Brexit is off ?

Rather than having to rely on the slower more drawn out machinations of the CPS and the courts, we have the Electoral Commission who have the legal remit to police the conduct of politicians during elections and referendums.

The Electoral Commission have concluded that one side in the debate did use deception and exercise undue influence, as established by the current state of the process of law defined in UK.  So the condition you gave in your last paragraph is met, and therefore, you should by your own criteria, accept that the complaints of the people who voted for remain are valid and should not be so easily dismissed.

Huge posted:

Rather than having to rely on the slower more drawn out machinations of the CPS and the courts, we have the Electoral Commission who have the legal remit to police the conduct of politicians during elections and referendums.

The Electoral Commission have concluded that one side in the debate did use deception and exercise undue influence, as established by the current state of the process of law defined in UK.  So the condition you gave in your last paragraph is met, and therefore, you should by your own criteria, accept that the complaints of the people who voted for remain are valid and should not be so easily dismissed.

We disagree. A 'conclusion' by an unelected quango does not constitute a decision flowing from a court of law (British, I hasten to add, not European!). The EC does not, I'm afraid, have the power to either set aside the referendum result, or order a rerun. You lost - get over it.

I just wonder if history were repeated, and the Remain group won the reforrendum, would the Leave group be trying to challenge the ongoing EU relationship in courts, requiring  every piece of EU regulation and directive to be scrutinised and voted on and potentially challenged in the UK parliament because the electorate didn't specifically vote for it... because up until the referendum, as far as I was aware, that  was not happening and unless there was a requirement of new U.K. act of parliament as a consequence of an EU directive I am not sure there was much parliamentary time given to discuss the ongoing EU direction and the relationship of the UK within it, and I am not sure HMG even had the authority to be able to challenge many i directives  without punitive action from the EU. 

No the Leave group would accept it.. and yes  UKIP would carry on as before challenging that relationship politically but essentially  from the political fringe, but the rest of the establishment would be carrying on as before, and oh yes no doubt we would still have David Cameron as PM and George Osborne as chancellor... feeling vindicated within their own elite bubble.

Timmo1341 posted:

Huge posted:

Rather than having to rely on the slower more drawn out machinations of the CPS and the courts, we have the Electoral Commission who have the legal remit to police the conduct of politicians during elections and referendums.

The Electoral Commission have concluded that one side in the debate did use deception and exercise undue influence, as established by the current state of the process of law defined in UK.  So the condition you gave in your last paragraph is met, and therefore, you should by your own criteria, accept that the complaints of the people who voted for remain are valid and should not be so easily dismissed.

We disagree. A 'conclusion' by an unelected quango does not constitute a decision flowing from a court of law (British, I hasten to add, not European!). The EC does not, I'm afraid, have the power to either set aside the referendum result, or order a rerun. You lost - get over it.

 

The Electoral Commission doesn't have to have the power to set aside the referendum result, but parliament does.  When one side lied and used deception (and the EC does have the power to determine that!) then it's the moral obligation of parliament of parliament to take account of that - it's just not politically convenient to do it.  I've accepted that article 50 will be triggered; the Brexiteers (whatever they actually wanted) in turn need to accept the moral corruption of the Brexit campaign.

As you insist on continuing to use using divisive language, I'll now express it in your terms, so you can understand.

Your side lied, and continuing to supporting that position is morally indefensible - accept it.

Huge what is divisive language? Reading Timmo1341's posts they are quite interesting and debateful. Surely he is using debating language in its traditional form for the most part and engaging largely with you and Hmack.. surely it doesn't need to get personal all the time? And yes I was often not successful in debating groups as I did let it get to me personally.. and as a consequence weakened my argument. I do think your last paragraph is inflammatory, perhaps you are just trying to provoke a response to amplify a point? But objectively I don't think one side had any more moral justification than the other... and both 'sides' adopted spin and information management.. both equally subtle and clumsy.. which is why I suspect a lot of it was ignored by the electorate .. it was not trusted... and I suspect a lot of it was about managing 24 hour media  outlets rather than genuine informing (regrettably)

Timmo1341 posted:

"Perhaps I ought to have used 'realist' rather than 'pragmatist'."

