Brexit is off ?

Hmack, as I said it wasn't meant for anyone here... as I don't know you.. I was expressing my honest view.. anyway probably enough for today.. I must learn not to get too emotional and wound up by media spin doctors .. off to watch  a film and enjoy a glass of wine.. not champagne .. I just will be relieved when this is all over and we are free to run our country again and yes if that means make our own mistakes then so be it..and I think after all is said and done and everyone has had their say  the UK and the remnants of the EU will have a symbiotic and positive relationship... they need each other.

Hungryhalibut posted:

Those two posts by Clive above and HMack a couple before sum up my view entirely. Britain, and the US are becoming nastier. The Brexit issue lead to the appalling death of Jo Cox and recently a 15 year old has been convicted of killing a Polish man. 

 

Sorry HH, but for the sake of accuracy I have to point out that:

Mair, Jo Cox's killer, was known to have links to Nazi and white supremacist groups. No evidence was produced, or adduced, linking him to the Brexit issue.

A 15 year old youth from Harlow has just been charged with, not convicted of, the manslaughter of a Polish man. The motive for his alleged crime has not yet been determined.

You may well be correct in your assertion that the UK and USA are becoming nastier, but I think we need a little more hard evidence before linking such a state of affairs to a vote in favour of leaving the EU. 

As someone who voted to leave, I object strongly to the attempts of many 'remainers' to link my decision to motives driven by racism. Although it is undeniable that a revolting, distasteful number of right wing invertebrates voted to leave, to ascribe the motives of this tiny minority to all the millions of Brexit voters is fatuous and unfair. 

Isn't it time this open sore was allowed to scab over, and for us all to get on with pulling together to tackle the many very real problems of poverty, homelessness, unemployment and growing social division confronting this country?

I hope the foregoing does not come across as too grumpy or aggressive?

Tim

Huge posted:

Wugged Woy posted:

No Huge. The moral obligation is to abide by the result of the referendum based on what was written on the ballot paper. 

You clearly believe there's a moral obligation to support the result even if it's based on a deception, irrespective of the magnitude of that deception.

If it turns out that it was a deception, then is it not appropriate to give an opportunity to those who were deceived to reconsider in light of the revelation of that deception?  To do otherwise is to give moral support to that deception; and that's a strange moral position.

But how do you know whether people were deceived ? You have no idea why people reached their voting decision. What politicians from both sides said before the vote may well have been deceptions, but did that affect the way people voted ? No one knows, and I fear we underestimate the public's  ability to smell bull---t ? But of course, those who feel they know better (respectfully I do not refer to yourself here )  claim otherwise...........

Timmo1341 posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

Those two posts by Clive above and HMack a couple before sum up my view entirely. Britain, and the US are becoming nastier. The Brexit issue lead to the appalling death of Jo Cox and recently a 15 year old has been convicted of killing a Polish man. 

 

Sorry HH, but for the sake of accuracy I have to point out that:

Mair, Jo Cox's killer, was known to have links to Nazi and white supremacist groups. No evidence was produced, or adduced, linking him to the Brexit issue.

A 15 year old youth from Harlow has just been charged with, not convicted of, the manslaughter of a Polish man. The motive for his alleged crime has not yet been determined.

You may well be correct in your assertion that the UK and USA are becoming nastier, but I think we need a little more hard evidence before linking such a state of affairs to a vote in favour of leaving the EU. 

As someone who voted to leave, I object strongly to the attempts of many 'remainers' to link my decision to motives driven by racism. Although it is undeniable that a revolting, distasteful number of right wing invertebrates voted to leave, to ascribe the motives of this tiny minority to all the millions of Brexit voters is fatuous and unfair. 

Isn't it time this open sore was allowed to scab over, and for us all to get on with pulling together to tackle the many very real problems of poverty, homelessness, unemployment and growing social division confronting this country?

I hope the foregoing does not come across as too grumpy or aggressive?

Tim

 

Excellent post, to a grumpy old so and so like me.

Wugged Woy posted:

Huge posted:

Wugged Woy posted:

No Huge. The moral obligation is to abide by the result of the referendum based on what was written on the ballot paper. 

You clearly believe there's a moral obligation to support the result even if it's based on a deception, irrespective of the magnitude of that deception.

