....
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Do you think this might be a, give him enough rope to hang himself, type posting ?

She gives him a major office of state, he cocks it up by massively offending an ally - she fires him and he's never a serious contender for cabinet again ?

And no one can claim he didn't get his chance.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
A 2020 Election will be best for all concerned. Not least for Labour who look like needing good long while to get their shit together in order to mount something that resembles an effective challenge.

Yes, it will probably take them the best part of 4 years to get Corbyn out at this rate.
This is an interesting article which suggests that Theresa May would be wrong to call a snap election. She'd win it massively, but: "This is the mother of temptations for any PM. Only a potentially great one would resist it on the grounds that a one-party state – a state literally with only one relevant party, and no trace of a functional opposition on the horizon – is an abomination to a true democrat of any political persuasion".
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Do you think this might be a, give him enough rope to hang himself, type posting ?

She gives him a major office of state, he cocks it up by massively offending an ally - she fires him and he's never a serious contender for cabinet again ?

And no one can claim he didn't get his chance.

Yes, that could be part of it. I think it's actually quite clever on several levels. Boris gets to do what he’s best at, float around meeting people at cocktail parties and turning the sunny charm on. He’ll be out and about a lot so not on the ground that much. He gets a prominent post in the new Cabinet, which will please the people who voted for him (in the sense that he was mostly the face of Leave) and wanted to see him as PM. He gets something to keep him occupied instead of potentially sitting there making his own plans. And last but not least, he’s also going to have to face up to the consequences of his actions and meet a few people in person he’s been rude about. Possibly Erdogan and Obama, for starters, in the months to come.

And if he does screw this up, he is well and truly discredited for a long time. Smart move IMO.

[ 14. July 2016, 07:44: Message edited by: Ariel ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
And, our national standing with other nations is already wrecked by the vote to leave the EU. So, it would take a lot of effort for Boris to make things worse.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Oh, he could probably manage to do that with his eyes shut ... [Devil]

Actually, it could prove to be a canny move. It means he's under May's thumb, rather than stirring up trouble on the back benches; it's a clear sop to the Brexiteers; and - despite his buffoonery - we all know that Boris is not at all deficient in the brain department. I don't warm to the man at all, but he may turn out better at this than we expect. (Or so I fervently hope).
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Ricky Gervais on BJ: "Phew! Just when Britain was starting to become a laughing stock around the world, Boris Johnson is appointed foreign secretary".

Robert Peston on BJ: "Given what Boris Johnson recently said about the corrupt elite of EU, presumably he will be a foreign sec. prohibited from crossing the Channel".

[ 14. July 2016, 08:17: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I'm still trying to work out which fields his competency lies in. Because he seems to have risen to high office on naught but a wave of delusion.

Flashman. That's who he is. Flashman.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Do you think this might be a, give him enough rope to hang himself, type posting ?

She gives him a major office of state, he cocks it up by massively offending an ally - she fires him and he's never a serious contender for cabinet again ?

And no one can claim he didn't get his chance.

Yes, that could be part of it. I think it's actually quite clever on several levels. Boris gets to do what he’s best at, float around meeting people at cocktail parties and turning the sunny charm on.
This is exactly it. All that he's expected to do is know which knife and fork to use and know that Gazpacho soup is served cold.

[ 14. July 2016, 09:02: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Oh, he could probably manage to do that with his eyes shut ... [Devil]

Actually, it could prove to be a canny move. It means he's under May's thumb, rather than stirring up trouble on the back benches; it's a clear sop to the Brexiteers; and - despite his buffoonery - we all know that Boris is not at all deficient in the brain department. I don't warm to the man at all, but he may turn out better at this than we expect. (Or so I fervently hope).

True. And he'll be busy travelling alot so won't be in May's hair [Big Grin] The FO has been massively scaled back over the years. Foriegn Aid is done elsewhere, Brexit and Trade are being handled by other people and, if there's a real crisis, May would handle it. All Boris has to do really is hand about the chocolates ...

That said, it's a surprising appointment given the amount of slagging off he's done of foreigners of late. I'm sure the US are thrilled and he's loathed by the EU.

I wonder if Gove's been sacked yet ...

Tubbs
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:


I wonder if Gove's been sacked yet ...

Tubbs

Yes, apparently!!
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:


I wonder if Gove's been sacked yet ...

Tubbs

Yes, apparently!!
Yay! And Nicky Morgan too ... [Two face] I wonder what job the wannabe mother of the nation is going to get? If any ...

Tubbs
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Oh, he could probably manage to do that with his eyes shut ... [Devil]

Actually, it could prove to be a canny move. It means he's under May's thumb, rather than stirring up trouble on the back benches; it's a clear sop to the Brexiteers; and - despite his buffoonery - we all know that Boris is not at all deficient in the brain department. I don't warm to the man at all, but he may turn out better at this than we expect. (Or so I fervently hope).

True. And he'll be busy travelling alot so won't be in May's hair [Big Grin] The FO has been massively scaled back over the years. Foriegn Aid is done elsewhere, Brexit and Trade are being handled by other people and, if there's a real crisis, May would handle it. All Boris has to do really is hand about the chocolates ...

That said, it's a surprising appointment given the amount of slagging off he's done of foreigners of late. I'm sure the US are thrilled and he's loathed by the EU.


Tubbs

What she's done Tubbs is to give him even more capacity to put on weight as he does the rounds of the world's capitals - after all he seems to have a lot to apologise for. He'll probably eat so much he'll explode.
[Two face]
Of course that could be Teresa's Grand Design.....
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:


I wonder if Gove's been sacked yet ...

Tubbs

Yes, apparently!!
Yay! And Nicky Morgan too ... [Two face] I wonder what job the wannabe mother of the nation is going to get? If any ...

Tubbs

I'm betting on Health.

