agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,952
Likes: 4,386
|
Post by agent69 on Jan 6, 2019 19:57:29 GMT
The one and only reason eurosceptics don't want a second vote is because they would lose. That's a perfectly sensible position, so why not just own it? If the first vote went your way, why on earth would you volunteer for a second one?
It's a bit like the process that got JC the top job at labour. Not long after the vote an awful lot of labour MP's had a fit of remorse and wanted another vote. Unfortunately (for them) it wan't allowed, so they are stuck with him.
As I said in one of my earlier posts, be careful what you wish for.....
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,161
Likes: 4,846
|
Post by ozboy on Jan 6, 2019 20:53:25 GMT
This is an unfortunate choice of phrase, which a lot of people would find deeply upsetting or offensive. However, I’m sure you have only used this out of ignorance as to the historical context, and not out of malice. As such, I thought it might help if I described briefly why it’s a problematic choice.
In English the term “Reich” is used to refer to Germany under the Nazi regime of 1933-1945. This was a totalitarian dictatorship, who brutally suppressed political, economic and social freedoms during the 12 years they were in power. The Nazi regime subscribed to a murderous ideology of violence, repression and military force, both internally and externally. The “Reich” was the attempt to construct a Nazi empire, spanning Europe and then the globe.
In 1938, Austria was annexed. In early 1939, so was Czechoslovakia, followed by parts of Lithuania. Finally, the invasion of Poland in September resulted in the formal declaration of war between Nazi Germany and Britain and France. This was the beginning of a large war, known as the Second World War. By the end of the war in 1945, over 70 million people had died, and most of Europe lay in ruins.
During this time, Nazi Germany perpetrated the worst genocide the world has seen. Six million European Jews were systematically executed between 1941 and 1945 in a genocide known as the Holocaust. Additionally, the Nazi regime conducted systematic campaigns of murder, starvation and torture against millions of other civilians in occupied territories.
I hope this, very brief, summary is enough to indicate to you why it is deeply inappropriate to use language which compares the European Union (a peaceful, democratic collaboration of individual nations) to the vile Nazi regime. I would urge you in future to think very carefully about such language. The words we use matter. I was alluding to the EU empire which is largely controlled by Germany and so I considered it appropriate to use a German word to describe that "empire", "kingdom", "realm", the connections that you have made to a particular unpleasant period have nothing to do with what I said. Your context was perfectly clear to me Steerpike , as I'm sure it was to most on here. That is, I know what you meant.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,952
Likes: 4,386
|
Post by agent69 on Jan 7, 2019 9:26:34 GMT
The BBC website has an article this morning saying 200 MP's have written to TM asking her to rule out a no deal brexit. It appears to me that this would be the kiss of death in our dealings with the EU.
The threat of no deal is the only negotiating card we have to play. Give that up and you are forced to accept whatever crumbs the EU decide to feed you.
|
|
james100
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,048
Likes: 1,252
|
Post by james100 on Jan 7, 2019 9:56:45 GMT
UK has never had many negotiating cards to begin with (based on factual current trade data; overwhelming prevalence of bloc-based global trading environment; complexity and time to broker international trade agreements in general, and the self-created dependency on EU-woven institutions). Casual xenophobia and economic delusion has done nothing to improve goodwill. For an obvious negotiation goal* of achieving a long-term prosperous, mutually respectful and supportive business arrangement with the EU post Brexit, the government has approached proceedings thus far with the commercial acumen and panache of a lead character in Only Fools and Horses. With far fewer laughs.
*the sooner people wake up to realizing this entire game is about maintaining tax avoidance avenues and exploiting a currency crash the sooner they will stop believe that the "obvious goal" was ever being pursued seriously. IMHO.
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Jan 7, 2019 11:01:04 GMT
The BBC website has an article this morning saying 200 MP's have written to TM asking her to rule out a no deal brexit. It appears to me that this would be the kiss of death in our dealings with the EU.
The threat of no deal is the only negotiating card we have to play. Give that up and you are forced to accept whatever crumbs the EU decide to feed you.
Probably the same MPs who will never agree to any deal either. Basic negotiating leverage is irrelevant to them as they want to remain. Should be treason to continue advocating remain - only focus should be on TM deal/no deal
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jan 7, 2019 11:57:28 GMT
The BBC website has an article this morning saying 200 MP's have written to TM asking her to rule out a no deal brexit. It appears to me that this would be the kiss of death in our dealings with the EU.
The threat of no deal is the only negotiating card we have to play. Give that up and you are forced to accept whatever crumbs the EU decide to feed you.
What? I thought we held all the cards.
|
|
james100
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,048
Likes: 1,252
|
Post by james100 on Jan 7, 2019 12:14:09 GMT
Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. So legislation should be debated by Members of Parliament on the Floor of the House, and then put to the electorate for the voters to judge.
We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards. For referendums to be fair and compatible with our parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible and to know exactly what they are voting for. Referendums need to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it.