If it turns out that it was a deception, then is it not appropriate to give an opportunity to those who were deceived to reconsider in light of the revelation of that deception?  To do otherwise is to give moral support to that deception; and that's a strange moral position.

But how do you know whether people were deceived ? You have no idea why people reached their voting decision. What politicians from both sides said before the vote may well have been deceptions, but did that affect the way people voted ? No one knows, and I fear we underestimate the public's  ability to smell bull---t ? But of course, those who feel they know better (respectfully I do not refer to yourself here )  claim otherwise...........

Long standing principle of British justice, enshrined in case law and political principle:  "Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done".

Succeeding by a campaign of deception results in an untenable moral position, even if it cannot definitively shown that anyone actually was deceived.  It's still morally incumbent on the Brexit campaign to deliver their commitments; if they can't then their (and your) position becomes untenable.  To support them beyond this position is to support the deception.  Unconditionally supporting Brexit after this time would be a moral degeneracy.

Huge posted:

Wugged Woy posted:

Huge posted:

Wugged Woy posted:

No Huge. The moral obligation is to abide by the result of the referendum based on what was written on the ballot paper. 

You clearly believe there's a moral obligation to support the result even if it's based on a deception, irrespective of the magnitude of that deception.

If it turns out that it was a deception, then is it not appropriate to give an opportunity to those who were deceived to reconsider in light of the revelation of that deception?  To do otherwise is to give moral support to that deception; and that's a strange moral position.

But how do you know whether people were deceived ? You have no idea why people reached their voting decision. What politicians from both sides said before the vote may well have been deceptions, but did that affect the way people voted ? No one knows, and I fear we underestimate the public's  ability to smell bull---t ? But of course, those who feel they know better (respectfully I do not refer to yourself here )  claim otherwise...........

Long standing principle of British justice, enshrined in case law and political principle:  "Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done".

Succeeding by a campaign of deception results in an untenable moral position, even if it cannot definitively shown that anyone actually was deceived.  It's still morally incumbent on the Brexit campaign to deliver their commitments; if they can't then their (and your) position becomes untenable.  To support them beyond this position is to support the deception.  Unconditionally supporting Brexit after this time would be a moral degeneracy.

But there is no proof AT ALL of any deception affecting the result.  Justice has been seen to be done according to what the voter had to vote on, the words on the ballot paper- unless you didn't like the result. However, remember, deception was attempted by both sides.

You just have to look at a political party's manifesto before and after an election to realise your comments are ridiculous.

Justice must indeed be seen to be done - Brexit means Brexit.

When does The Supreme Court meet to consider HMG's appeal regarding the need for an Act of Parliament to trigger Article 50 ? ISTR early December ?

I live in an area that voted to Remain. Should I expect my MP to vote in any such Act of Parliament in line with the voting majority of his constituents ? On what basis should he vote ?

Huge posted:

 It's still morally incumbent on the Brexit campaign to deliver their commitments; if they can't then their (and your) position becomes untenable.  To support them beyond this position is to support the deception.  Unconditionally supporting Brexit after this time would be a moral degeneracy.

That’s why May put the three most incompetent Brexiteers she could find in charge or organising Brexit. They couldn’t organise a pissup in a brewery. When they realise every option will have a catastrophic effect on the economy, they’ll be force to admit leaving is NOT an option.

The government could simply say, the will of the people will be carried out but not at this time. After all there is no deadline to carry out the recommendation of the people.

Wugged Woy posted:

But there is no proof AT ALL of any deception affecting the result.  Justice has been seen to be done according to what the voter had to vote on, the words on the ballot paper- unless you didn't like the result. However, remember, deception was attempted by both sides.

You just have to look at a political party's manifesto before and after an election to realise your comments are ridiculous.

Justice must indeed be seen to be done - Brexit means Brexit.

At a legal level, only one side committed deception.  The Remain side expressed opinions over what the result of Leave would mean for the UK economy, only Leave lied about the current state (the £350million has been assessed as deception by the Electoral Commission). 

As for your final comment "Brexit" is an invented word, a portmanteau of British and Exit.  It doesn't define anything and so is meaningless.  

Don Atkinson posted:

When does The Supreme Court meet to consider HMG's appeal regarding the need for an Act of Parliament to trigger Article 50 ? ISTR early December ?

I live in an area that voted to Remain. Should I expect my MP to vote in any such Act of Parliament in line with the voting majority of his constituents ? On what basis should he vote ?

