Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Don Atkinson posted:

Shambolic distribution of the White Paper that turned up late.........

....pathetic !

perhaps Gremy and Diane could do better........omg, let the nightmares end !

I have been warning you how awful this situation will become. Politics as was in the U.K. is on the verge of at least a nervous breakdown if not a terminal seizure. 

Once Parliament  openly  showed its complete contempt for the British people then all bets fell off the table as to what would happen next, and as I said earlier, touching Article 50 would be more dangerous than handling novichok with bare hands.

Resurrection posted:

I resent being placed alongside Gove. In fact only JRM and Redwood are the real deal.

Moved all your investments overseas too have you Resurrection?

Madness... madness I tell you.  (Complete with Baggy Trousers I hear you ask?)

May is taking a leaf out of the unmentionable president’s playbook... offering contradictory things to different groups.

On one hand she is promising to keep EU regulations to get a “frictionless” border with the EU, yet she is also promising “Him” that she will rip up red tape and EU beaurocracy in an effort to appeal to the USA for a comprehensive trade deal.

So which is it?

Eloise posted:

Madness... madness I tell you.

May is taking a leaf out of the unmentionable president’s playbook... offering contradictory things to different groups.

On one hand she is promising to keep EU regulations to get a “frictionless” border with the EU, yet she is also promising “Him” that she will rip up red tape and EU beaurocracy in an effort to appeal to the USA for a comprehensive trade deal.

So which is it?

Honestly Eloise, I was laughing like a drain when I read your post but of course it is far from being funny. I cannot think of anything more dangerous to our country at completely the wrong moment than Theresa May. 

Never mind running though fields of wheat in bare feet, she is running around with a flamethrower apparently intent on a full blown scorched earth policy. 

Resurrection posted:

I have been warning you how awful this situation will become. Politics as was in the U.K. is on the verge of at least a nervous breakdown if not a terminal seizure. 

Well the “nervous breakdown” is caused when the instinct to do what is best for the economy and the country is contradicted by the desire to keep their job by pandering to the populist attitude caused by holding a badly planned referendum.  The second story of I, Robot should illustrate the situation well!

Once Parliament  openly  showed its complete contempt for the British people then all bets fell off the table as to what would happen next, and as I said earlier, touching Article 50 would be more dangerous than handling novichok with bare hands.

Parliament’s job isn’t to pander to the desires of the population though, parliament’s job is to take decisions in the best interest of the country.  It’s a lack of respect for democracy which prevents this.

The tyranny of the majority is the situation the U.K. is in at the moment, NOT a democratic process.

Eloise posted:

Resurrection posted:

I have been warning you how awful this situation will become. Politics as was in the U.K. is on the verge of at least a nervous breakdown if not a terminal seizure. 

Well the “nervous breakdown” is caused when the instinct to do what is best for the economy and the country is contradicted by the desire to keep their job by pandering to the populist attitude caused by holding a badly planned referendum.  The second story of I, Robot should illustrate the situation well!

Once Parliament  openly  showed its complete contempt for the British people then all bets fell off the table as to what would happen next, and as I said earlier, touching Article 50 would be more dangerous than handling novichok with bare hands.

Parliament’s job isn’t to pander to the desires of the population though, parliament’s job is to take decisions in the best interest of the country.  It’s a lack of respect for democracy which prevents this.

The tyranny of the majority is the situation the U.K. is in at the moment, NOT a democratic process.

Unfortunately from your )safe space this maybe your perception. To the lowly masses it looks like treason and certainly smells like treason, ergo we, the lowly ones, are assuming it is, err, treason. Your tyranny rests within the walls of Westminster so look no further for a resolution to this situation as, despite your best efforts, the populist genie ain’t going back in it’s bottle. 

winkyincanada posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Aw, man. If this turns out just half as bad as how it looks to be going, you guys are totally screwed.

 

I don't understand how there isn't overwhelming political support for at least a do-over. A confirmatory referendum, given all that has now come to light. That would save "face" and would still ultimately result in the right outcome, which is obviously (to me, at least) to stay in the EU.

