Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

fash

Dr Cockhound wrote: »

You're appear to be implying the wrong kind of people were allowed to vote?

In relation to these matters - indeed.

There is a reason why Thatcher distrusted referendums. And she wasn't always wrong.

Dr Cockhound

Ah, then who decides who is the 'right kind of voter'?

This experiment with democracy was tried in continental Europe in the 1930's.

It didn't end well.

First Up

Dr Cockhound wrote:

You're appear to be implying the wrong kind of people were allowed to vote?

Should we have a public vote on things like which Covid vaccines should be approved?

Professor Moriarty

Dr Cockhound wrote: »

Ah, then who decides who is the 'right kind of voter'?

This experiment with democracy was tried in continental Europe in the 1930's.

It didn't end well.

Your implicit comparison with Germany in the 30s is a straw man at best.

The referendum was utterly mismanaged. People were allowed to lie and those lies were accepted as truths. Much of the British media was complicit in this. We have a referendum commission. We have PR. Our media is relatively unbiased. The UK has none of these things. Which makes it more undemocratic.

Dr Cockhound

The point I'm making here, is that Fash seems to be implying that only Some people should be allowed a vote and not others.
There's no such thing as partial democracy.

First Up

Dr Cockhound wrote:

There's no such thing as partial democracy.

There's a thing called representative democracy, whereby we elect people to deal with the complicated stuff - like Covid vaccines and Brexit.

Empowering people who don't understand what they are doing might be democracy but it is a stupid way to run a country.

fash

Dr Cockhound wrote: »

Ah, then who decides who is the 'right kind of voter'?

This experiment with democracy was tried in continental Europe in the 1930's.

It didn't end well.

Ask Margaret Thatcher - I am sure you'll agree that it's rather ironic talking about 1930's Europe considering the effects of the Brexit vote and the various jingoistic threats of war (against France, Spain), violence, and acts of war (e.g threats to starve Ireland), targeted political murders (Jo Cox) and weaponised racism carried out in its wake.

fash

Dr Cockhound wrote: »

There's no such thing as partial democracy.

Sure there is - I doubt anyone would credibly argue that the UK is a any way close to being democracy for example. At best, it is a "partial democracy".

(And that is without getting into the entire matter that Western countries are not intended to be "democracies" - they are generally intended to be "liberal democracies" - with specific rules to protect the citizenry from the majority).

Dr Cockhound

You're clearly very angry but I'm back to lurking I'm afraid.
Bye.

Professor Moriarty

Dr Cockhound wrote: »

The point I'm making here, is that Fash seems to be implying that only Some people should be allowed a vote and not others.
There's no such thing as partial democracy.

That's not my understanding of what they said. Because the referendum was so badly mishandled, some people were easily misled and manipulated. That should not have happened but it did. Those people should not have been exposed to manipulation. Instead, the UK should have had a proper fact-based discussion and dissemination of information prior to the referendum. But that didn't happen, so easily misled and manipulated people got to vote having been misled and manipulated. That's undemocratic.

PeadarCo

Dr Cockhound wrote: »

You're clearly very angry but I'm back to lurking I'm afraid.
Bye.

You get called out on a few basic points and runaway. Boards in general is not a Brexit echo chamber. Pretty much every credible economic review of Brexit indicates its a stupid idea. Even when it comes to tacking back control its been an abject failure. The UK is in a situation where the EU will decide on many of the rules and regulations it will have to enforce and have absolutely no say(well without massive consequences if it doesn't adhere to what the EU decides). Or as the Norwegians call it fax diplomacy.

The fact is Brexit is and was a stupid idea. Post Brexit the UK has less control over its own laws and will be poorer compared to staying in the EU. Pretty much all the promises made by Brexiters have been shown to be at best not true in practice. It will be interesting to see how long it takes UK politicians to realise what they have signed up to and their reaction.

Donald Trump

Doctor Roast wrote: »

It didn't, a few concessions tacked on as a nice little excuse for a revote... We had every dogs arse in Europe telling us we would have to vote again Sarkozy etc. Cowan barefaced lying on national TV telling us our vote would be respected only to look like like a slapped schoolboy when he was summoned to the EU council.

https://brexitcentral.com/irish-observer-warned-2013-pro-eu-elite-seek-block-brexit/

Voting again was clearly the correct decision.

How do I know that? Because the majority were happy in the second vote!