Possibly just a little more appropriate, but still a pretty cynical point of view as far as I am concerned.

"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"

I assure you it was not my intention to personally denigrate you. It was simply an attempt to point out that your assertion that "anyone with an IQ of over 50 knows that lying is what politicians do" should more correctly be viewed as cynicism rather than pragmatism. Was your assertion that I am either appallingly complacent or worse if I do not agree with your claim, or else that I must have an IQ of under 50 - perhaps a personal insult to which I should take exception? Well, maybe you intended it as an insult, but I certainly didn't take it this way. I simply think that you exaggerated or overstated your argument to make a specific point. Ah - not a blatant porky, but possibly "deliberate exaggeration" .   

"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"

I now must confess to being rather amazed by your amazement at my indignation and outrage at the blatant lies being told by some of our politicians. Maybe I need to find a 'lower' moral horse on which to sit? I wonder if you feel that you personally fall into above categorisation of the human race, or is it just everyone else, or maybe just everyone who happens to disagree with your point of view. Your view of and disdain for the human species is rather illuminating. You will not be surprised that I approach this question from completely the opposite perspective. It would be foolish to argue that the human species is not flawed, but my personal view (borne out of personal experience) is that the human species is fundamentally decent, often relatively self sacrificing (witness those who continually work for or give to charities), and with for the most part a belief in the value of "true moral values". Of course, everyone has aspirations and an element of self promotion and greed, but that is a far cry from being "intrinsically selfish" or "lacking for the most part in true moralvalues".

 "Whist holding this, some may say, cynical view of human nature does not mean I condone or like it. I just recognise reality for what it is".      

This time, I think your use of the adjective "cynical" is spot on!

It is also a fundamentally sad perspective from which to view the world. If one feels this way, then what is the point of having elections at all? What is the point of democracy? There can be no doubt about the end result - the strong, or those who are willing to plumb the lowest depths will win out in the end -  why not just give them what they want? Now, I am exaggerating to make a point. I really am sure that this is not what you mean.    

"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".

You might be surprised to find that I reluctantly agree with the first part of your statement. However, I reiterate the point that I and many others make, which is that it is very difficult to "move on and make the best of" something that has not been even remotely defined. In effect, you are asking those of us who voted 'remain' to 'lie back and think of England" and trust that Theresa May and her cohorts have the best interests of everyone in the UK at heart, and that whatever they negotiate (and they must have a completely free hand to do so, with no parliamentary due diligence to reign them back - after all, politicians are human and intrinsically fundamentally flawed with no moral values) will just be fine and dandy.

Well, it's beginning to look as though the Government has changed its position slightly. Not only might we not leave the single market, but we might actually offer to pay significant amounts of money, and relax our position on border control, in order to be able to remain. I wonder what else will come to fruition before we actually complete our exit?

Are you happy with this current potential state of affairs, or do you believe that it is incumbent on Nigel Farage and UKIP to rise to the fore to ensure that these compromises don't see the light of day?         

"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'?"

Finally, I am very happy to make my view on the above very clear.

1. I was not, and never have been, in favour of the war in Iraq, despite the fact that the regime in that country was undoubtedly corrupt and immoral. There may or may not have been legitimate reasons for Blair and his government to support the US invasion of Iraq, amongst which might be the invasion by Iraq of a sovereign state (Kuwait). I think time has shown that the decision to invade, and in particular the complete lack of understanding of religious and political realities in the country and region, and the complete lack of a plan to exit without utter confusion and devastation, was utterly flawed.