Ah, words taken and bandied about from page one of the elite progressive pundit's handbook.  Also, the same childish, twisted, predictable approach taken for any other recent political event of the century.

That is, why don't you just be honest and come out with the truth the first time without embellishing this sentiment.  You really mean, "It is only Democracy, if WE agree with the outcome."  And the WE obviously doesn't include the undesirable, deplorable but hard working people who don't live in or around London, obviously.  No, they don't have a say.  They are too stupid to know better. 

It's also quite funny that in suggesting another go at this you couldn't even concede what you would do if the result is the same or even stronger in favour of cutting ties with a Kleptocracy?

So for now, wouldn't it be safer to ask for best two out of three referendums?  Risky, I'd say.  Better go for best five out of nine and spread it out a few more years giving more time to import the votes you need to get the "democratic" outcome you insist on.

Florestan posted:

winkyincanada posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Aw, man. If this turns out just half as bad as how it looks to be going, you guys are totally screwed.

 

I don't understand how there isn't overwhelming political support for at least a do-over. A confirmatory referendum, given all that has now come to light. That would save "face" and would still ultimately result in the right outcome, which is obviously (to me, at least) to stay in the EU.

Ah, words taken and bandied about from page one of the elite progressive pundit's handbook.  Also, the same childish, twisted, predictable approach taken for any other recent political event of the century.

That is, why don't you just be honest and come out with the truth the first time without embellishing this sentiment.  You really mean, "It is only Democracy, if WE agree with the outcome."  And the WE obviously doesn't include the undesirable, deplorable but hard working people who don't live in or around London, obviously.  No, they don't have a say.  They are too stupid to know better. 

It's also quite funny that in suggesting another go at this you couldn't even concede what you would do if the result is the same or even stronger in favour of cutting ties with a Kleptocracy?

So for now, wouldn't it be safer to ask for best two out of three referendums?  Risky, I'd say.  Better go for best five out of nine and spread it out a few more years giving more time to import the votes you need to get the "democratic" outcome you insist on.

What "truth" was hidden or lied about? I will admit to having no idea what the hell you are talking about there.

Take a good hard look at how you categorize people. There is something very dark lurking there. When I was a resident of the UK, I never once felt like, nor was I treated like an "immigrant" (quotes are deliberate). You know why that was? My skin is the "right" (nice and light) colour, and i speak english as a first language. It is almost never about immigration, it is almost always about racism.

Florestan posted:

. 

It's also quite funny that in suggesting another go at this you couldn't even concede what you would do if the result is the same or even stronger in favour of cutting ties with a Kleptocracy?

So for now, wouldn't it be safer to ask for best two out of three referendums?  Risky, I'd say.  Better go for best five out of nine and spread it out a few more years giving more time to import the votes you need to get the "democratic" outcome you insist on.

What are you on about? Who suggested re-running the referendum! i didn’t. Winky didn’t. The strong case is for a confirmatory referendum once the full detail of what Brexit really means is kneow, as opposed to the lies, deceit, guseework, misinformation, bad information, unfounded assumption, media hype etc that was what the majority of people had to go on when the leave/remain referendum was run two years ago. And as I have pointed out many times, if Brexit is confirmed, it will shut the remainers up, and if not, then it will show the Brexiteers that their desire is not the will of the people in the face of the facts. Given all the circumstances, a confirmatory referendum is the only reasonable and wise thing to do - and would truly be democracy at work. What is not to like about it - unless you are a Brexiteer who seriously believes the result would now be the oposite of the original referendum, whence you would be admitting that you actually think democracy is a bad thing.

winkyincanada posted:

Florestan posted:

winkyincanada posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Aw, man. If this turns out just half as bad as how it looks to be going, you guys are totally screwed.

 

I don't understand how there isn't overwhelming political support for at least a do-over. A confirmatory referendum, given all that has now come to light. That would save "face" and would still ultimately result in the right outcome, which is obviously (to me, at least) to stay in the EU.

Ah, words taken and bandied about from page one of the elite progressive pundit's handbook.  Also, the same childish, twisted, predictable approach taken for any other recent political event of the century.