The case opens on Monday (5th December) and scheduled to last 4 days.  There is a suggestion the final verdict won't come till early in January 2017. 

Wugged Woy posted:

Huge posted:

Wugged Woy posted:

Huge posted:

Wugged Woy posted:

No Huge. The moral obligation is to abide by the result of the referendum based on what was written on the ballot paper. 

You clearly believe there's a moral obligation to support the result even if it's based on a deception, irrespective of the magnitude of that deception.

If it turns out that it was a deception, then is it not appropriate to give an opportunity to those who were deceived to reconsider in light of the revelation of that deception?  To do otherwise is to give moral support to that deception; and that's a strange moral position.

But how do you know whether people were deceived ? You have no idea why people reached their voting decision. What politicians from both sides said before the vote may well have been deceptions, but did that affect the way people voted ? No one knows, and I fear we underestimate the public's  ability to smell bull---t ? But of course, those who feel they know better (respectfully I do not refer to yourself here )  claim otherwise...........

Long standing principle of British justice, enshrined in case law and political principle:  "Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done".

Succeeding by a campaign of deception results in an untenable moral position, even if it cannot definitively shown that anyone actually was deceived.  It's still morally incumbent on the Brexit campaign to deliver their commitments; if they can't then their (and your) position becomes untenable.  To support them beyond this position is to support the deception.  Unconditionally supporting Brexit after this time would be a moral degeneracy.

But there is no proof AT ALL of any deception affecting the result.  Justice has been seen to be done according to what the voter had to vote on, the words on the ballot paper- unless you didn't like the result. However, remember, deception was attempted by both sides.

You just have to look at a political party's manifesto before and after an election to realise your comments are ridiculous.

Justice must indeed be seen to be done - Brexit means Brexit.

... and I though I was the sociopath!

Wugged Woy posted:

.........Justice must indeed be seen to be done - Brexit means Brexit.

I think we all get it. Brexit means 'BREXIT'!

But maybe you will be the first to answer the question?

What does 'BREXIT' actually mean?

and does everyone on the Brexit side agree with your definition of what it means?

Eloise posted:

Wugged Woy posted:

But there is no proof AT ALL of any deception affecting the result.  Justice has been seen to be done according to what the voter had to vote on, the words on the ballot paper- unless you didn't like the result. However, remember, deception was attempted by both sides.

You just have to look at a political party's manifesto before and after an election to realise your comments are ridiculous.

Justice must indeed be seen to be done - Brexit means Brexit.

At a legal level, only one side committed deception.  The Remain side expressed opinions over what the result of Leave would mean for the UK economy, only Leave lied about the current state (the £350million has been assessed as deception by the Electoral Commission). 

As for your final comment "Brexit" is an invented word, a portmanteau of British and Exit.  It doesn't define anything and so is meaningless.  

Eloise, thank you for the legal position. However, for the commission to claim one side had 'opinions' about the effects of Brexit and the other side 'lied/deceived' about the effect is pretty lame. To the working man, that stinks of hypocracy. Nobody knew prior to the referendum, and nobody knows now, what the effects may be. The 350 mill. quid claim was just that - a claim (which probably convinced nobody  (remoaner desperation). Electoral Commission - pah ! 

Sorry to read your comment that Brexit is a meaningless word. Perhaps you should text our Prime Minister and tell her to stop using it. After all, she is representing our nation.

Wugged Woy posted:

Eloise posted:

Wugged Woy posted:

But there is no proof AT ALL of any deception affecting the result.  Justice has been seen to be done according to what the voter had to vote on, the words on the ballot paper- unless you didn't like the result. However, remember, deception was attempted by both sides.

You just have to look at a political party's manifesto before and after an election to realise your comments are ridiculous.

Justice must indeed be seen to be done - Brexit means Brexit.

At a legal level, only one side committed deception.  The Remain side expressed opinions over what the result of Leave would mean for the UK economy, only Leave lied about the current state (the £350million has been assessed as deception by the Electoral Commission). 

As for your final comment "Brexit" is an invented word, a portmanteau of British and Exit.  It doesn't define anything and so is meaningless.  

Eloise, thank you for the legal position. However, for the commission to claim one side had 'opinions' about the effects of Brexit and the other side 'lied/deceived' about the effect is pretty lame. To the working man, that stinks of hypocracy. Nobody knew prior to the referendum, and nobody knows now, what the effects may be. The 350 mill. quid claim was just that - a claim (which probably convinced nobody  (remoaner desperation). Electoral Commission - pah ! 

