Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?
Posted by: Don Atkinson on 09 February 2016
Media interest seems to be focused on the trivial matter of "in-work benefits" to migrant workers from Europe.
Very little informed discussion of the benefits and consequences of us remaining part of Europe v the benefits and consequences of us leaving.
Or am I just not tuning into the appropriate TV channel or overlooking some "White Paper" that is on sale in WH Smith ?
Eloise 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.
After the day in parliament and the revealing of the white paper ...there’s only one option for the government to take: withdraw Article 50 and remain in the EU. The white paper has been condemned accross the remain / Brexit divide, and leaving “without a deal” and without a trade arrangement with the EU (which will require accepting EU regulations without having a say in creating the regulations) is economic suicide. So the only sane option is, despite the referendum, remain - at least May will satisfy the 48% (at least). Currently she is satisfying no one!
The voice of sanity !
But show me more than a handful of MPs willing to put that voice into action.............(ok, I'll start with Ken Clarke, but thereafter, i'm struggling)
Winky's comment is frightenly close to the mark.
Don Atkinson posted:Eloise 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.
After the day in parliament and the revealing of the white paper ... there’s only one option for the government to take: withdraw Article 50 and remain in the EU. The white paper has been condemned accross the remain / Brexit divide, and leaving “without a deal” and without a trade arrangement with the EU (which will require accepting EU regulations without having a say in creating the regulations) is economic suicide. So the only sane option is, despite the referendum, remain - at least May will satisfy the 48% (at least). Currently she is satisfying no one!
.........and leaving "with No Deal" will only satisfy Resurrection............
oh, and possibly JR-M, Boris, Gove and Redwood, but to be honest, I don't think anything will satisfy those last four !
I resent being placed alongside Gove. In fact only JRM and Redwood are the real deal.
Did you see Druncker tottering around the world stage today? Could not put two steps together unsupported He is the true symbol of the EU.
Don Atkinson posted:Eloise 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.
After the day in parliament and the revealing of the white paper ...there’s only one option for the government to take: withdraw Article 50 and remain in the EU. The white paper has been condemned accross the remain / Brexit divide, and leaving “without a deal” and without a trade arrangement with the EU (which will require accepting EU regulations without having a say in creating the regulations) is economic suicide. So the only sane option is, despite the referendum, remain - at least May will satisfy the 48% (at least). Currently she is satisfying no one!
The voice of sanity !
But show me more than a handful of MPs willing to put that voice into action.............(ok, I'll start with Ken Clarke, but thereafter, i'm struggling)
Winky's comment is frightenly close to the mark.
Yer all doomed I tell you. Armageddon is coming but there is only one Resurrection. ????
Don Atkinson posted:Eloise 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.
After the day in parliament and the revealing of the white paper ...there’s only one option for the government to take: withdraw Article 50 and remain in the EU. The white paper has been condemned accross the remain / Brexit divide, and leaving “without a deal” and without a trade arrangement with the EU (which will require accepting EU regulations without having a say in creating the regulations) is economic suicide. So the only sane option is, despite the referendum, remain - at least May will satisfy the 48% (at least). Currently she is satisfying no one!
The voice of sanity !
But show me more than a handful of MPs willing to put that voice into action.............(ok, I'll start with Ken Clarke, but thereafter, i'm struggling)
Winky's comment is frightenly close to the mark.
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.
winkyincanada posted: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.
Because the result required no more than a simple majority. Because we are democrats. Because you don't keep holding referendums until you get the 'right' result.
Agreed, we Brits are shafted though.
Signed,
A. Remainer
winkyincanada posted:Don Atkinson posted:Eloise 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.
After the day in parliament and the revealing of the white paper ...there’s only one option for the government to take: withdraw Article 50 and remain in the EU. The white paper has been condemned accross the remain / Brexit divide, and leaving “without a deal” and without a trade arrangement with the EU (which will require accepting EU regulations without having a say in creating the regulations) is economic suicide. So the only sane option is, despite the referendum, remain - at least May will satisfy the 48% (at least). Currently she is satisfying no one!
The voice of sanity !
But show me more than a handful of MPs willing to put that voice into action.............(ok, I'll start with Ken Clarke, but thereafter, i'm struggling)
Winky's comment is frightenly close to the mark.
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.
Thus spoke Zarathustra from Canada:
“O man, take care!
What does the deep midnight declare?
"I was asleep—
From a deep dream I woke and swear:—
The world is deep,
Deeper than day had been aware.
Deep is its woe—
Joy—deeper yet than agony:
Woe implores: Go!
But all joy wants eternity—
Wants deep, wants deep eternity."
if you get that you get the simplicity of rational decision making around Brexit. And eternity is being lashed to the EU and, of course, Joy is The Ode to Joy, the Kleptocracy’s anthem.
I see a democratic problem with MPs overturning or ignoring the referrendum. But I don’t see a democratic problem with MPs asking the electorate for confirmation.
Don Atkinson posted:I see a democratic problem with MPs overturning or ignoring the referrendum. But I don’t see a democratic problem with MPs asking the electorate for confirmation.
Dear Don,
As your MPs would not recognise democracy if it hit them over the head, how could we possibly ask them to ask us the question?
RR
Shambolic distribution of the White Paper that turned up late.........
....pathetic !
perhaps Geremy and Diane could do better........omg, let the nightmares end !
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!