Can the Leader of the Opposition in the Scottish Parliament also hold a Cabinet position and a peerage? Asking for a friend.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Oh, he could probably manage to do that with his eyes shut ... [Devil]

Actually, it could prove to be a canny move. It means he's under May's thumb, rather than stirring up trouble on the back benches; it's a clear sop to the Brexiteers; and - despite his buffoonery - we all know that Boris is not at all deficient in the brain department. I don't warm to the man at all, but he may turn out better at this than we expect. (Or so I fervently hope).

True. And he'll be busy travelling alot so won't be in May's hair [Big Grin] The FO has been massively scaled back over the years. Foriegn Aid is done elsewhere, Brexit and Trade are being handled by other people and, if there's a real crisis, May would handle it. All Boris has to do really is hand about the chocolates ...

That said, it's a surprising appointment given the amount of slagging off he's done of foreigners of late. I'm sure the US are thrilled and he's loathed by the EU.


Tubbs

What she's done Tubbs is to give him even more capacity to put on weight as he does the rounds of the world's capitals - after all he seems to have a lot to apologise for. He'll probably eat so much he'll explode.
[Two face]
Of course that could be Teresa's Grand Design.....

I hadn't thought of that, but it is a possiblity ... [Snigger]

Tubbs
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Loved this comment from the Turkish Prime Minister on BBC Live (internet) earlier.

"Asked what he would like to say to Mr Johnson (who has Turkish ancestry), he said: 'May God help him and reform him and I hope he won't make any more mistakes and tries to make it up with the Turks.'"

Indeed.

[ 14. July 2016, 10:55: Message edited by: Ariel ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
All Boris has to do really is hand about the chocolates ...

Ferrero Rocher, or are they beneath him?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
A lot of bling and pazzaz, and all the promises of the ad-men. But, under the gold foil wrapper just a rather ordinary second-rate confectionary and very disappointing.

Sounds perfectly suited to anyone on the Leave campaign.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Leadsom to DEFRA. So she's the one who will have to explain to farmers about how the subsidies from the CAP will come to an end and that the recession means that the Government won't be able to replace them.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A lot of bling and pazzaz, and all the promises of the ad-men. But, under the gold foil wrapper just a rather ordinary second-rate confectionary and very disappointing.

Sounds perfectly suited to anyone on the Leave campaign.

[Killing me]

There is an element of "You broke it, you fix it or pay for it" in some of the appointments. The only one I really don't understand is Johnson. I mean, here is a map of all the places that Boris has insulted.

Tubbs
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
May is giving him the chance to complete the map? Look at South America, he's barely touched it. Interesting that they chose red to colour the map
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Boris Johnson was born in the USA, has a cosmopolitan ancestry, and is probably a better linguist than most of his colleagues. So he's not such a dreadful choice for Foreign Secretary.

Some boring person we've never heard of would've been a safer, less controversial choice, but probably no more successful than Boris is likely to be in the long run. They're all politicians at the end of the day.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
There is an element of "You broke it, you fix it or pay for it" in some of the appointments. The only one I really don't understand is Johnson.

It does look partly like that. It's possibly also recognition that Boris does have potential, which he hasn't shown much if any sign of fulfilling so far. Screw up and he's screwed.

The one I don't understand is why Jeremy Hunt is still there. Since May seems to be axing almost everybody I thought she'd have axed him as well.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Leadsom to DEFRA. So she's the one who will have to explain to farmers about how the subsidies from the CAP will come to an end and that the recession means that the Government won't be able to replace them.

Amazing how any farmers ignored the NFU stance of Remain and campaigned for Leave. How many decades have UK farmers received price support from Europe? Even back before we joined the EU !
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:


The one I don't understand is why Jeremy Hunt is still there. Since May seems to be axing almost everybody I thought she'd have axed him as well.

The best explanation I've heard is that no-one else wanted it after the festering shit pile Hunt's made of it.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:


The one I don't understand is why Jeremy Hunt is still there. Since May seems to be axing almost everybody I thought she'd have axed him as well.

The best explanation I've heard is that no-one else wanted it after the festering shit pile Hunt's made of it.
Hunt is the great survivor. Any ordinary politician would have ended up on the back benches after his performance as Culture Secretary. At the end of time the last survivors will be the cockroaches, and Jeremy Hunt trying to explain to the cockroaches that they need to work longer hours for less money.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
May is giving him the chance to complete the map? Look at South America, he's barely touched it. Interesting that they chose red to colour the map

(re the countries Boris Johnson has insulted) He hasn't been unpleasant about the oil-rich and Islamic Middle East either.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
They missed off England.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
They missed off England.

London should be aflame ... [Mad]

I honestly think she's decided as ye sow, ye shall reap and given a few of them jobs where they will have to deliver on what they've promised or spin in the wind.

It's quite an ask that they've got - delivering a successful Brexit whilst not destroying the economy and keeping the voters happy. It also gives May and the other remainers a dodge if / when it all goes horribly wrong.

I must check which side of the Irish border grand-dad was born ...

Tubbs
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Boris Johnson was born in the USA, has a cosmopolitan ancestry, and is probably a better linguist than most of his colleagues. So he's not such a dreadful choice for Foreign Secretary.

Some boring person we've never heard of would've been a safer, less controversial choice, but probably no more successful than Boris is likely to be in the long run. They're all politicians at the end of the day.

It's true Boris isn't as stupid as he's portrayed himself as being for so long. It would've been hard for him to have sustained his popular (and lucrative) media career on panel and chat shows if he'd been completely up front as an intelligent, sensible, reliable person; rather than the sweet, bumbling, you-gotta-love-him half-wit that he's painted himself to be for such a long time now.

I always remember Paul Merton's comments that it was mostly an act to deflect serious political and critical attack. Right down to the studiously deliberately floppy mad hair. Merton always said Boris would very carefully run his hands through his hair just before appearing before camera, in case it was too neat.