Perhaps you changed your own personal vote because you were afraid of "Sarkozy"? That's up to you. You should be big enough to make your own decisions. That is why they have a lower age limit for voting.


Most people who changed their vote either realised how they were misled by propaganda in the first. And some also realised that making what they thought was a token protest vote could actually have detrimental implications for themselves.


Any other independent and unbiased article links you could send us from brexitcentral.com ?

Doctor Roast

Zebra3 wrote: »

The voters faced a campaign of intimidation from politicians and their media cheerleaders that the economy would collapse and they would be responsible unless it was passed second time around.

People were fear mongered into a yes vote, posters here give out about the lies in the brexit leave campaign.... Remember this doozy "vote yes for jobs!"

Doctor Roast

fash wrote: »

This is the thing: people say "democracy" and "people should be able to change the law". In reality that is wrong.
The average person is too low information in order to be voting on things as complex and abstract as the Lisbon treaty - or indeed Brexit itself.
As a consequence, the campaigns end up being fought over lies "the EU is going to bring in abortion and gay marriage" "All the benefits, none of the costs" .
In relation to Lisbon, Ireland got "changes" made to the treaties - but since the reasons a significant chunk of people voted against the treaty in the first place were irrelevant nonsense, the changes requested (and very readily agreed by the other EU members) were also irrelevant nonsense.
So yes one can say "Ireland listened to the people and then based on that went back and renegotiated" - as a reason.
But the elephant in the room is that a large amount of the voters do not have the time or inclination to understand the fundamentals and shouldn't have been listened to in the first place.
Arguing "government listened, changes were made, people decided again" is to me just a way of beating populists at their own game: they can't admit the average voter is low information - so cannot easily counter the argument.

How would you expect the general public to understand a treaty that was designed to be unreadable? Have you ever read Lisbon treaty? It's quite the tome... I'd seriously doubt any of our politicians even sat down to wade through that indecipherable garbage, even lawyer friends of mine had trouble with it

Professor Moriarty

Doctor Roast wrote: »

How would you expect the general public to understand a treaty that was designed to be unreadable? Have you ever read Lisbon treaty? It's quite the tome... I'd seriously doubt any of our politicians even sat down to wade through that indecipherable garbage, even lawyer friends of mine had trouble with it

What's your point?

Doctor Roast

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What's your point?

My point is there has been a deliberate attempt to deceive the people of Europe, let's hear from old D'estaing architect of the EU constitution... I'm sure he was delighted to see his handiwork saved after the French and Dutch voted it down....

"For the Treaty of Lisbon the process has been very different. It was the legal experts for the European Council who were charged with drafting the new text. They have not made any new suggestions. They have taken the original draft constitution, blown it apart into separate elements, and have then attached them, one by one, to existing treaties. The Treaty of Lisbon is thus a catalogue of amendments. It is unpenetrable for the public.

In terms of content, the proposed institutional reforms – the only ones which mattered to the drafting Convention – are all to be found in the Treaty of Lisbon. They have merely been ordered differently and split up between previous treaties. There are, however, some differences. Firstly, the noun "constitution" and the adjective "constitutional" have been banished from the text, as though they describe something inadmissible. At the same time, all mention of the symbols of the EU have been suppressed, including the flag (which already flies everywhere), and the European anthem (Beethoven's Ode to Joy). However ridiculous they seem, these decisions are significant. They are intended to chase away any suggestion that Europe may one day have a formal political status. They sound a significant retreat from European political ambition."

It's not just antidemocratic, its administrative abuse..
Oh the flags and anthems were soon resurrected after it was ratified....

https://www.euractiv.com/section/public-affairs/news/parliament-resurrects-controversial-eu-symbols/

" The symbols, which were a central feature of the defeated European Constitution but subsequently removed from the Lisbon Treaty to increase its likelihood of Europe-wide ratification, were recognised by a large majority of MEPs (503 to 96).

The initiative for this symbolic resurrection came from the Parliament’s constitutional affairs committee (AFCO). MEPs are aiming to send “a clear political message to European citizens”.

suicide_circus

So in what ways can we expect to see the UK crash and burn now that they're out of the EU? Obviously there will be short, medium and long term effects but what do we expect to see in the short term ie: the next 18 months let's say?

Professor Moriarty

Doctor Roast wrote: »

My point is there has been a deliberate attempt to deceive the people of Europe, let's hear from old D'estaing architect of the EU constitution... I'm sure he was delighted to see his handiwork saved after the French and Dutch voted it down....

