Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

And, to add to my previous post, Janet Daley's piece in today's Sunday Telegraph, I know that in itself may deter some of you, but it is very rational and nowhere near as acerbic as Rod Liddle. Unfortunately you may not be able to read it unless you have a Premium subscription.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...w-brexit-fun-really/

Resurrection posted:

MDS posted:

Well, if we have to leave, the way the terms of exit are shaping up at least give some encouragement. I know 'nothing's agreed until everything's agree' and the tricky trade negotiations are to come. But indefinite alignment to standards etc of the single market (which we will no longer be able to influence) opens the prospect of the effectively no procedural change in trade flows. Quite a substantial divorce bill but, in time, a net lower contribution I suppose.

I can't imagine that the hard Brexiteers like these latest developments though and it will be interesting to see how long the apparent political 'truce' holds.     

Not long! Depending on your sense of humour, I'd recommend you give Rod Liddle's article in today's Sunday Times a read. It's padded with other very amusing stuff but is spot on, from my perspective, on the EU. Enjoy! 

Yup, Rod Liddle's slightly tongue in cheek article simply sums up the reasons so many folks voted to take to the lifeboats, rather than go down with the sinking ship which is the EU.

Waaaay back in the early days of this topic, pre-referendum, in fact, this was my oft repeated point of view, and remains so, despite endless "remainers" questioning why anyone would wish to take part in Le Grand Depart. 

Ca Va.

Well as a dyslexic I have a strict limit to the amount I can read in any one day, and hence I don't waste money subscribing to on-line rags I won't be able to read.  How about pointing to articles that are available in public service media?

Huge posted:

I wonder what the criteria concerning accuracy of information would be for a Judicial Review to declare the result of a plebiscite to have been invalidated, on the basis that the electorate could not have reached a valid conclusion due to the degree of inaccuracy of a significant proportion of the information available to them.

I would think that threshold has been probably not been exceeded, but it must be a fairly close thing.

Another Huge post, another planet.

Resurrection posted:

And, to add to my previous post, Janet Daley's piece in today's Sunday Telegraph, I know that in itself may deter some of you, but it is very rational and nowhere near as acerbic as Rod Liddle. Unfortunately you may not be able to read it unless you have a Premium subscription.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...w-brexit-fun-really/

Hmm. Some of her arguments resonated with me, e.g. the change of heart of Juncker & co who seemed to move significantly to help TM.  I can also see why Daley characterises the situation as more of a 'hostage crisis' than genuine negotiations. Where I depart is her prediction of a wider crisis with the EU, stimulated by the forthcoming UK/EU negotiations on trade. I'm not saying she is wrong about tensions and national interest issues arising but I think see underestimates the commitment on continental Europe to make the EU work, which in my view will eventually enable a compromise to be reached .   

MDS posted:

Resurrection posted:

And, to add to my previous post, Janet Daley's piece in today's Sunday Telegraph, I know that in itself may deter some of you, but it is very rational and nowhere near as acerbic as Rod Liddle. Unfortunately you may not be able to read it unless you have a Premium subscription.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...w-brexit-fun-really/

Hmm. Some of her arguments resonated with me, e.g. the change of heart of Juncker & co who seemed to move significantly to help TM.  I can also see why Daley characterises the situation as more of a 'hostage crisis' than genuine negotiations. Where I depart is her prediction of a wider crisis with the EU, stimulated by the forthcoming UK/EU negotiations on trade. I'm not saying she is wrong about tensions and national interest issues arising but I think see underestimates the commitment on continental Europe to make the EU work, which in my view will eventually enable a compromise to be reached .   

MDS,

 I respect your own  perspective on Daley's view of the EU's situation. I find your your considered response much more appealing than comments about online 'rags'. 

naim_nymph posted:

I know it's from 2016 but i've only just became aware of this particular Brexiteering shenanigan.  

It's seems very little known about.

Aha, with you now.  Yes it really does seem disgusting.  If we lived in sane times, and it was indeed illegal, there might be some hope of a prosecution.  But I doubt it'll even be considered.  Much like the frankly corrupt exculpation of DD this week.

It reminds me of this leaflet I received.  I was so taken aback that I kept it.  Where does it say it's a vote leave campaign leaflet?  On the back.  At the bottom.  In small print.

thebigfredc posted:

Huge posted:

I wonder what the criteria concerning accuracy of information would be for a Judicial Review to declare the result of a plebiscite to have been invalidated, on the basis that the electorate could not have reached a valid conclusion due to the degree of inaccuracy of a significant proportion of the information available to them.