That is, why don't you just be honest and come out with the truth the first time without embellishing this sentiment.  You really mean, "It is only Democracy, if WE agree with the outcome."  And the WE obviously doesn't include the undesirable, deplorable but hard working people who don't live in or around London, obviously.  No, they don't have a say.  They are too stupid to know better. 

It's also quite funny that in suggesting another go at this you couldn't even concede what you would do if the result is the same or even stronger in favour of cutting ties with a Kleptocracy?

So for now, wouldn't it be safer to ask for best two out of three referendums?  Risky, I'd say.  Better go for best five out of nine and spread it out a few more years giving more time to import the votes you need to get the "democratic" outcome you insist on.

What "truth" was hidden or lied about? I will admit to having no idea what the hell you are talking about there.

Take a good hard look at how you categorize people. There is something very dark lurking there. When I was a resident of the UK, I never once felt like, nor was I treated like an "immigrant" (quotes are deliberate). You know why that was? My skin is the "right" (nice and light) colour, and i speak english as a first language. It is almost never about immigration, it is almost always about racism.

Winky, I didn't realize that English was your first language, that's great!  But now, knowing this, I'm simply amazed that someone who speaks english has trouble understanding every last single word that I write?

Let me help you.  I simply summarized what you wrote in english with some other words in english that mean the same thing?  I'll try to take it to the core and will speak slowly and deliberately as an aid and be more concise.

You wrote:
A confirmatory referendum,....would still ultimately result in the right outcome, .... to stay in the EU.

I replied:
What is wrong with the original vote/referendum?  Is your view of democracy so self-serving that it is only valid if the people vote for what you want?  Would you take the hint if in a 'confirmatory referendum' the result came in even stronger for a "hard Brexit?"

winkyincanada posted:

Florestan posted:

winkyincanada posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Aw, man. If this turns out just half as bad as how it looks to be going, you guys are totally screwed.

 

I don't understand how there isn't overwhelming political support for at least a do-over. A confirmatory referendum, given all that has now come to light. That would save "face" and would still ultimately result in the right outcome, which is obviously (to me, at least) to stay in the EU.

Ah, words taken and bandied about from page one of the elite progressive pundit's handbook.  Also, the same childish, twisted, predictable approach taken for any other recent political event of the century.

That is, why don't you just be honest and come out with the truth the first time without embellishing this sentiment.  You really mean, "It is only Democracy, if WE agree with the outcome."  And the WE obviously doesn't include the undesirable, deplorable but hard working people who don't live in or around London, obviously.  No, they don't have a say.  They are too stupid to know better. 

It's also quite funny that in suggesting another go at this you couldn't even concede what you would do if the result is the same or even stronger in favour of cutting ties with a Kleptocracy?

So for now, wouldn't it be safer to ask for best two out of three referendums?  Risky, I'd say.  Better go for best five out of nine and spread it out a few more years giving more time to import the votes you need to get the "democratic" outcome you insist on.

What "truth" was hidden or lied about? I will admit to having no idea what the hell you are talking about there.

Take a good hard look at how you categorize people. There is something very dark lurking there. When I was a resident of the UK, I never once felt like, nor was I treated like an "immigrant" (quotes are deliberate). You know why that was? My skin is the "right" (nice and light) colour, and i speak english as a first language. It is almost never about immigration, it is almost always about racism.

Bevery careful what you are saying, winky. Florestan was referring to the perception, rightly or wrongky, that there is a metropolitan ‘elite’, well represented here in this specific debate, who inhabit London , have control the levers of power and have no interest, nay, contempt for the day to day concerns of the lives of these average citizens outside the Westminster bubble. This, as in many countries, soon to be your own with the narcissistic fool Trudeau in charge, is called ‘Populism’, a derogatory word to the ‘elites’ but in the real non bubble world actually means Democracy. 

Your automatic reaction to Florestan was to label him as a xenophobe and or racist which are terms continually and liberally used by the ‘liberal elite’ to politically correctly suppress any or all valid concerns expressed by the great unwashed. This is not only a casual and contemptible slur on florestan but so typical of the arrogant class you appear to represent ie, “Do as I say, not as I do.”