"For the Treaty of Lisbon the process has been very different. It was the legal experts for the European Council who were charged with drafting the new text. They have not made any new suggestions. They have taken the original draft constitution, blown it apart into separate elements, and have then attached them, one by one, to existing treaties. The Treaty of Lisbon is thus a catalogue of amendments. It is unpenetrable for the public.

In terms of content, the proposed institutional reforms – the only ones which mattered to the drafting Convention – are all to be found in the Treaty of Lisbon. They have merely been ordered differently and split up between previous treaties. There are, however, some differences. Firstly, the noun "constitution" and the adjective "constitutional" have been banished from the text, as though they describe something inadmissible. At the same time, all mention of the symbols of the EU have been suppressed, including the flag (which already flies everywhere), and the European anthem (Beethoven's Ode to Joy). However ridiculous they seem, these decisions are significant. They are intended to chase away any suggestion that Europe may one day have a formal political status. They sound a significant retreat from European political ambition."

It's not just antidemocratic, its administrative abuse..
Oh the flags and anthems were soon resurrected after it was ratified....

https://www.euractiv.com/section/public-affairs/news/parliament-resurrects-controversial-eu-symbols/

" The symbols, which were a central feature of the defeated European Constitution but subsequently removed from the Lisbon Treaty to increase its likelihood of Europe-wide ratification, were recognised by a large majority of MEPs (503 to 96).

The initiative for this symbolic resurrection came from the Parliament’s constitutional affairs committee (AFCO). MEPs are aiming to send “a clear political message to European citizens”.

How could you possibly make such an intricate treaty 'penetrable' for the general public? Let's call a spade a spade. We voted twice. It was widely accepted that the first vote contained many unrelated protest votes. The second vote was more informed and the protestors accepted that they had made their point. The referendum commission ensured that people were as aware of the facts as possible and presented unbiased pros and cons. As proof that Ireland did the right thing, if proof were needed, presently over 80% of Irish people want to remain in the EU. Feel free to contrast and compare that process and outcome with the Brexit debacle.

ancapailldorcha

suicide_circus wrote: »

So in what ways can we expect to see the UK crash and burn now that they're out of the EU? Obviously there will be short, medium and long term effects but what do we expect to see in the short term ie: the next 18 months let's say?

For this year I would expect some labour shortages in sectors which were dependent on EU labour like fruitpicking and caring. I think companies who rely on importing or exporting in a large way are going to examine their position and I think many of those firms will try and relocate to the continent. The UK is mainly service-based so this won't affect GFP but will hit areas like Birkenhead and Sunderland hard but they knew what they were voting for so it's fine.

Financial services will probably not change much, if at all over the next year. There's an 18-month transition in effect for that won't be a concern until 2022. Future investment might be less likely but we'll have to see. I'm much more interested in seeing the political developments here to be honest.

suicide_circus

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm much more interested in seeing the political developments here to be honest.

Why what do you think might happen here politically?

ancapailldorcha

suicide_circus wrote: »

Why what do you think might happen here ploutically?

I want to see how people handle the disruption and if they're going to be content with the new status quo. People here were promised the easiest trade deal in history and a plethora of new deals and we got nothing. I'm just wondering where the line is for people here.

Seth Brundle

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I want to see how people handle the disruption and if they're going to be content with the new status quo. People here were promised the easiest trade deal in history and a plethora of new deals and we got nothing. I'm just wondering where the line is for people here.

When the majority of politicians vote in favour of the deal and the majority of the mainstream media are happy with it, why would the average person think there is something wrong with it? It was sold as a win for the UK and will go down in UK history as a win for the UK.
Going forwards, it will be spun that the EU is trying to punish the UK and the public will lap it up!

ancapailldorcha

Seth Brundle wrote: »

When the majority of politicians vote in favour of the deal and the majority of the mainstream media are happy with it, why would the average person think there is something wrong with it? It was sold as a win for the UK and will go down in UK history as a win for the UK.
Going forwards, it will be spun that the EU is trying to punish the UK and the public will lap it up!

Because now it takes effect and becomes the norm. Labour were in a tough situation where it was literally the lesser of two evils.