I would think that threshold has been probably not been exceeded, but it must be a fairly close thing.

Another Huge post, another planet.

Another snide ad hominem response, another failure to add anything useful.

Dave***t posted:

 

naim_nymph posted:

I know it's from 2016 but i've only just became aware of this particular Brexiteering shenanigan.  

It's seems very little known about.

Aha, with you now.  Yes it really does seem disgusting.  If we lived in sane times, and it was indeed illegal, there might be some hope of a prosecution.  But I doubt it'll even be considered.  Much like the frankly corrupt exculpation of DD this week.

It reminds me of this leaflet I received.  I was so taken aback that I kept it.  Where does it say it's a vote leave campaign leaflet?  On the back.  At the bottom.  In small print.

 

Absolutely astonishing and disgusting, as is the video clip posted by NAIM_NYMPH , but in retrospect not very surprising!

As an aside and also pretty distasteful, but again not very surprising, is the IDS comment about the "EU blinking first" in respect of the state of the Brexit negotiations. One of the most important negotiations in the lifetimes of most people contributing to this forum, and IDS has to turn them into a petty, points winning political game.  

In the aftermath of the break-through in negotiations, I was interested in a few quotes from some of the leading political players:

Corbyn -  she [TM] "only managed to scape through...and called for a "much stronger and more constructive approach" in phase two

Julian Smith (Conservative Chief Whip) - "I have done everything I can to represent the wide range of views of [Conservative] colleagues".

Cable - "This agreement is welcome as it reduces the risk of a catastrophic no-deal Brexit" but it would be "torn apart" by Tory MPs.

Rather grudging and insular from Corbyn, I thought. I suspect he has no real ideal of how hard any PM would have found this. Smith rather lends weight to Cable's after-thought but I thought Cable deserves credit for focussing on the UK's interests first.

[disclaimer - I'm not a Lib Dem supporter]

Huge posted:

Well as a dyslexic I have a strict limit to the amount I can read in any one day, and hence I don't waste money subscribing to on-line rags I won't be able to read.  How about pointing to articles that are available in public service media?

Resurrection posted:

MDS,

 I respect your own  perspective on Daley's view of the EU's situation. I find your your considered response much more appealing than comments about online 'rags'. 

'Rags' is a not uncommon slang term for newspapers.  Please substitute the formal term newspapers if you don't like the term 'rags'.

However I am dyslexic and indeed I can't read that much in a day, hence needing you or others to point me in the direction of articles with which I can keep myself informed.

Huge posted:

Huge posted:

Well as a dyslexic I have a strict limit to the amount I can read in any one day, and hence I don't waste money subscribing to on-line rags I won't be able to read.  How about pointing to articles that are available in public service media?

Resurrection posted:

MDS,

 I respect your own  perspective on Daley's view of the EU's situation. I find your your considered response much more appealing than comments about online 'rags'. 

'Rags' is a not uncommon slang term for newspapers.  Please substitute the formal term newspapers if you don't like the term 'rags'.

However I am dyslexic and indeed I can't read that much in a day, hence needing you or others to point me in the direction of articles with which I can keep myself informed.

Huge,

my own son was diagnosed with dyslexia when he was 9 years old and could neither read nor write. With our help and his determination, he overcame that disability to the extent that he reprimanded me the other week for mentioning that he had dyslexia at all when we were in company. He is also successful in his chosen career which  requires much report writing as well as being numerate. And, of course, the term you use eg 'rag' cannot ever be taken as derogatory or dismissive.

Unfortunately when I was at school dyslexia was called laziness and treated using the impact cure (i.e. hit the child progressively harder and more often until they got better at written language and spelling).   It didn't work.  The physical bruises fade, but the defensiveness and anger toward those who dismiss the difficulties caused remains.  You son is lucky to live in a time when real help is available, and fortunate that you were prepared to put in the effort needed (and indeed you are to be commended for that).

Yes 'rag' can be taken as both derogatory and dismissive - it is.  However I've applied it to all the rags irrespective of political persuasion or their stand on brexit; I wasn't being partisan.

And the request for help still stands.

Huge posted:

Unfortunately when I was at school dyslexia was called laziness and treated using the impact cure (i.e. hit the child progressively harder and more often until they got better at written language and spelling).   It didn't work.  The physical bruises fade, but the defensiveness and anger toward those who dismiss the difficulties caused remains.  You son is lucky to live in a time when real help is available, and fortunate that you were prepared to put in the effort needed (and indeed you are to be commended for that).