To be fair to Boris, however, having watched his father on The Last Leg, he does take very much after dear old dad!
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Boris Johnson was born in the USA, has a cosmopolitan ancestry, and is probably a better linguist than most of his colleagues. So he's not such a dreadful choice for Foreign Secretary.

Some boring person we've never heard of would've been a safer, less controversial choice, but probably no more successful than Boris is likely to be in the long run. They're all politicians at the end of the day.

It's true Boris isn't as stupid as he's portrayed himself as being for so long. It would've been hard for him to have sustained his popular (and lucrative) media career on panel and chat shows if he'd been completely up front as an intelligent, sensible, reliable person; rather than the sweet, bumbling, you-gotta-love-him half-wit that he's painted himself to be for such a long time now.

I always remember Paul Merton's comments that it was mostly an act to deflect serious political and critical attack. Right down to the studiously deliberately floppy mad hair. Merton always said Boris would very carefully run his hands through his hair just before appearing before camera, in case it was too neat.

To be fair to Boris, however, having watched his father on The Last Leg, he does take very much after dear old dad!

Right down to the racism that Hills didn't pick up on because he's from Australia and had to apologise for the following week!

Tubbs
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Poor little Ms May, she actually seems to think that Boris gives a shit. He doesn't. It is panto season and he's the panto dame. He plays the court jester well, but what I really find hard to swallow is his connection to those statement about West Indians 'breeding like flies', the way black people are so often called 'sambo' and the way Kenya is labeled 'Bongo-Bongo land.' It's those sort of things that make me think the man is really just a wretch, posing as a fool.

[ 15. July 2016, 11:45: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
And let's not forget his reference to 'pickaninnies' and 'water-melon smiles' when talking about the Queen being entertained by our darker-skinned Commonwealth brethren.

Oh yes. Britain is on to a winner with its foreign secretary!! But then we've just effed off most of Europe with flipping the bird over the EU, so why stop there! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
I'm beginning to think that May is an appropriate name for our Prime Minister. She seems to want to get the trade deals sorted *before* invoking Article 50 but I doubt many, if any, of the other member states will stand for that.

OTOH, the difficulties in nailing down trade deals, especially as the work has barely started, may be enough to get sufficient "Leavers" in the government, parliament and the country at large to decide that leaving the EU isn't such a good idea after all.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Boris is probably somewhat racist, but I'm not convinced that he's unusual in his social group for that. Few of them are likely to have been raised in environments where black and Asian people were routinely present, and were also social equals.

Of course, Boris also had a Turkish grandfather, and has a half-Indian wife, but it's true that multicultural family connections don't necessarily make someone less racist. In fact, some would argue that it could make the issue worse.

I wonder if he feels a bit insecure about his status as an establishment insider? Hard for some to imagine, but really, why make reference to 'piccaninnies' when you could keep your unsavoury thoughts to yourself, as most polite upper middle class people would? Someone could probably do an interesting post-colonial deconstruction of Boris's 'mimicry', and so on.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
it looks like we are go to have to employ immigrants to negotiate our trade deals as we don't have any people who know how to do trade deals. The irony being the purpose of the trade deals is that it is to prevent immigrants.

On the bridge side as we the EU is about to consign the TTIP trade to the dustbin of history the UK might get it anyway... As I suggested earlier in this thread.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I have no idea where you think that link is going, but it's not going where you want it to.

DT
HH

 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
The link that worked earlier has now died.. sorry

NL
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
it looks like we are go to have to employ immigrants to negotiate our trade deals as we don't have any people who know how to do trade deals. The irony being the purpose of the trade deals is that it is to prevent immigrants.

On the bridge side as we the EU is about to consign the TTIP trade to the dustbin of history the UK might get it anyway... As I suggested earlier in this thread.

Bright side? You think there is a bright side? As noted, that link doesn't work, but a lot of the other headlines from the same site (Financial Times) aren't predicting a much light to create brightness.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I think any reference to getting TTIP foisted on us as the "bright side" must be ironic. Don't worry, give a whistle.

On the other hand, I've no idea what the bridge side is.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Not sure about which side, but I think this is the bridge.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
I'll come right out and say it; I'm amazed - I've even been struck dumb for a while - that the whole Brexit thing still falls into the realm of economics for so many in Britain. I've argued many times on this very forum that the whole concept of Europe has more to do with human relations than it has to do with economics. What Brexit has always represented to me (and I suspect to many within Europe in general) is the erosion of European unity. Now this has the effect of giving an encouragement to the right, which Europe has always had a bit a problem with, let's be honest. This erosion also effects it's ability to stand united on the world stage, so it limits further it's negotiable powers in relation to the States, Russia, China and most notably erodes its power in dealing effectively with problematic political instability and events; such as what is happening in Turkey, what Russia often threatens or probably already did. It has an effect on the perception of democracy too. Other countries, like China for instance, might look at Europe and the UK and think that democracy of this kind puts power in the hands of stupid masses, can create great instability, isn't good economics and might not be a force for unity and a salve to the issues of a devouring individualism. They might decide that this isn't something they want. If Trump gets in in the States, then it will very seriously weaken the position of NATO (of course this depends on whether Trump will follow through on anything he declares). With a weakened NATO and a weakened Europe that would leave an isolationist America, an unbridled Russia and a Middle East that will in all likelihood collapse into a very long period of tribal warfare with ISIS thrown into the mix to give it all spice and keep the confusion running for many decades. I suspect this might mean an oil crisis at the very least.

Add to that all the issues of the far right within Europe (I mean including the UK, not the EU project). Their legitimacy has been strengthened, their voice is not only being heard, but is also being listened to. The UK will in all likelihood break up, which will bring its own hardships of population move and the strong likelihood of a return to terrorism in Northern Ireland. The UK (and the rest of Europe) might become an uncomfortable place for anyone who isn't white over time.