Doctor Roast

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

How could you possibly make such an intricate treaty 'penetrable' for the general public? Let's call a spade a spade. We voted twice. It was widely accepted that the first vote contained many unrelated protest votes. The second vote was more informed and the protestors accepted that they had made their point. The referendum commission ensured that people were as aware of the facts as possible and presented unbiased pros and cons. As proof that Ireland did the right thing, if proof were needed, presently over 80% of Irish people want to remain in the EU. Feel free to contrast and compare that process and outcome with the Brexit debacle.

You seem to skip over the part were they deliberately removed language referring to flags and anthems to hide its political ambitions and cut off any calls for referendums on it, even Sarkozy admitted the French public would have rejected it if they got to vote on it... Not to mention the antidemocratic guff that regularly comes out of Brussels bureaucrats, its easy to see why its gets labelled undemocratic and authoritarian.

Donald Trump

suicide_circus wrote: »

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm much more interested in seeing the political developments here to be honest.

Why what do you think might happen here politically?

I wonder how will the likes of Farage and his similar agitators get on now that they are restricted towards focusing their efforts and rhetoric internally rather than against an external bogeyman?


Will they get a toehold into the British system? Any disquiet at "revelations" or reality hitting home as small things are lost in every lives can be channeled into an attack on "incompetents" in the UK government who let the "easiest deal in history" slip away.





(I presume you mean UK when you say "here")

Leroy42

Doctor Roast wrote: »

You seem to skip over the part were they deliberately removed language referring to flags and anthems to hide its political ambitions and cut off any calls for referendums on it, even Sarkozy admitted the French public would have rejected it if they got to vote on it... Not to mention the antidemocratic guff that regularly comes out of Brussels bureaucrats, its easy to see why its gets labelled undemocratic and authoritarian.

so according to your recollection, they removed the offending parts of the treaty that we had rejected and we voted on an amended treaty which didn't have these issues.

Isn't that exactly what you would want to happen? I really don't see the point you are trying to make.

Seth Brundle

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Because now it takes effect and becomes the norm. Labour were in a tough situation where it was literally the lesser of two evils.

Oh I know but as far as the public are concerned, the government are doing what they said they would and the blockages are because the EU are unhappy.
I haven't watched or read much about Labours opposition to where the UK is heading. There has been the usual waffle in Westminster but nothing that has stuck.
The public are being fed lies constantly and have no reason to disbelieve them.

Doctor Roast

Leroy42 wrote: »

so according to your recollection, they removed the offending parts of the treaty that we had rejected and we voted on an amended treaty which didn't have these issues.

Isn't that exactly what you would want to happen? I really don't see the point you are trying to make.

I think you're getting a bit mixed up here and conflating 2 different points

Doctor Roast

Leroy42 wrote: »

so according to your recollection, they removed the offending parts of the treaty that we had rejected and we voted on an amended treaty which didn't have these issues.

Isn't that exactly what you would want to happen? I really don't see the point you are trying to make.

it's not recollection it's what actually happened, the removal of the language referring to flags, anthems, constitution was removed to cut off any calls for referendums on it and so politicians could sell it better to the public, nothing to see here just another EU treaty full of mumbo jumbo...to quote D'estaing, the EU commission made cosmetic changes "to make it easier to swallow". EU commissioner Gunter Verheugen captured their attitude after the French and Dutch No votes, saying “We must not give in to blackmail” This is extraordinarily disturbing. It is a rejection of the rightful capacity of people to intervene in how they are governed.
I can remember quite clearly an MEP standing up in the EU parliament and stating every countries people should get to vote on it... He was jeered and heckled...

fly_agaric

Doctor Roast wrote: »

it's not recollection it's what actually happened, the removal of the language referring to flags, anthems, constitution was removed to cut off any calls for referendums on it and so politicians could sell it better to the public, nothing to see here just another EU treaty full of mumbo jumbo...to quote D'estaing, the EU commission made cosmetic changes "to make it easier to swallow". EU commissioner Gunter Verheugen captured their attitude after the French and Dutch No votes, saying “We must not give in to blackmail” This is extraordinarily disturbing. It is a rejection of the rightful capacity of people to intervene in how they are governed.
I can remember quite clearly an MEP standing up in the EU parliament and stating every countries people should get to vote on it... He was jeered and heckled...

Dunno, for some reason I'm reminded of those Japanese soldiers that remained on manoeuvres in the jungles still fighting WW2 years after the Empereor surrendered & Tojo killed himself!