Yes 'rag' can be taken as both derogatory and dismissive - it is.  However I've applied it to all the rags irrespective of political persuasion or their stand on brexit; I wasn't being partisan.

And the request for help still stands.

I appreciate the era you grew up in Huge, which was probably the same as mine and quite unforgiving of children's disabilities. Nevertheless, the teachers in my son's initial school thought he was wonderful because he caused them no trouble at all. They, on the other hand, taught him nothing. 

Huge posted:

Unfortunately when I was at school dyslexia was called laziness and treated using the impact cure (i.e. hit the child progressively harder and more often until they got better at written language and spelling).   It didn't work.  The physical bruises fade, but the defensiveness and anger toward those who dismiss the difficulties caused remains.  You son is lucky to live in a time when real help is available, and fortunate that you were prepared to put in the effort needed (and indeed you are to be commended for that).

Yes 'rag' can be taken as both derogatory and dismissive - it is.  However I've applied it to all the rags irrespective of political persuasion or their stand on brexit; I wasn't being partisan.

And the request for help still stands.

I am 90% sure that I was/am dyslexic. Two of my daughters were diagnosed as such and received terrific help to enable them to overcome/cope with the problem. I didn't get any help. I could hardly read any of the set books in English Literature within the allotted timescale, my grammar was dreadful and I had great difficulty writing essays, even though my head was bursting with exploratory and unusual ideas. Maths, Physics, Chemistry and Geography  were where I found strength, solace and success.

I developed a "coping strategy" in English by very carefully and painfully learning how to spell a few "difficult" scientific words and be able to explain difficult technical concepts clearly.

If someone, even a teacher, picked on me about spelling for example, then shortly afterwards I would, for example, ask them if they could confirm that (say) phenolphthalein was the correct spelling. It usually shut them up, at least for a while.

I have subsequently realised that most people have difficulty with spelling and using the correct word eg "their" v "there" etc. But I still suffer for slow reading and slow writing.

Dave***t posted:

thebigfredc posted:

Huge posted:

I wonder what the criteria concerning accuracy of information would be for a Judicial Review to declare the result of a plebiscite to have been invalidated, on the basis that the electorate could not have reached a valid conclusion due to the degree of inaccuracy of a significant proportion of the information available to them.

I would think that threshold has been probably not been exceeded, but it must be a fairly close thing.

Another Huge post, another planet.

Another snide ad hominem response, another failure to add anything useful.

Dave T

I don't think my comment was snide at all but Huge raising the possibility of a judicial review and rerun of the referendum again is cloud cuckoo land and it is about time he realised that reality.

Firstly the withdrawal process is miles past that and secondly I was making a reference to the great song by the Only Ones as a way perhaps of reminding everyone with any taste that music and the enjoyment of it is what we on the forum have in common.

Ray

thebigfredc posted:

Dave***t posted:

thebigfredc posted:

Huge posted:

I wonder what the criteria concerning accuracy of information would be for a Judicial Review to declare the result of a plebiscite to have been invalidated, on the basis that the electorate could not have reached a valid conclusion due to the degree of inaccuracy of a significant proportion of the information available to them.

I would think that threshold has been probably not been exceeded, but it must be a fairly close thing.

Another Huge post, another planet.

Another snide ad hominem response, another failure to add anything useful.

Dave T

I don't think my comment was snide at all but Huge raising the possibility of a judicial review and rerun of the referendum again is cloud cuckoo land and it is about time he realised that reality.

Firstly the withdrawal process is miles past that and secondly I was making a reference to the great song by the Only Ones as a way perhaps of reminding everyone with any taste that music and the enjoyment of it is what we on the forum have in common.

Ray

Perhaps if you'd bothered to read my post carefully (or at least completely) you'd have seen that in respect of a Judicial review, and specifically of the possibility of it succeeding, I stated "I would think that threshold has been probably not been exceeded".

Ergo I was not "raising the possibility of a judicial review and rerun of the referendum again"; and that context it does make your response "Another snide ad hominem response".

thebigfredc posted:

Dave***t posted:

thebigfredc posted:

Huge posted:

I wonder what the criteria concerning accuracy of information would be for a Judicial Review to declare the result of a plebiscite to have been invalidated, on the basis that the electorate could not have reached a valid conclusion due to the degree of inaccuracy of a significant proportion of the information available to them.

I would think that threshold has been probably not been exceeded, but it must be a fairly close thing.

Another Huge post, another planet.

Another snide ad hominem response, another failure to add anything useful.