This seems to me to be but the tip of the iceberg in an increasingly unstable world. Now I know that there are those who will shout that I'm yet another doom monger who would have preferred a Brexin. In one sense it is quite true, I would have preferred a Brexin, but I don't think I'm doom mongering. Rather, I find these things a natural and quite understandable consequence of the vote and its result. It is also true that those unsavoury elements I've mentioned do not have to act on it, but it would seem very strange to me that those whose lust is for influence and power wouldn't choose to dine on the dish they've been served up for free and take full advantage. And in a sense this is what stupefies me about it all. The UK is still talking about it in terms of economics and shouts anything else down as alarmist, silly, doom mongering and the talk of the 'sore losers', but I cannot get my head around why you would choose to ignore these things and plough headlong into a Brexit without actually fully preparing to meet these issues and tackle them so that they don't have power over your future. I think this is what the EU will be bringing to the table, as this is what the Europe was initially about, but Britain will be bringing a wish list of economics and trading hopes. It all looks set up to be a peculiar Babel moment entered into in wilful blindness.

Has the UK become so insular it no longer sees or cares about these things?
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Precisely because some of its inhabitants regard it as an island which can sit serenely in its silver sea while remaining detached from the wider world community.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
As that well-known political commentator J. R. R. Tolkien put it: "The wide world is all about you: you can fence yourselves in, but you cannot forever fence it out."

[ 25. July 2016, 14:02: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Precisely because some of its inhabitants regard it as an island which can sit serenely in its silver sea while remaining detached from the wider world community.

Which is moronic to a staggering degree. Boggles the mind that people with so little a grasp of reality are allowed outside a care facility, much less a vote.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
If Britain is such a shit place, and 16 and a half million xenophobic voters have made it even more shit, then it is still perfectly possible to take to that 'Silver sea' in a little green boat like the Owl and the Pussycat.

Not sure which ocean anyone would choose to cross in order to find something better.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
If Britain is such a shit place, and 16 and a half million xenophobic voters have made it even more shit, then it is still perfectly possible to take to that 'Silver sea' in a little green boat like the Owl and the Pussycat.

Not sure which ocean anyone would choose to cross in order to find something better.

Love it or Leave it? Rubbish in America, rubbish in the UK
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Love it or Leave it? Rubbish in America, rubbish in the UK

I'm not saying a person has got to love it, they are though free to leave it.
Many so called ex-pats did that long before brexit or trump ever set foot on the stage. I'm guessing the irony could be that love of Country was one factor in their decision to go.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Are you really suggesting that citizens of their own country should just suck it all up and leave it if they are deeply unhappy? It sounds like you are proposing a dangerous policy of 'put up or shut up'to those who want to criticise political developments. I hope I don't have to point out just how poisonous that would be to any form democracy. I think it was the policy of Erdogan, that he has just recently taken a step further to include 'put up or get locked up'.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Are you really suggesting that citizens of their own country should just suck it all up and leave it if they are deeply unhappy? It sounds like you are proposing a dangerous policy of 'put up or shut up'to those who want to criticise political developments. I hope I don't have to point out just how poisonous that would be to any form democracy. I think it was the policy of Erdogan, that he has just recently taken a step further to include 'put up or get locked up'.

The only time I find the LIOLI argument palatable is when the person in an immigrant themselves, and they bash the host country while praising their country of origin. Because the obvious question is "If your homeland is so great, why on Earth didn't you stay there?"

[ 25. July 2016, 20:35: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Well, I think the point that I was (probably cryptically making, but I hoped the irony might be visible without me having to point it out) making was that the 'put up and shut up' or 'like it or leave it' approach is in part what so many people are running from or being forced to remove themselves from in our world today. The original post even mentioned sailing away across the sea. The lack of self awareness in the posting was full of tragic irony; quite unintended I'm sure, but tragic nonetheless. 'Willful blindness' is a term I read from someone else, but it truly fits where we are. There seems to be an utter determination to destroy anything good that has been built up and not to stop until everything is broken.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I think the British people should be encouraged to leave more often!

If the indigenous population were deliberately educated and trained to see themselves as active participants in the job market of the whole of the EU then immigration and overcrowding wouldn't be seen as such problems here - and Brexit wouldn't have had so much appeal.

The British working classes in particular should've been encouraged to learn from their global counterparts, who are willing to leave both family and familiarity behind in order to seek opportunities elsewhere.

The British govt should have emphasised this point when urging us to vote to remain in the EU. But considering that our politicians weren't encouraging the development of a European-focused culture or ethos long before the referendum it's hard to believe that they were all that bothered.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The British working classes in particular should've been encouraged to learn from their global counterparts, who are willing to leave both family and familiarity behind in order to seek opportunities elsewhere.

I thought this is something that they traditionally have done? In Canada, in Australia, in New Zealand, in South Africa, in the Rhodesias...
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Indeed. But for some reason that sort of attitude is not being encouraged today.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
The Independent is reporting that the government has already suspended ERDF project funding, in which EU payouts go hand in hand with domestic match funding.

This is the other side of that "£350m a week savings", and it's going to hurt.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The Independent is reporting that the government has already suspended ERDF project funding, in which EU payouts go hand in hand with domestic match funding.

This is the other side of that "£350m a week savings", and it's going to hurt.

Ironically, the places most impacted by loss of EU funding are the ones that voted most heavily to leave. Many of whom were demanding within a few days of the vote that the Government made up the lost funding ... This gives an indication of how likely that is going to be.

My unicorn is yet to arrive and all the leavers have gone very quiet about the extra NHS funding ...

I can't understand why someone would spend all their political career campaigning to leave something without giving any thought about what leave would look like or what they wanted after they left.

My MP looked like she was chewing a wasp when asked this by the local paper. She still hasn't responded to any of the letters asking what she's going to do when it comes to a vote given that the majority of the people she respresented voted for remain either.

