IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Feb 20, 2019 17:49:19 GMT
Dunno - given its such a huge change and hasn't been as easy as predicted I'd ask them again now that it's all much clearer without the need to do extensive research rather than listen to the campaign before them. If they are all as happy as you are leaving with no deal then fine by me. I'd be more than happy with another vote just as soon as the result of the first one has been properly and fully implemented. Any sooner would be completely undemocratic. What next, re-running general elections before a government has been formed because less than half the electorate didn't like the outcome? You mean like TM calling an early GE despite having a manifesto for 5 years and a majority? I think it's democratic to have a ratification referendum on an actual withdrawal deal we now have, you think it's not; you think that the referendum gave carte blanche to whatever withdrawal/deal the government of the day chooses, I think it would be more democratic to check with its electorate (as the ERG leader JRM once argued). We aren't going to agree, but I'm very wary of using accusations of anti-democracy as a justification for executive government action. As for what "properly and fully implemented" means - well, that's why we're in this mess, isn't it? Parliament simply doesn't agree what that means (even if you think you know in your mind what it means).
|
|
delboy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 79
Likes: 49
|
Post by delboy on Feb 20, 2019 17:50:43 GMT
I'd be more than happy with another vote just as soon as the result of the first one has been properly and fully implemented. Any sooner would be completely undemocratic. What next, re-running general elections before a government has been formed because less than half the electorate didn't like the outcome? The Leave campaign promised A B and C and won the referendum. The government has been unable to negotiate a deal delivering the Leave campaign's promises (as varied, conflicting and muddied as they were). Given the failure to deliver the promised outcome it would seem rational to check-in with the voters to see if they still want to go ahead. Appears reasonable to me. Imagine I pitched you a loan offering security at 65% LTV. You happily invest only to discover it's actually 65% LTGDV. Worse, planning permission is yet to be finalised despite assurances that this would be in place by drawdown. In this scenario, wouldn't you like the opportunity to reconsider your investment decision? But neither campaign is (or ever was) responsible for the negotiation itself - they were noise around the edges, the same as environmental campaigners, human rights campaigners etc. during any other national debate - they can make whatever claims they like. Caveat emptor. Your example is very tenuous as it is contractual - personally I did not at any stage think that I could legitimately hold Nigel Farage directly accountable for the outcome of my vote. I haven't heard many calls for a second referendum based on George Osbourne's lies about the emergency budget which never was.
|
|
KoR_Wraith
Member of DD Central
Posts: 293
Likes: 297
|
Post by KoR_Wraith on Feb 20, 2019 17:52:52 GMT
The Leave campaign promised A B and C and won the referendum. The government has been unable to negotiate a deal delivering the Leave campaign's promises (as varied, conflicting and muddied as they were). Given the failure to deliver the promised outcome it would seem rational to check-in with the voters to see if they still want to go ahead. Appears reasonable to me. I'd have some (small) sympathy for that view if I thought May had been trying to deliver Brexit, but I don't as per previous comment by Steerpike . OK, lets say that thorough no-deal preparation has been entirely neglected due to May's unspoken dedication to do a deal with the EU. You now have the options of accepting a deal with the EU which accomplishes little of what the Leave campaign promised (and is presumably less preferred to the status quo for everyone who voted remain), a no-deal outcome for which the country is entirely unprepared, or push back the article 50 timeline with a view to holding a second referendum that would essentially let people choose between an eyes-wide-open no-deal Brexit or remaining in the EU. Of these options, voluntarily opting for an unprepared no-deal Brexit is surely the worst outcome.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Feb 20, 2019 17:54:45 GMT
The Leave campaign promised A B and C and won the referendum. The government has been unable to negotiate a deal delivering the Leave campaign's promises (as varied, conflicting and muddied as they were). Given the failure to deliver the promised outcome it would seem rational to check-in with the voters to see if they still want to go ahead. Appears reasonable to me. Imagine I pitched you a loan offering security at 65% LTV. You happily invest only to discover it's actually 65% LTGDV. Worse, planning permission is yet to be finalised despite assurances that this would be in place by drawdown. In this scenario, wouldn't you like the opportunity to reconsider your investment decision? But neither campaign is (or ever was) responsible for the negotiation itself - they were noise around the edges, the same as environmental campaigners, human rights campaigners etc. during any other national debate - they can make whatever claims they like. Caveat emptor. Your example is very tenuous as it is contractual - personally I did not at any stage think that I could legitimately hold Nigel Farage directly accountable for the outcome of my vote. I haven't heard many calls for a second referendum based on George Osbourne's lies about the emergency budget which never was. it would be a third referendum. And your argument about the leave campaign is an even stronger reason for an informed decision on actual facts, as contained in the 500-odd page agreement we now have, rather than your description of what sounds like snake oil salesmanship quite frankly!.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Feb 20, 2019 17:57:47 GMT
Most of the noise is pointless posturing, in my opinion May/Robbins have never had any intention of leaving without a deal, the clear objective is BRINO with a deal that appears to honour the 2016 vote but really is designed to enable frictionless re-entry to the EU round about 2021. If you believe that then you have much more faith in TM's competence than I do my friend.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Feb 20, 2019 18:07:33 GMT
Regardless, they should have stayed. This gives more power to the ERG wing, not less. And more reason for TM to do what they don't want: pander to ERG/DUP.