Innocent Bystander posted:

Florestan posted:

. 

It's also quite funny that in suggesting another go at this you couldn't even concede what you would do if the result is the same or even stronger in favour of cutting ties with a Kleptocracy?

So for now, wouldn't it be safer to ask for best two out of three referendums?  Risky, I'd say.  Better go for best five out of nine and spread it out a few more years giving more time to import the votes you need to get the "democratic" outcome you insist on.

What are you on about? Who suggested re-running the referendum! i didn’t. Winky didn’t. The strong case is for a confirmatory referendum once the full detail of what Brexit really means is kneow, as opposed to the lies, deceit, guseework, misinformation, bad information, unfounded assumption, media hype etc that was what the majority of people had to go on when the leave/remain referendum was run two years ago. And as I have pointed out many times, if Brexit is confirmed, it will shut the remainers up, and if not, then it will show the Brexiteers that their desire is not the will of the people in the face of the facts. Given all the circumstances, a confirmatory referendum is the only reasonable and wise thing to do - and would truly be democracy at work. What is not to like about it - unless you are a Brexiteer who seriously believes the result would now be the oposite of the original referendum, whence you would be admitting that you actually think democracy is a bad thing.

What you want, IB. What you really, really want, is as many Referendums as you can get to change the result of 2016. Implementing the 2016 Referendum at all is of course ridiculous from your own anti-democratic perspective. 

Resurrection posted:

... the populist genie ain’t going back in it’s bottle. 

My Dear RR,

Unfortunately the populist genie was only given one brief outing, told a lot of false facts (and some dubious opinions); and then after it has spoken, it was was unceremoniously shoved back into it's bottle.

Now those who espouse populism are afraid to let it out once more, in case now that it knows the truth, it will change it's mind!

Huge posted:

Resurrection posted:

... the populist genie ain’t going back in it’s bottle. 

My Dear RR,

Unfortunately the populist genie was only given one brief outing, told a lot of false facts (and some dubious opinions); and then after it has spoken, it was was unceremoniously shoved back into it's bottle.

Now those who espouse populism are afraid to let it out once more, in case now that it knows the truth, it will change it's mind!

And that is your view from the Palace of Versailles?

Resurrection posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Florestan posted:

. 

It's also quite funny that in suggesting another go at this you couldn't even concede what you would do if the result is the same or even stronger in favour of cutting ties with a Kleptocracy?

So for now, wouldn't it be safer to ask for best two out of three referendums?  Risky, I'd say.  Better go for best five out of nine and spread it out a few more years giving more time to import the votes you need to get the "democratic" outcome you insist on.

What are you on about? Who suggested re-running the referendum! i didn’t. Winky didn’t. The strong case is for a confirmatory referendum once the full detail of what Brexit really means is kneow, as opposed to the lies, deceit, guseework, misinformation, bad information, unfounded assumption, media hype etc that was what the majority of people had to go on when the leave/remain referendum was run two years ago. And as I have pointed out many times, if Brexit is confirmed, it will shut the remainers up, and if not, then it will show the Brexiteers that their desire is not the will of the people in the face of the facts. Given all the circumstances, a confirmatory referendum is the only reasonable and wise thing to do - and would truly be democracy at work. What is not to like about it - unless you are a Brexiteer who seriously believes the result would now be the oposite of the original referendum, whence you would be admitting that you actually think democracy is a bad thing.

What you want, IB. What you really, really want, is as many Referendums as you can get to change the result of 2016. Implementing the 2016 Referendum at all is of course ridiculous from your own anti-democratic perspective. 

And how, exactly, is it in ANY WAY undemocratic calling for confirmation when the facts are known? What I want isn’t material  - I will accept with grace a confirmation now that so much more is known than 2 years ago, even if that is against my personal belief  of what I think is best for the UK. Sadly, it seems you, and at least some others, would not accept that democratic process, thus demonstrating your false claim that leaving, regardless of what that means in practice, is the domonstrated democratic will of the people. It isn’t - all it was was a declaration by a (small) majority of voter that their preference was to leave, inevitably based on the infotmation available at that time, two years ago.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Resurrection posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Florestan posted:

. 