Tubbs
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The British working classes in particular should've been encouraged to learn from their global counterparts, who are willing to leave both family and familiarity behind in order to seek opportunities elsewhere.

I thought this is something that they traditionally have done? In Canada, in Australia, in New Zealand, in South Africa, in the Rhodesias...
What's the one thing in common all these places had?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The British working classes in particular should've been encouraged to learn from their global counterparts, who are willing to leave both family and familiarity behind in order to seek opportunities elsewhere.

I thought this is something that they traditionally have done? In Canada, in Australia, in New Zealand, in South Africa, in the Rhodesias...
What's the one thing in common all these places had?
You mean apart from dead and/or dispossessed indigenous peoples?
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think the British people should be encouraged to leave more often!

If the indigenous population were deliberately educated and trained to see themselves as active participants in the job market of the whole of the EU then immigration and overcrowding wouldn't be seen as such problems here - and Brexit wouldn't have had so much appeal.

The British working classes in particular should've been encouraged to learn from their global counterparts, who are willing to leave both family and familiarity behind in order to seek opportunities elsewhere.


The British - at least in NI and Scotland - has a very long and extensive experience of leaving family and familiarity (usually against their will). Our working classes have spent centuries exporting ourselves and our talents all over the world. Admittedly out of a desire to earn money in order to eat, rather than the priniciples of Alle Menschen werden Bruder (all men are brothers). Ulster and Scottish communities are still pretty well known and extensive in America and Canada, aren't they?

We also happened to be the two UK member nations who voted to Remain.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
[Big Grin] You rang?
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think the British people should be encouraged to leave more often!

If the indigenous population were deliberately educated and trained to see themselves as active participants in the job market of the whole of the EU then immigration and overcrowding wouldn't be seen as such problems here - and Brexit wouldn't have had so much appeal.

The British working classes in particular should've been encouraged to learn from their global counterparts, who are willing to leave both family and familiarity behind in order to seek opportunities elsewhere.


The British - at least in NI and Scotland - has a very long and extensive experience of leaving family and familiarity (usually against their will). Our working classes have spent centuries exporting ourselves and our talents all over the world. Admittedly out of a desire to earn money in order to eat, rather than the priniciples of Alle Menschen werden Bruder (all men are brothers). Ulster and Scottish communities are still pretty well known and extensive in America and Canada, aren't they?

We also happened to be the two UK member nations who voted to Remain.

Many of the other areas who voted to remain were the areas where people who've moved from elsewhere often end up if London is typical ...

Tubbs
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What's the one thing in common all these places had?

You mean apart from dead and/or dispossessed indigenous peoples?
Yes, apart from that.

They're places where English people were automatically superior to the indigenous populations, where English was the language of government and the civil service, and where English immigrants were 'ex-pats', not immigrants.

So, no. Not the same experience at all.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I see that the Daily Express reports that 98% of those surveyed just want to quit the EU now and stop messing around with all those Eurocrats.

The dumbness, it burns.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I see that the Daily Express reports that 98% of those surveyed just want to quit the EU now and stop messing around with all those Eurocrats.

The dumbness, it burns.

That would be a rather lopsided majority, for ANY issue. I'd like to know the exact question asked. I'm wondering if it was phrased in such a way so as to imply that "quit the EU now" meant something like "avoid a lot of bureaucratic arguments of indeterminate conclusion".
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I'm sure it did. Googling for "Daily Express 98%" throws up a lot of survey results. Maybe I should have put "the dumbing-downness, it burns".
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Taking anything posted in the Daily Express as meaningful of anything seems somewhat naive. Like thinking that the Daily Mail would accurately describe the policies of anyone left of centre.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Taking anything posted in the Daily Express as meaningful of anything seems somewhat naive. Like thinking that the Daily Mail would accurately describe the policies of anyone left of centre.

What centre would that be. Don't most folk describe their own position as central?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
The 98% figure reminds me of Stalin. 98% of those questioned agreed that tractor production was a shining beacon of socialist progress. The other 2% were unavailable.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
A poll of a few hundred people isn't representative of anything but those few hundred people.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Many of the other areas who voted to remain were the areas where people who've moved from elsewhere often end up if London is typical ...

Tubbs

It's hard not to conclude that there must be a correlation of some sort!

Personally, I think that many people who voted for 'Leave', while not being xenophobic or racist or isolationist or any of that other more negative stuff, somehow were voting with a much narrower and therefore less accurate vision in mind, of what 'Britain' actually constitutes. Not only within Europe but within its own bounds as a United Kingdom. It's harder to formulate a decision that will benefit most people across a wide range of diversity and experience, when one is only ever aware of one's own little universe, and sees all deviation from that as a menace and something to be eliminated.

The referendum should never have been called.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
A poll of a few hundred people isn't representative of anything but those few hundred people.

My late ex-brother-in-law, who worked in statistics, and for a polling type of company, before he was either late or ex, would counter that argument with a comparison with a blood test, in which the result is not solely representative of the mls removed.

Not sure how right he was - it would depend a lot of the criteria with which the sample was obtained, and the average vein isn't an Express reader.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:


[Many settler colonies were] places where English people were automatically superior to the indigenous populations, where English was the language of government and the civil service, and where English immigrants were 'ex-pats', not immigrants.

So, no. Not the same experience [as foreigners moving to the UK].

Speaking for myself, I was thinking about the here and now, and my point is simply that rather than worrying about foreigners who are coming to live here, British people who are dissatisfied with their lives should have been encouraged to go elsewhere. Anywhere. Brexit would then have seemed less attractive.

People have been saying that Brexit appealed to the 'stupid', but I don't think this is necessarily true. Stupid people don't always care about politics, and many of them can't be bothered to vote.

Rather, I'd say that Brexit appealed to the dissatisfied. The EU was always likely to appeal to the most satisfied members of our society, i.e. to people who were optimistic about their future, happy with their foreign trips, their jobs with European-owned companies, and their EU-funded research grants, etc.