2. I don't recognize your description of Miliband's statement, nor the premise on which your assertion is based

3. I lost a great deal of respect for the Liberal Party and Clegg in particular, when he/they chose to form a coalition with the Tory party and reneged on some of their promises (such as those relating to University fees). One could of course argue that in a coalition it is necessary to give and take, and that they felt that some of their gains in other areas justified their agreement to campaign for the raising of University fees. Whilst I sympathise with this perspective to some extent. I disagreed with their decision on this particular subject. I do contend that Clegg is fundamentally a decent human being (there probably are some if you look hard enough), and that when he/they made their promise it was not his/their intention to deceive or to "lie". That is a very different proposition from deliberately and wilfully lying to promote their self interests (witness Farage and Trump). I reiterate my viewpoint that the world has become a much nastier place as a result of recent referendum and election campaigns.

Now, I really must get off my high horse. It's very tired, extremely depressed, and badly in need of nourishment and comfortable stabling for the weekend.     

Simon,

My last two lines were just responding in kind to the oft repeated and aggressive mantra of "You lost - get over it", and was putting the equivalent back to him.  It's this insulting 'sound byte' argument to which I object so strongly, particularly as I have repeatedly said that I do accept that Article 50 will be triggered and have stated that again in this thread, and more than once. *

Yes, both sides used spin, but the Electoral Commission did accuse the Leave campaign of crossing the line from spin into lies and deception, whilst clearing the Remain campaign of such malpractice, concluding that they stayed just within the law.

VERY IMPORTANT: Please also note that I very specifically didn't accuse Timmo1341 of moral corruption, as I in no way see that in his posts - I reserve that accusation for those who orchestrated the Leave campaign.

*  I do consider the use of that sound bite to be insulting, and I actually have a personal view on the use of that expression that is far stronger than that expressed here.  However the language I would need to use to describe my personal view would, for historical reasons, be considered insulting to others, even though I could defend it logically.  Therefore I have chosen not to fully express my view and to moderate my responses.

Guys, you'll be pleased to hear you've worn me out, beaten me, call it what you will!

Huge - sorry my trite little phrase, which I promise never to repeat in your earshot,  offended and upset you so deeply. Not intentional, I assure you. Just a word of advice though. In my experience it's unwise to reveal weaknesses to those who oppose you.

Hmack - we will just have to agree to disagree. I get the feeling even were I to play you the recording of the televised pre-election debate where Miliband made his statement (which I maintain can only be interpreted as an untruth, lie, deception, or any other word the Thesaurus throws up) you would deny his intention to fool the electorate. If your belief Clegg is  a 'decent human being' excuses his lies, well once again that's your prerogative - others may disagree. You have obviously made up your mind as to who passes the morality test for entry into your Guardian reading liberal left leaning club. 

Me, I'm off to buy a couple of bottles of Proper Job to help lubricate an afternoon of Rugby on the telly - as you'd expect from a hateful, cynical nasty piece of work, I've got my priorities sorted! Hope you enjoy mucking out your stable - I guess there may be a fair bit of bulls**t to clear up (apologies for the mixed metaphors).

Regards

Tim

Timmo1341

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree, although I do feel that your views or experiences of human beings as a whole are more than just a little concerning..

I am actually about to attend a football game. I don't think that this makes me a bad person, so I guess I have to give you the benefit of the doubt and not mark you down for watching the rugby this afternoon. Just so long as you drink beer and not champagne of course. Hang on a minute though! Isn't rugby just a little elitist and right wing? Nah!- I played rugby for my school so it must be ok.

Yeah, a fair bit of b******t to clear out. I'm as guilty as anyone of contributing to this. However, I'll console myself by thanking my lucky stars that I don't have to muck out the stables on the UKIP/BREXIt side. That really would be soul destroying and never ending!

Just joking - I think?

Hmack posted:

I am actually about to attend a football game. I don't think that this makes me a bad person, so I guess I have to give you the benefit of the doubt and not mark you down for watching the rugby this afternoon. Just so long as you drink beer and not champagne of course. Hang on a minute though! Isn't rugby just a little elitist and right wing? Nah!- I played rugby for my school so it must be ok.

Isn't rugby a thugs game played by gentlemen and football a gentlemans game played by thugs?