It's also quite funny that in suggesting another go at this you couldn't even concede what you would do if the result is the same or even stronger in favour of cutting ties with a Kleptocracy?

So for now, wouldn't it be safer to ask for best two out of three referendums?  Risky, I'd say.  Better go for best five out of nine and spread it out a few more years giving more time to import the votes you need to get the "democratic" outcome you insist on.

What are you on about? Who suggested re-running the referendum! i didn’t. Winky didn’t. The strong case is for a confirmatory referendum once the full detail of what Brexit really means is kneow, as opposed to the lies, deceit, guseework, misinformation, bad information, unfounded assumption, media hype etc that was what the majority of people had to go on when the leave/remain referendum was run two years ago. And as I have pointed out many times, if Brexit is confirmed, it will shut the remainers up, and if not, then it will show the Brexiteers that their desire is not the will of the people in the face of the facts. Given all the circumstances, a confirmatory referendum is the only reasonable and wise thing to do - and would truly be democracy at work. What is not to like about it - unless you are a Brexiteer who seriously believes the result would now be the oposite of the original referendum, whence you would be admitting that you actually think democracy is a bad thing.

What you want, IB. What you really, really want, is as many Referendums as you can get to change the result of 2016. Implementing the 2016 Referendum at all is of course ridiculous from your own anti-democratic perspective. 

And how, exactly, is it in ANY WAY undemocratic calling for confirmation when the facts are known? What I want isn’t material  - I will accept with grace a confirmation now that so much more is known than 2 years ago, even if that is against my personal belief  of what I think is best for the UK. Sadly, it seems you, and at least some others, would not accept that democratic process, thus demonstrating your false claim that leaving, regardless of what that means in practice, is the domonstrated democratic will of the people. It isn’t - all it was was a declaration by a (small) majority of voter that their preference was to leave, inevitably based on the infotmation available at that time, two years ago.

Steady IB, or you will go off as I hope the Trump blimp will of it gets rightly punctured. You had a democratic vote, you lost, get over it. A small majority equated to 17.4 million votes, amazing how words can be twisted, eh! 

Resurrection posted:

Eloise posted:

Resurrection posted:

I have been warning you how awful this situation will become. Politics as was in the U.K. is on the verge of at least a nervous breakdown if not a terminal seizure. 

Well the “nervous breakdown” is caused when the instinct to do what is best for the economy and the country is contradicted by the desire to keep their job by pandering to the populist attitude caused by holding a badly planned referendum.  The second story of I, Robot should illustrate the situation well!

Once Parliament  openly  showed its complete contempt for the British people then all bets fell off the table as to what would happen next, and as I said earlier, touching Article 50 would be more dangerous than handling novichok with bare hands.

Parliament’s job isn’t to pander to the desires of the population though, parliament’s job is to take decisions in the best interest of the country.  It’s a lack of respect for democracy which prevents this.

The tyranny of the majority is the situation the U.K. is in at the moment, NOT a democratic process.

Unfortunately from your )safe space this maybe your perception. To the lowly masses it looks like treason and certainly smells like treason, ergo we, the lowly ones, are assuming it is, err, treason. Your tyranny rests within the walls of Westminster so look no further for a resolution to this situation as, despite your best efforts, the populist genie ain’t going back in it’s bottle. 

I don't perceive that those holding Remainer views here are any less loyal to Queen and country than you. This isn't a matter of linguistic pedantry; use of such charged terms as "treason" will only stoke resentments and make it harder for the country to unite behind a future direction, and increase the likelihood of blood on the streets. This is not fanciful - remember MP Jo Cox? References to "safe spaces" from the "lowly masses" seems a thinly veiled threat that this is what you would wish to see happen should the debate not go in the direction you would want. I hope I've misread your intentions. 