As I say, it's up to governments to either re-educate the dissatisfied, or else encourage them to leave. Our politicians have failed on both counts, and I don't feel sorry for any of them.

[ 27. July 2016, 14:03: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
I have longed believe the following is at the basis of many poor areas small mindedness.

I am taking the fictional place of Dullthorpe. When the local industry was strong there was a strong influx of people so the area is perhaps 40% immigrant. However, the communities have largely co-existed rather than integrated. There is integration at the edge as some share the same pub but largely it is each to their own.

Alan, Bob, Chris, Dave and Eric got jobs straight out of school working for the major employer XYZ Conglomerates. It is a factory where teams are highly important and they end up on the same team.

However, ten years ago XYZ went bust which gave the town a high unemployment level and meant Alan, Bob, Chris, Dave and Eric were made redundant.

Now a new firm called xekína have opened up and they have advertised for twenty new jobs. Alan, Bob, Chris, Dave and Eric all apply but only Alan, Bob, Chris, and Dave. However, two jobs go to people who belong to the immigrant community and one of these Emlyn is put in the same office as Alan, Bob, Chris and Dave.

What Alan, Bob, Chris and Dave see is that this Emlyn has the job that otherwise may have gone to Eric. What they do not see is that actually, the immigrant group is under-represented in the recruitment having only 10% when it makes up 40% of the town.

Alan, Bob, Chris, Dave and Eric perception of the town is that it is far more local than it actually is because their friends are primarily local and the exceptions are immigrants. They also have far stronger connections with locals in their group and they would probably distinguish themselves from other local groups in the town. To them, it is not about some abstract notion of fairness but the fact Eric has not got a job. It probably does not bother then to have a drink down the pub with Geraint, nor particularly think of how their antagonism to the immigrants for taking Eric's job might feel for him in the end. This is because the attitude is not about a fear of the unknown, but rather of looking after ones own.


Jengie
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
What happened to Ffion? Did she simply stay at home?

Speaking seriously, I think you've got a point ... it's linked into the "we never hear English spoken at the shops any more" even though perhaps 80 or even 90% of people are actually using it!

[ 27. July 2016, 16:52: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Speaking for myself, I was thinking about the here and now, and my point is simply that rather than worrying about foreigners who are coming to live here, British people who are dissatisfied with their lives should have been encouraged to go elsewhere. Anywhere. Brexit would then have seemed less attractive.

This argument is just as stupid as applied to Brexit as it is applied to anything else. I hear the second amendment gang use it about gun control ("This is America. We have guns. If you don't like it, leave.")

And the argument is stupid.

It's just as easy for the Brexiteers to turn around and say "We won. If you like the EU so much, please move to France", and just as stupid.

It is entirely possible (and indeed quite likely) for someone to be dissatisfied with some aspect of contemporary life in the UK, but nevertheless feel that the UK is the best place for him to live. The fact that it's better for him than other possible countries doesn't mean that it's the best that it could be, and it is his democratic right and his democratic duty to try and persuade his fellow countrymen to agree with him.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
The issue is one of adaptability and a global-minded approach, backed up by education and skills. If the govt had helped to generate this kind of thing among working class people long before Brexit, there would probably have been no Brexit.

What I'm talking about here is a failure of the state to ensure that working class people got a good education, learnt foreign languages and acquired skills and trades that could get them viable jobs abroad if not at home. There's nothing 'stupid' about that.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
What I'm talking about here is a failure of the state to ensure that working class people got a good education, learnt foreign languages and acquired skills and trades that could get them viable jobs abroad if not at home. There's nothing 'stupid' about that.

I'd prefer the state to focus on make sure there are enough jobs here at home, to be honest.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
That would be lovely. Although without a better education system there are many British people who wouldn't get those jobs anyway.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Marvin:
quote:
I'd prefer the state to focus on make sure there are enough jobs here at home, to be honest.
Oh, don't worry, there will be. Worried about the loss of EU research funding and the consequences for British scientists? Concerned that British universities are going to go bankrupt due to the immigration restrictions for overseas students? Console yourself with the thought that McDonald's is investing more in the UK! And if all else fails, the Government will probably start up the Work Programme again, though I daresay they will think of another name for it; how about 'The Workhouse'?

Of course, if you don't want a minimum-wage job you may find yourself having to move elsewhere. I probably won't notice much difference; as a self-employed person I have no employment rights anyway and most of my clients are multinationals who won't care whether we're in the UK or not.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
What I'm talking about here is a failure of the state to ensure that working class people got a good education, learnt foreign languages and acquired skills and trades that could get them viable jobs abroad if not at home. There's nothing 'stupid' about that.

I'd prefer the state to focus on make sure there are enough jobs here at home, to be honest.
This, Marvin: http://www.heraldscotland.com/resources/images/5141122/?type=responsive-gallery
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
What I'm talking about here is a failure of the state to ensure that working class people got a good education, learnt foreign languages and acquired skills and trades that could get them viable jobs abroad if not at home. There's nothing 'stupid' about that.

I'd prefer the state to focus on make sure there are enough jobs here at home, to be honest.
This, Marvin: http://www.heraldscotland.com/resources/images/5141122/?type=responsive-gallery
If businesses hadn't got so used to a constant flow of cheap labour coming in from elsewhere, they would have probably made louder noises about UK educational standards than they have and the person referred to would have better skills to go with the STI.

We probably wouldn't have some of the lowest wages in Europe - bar Greece - either.

Tubbs

[ 28. July 2016, 12:53: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
This is because the attitude is not about a fear of the unknown, but rather of looking after ones own.
Jengie

You do not see that this is xenophobia? Immigrants are perpetually other. Immigrants. How long must a person's family have be in a place before they are no longer an immigrant?* Can you understand how frustrating it is to be told to leave by people whose family history in the country is several hundred years less than ones own?