Sorry to read your comment that Brexit is a meaningless word. Perhaps you should text our Prime Minister and tell her to stop using it. After all, she is representing our nation.

It's not hypocritical.  It's the letter of the law.

The official Leave campaign painted on their bus that leaving the EU would save £350million a week.  That was a lie.  They were told it was wrong the day the bus was unveiled.  They declined to change it. It wasn't presented as an opinion.  It was presented as a fact!

And yes, many people did believe that claim. IPSO Mori suggested around 47% believed the claim despite it being widely reported as being wrong.

She is. An automaton who can get us through this phase and then retire, to await someone with principles to take us forward, whether that be a shrunken brexited nothingness or an outward looking country wanting to work with the wider world. 

Goodness me, I see this topic still has the power to provoke high emotion! Call me a pragmatist, but I cannot understand why people should get so upset about feeling they've been lied to or deceived, when anyone with an IQ of more than 50 knows this is what politicians do! It really is incumbent upon all of us blessed with the privilege of enfranchisement to make our own enquiries into the accuracy of claims made by politicians. Given that 80% of the adult population own a smart phone, there really is no excuse for not getting on line and making our own enquiries (not, of course, via The Sun's website!). What I don't understand is why the same complainants aren't doing their damndest to see Blair tried as a war criminal after the lies he told, or challenging the result of every election held since 1918!!

Come on people, accept the result of a legitimate contest and devote your energies to issues you can influence and make a difference to.

I agree. Banana and bacon pudding. What's that all about?

Alternatively you could try fish custard as described by Epicurus.     OK, the Romans obviously had different tastes!

Wugged Woy posted:

 

 

 

 

Eloise, thank you for the legal position. However, for the commission to claim one side had 'opinions' about the effects of Brexit and the other side 'lied/deceived' about the effect is pretty lame. To the working man, that stinks of hypocracy. Nobody knew prior to the referendum, and nobody knows now, what the effects may be. The 350 mill. quid claim was just that - a claim (which probably convinced nobody  (remoaner desperation). Electoral Commission - pah ! 

 

A LIE over such an important issue is pretty lame?

No. It's a LIE. It's deceit.

And to dismiss the Electoral Commission with "pah!" is a disgrace.

Hungryhalibut posted:

I agree. Banana and bacon pudding. What's that all about?

Buy it or don't buy it - choice is yours. That's what is so great about our democracy, eh? (Always did think Heston was a bit of a pretentious prat, but can't deny he's made a huge success of it!)

Would it matter if the 'banana' is a synthetic foam with a synthetic banana flavour and the 'bacon' is a bio-engineered mycoprotein with a synthetic bacon flavour?  Would you feel it appropriate to describe that as banana and bacon pudding (whether or not you actually like banana and bacon pudding!).

Bloody deception - gets everywhere!!

Eloise posted:

Wugged Woy posted:

Eloise posted:

Wugged Woy posted:

But there is no proof AT ALL of any deception affecting the result.  Justice has been seen to be done according to what the voter had to vote on, the words on the ballot paper- unless you didn't like the result. However, remember, deception was attempted by both sides.

You just have to look at a political party's manifesto before and after an election to realise your comments are ridiculous.

Justice must indeed be seen to be done - Brexit means Brexit.

At a legal level, only one side committed deception.  The Remain side expressed opinions over what the result of Leave would mean for the UK economy, only Leave lied about the current state (the £350million has been assessed as deception by the Electoral Commission). 

As for your final comment "Brexit" is an invented word, a portmanteau of British and Exit.  It doesn't define anything and so is meaningless.  

Eloise, thank you for the legal position. However, for the commission to claim one side had 'opinions' about the effects of Brexit and the other side 'lied/deceived' about the effect is pretty lame. To the working man, that stinks of hypocracy. Nobody knew prior to the referendum, and nobody knows now, what the effects may be. The 350 mill. quid claim was just that - a claim (which probably convinced nobody  (remoaner desperation). Electoral Commission - pah ! 

Sorry to read your comment that Brexit is a meaningless word. Perhaps you should text our Prime Minister and tell her to stop using it. After all, she is representing our nation.

It's not hypocritical.  It's the letter of the law.