This forum thread has provided a rare opportunity for a proponents of often very differing views to share in a (relatively) civilised way their beliefs and perceptions about Brexit - but I fear that it will go the way of the Trump thread if the temperature of the discussion and the language used does not remain within acceptable bounds.

That's obviously Richard's decision as moderator, not mine, but I for one would be sorry to thread pulled. 

Resurrection posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Resurrection posted:

.

 

What you want, IB. What you really, really want, is as many Referendums as you can get to change the result of 2016. Implementing the 2016 Referendum at all is of course ridiculous from your own anti-democratic perspective. 

And how, exactly, is it in ANY WAY undemocratic calling for confirmation when the facts are known? What I want isn’t material  - I will accept with grace a confirmation now that so much more is known than 2 years ago, even if that is against my personal belief  of what I think is best for the UK. Sadly, it seems you, and at least some others, would not accept that democratic process, thus demonstrating your false claim that leaving, regardless of what that means in practice, is the domonstrated democratic will of the people. It isn’t - all it was was a declaration by a (small) majority of voter that their preference was to leave, inevitably based on the infotmation available at that time, two years ago.

Steady IB, or you will go off as I hope the Trump blimp will of it gets rightly punctured. You had a democratic vote, you lost, get over it. A small majority equated to 17.4 million votes, amazing how words can be twisted, eh! 

There you go again - others will read and understand just who is interested in democracy and who isn’t - and  what any individual, you or me, wants or wanted, is irrelevant when it is what is right for the country that matters, and ashas been pointed out before, it wasn’t a game, there was no win or lose, but an indication that of the people that voted 51 % or whatever is was indicated a preference to leave rather than remain in the EU, on the basis of what they understood at the time to be the pros and cons of each.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Resurrection posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Resurrection posted:

.

 

What you want, IB. What you really, really want, is as many Referendums as you can get to change the result of 2016. Implementing the 2016 Referendum at all is of course ridiculous from your own anti-democratic perspective. 

And how, exactly, is it in ANY WAY undemocratic calling for confirmation when the facts are known? What I want isn’t material  - I will accept with grace a confirmation now that so much more is known than 2 years ago, even if that is against my personal belief  of what I think is best for the UK. Sadly, it seems you, and at least some others, would not accept that democratic process, thus demonstrating your false claim that leaving, regardless of what that means in practice, is the domonstrated democratic will of the people. It isn’t - all it was was a declaration by a (small) majority of voter that their preference was to leave, inevitably based on the infotmation available at that time, two years ago.

Steady IB, or you will go off as I hope the Trump blimp will of it gets rightly punctured. You had a democratic vote, you lost, get over it. A small majority equated to 17.4 million votes, amazing how words can be twisted, eh! 

There you go again - others will read and understand just who is interested in democracy and who isn’t - and  what any individual, you or me, wants or wanted, is irrelevant when it is what is right for the country that matters, and ashas been pointed out before, it wasn’t a game, there was no win or lose, but an indication that of the people that voted 51 % or whatever is was indicated a preference to leave rather than remain in the EU, on the basis of what they understood at the time to be the pros and cons of each.

The Referendum was a definitive decision and not an ‘indication’ and Cameron and the whole Remain group made it perfectly clear that it would result in full scale Brexit.

Resurrection posted:

Huge posted:

Resurrection posted:

... the populist genie ain’t going back in it’s bottle. 

My Dear RR,

Unfortunately the populist genie was only given one brief outing, told a lot of false facts (and some dubious opinions); and then after it has spoken, it was was unceremoniously shoved back into it's bottle.

Now those who espouse populism are afraid to let it out once more, in case now that it knows the truth, it will change it's mind!

And that is your view from the Palace of Versailles?

For goodness sake, Resurrection. 

By the substance of your posts you would appear to be a pretty well off individual, and one who admits to admiring self made multi millionaires such as Rees-Mogg, and yet you appear to believe that you are part of a 'populist' movement that has the interest of the 'average citizen' at heart, and that those of us who argue against your ramblings (and who are in all probability significantly less well of than you) are part of a so called 'Liberal Elite'. 