Dave T

I don't think my comment was snide at all but Huge raising the possibility of a judicial review and rerun of the referendum again is cloud cuckoo land and it is about time he realised that reality.

Firstly the withdrawal process is miles past that and secondly I was making a reference to the great song by the Only Ones as a way perhaps of reminding everyone with any taste that music and the enjoyment of it is what we on the forum have in common.

Ray

I think Huge's above comment is  valid, unfortunately democracy has failed by misinformation.  

The prospect of a second referendum gets mooted on here from time to time. I don't think there's any legal argument for one.  And let's remember that HMG's intention to invoke Art 50 on the back of the referendum has already been considered by the Supreme Court.

There might be a political/moral argument for one but in my view it would take a act of supreme political courage for any party or coalition of MPs to make a serious call for a second referendum.  What would the argument be? That the terms of a negotiated exit are so far from what was put before the electorate during the referendum that another vote is needed?  Given that there were no terms explained first time around and 'facts' on both sides of the campaign haven't stood up too well I think it very hard to now make a convincing case that the people were mislead.  The truth is people voted partially blind and on issues that made sense to them personally.  Even if the current government were to collapse and another general election called, would any of the major parties stand on the basis of running another referendum? Labour has it's divisions on this issue too, and Corbyn has been mostly anti-EU during his political career.  Indeed any MP that makes such an argument is vulnerable to the accusation that they are ignoring and disrespecting the will of the people.

So while at at emotional level I'd like to think that there is the possibility of giving the electorate another chance my head tells me that it isn't now going to happen.   

I agree that a second referendum is unlikely and IMHO that is an abdication of collective national responsibility.

The referendum was a close call....51 v 49 and the reliable information available to voters was virtually non-existent and distorted by lies and deceit.

I am not convinced by the rhetoric “the will of the people”, although I imagine many MPs are content to abdicate proper consideration and responsibility to this convenient phrase.

More chance of Arsenal winning the Prem this year than a second referendum on the UKs  EU membership.

Don Atkinson posted:

I agree that a second referendum is unlikely and IMHO that is an abdication of collective national responsibility.

The referendum was a close call....51 v 49 and the reliable information available to voters was virtually non-existent and distorted by lies and deceit.

I am not convinced by the rhetoric “the will of the people”, although I imagine many MPs are content to abdicate proper consideration and responsibility to this convenient phrase.

Don,

the result was 51.89 v 48.11 which is generally rounded to 52 v 48 giving a margin of much nearer to 4% than the 2% determined in your post or to put it another way - a difference of well over a million votes.

Ray

thebigfredc posted:

the result was 51.89 v 48.11 which is generally rounded to 52 v 48 giving a margin of much nearer to 4% than the 2% determined in your post or to put it another way - a difference of well over a million votes.

Which is almost a land slide ... it would have only taken (the right) 75 people voting differently to give May a majority after the 2017 General Election; and 2,227 would have seen Labour votes different could have seen Corbyn as leading a party able to form a majority coalition alongside the other non-NI parties.

(Kind of tongue in cheek reply there)

And various proportional representation systems would have seen a very different parliament.

Eloise posted:

thebigfredc posted:

the result was 51.89 v 48.11 which is generally rounded to 52 v 48 giving a margin of much nearer to 4% than the 2% determined in your post or to put it another way - a difference of well over a million votes.

Which is almost a land slide ... it would have only taken (the right) 75 people voting differently to give May a majority after the 2017 General Election; and 2,227 would have seen Labour votes different could have seen Corbyn as leading a party able to form a majority coalition alongside the other non-NI parties.

(Kind of tongue in cheek reply there)

And various proportional representation systems would have seen a very different parliament.

Unless you live in a tin pot dictatatorship, the rules for the election are publicised well in advance and it is up to all parties/candidates to use the system to maximise their vote. This is why we see additional resources being poured into swing seats or marginal seats in Parlimentary and US Presedential elections.

In the case of the EU Referendum though, there was no jiggery pokery with boundaries or numerical anomalies relating to first past the post or PR - this was a straight shoot out between two opposing and polarised sides. There was some debate around the wording of the question in advance but from memory both sides were reasonably content with what went onto the ballot paper.

Ray

thebigfredc posted:

<snip>

In the case of the EU Referendum though, there was no jiggery pokery with boundaries or numerical anomalies relating to first past the post or PR - this was a straight shoot out between two opposing and polarised sides. There was some debate around the wording of the question in advance but from memory both sides were reasonably content with what went onto the ballot paper.

Ray

Do you really think there was no problem with the democratic process this time?