*Trick question: The answer is until the colour fades enough to not be seen.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
In some places (even when skin colour matches) it can take 40 years for you to cease to be regarded as an offcomer.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
In some places (even when skin colour matches) it can take 40 years for you to cease to be regarded as an offcomer.

I've lived in Norfolk too. In South Wales people talk to you freely probably the second time you enter a bar. In Norfolk I reckon you have to be there two generations.
 
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
In some places (even when skin colour matches) it can take 40 years for you to cease to be regarded as an offcomer.

Our present Queen is directly descended from those born and bred in the UK since 1738 (278 years and 8 generations) and living here since 1714 (302 years and ten generations) but the ignorant still refer to her as German.

Ironically, George I came to England in 1714 which was only 101 years and two generations after his grandmother left Britain in 1613.

The reality, then, is that if one is emigrating one quickly becomes "non-belonging" but if one is immigrating one might never stop "non-belonging"!
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
In some places (even when skin colour matches) it can take 40 years for you to cease to be regarded as an offcomer.

Our present Queen is directly descended from those born and bred in the UK since 1738 (278 years and 8 generations) and living here since 1714 (302 years and ten generations) but the ignorant still refer to her as German.

Ironically, George I came to England in 1714 which was only 101 years and two generations after his grandmother left Britain in 1613.

The reality, then, is that if one is emigrating one quickly becomes "non-belonging" but if one is immigrating one might never stop "non-belonging"!

Come off it, the whole 'German' thing is largely facetious and is based less on the fact that George I was Elector of Hanover and more to do with the fact that, as a result of Queen Victoria's marriage to Prince Albert, the Royal dynasty gloried in the name of Saxe-Coburg Gotha until World War I, when they changed their names to Windsor. Hence, the Kaiser's quip about looking forward to seeing a performance of 'The Merry Wives of Saxe-Coburg Gotha'. Kaiser Bill had his faults but he did really put to rest the idea that Germans have no sense of humour.

But, really, the population of the UK really divides into three parts. Those who think the Queen is really, really wonderful and cannot walk past a shop selling crockery with her face, form and visage on it without nipping in and buying a few items, those of us who think that if we were inventing the constitution from scratch wouldn't have a constitutional monarch but, as we've got one, we might as well let them get on with it and a smaller group of republicans who really want an elected Head of State, but object to the Queen on the hereditary monarchy basis, rather than because of the fact that she is of German descent. Given the Queen Elizabeth's popularity, I hardly think that she can be characterised as "non-belonging". I would imagine that the sort of people who join 'Republic" and the sort of people who spent the weekend after Brexit putting notes through Polish peoples letter boxes telling them to go home have very little in common but if you put it to either of them that it would be a good idea to organise a demo outside Buck House with placards reading "Saxe-Coburg Gotha Go Home!" they would, for different reasons, conclude that you had entirely taken leave of your senses.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
quote:
Our present Queen is directly descended from those born and bred in the UK since 1738 (278 years and 8 generations) and living here since 1714 (302 years and ten generations) but the ignorant still refer to her as German.
I've never actually heard any republicans objecting to the Queen on the grounds that she's German. She did marry a Greek, but if you're rich enough you can get away with that sort of thing and anyway republicans tend to be internationalist/cosmopolitan types. "The Queen is German" is a statement used to mock the ignorance of the likes of Britain First, UKIP and the National Front, who say immigrants should go home but are themselves descended from immigrants.

Nigel Farrago, for example, who is apparently descended from Huguenot refugees fleeing religious persecution.

If you go back far enough, everyone outside Africa is an immigrant. Some of us got to where we are more recently than others.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
OTOH, they kept on topping up the Breeding stock - Caroline of Ansbach, Augusta of Saxe-Gotha, Charlotte of Mecklenburg Strelitz, Caroline of Brunswick, Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen, Albert of Saxe-Coburg. Later on they let in the odd Dane or Scot (but no one expected her to be Queen) - but that's a lot of German great grannies.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Jane R
quote:
(of the Queen) ...She did marry a Greek...
Prince Philip Greek? Hmm.

His grandparents were:

Far more interesting is the number of Philip's forebears who were high-ranking naval officers, including the man who reformed the Tsarist navy in Russia (and also responsible for freeing the serfs, Grand-Duke Konstantin Nicolaievich), the King responsible for the founding of the modern Greek navy (George I of the Hellenes) and the First Sea Lord of the UK - the Marquess of Milford Haven, Louis Mountbatten's father as well as Philip's grandfather.

[ 29. July 2016, 11:20: Message edited by: L'organist ]
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
In some places (even when skin colour matches) it can take 40 years for you to cease to be regarded as an offcomer.

Used to be like that in virtually every rural village up and down the Country in 1950.

When my parents moved to a farm in the West Country they were straight away approached by someone who asked "church or chapel?" They said neither. Consequently it wasn't as if they weren't accepted but probably fair to say never fully accepted.
That village, and many others like it are now dominated by outsiders with most chapels gone and churches hugely diminished.

Not very hellish, just sayin that's how people are, or were.
Just for the record I don't condone any rudeness or intimidation towards non- indigenous people post Brexit, nor before it for that matter.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Originally posted by l'Organist:
quote:
Prince Philip Greek? Hmm.
He was born in Greece. His title at birth was Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark. His father was Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark. His uncle was King Constantine I of Greece. Philip was baptised into the Greek Orthodox church.