Don't you think that this presents some pretty blatant and puzzling contradictions? I suspect you are much more worthy of the accolade 'Elite' than most of us on this forum.    

".........there is a metropolitan ‘elite’, well represented here in this specific debate, who inhabit London , have control the levers of power and have no interest, nay, contempt for the day to day concerns of the lives of these average citizens outside the Westminster bubble".

And which of us on this forum do you believe belongs to this fictional 'metropolitan elite'? I certainly don't inhabit London, nor do I control the levers of power and I suspect my views have very much more in common with those of the average citizen outside the Westminster bubble than do yours. We both live in Scotland. Do you think that your views hold much sway here, or does that not matter because in your view Scotland is (for the time being at least) simply a 'region' within the UK?

Hmack posted:

Resurrection posted:

Huge posted:

Resurrection posted:

... the populist genie ain’t going back in it’s bottle. 

My Dear RR,

Unfortunately the populist genie was only given one brief outing, told a lot of false facts (and some dubious opinions); and then after it has spoken, it was was unceremoniously shoved back into it's bottle.

Now those who espouse populism are afraid to let it out once more, in case now that it knows the truth, it will change it's mind!

And that is your view from the Palace of Versailles?

For goodness sake, Resurrection. 

By the substance of your posts you would appear to be a pretty well off individual, and one who admits to admiring self made multi millionaires such as Rees-Mogg, and yet you appear to believe that you are part of a 'populist' movement that has the interest of the 'average citizen' at heart, and that those of us who argue against your ramblings (and who are in all probability significantly less well of than you) are part of a so called 'Liberal Elite'. 

Don't you think that this presents some pretty blatant and puzzling contradictions? I suspect you are much more worthy of the accolade 'Elite' than most of us on this forum.    

".........there is a metropolitan ‘elite’, well represented here in this specific debate, who inhabit London , have control the levers of power and have no interest, nay, contempt for the day to day concerns of the lives of these average citizens outside the Westminster bubble".

And which of us on this forum do you believe belongs to this fictional 'metropolitan elite'? I certainly don't inhabit London, nor do I control the levers of power and I suspect my views have very much more in common with those of the average citizen outside the Westminster bubble than do yours. We both live in Scotland. Do you think that your views hold much sway here, or does that not matter because in your view Scotland is (for the time being at least) simply a 'region' within the UK?

 

Hmack, My admiration for JRM is based on his calm, rational reasoning which admittedly resonates with my opinions but had initially assumed, until I found out later, that he was the well heeled son via his privileged background being the son of William Rees-Mogg. I was pleasantly surprised to find out that he was very much a self made millionaire. 

I use words like liberal and metropolitan elite to highlight those who I truly despise. Those that whip up faux moral justification in order to allow a minority self serving liberal elite to deride and ignore the wishes of millions of people based on their self defined moral values. Those moral values can be very exclusive ie exclusive to only those that agree with them.

As to being rich, you are quite wrong. Myself and my wife have pensions that keep us more than comfortable and I do have savings which are mainly investments that keep me amused on the side. Investments do go down as well as up. 

The fact that you live in Scotland is neither here or there. Politics north of the border is as bad if not worse than Westminster; in fact under the SNP Scotland is fast becoming a basket case, but that deserves a thread of its own. I am, by the way, 100% Scottish.

Florestan posted:

winkyincanada posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Aw, man. If this turns out just half as bad as how it looks to be going, you guys are totally screwed.

 

I don't understand how there isn't overwhelming political support for at least a do-over. A confirmatory referendum, given all that has now come to light. That would save "face" and would still ultimately result in the right outcome, which is obviously (to me, at least) to stay in the EU.

Ah, words taken and bandied about from page one of the elite progressive pundit's handbook.  Also, the same childish, twisted, predictable approach taken for any other recent political event of the century.

That is, why don't you just be honest and come out with the truth the first time without embellishing this sentiment.  You really mean, "It is only Democracy, if WE agree with the outcome."  And the WE obviously doesn't include the undesirable, deplorable but hard working people who don't live in or around London, obviously.  No, they don't have a say.  They are too stupid to know better. 