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Jan 7, 2019 12:30:49 GMT
Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. So legislation should be debated by Members of Parliament on the Floor of the House, and then put to the electorate for the voters to judge. We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards. For referendums to be fair and compatible with our parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible and to know exactly what they are voting for. Referendums need to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it. I agree with this BUT this IS what happened! Do you not remember the lengthy pre-referendum debates? Do you think anyone really knows any more today than they did then? If we really did, then Parliament would not be so split and would have come to a consensus by now. The fact that Parliament cannot come to a consensus is evidence in itself that there is no clear right or wrong answer - it is a choice and that choice was made.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Jan 7, 2019 12:44:21 GMT
My guess would be that the majority of people not in favour of referendums were on the losing side in this one. Pure coincidence I'm sure.
Anyway, as dandy says, the referendum was held.
That aside, I think people split amongst those who think MPs are experts and there to lead us and others who think MPs are simply there to represent us. I'm in the latter group. Problem comes, as with the EU, when MPs as a whole are way out-of-line with a huge proportion of the public.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jan 7, 2019 12:50:11 GMT
Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. So legislation should be debated by Members of Parliament on the Floor of the House, and then put to the electorate for the voters to judge. We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards. For referendums to be fair and compatible with our parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible and to know exactly what they are voting for. Referendums need to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it. I agree with this BUT this IS what happened! No it isn't. There was no published Brexit plan pre-referendum Do you not remember the lengthy pre-referendum debates? Yes Do you think anyone really knows any more today than they did then? Yes, far more If we really did, then Parliament would not be so split and would have come to a consensus by now. Doesn't follow. Knowing more doesn't mean everyone will agree. The fact that Parliament cannot come to a consensus is evidence in itself that there is no clear right or wrong answer. Agreed - it is a choice and that choice was made. Advice was given in the referendum, and implementing that advice has proved fiendishly hard, more so that was given credit for in the referendum debate ("easiest deal in human history", "we hold all the cards", etc etc). There are still several options with hugely different benefits/costs that the people haven't been asked their opinion on (Norway +, TM's deal, Swiss model, Canada+++, no deal/WTO) etc.
|
|
james100
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,048
Likes: 1,252
|
Post by james100 on Jan 7, 2019 12:51:37 GMT
Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. So legislation should be debated by Members of Parliament on the Floor of the House, and then put to the electorate for the voters to judge. We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards. For referendums to be fair and compatible with our parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible and to know exactly what they are voting for. Referendums need to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it. Whoops, I have appeared to have committed shameless plagiarism. This post was actually written by the delightful David Davis. Whose opinions on UK democracy are apparently more negotiable (for him) than an exit agreement from the EU. My apologies. publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo021126/debtext/21126-17.htm
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jan 7, 2019 12:57:35 GMT
Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. So legislation should be debated by Members of Parliament on the Floor of the House, and then put to the electorate for the voters to judge. We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards. For referendums to be fair and compatible with our parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible and to know exactly what they are voting for. Referendums need to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it. Whoops, I have appeared to have committed shameless plagiarism. This post was actually written by the delightful David Davis. Whose opinions on UK democracy are apparently more negotiable (for him) than an exit agreement from the EU. My apologies. publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo021126/debtext/21126-17.htmYou should be ashamed of yourself. Next you'll be quoting Farage on the benefits of a Norway deal, or Hannan on staying in the single market.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,221
Likes: 11,417
|
Post by ilmoro on Jan 7, 2019 13:26:19 GMT
Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. So legislation should be debated by Members of Parliament on the Floor of the House, and then put to the electorate for the voters to judge. We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards. For referendums to be fair and compatible with our parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible and to know exactly what they are voting for. Referendums need to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it. Whoops, I have appeared to have committed shameless plagiarism. This post was actually written by the delightful David Davis. Whose opinions on UK democracy are apparently more negotiable (for him) than an exit agreement from the EU. My apologies. publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo021126/debtext/21126-17.htmPolitician takes over 10 years to change mind shocker. Lib Dems flipped in under a year on the subject and then flipped back.
PS How many of the MPs complianing about allowing a referendum voted for it ... hint anyone who isnt Scottish
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Jan 7, 2019 13:35:38 GMT
Problem comes, as with the EU, when MPs as a whole are way out-of-line with a huge proportion of the public.
A new election would return a similar pro-remain majority and would solve nothing."The Will Of The People" needs to be re-summoned in a fresh referendum. And as you say, cb25 , the huge proportion of the public who are not being represented by their MP can have their voices heard.
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Jan 7, 2019 13:35:57 GMT
I agree with this BUT this IS what happened! No it isn't. There was no published Brexit plan pre-referendum Do you not remember the lengthy pre-referendum debates? Yes Do you think anyone really knows any more today than they did then? Yes, far more If we really did, then Parliament would not be so split and would have come to a consensus by now. Doesn't follow. Knowing more doesn't mean everyone will agree. The fact that Parliament cannot come to a consensus is evidence in itself that there is no clear right or wrong answer. Agreed - it is a choice and that choice was made. Advice was given in the referendum, and implementing that advice has proved fiendishly hard, more so that was given credit for in the referendum debate ("easiest deal in human history", "we hold all the cards", etc etc). There are still several options with hugely different benefits/costs that the people haven't been asked their opinion on (Norway +, TM's deal, Swiss model, Canada+++, no deal/WTO) etc. I am interested to hear what you think you know now that you did not know then. If you agree there is no right/wrong answer as things stand then by definition you agree that the public vote is still valid. A second referendum will give the same result again - something called British Pride means Remain will never win and those arguing for it are clearly so out of touch with reality that it beggars belief they are still in public office
|
|