It's hardly a stretch to describe him as "Greek."
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
On the other hand, his family, the Glucksburgs had an interesting history. From Wikipedia...

quote:
The family came to the throne after the overthrow in 1862 of the first king of the independent Greek state, Otto of Bavaria. In a referendum, the Greeks elected Prince Alfred of the United Kingdom, the second son of Queen Victoria, as their new king, but the candidature was rejected by the Great Powers, who refused to permit any member of their respective royal families to ascend to the Greek throne. A search for other candidates ensued, and eventually, the Greeks offered the throne to Prince William of Denmark, the second son of the future King Christian IX, and younger brother of the new Princess of Wales and who was of the Danish Glücksburg Dynasty. He received six votes in the referendum, the Greek National Assembly proclaimed him king as George I, and he arrived in Greece in October 1863. George I would marry Grand Duchess Olga Constaninovna of Russia, and would have seven surviving children. After a reign of fifty years, George I was succeeded by his eldest son, Constantine I, who had married Princess Sophia of Prussia, a granddaughter of Queen Victoria and sister of Kaiser Wilhelm II, in 1913. In turn, all three of Constantine's sons, George II, Alexander and Paul, would occupy the throne.
Are any royals natives of their realms? (Though I think the Danes have unbroken descent from Gorm, back in the distant past.)

And one of their number was chosen to establish the new Norwegian royal family in 1913, since they hadn't got one at the time. But at least they were more closely related.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by l'Organist:
quote:
Prince Philip Greek? Hmm.
He was born in Greece. His title at birth was Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark. His father was Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark. His uncle was King Constantine I of Greece. Philip was baptised into the Greek Orthodox church.

It's hardly a stretch to describe him as "Greek."

Still like that in my village - even after 40 years of incoming people still talk as being 'old villagers'
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
I think I'm seeing it the other way round - if I was born in Greece with a title such as Prince of Greece, I'd be annoyed if someone quibbled that I wasn't really Greek.

[ 01. August 2016, 08:13: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I think I'm seeing it the other way round - if I was born in Greece with a title such as Prince of Greece, I'd be annoyed if someone quibbled that I wasn't really Greek.

On the other hand, after a fairly horrendous childhood of being shunted from pillar to post around English country houses of wider family, largely ignored by my father, a very troubled mother, and then dispatched to Gordonstoun, Dartmouth, and the Royal Navy (where I got shot at, a lot, by Britain's enemies), I think I'd be a little weary at 95 of people in the UK still flippantly suggesting I'm not one of them.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
One of my mother's cousins, who emigrated to Australia in the 1960s, posts a lot of "You can take the girl out of Scotland, but you can't take Scotland out of the girl" type memes on FB. Another today. Perhaps that's affected my thinking.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
betjemaniac:
quote:
On the other hand, after a fairly horrendous childhood of being shunted from pillar to post around English country houses of wider family, largely ignored by my father, a very troubled mother, and then dispatched to Gordonstoun, Dartmouth, and the Royal Navy (where I got shot at, a lot, by Britain's enemies), I think I'd be a little weary at 95 of people in the UK still flippantly suggesting I'm not one of them.
Well, that's English parochialism for you. My daughter has had the school bullies yelling 'Go home' at her too. She is white British, was born in the same local hospital as they were... but doesn't speak with the same accent because her father and I are from elsewhere (though we both have family ties to Yorkshire, we don't have the regional accent).

Fortunately, as she *is* white British and has lived in the same village all her life, the wider implications of this insult sailed right over her head and she had a lot of fun mocking the bullies and saying how nice it would be to go home and miss the rest of the school day; they ended up looking rather foolish.

My husband is Scottish; born in Edinburgh, raised there until the age of 12, lost his accent as a result of moving to Kent for the rest of his childhoood because his father got a job in London. He finds it upsetting when people tell him he can't 'really' be Scottish because he doesn't have a Scottish accent.

Why do you think we have so many different accents? It's so everyone knows how to categorize us as soon as we open our mouths.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
An Englishman's way of speaking absolutely classifies him,
The moment he talks he makes some other
Englishman despise him.

Why can't the English teach their children how to speak?
This verbal class distinction by now should be antique.

Substitute English speaker, obviously.

Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Loewe (with help from GBS)
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I think I'm seeing it the other way round - if I was born in Greece with a title such as Prince of Greece, I'd be annoyed if someone quibbled that I wasn't really Greek.

On the other hand, after a fairly horrendous childhood of being shunted from pillar to post around English country houses of wider family, largely ignored by my father, a very troubled mother, and then dispatched to Gordonstoun, Dartmouth, and the Royal Navy (where I got shot at, a lot, by Britain's enemies), I think I'd be a little weary at 95 of people in the UK still flippantly suggesting I'm not one of them.
I think the thing that is mildly amusing about the Royal Family is that they are basically a different version of the Schroedinger's Immigrant gag. The original joke, was that Schroedinger's Immigrant is simultaneously over here to steal our jobs and to claim benefits. The Royal version is that members of the Royal Family are simultaneously part of the apex of British patriotism and hail from abroad, or have foreign backgrounds, and that the sort of people who take British patriotism a bit too seriously would, ordinarily, object to. And you can cough to enjoying the joke because, let's face it, as marginalised immigrants go the Royal Family are probably not high on the list of people who are going to get a brick through their window. With Prince Philip, it is particularly amusing because he is the guy your racist uncle would object to, in any other walk of life, whilst, simultaneously, being your racist uncle.

He's also a brave man, and a patriot, and has been for many years a mainstay of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in her many years of dedicated public service. And, I remember him being present at a very moving ceremony honouring one of his family as one of the righteous Gentiles. What can I say? People are complicated and life is complicated. And part of being British is the capacity to simultaneously like someone and to take the piss unmercifully.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Callan, that would have been his mother. Having come through her troubles (using the word in a post above) during the 30s, she remained in Greece during WW II, living in a house on the outskirts of Athens in the same poverty as her neighbours, and sheltered some Jewish people from persecution. I can't now remember how many she took care of, but to do so at all would have involved considerable bravery. During the late 40s/early 50s, she established a small religious community. She is remembered as one of the Righteous among Nation, and from memory also on the Orthodox calendar.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re Prince P