As to your final paragraph... I believe bulls tend to leave stuff in fields, it's horses that need stables mucking out...

Corbin saying Labour will put forward amendments to any Art 50 bill to protect workers rights and access to Single Market, thus seeking to influence the PM's hidden negotiating position.  The arithmetic in the House of Commons might make that hard for HMG to resist, given such an amendment will likely gain support from all the other opposition parties.  Would only take a handful of Tory MPs to rebel and the bill would be in trouble.

Eloise posted:

Hmack posted:

I am actually about to attend a football game. I don't think that this makes me a bad person, so I guess I have to give you the benefit of the doubt and not mark you down for watching the rugby this afternoon. Just so long as you drink beer and not champagne of course. Hang on a minute though! Isn't rugby just a little elitist and right wing? Nah!- I played rugby for my school so it must be ok.

Isn't rugby a thugs game played by gentlemen and football a gentlemans game played by thugs?

As to your final paragraph... I believe bulls tend to leave stuff in fields, it's horses that need stables mucking out...

Indeed, although I'm not sure that I deserve to be called a 'gentleman'. On the other hand, I would be a little upset if anyone considered me to be a thug.

I played rugby and football for my school, but also played football at University, so maybe a 'gentlethug'?

Good point about bulls vs horses - wish I had thought of that before I responded to Timmo1341's little barb.

I think the political stables in the UK and US need a river diverting through them * - to wash them out effectively.

* There is a documented precedent for this approach to cleaning stables!

On a more positive European politics front... the Far Right have conceded defeat in Austria's presidential election...

Yes - that would have been a somewhat uncomfortable direction for many if Hofer had got in - despite only being mainly a ceremonial role. I think that would have been the first major win for a European Far Right party since the 1930s

For me the want to watch is the Italian election results due tomorrow morning, thats a bit more relevant and mainstream.

Eloise posted:

On a more positive European politics front... the Far Right have conceded defeat in Austria's presidential election...

A bit of good news at last!

Hmack posted:

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?

Big disappointment. I had expected to see at least one or two Brexiteer responses to Hmack's invitation.

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. I'm sure some of you have written to HMG or your MP offering guidance as to what Brexit actually means. Why not share that guidance here.

Disappointed? Maybe.  Surprised? I suspect not, Don.  At its root, that has been the big problem with this referendum - those who favoured remain did so on the basis of knowing what the status quo means, both positives and negatives.  What Brexit really means was unclear during the referendum campaign during which we had sound-bites which didn't stand up too well to examination. And since the result the Government has said pretty much nothing about what it is aiming to achieve (perhaps because it doesn't yet know).  That's the thing that I continue to find really worrying - we've taken a monumental decision with pretty much a leap into the dark and we still have no real clarity about what we hope to achieve. Perhaps for those of us on here who are middle-aged, towards the back-end of our careers or retired, the risks associated with Brexit going badly aren't great.  But for our children and grand-children I worry that risks are potentially grave and enduring. I hope I'm wrong and that in a few years the UK sees the sunny uplands that some of the Brexiteer politicians beguile us with.  But I wouldn't bet on it.  

Yes Mike, certainly disappointed and not totally surprised that Hmack's invitation lies barren.

Slightly surprised given the "enthusiasm" with which the Brexiteers in this thread have voiced their views over the last few pages, that "the People have spoken" and the parallel "enthusiasm" that the Remainers should "get over it", both being indicative that in their view "Brexit means Brexit" has a  clear, unanimous meaning.

So, I proffer the following vision of Brexit....

- We leave the EU.

- We pay an annual fee to retain our current terms as part of the Single Market, the various Research & Development Organisations, EASA and most of the other European-wide industry organisations to which the 28(+4) belong.

- We agree to the free movement of EU Citizens to/from the UK in exchange for the free movement of UK Citizens to/from the EU.

I am claiming this is the FORUM BREXIT aspiration benchmark, by which ALL Brexiteers on the Forum will judge success or failure.

Unless one (or more) set out their alternative vision.