It's also quite funny that in suggesting another go at this you couldn't even concede what you would do if the result is the same or even stronger in favour of cutting ties with a Kleptocracy?

So for now, wouldn't it be safer to ask for best two out of three referendums?  Risky, I'd say.  Better go for best five out of nine and spread it out a few more years giving more time to import the votes you need to get the "democratic" outcome you insist on.

You may not be aware that the 'undesirable deplorable' people resident in Scotland voted heavily in favour of remaining in the EU. Northern Ireland also voted to remain. 

So, it's hardly a case of London vs the rest of the UK as you may like to categorize it. 

 

It's also quite funny that in suggesting another go at this you couldn't even concede what you would do if the result is the same or even stronger in favour of cutting ties with a Kleptocracy?

So for now, wouldn't it be safer to ask for best two out of three referendums?  Risky, I'd say.  Better go for best five out of nine and spread it out a few more years giving more time to import the votes you need to get the "democratic" outcome you insist on.

You may not be aware that the 'undesirable deplorable' people resident in Scotland voted heavily in favour of remaining in the EU. Northern Ireland also voted to remain. 

So, it's hardly a case of London vs the rest of the UK as you may like to categorize it. 

Anyone else get the feeling that this thread is about to explode due to its length if not the incendiary material? 

Anyway Hmack, we are all probably aware by now about the geographic breakdown of Leave and Remain. Targeting London and Westminster is a means of focusing our ire, or in native parlance, 'our wrath tae keep it warm". For God's sake do not deviate me towards Scotland and the SNP as  like Scottie on Enterprise, I'll no be able to tak' any more'.

The UK Referendum voted to Leave on a binary choice with no middle way. This thread would have terminated two years ago if Remain had won as we would never have been given the licence to behave in the utterly disgraceful fashion that the Remainers have, and I for one would have shrugged and carried on until future common sense prevailed or the EU collapsed, whichever came first.

Resurrection posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

There you go again - others will read and understand just who is interested in democracy and who isn’t - and  what any individual, you or me, wants or wanted, is irrelevant when it is what is right for the country that matters, and ashas been pointed out before, it wasn’t a game, there was no win or lose, but an indication that of the people that voted 51 % or whatever is was indicated a preference to leave rather than remain in the EU, on the basis of what they understood at the time to be the pros and cons of each.

The Referendum was a definitive decision and not an ‘indication’ and Cameron and the whole Remain group made it perfectly clear that it would result in full scale Brexit.

Insofar as a 51 something percent of people is definitive, you ate right on the first point - at that time and with the information available to people at the time (and when ideas  of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ Brexit weren’t even concepts let alone clear in detail)

On the second point, did Cameron say before the referendum that a yes vote would mean full scale Brexit? And in the unlikely event that he did, I know he didn’t tell people what full scale Brexit would actually entail, how very much different it would be from the imaginings presented by the Brexit campain at the time.

Curious, isn’t it, that you don’t have a single valid argument as to why a confirmatory referendum isn’t a wise and appropriate true democratic step, instead just trotting out again and again things like ‘we won, you lost’, or how 51% of a vote on whether people preferred to leave the EU or remain in it is more democratic than asking for confirmation that’s what they really want when the full picture is known.

In all this, all you have actually succeeded in doing is reinforcing display of own evident disdain for democracy, your own self interest in the outcome being leave regardless of consequence, and indeed displaying your own certain belief that it would go against your desire if a confirmation were to be undertaken - otherwise wouldn’t it actually be a good thing to give those making the final move the certain knowledge the people are with them, and close down vast numbers of dissenters currently arguing it is wrong, and indeed put an effective end to most of the content of this thread? Of course, you’d lose your platform to argue, but I’m sure you could find another - source first maybe?

It seems to me that the Remainders (and the people who have been cheated into the idea that Brexit are good) are really the victims - Politicians like Johnson resigning from the cabinet, running away from his responsibility, rich Brexiteers such as  Rees-Mogg, John Redwood, Lawson and Ashcroft have all been moving their own wealths into EU jurisdictions.