The official Leave campaign painted on their bus that leaving the EU would save £350million a week.  That was a lie.  They were told it was wrong the day the bus was unveiled.  They declined to change it. It wasn't presented as an opinion.  It was presented as a fact!

And yes, many people did believe that claim. IPSO Mori suggested around 47% believed the claim despite it being widely reported as being wrong.

 

Was that the same IPSO Mori that suggested the Conservatives were definitely going to lose the last election?

Timmo1341 posted:

".........Call me a pragmatist, but I cannot understand why people should get so upset about feeling they've been lied to or deceived, when anyone with an IQ of more than 50 knows this is what politicians do!......."

'Pragmatist' is not the word that I would use if that is the way you genuinely feel. 'Cynic' perhaps, or even 'apathetic', but certainly not 'pragmatic'.

The world would be a pretty awful place if people should not be outraged by the fact that politicians have behaved so badly. The reality, in this country at least, is that politicians (of all persuasions) very rarely resort to outright lies and deception, even those with whom I disagree fundamentally. Rather, they are often selective in respect of the positions and policies that they promote, and they often exaggerate the validity of their particular points of view. Anyone who takes part in a debate or discussion where there is more than one viewpoint will quite reasonably do so. You may argue that this is tantamount to lying, but in my book there is a very real and obvious difference.

Until recently, the concept of using deliberate outright lies, untruths and blatant deception was the sole domain of parties like the BNP. The concept has however now been adopted in the UK by people like Nigel Farage, and even more so in the States by Donald Trump. Trump in particular genuinely seems to believe that the telling of blatant lies is a legitimate electoral tool. It appears that the recent referendum and election in the UK and the US respectively have begun to de-sensitize people to the sheer awfulness of this sort of electioneering.

You may not think so, but I certainly believe that the World is a far worse place as a result.   

If everyone felt like you, then the uncovering of Watergate was really worthless. After all, if one discounts the need to be (at least relatively) honest, then it's a relatively small step to legitimise political bugging and other even more abhorrent practices.  

Hmack posted:

Timmo1341 posted:

".........Call me a pragmatist, but I cannot understand why people should get so upset about feeling they've been lied to or deceived, when anyone with an IQ of more than 50 knows this is what politicians do!......."

'Pragmatist' is not the word that I would use if that is the way you genuinely feel. 'Cynic' perhaps, or even 'apathetic', but certainly not 'pragmatic'.

The world would be a pretty awful place if people should not be outraged by the fact that politicians have behaved so badly. The reality, in this country at least, is that politicians (of all persuasions) very rarely resort to outright lies and deception, even those with whom I disagree fundamentally. Rather, they are often selective in respect of the positions and policies that they promote, and they often exaggerate the validity of their particular points of view. Anyone who takes part in a debate or discussion where there is more than one viewpoint will quite reasonably do so. You may argue that this is tantamount to lying, but in my book there is a very real and obvious difference.....

 

Perhaps I ought to have used 'realist' rather than 'pragmatist'. Whatever,  you really need to climb down from your high horse of moral indignation! Why are so many contributors unable to debate without resorting to insult?  We obviously line up on different sides of this argument, but I dont feel the need to personally denigrate you. You may feel that lying by omission is somehow more acceptable than a blatant porky - I don't. Deliberate exaggeration is also just as unacceptable - you obviously disagree. That is your prerogative. 

You imply political lying is a rarity in the U.K. but is in any event the exclusive province of the Right (BNP, Farage) yet fail to address my point about Blair, Iraq and WMD. Whilst on that topic, how about Miliband 'we have not overspent' whilst bankrupting Britain, and Clegg 'I promise never to raise university fees'? You see, I would call those examples of quite deliberate lies, untruths, deceptions, call them what you will. 

I have to confess to being amazed by your indignation and outrage. The human species is, in my belief and experience, fundamentally flawed; intrinsically selfish, greedy and lacking, for the most part, in true moral values. So called civilisation is a paper thin veneer - we revert quickly to base animal behaviour when our personal interests are threatened. Politicians are human - why should they be any different? Don't misunderstand me. Whist holding this, sone may say, cynical view of human nature does not mean I condone or like it. I just recognise reality for what it is. 

I reiterate - a legitimate vote has taken place. Unless it can be demonstrated in a court of law that unlawful acts influenced the outcome we should all move on, stop bleating and make the best of it.