Tension building on the Italian referendum - it looks like it has been a high turn out.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Tension building on the Italian referendum - it looks like it has been a high turn out.

Yes,

One can only hope that the exit polls are as wrong as they were for our referendum and the US election!

Or Simon, are you anticipating and supporting a 'No' vote which will probably throw both Italy and Europe (including the UK) into a yet further period of uncertainty and turmoil? My interpretation of course. 

These recent events must be like Christmas come early for those anarchists amongst us. This after all will be a vote for the disaffected majority against the 'liberal elite'. Why not just call it anarchy?

Perhaps there is a correlation between ones exposure to punk rock while growing up and ones affiliation to the disaffected majority and disdain of the liberal elite? I'll lay my colours to the mast, having grown up in the hippy and rock eras when we were going to change the world for the better. Our mantra was 'universal love' and not 'anarchy'. Of course, my generation only partially succeeded in changing the world for the better, but at least we tried for a while. I never did like the punk era and its fashions, even if I did sort of like some of the music. It always seemed too in-your-face and confrontational. I suspected that it was a fad that would die away eventually, and until recently though I was right. Maybe it hasn't, and the recent referendum & election results attest to that.

So folks.

Psychedelic music, protest songs and good old fashioned rock, or punk and anarchy? What's your allegiance?   

Hmack posted:

So folks.

Psychedelic music, protest songs and good old fashioned rock, or punk and anarchy? What's your allegiance?   

.........Sir Cliff Richard and Harold Wilson............

BBC Breaking News ........... Renzi has suffered a heavy defeat .......... exit polls suggest.    An exit poll on state broadcaster RAI suggests 42-46% voted to back reform, compared with 54-58% voting No.  Two other polls gave the No vote a similar lead of at least 10 points.   He is expected to go on national TV/Radio in the next hour

My allegiance is protest songs & Tuff Gong with the holy herb 

Hmack, I don't know, other than the exit polls, which I think we have all learnt to not trust. What i find interesting is the turnout of the prosperous north of Italy is apparently a lot higher than the relatively less well off south. I am not close enough to Italian politics to know what that might mean. Instinctively I feel prosperity goes with support of the establishment.. as opposed to solicalist populism... but I guess we will have to wait and see.

My song right now, Chirpy Chirpy Cheep Cheep by Middle of the Road

Don Atkinson posted:

Yes Mike, certainly disappointed and not totally surprised that Hmack's invitation lies barren.

Slightly surprised given the "enthusiasm" with which the Brexiteers in this thread have voiced their views over the last few pages, that "the People have spoken" and the parallel "enthusiasm" that the Remainers should "get over it", both being indicative that in their view "Brexit means Brexit" has a  clear, unanimous meaning.

So, I proffer the following vision of Brexit....

- We leave the EU.

- We pay an annual fee to retain our current terms as part of the Single Market, the various Research & Development Organisations, EASA and most of the other European-wide industry organisations to which the 28(+4) belong.

- We agree to the free movement of EU Citizens to/from the UK in exchange for the free movement of UK Citizens to/from the EU.

I am claiming this is the FORUM BREXIT aspiration benchmark, by which ALL Brexiteers on the Forum will judge success or failure.

Unless one (or more) set out their alternative vision.

Sorry, I was forced to watch the final of I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here.  So, in response I would say, yes, yes, depends on what you mean by free movement.  Control of money, law, borders and who we trade with seems reasonable to me.  When I voted I voted to leave the EU, I wasn't responsible, as a voter, for putting forward the terms of the exit - that is for government, and parliament, to negotiate getting the best possible terms for the UK.   Like many many people across Europe, including the Italian people by the look of things, I was unhappy with the status quo within the EU (and within the Uk political system for that matter) and was willing to try a different path.  My view hasn't changed and you will have to forgive me if I don't wring my hands as our cousins in Europe make clear what we had wasn't working and was rotting on the vine.  Is there a single European country that would be confident of asking it's people if they want to stay in the EU and abide by that decision?  I very much doubt it which surely says something.