Whatever else, it is utterly scandalous that TM has led the country into a position whereby the party of govt is at the mercy of that bunch of dinosaurs otherwise known as the DUP.
|
|
KoR_Wraith
Member of DD Central
Posts: 293
Likes: 297
|
Post by KoR_Wraith on Feb 20, 2019 18:15:09 GMT
The Leave campaign promised A B and C and won the referendum. The government has been unable to negotiate a deal delivering the Leave campaign's promises (as varied, conflicting and muddied as they were). Given the failure to deliver the promised outcome it would seem rational to check-in with the voters to see if they still want to go ahead. Appears reasonable to me. Imagine I pitched you a loan offering security at 65% LTV. You happily invest only to discover it's actually 65% LTGDV. Worse, planning permission is yet to be finalised despite assurances that this would be in place by drawdown. In this scenario, wouldn't you like the opportunity to reconsider your investment decision? But neither campaign is (or ever was) responsible for the negotiation itself - they were noise around the edges, the same as environmental campaigners, human rights campaigners etc. during any other national debate - they can make whatever claims they like. Caveat emptor. Your example is very tenuous as it is contractual - personally I did not at any stage think that I could legitimately hold Nigel Farage directly accountable for the outcome of my vote. I haven't heard many calls for a second referendum based on George Osbourne's lies about the emergency budget which never was. On the way to McDonalds for lunch, I'm accosted by a charming man on the street (who, incidentally, is very much against foreign businesses) who tells me about a new food outlet that's half the price of McDonalds, half the waiting times of McDonalds, twice as nice decor and serves exactly the same menu as McDonalds; all whilst being locally owned. Intrigued, I follow his directions to this promised land. However, much to my disappointment, I arrive at a hastily thrown together establishment that's twice the price of McDonalds, queued all the way out the door due to strict ID checks, chaotically ran by undertrained staff and serves BigMacs without any lettuce as they've fallen out with their supplier. Sadly, the local owner turns out to be Mike Ashley. True, the man who recommended the restaurant is not responsible for running the restaurant, but I find it difficult to accept that he believed in his restaurant recommendation quite as much as he made out. I change my mind and walk to McDonalds as originally planned. When I arrive, I spot the man who accosted me earlier sitting at a reserved table with his family. Turns out he invested heavily in McDonalds shortly after recommending I visit the other restaurant.
|
|
delboy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 79
Likes: 49
|
Post by delboy on Feb 20, 2019 18:31:19 GMT
But neither campaign is (or ever was) responsible for the negotiation itself - they were noise around the edges, the same as environmental campaigners, human rights campaigners etc. during any other national debate - they can make whatever claims they like. Caveat emptor. Your example is very tenuous as it is contractual - personally I did not at any stage think that I could legitimately hold Nigel Farage directly accountable for the outcome of my vote. I haven't heard many calls for a second referendum based on George Osbourne's lies about the emergency budget which never was. On the way to McDonalds for lunch, I'm accosted by a charming man on the street (who, incidentally, is very much against foriegn businesses) who tells me about a new food outlet that's half the price of McDonalds, half the waiting times of McDonalds, twice as nice decor and serves exactly the same menu as McDonalds; all whilst being locally owned. Intrigued, I follow his directions to this promised land. However, much to my disappointment, I arrive at a hastily thrown together establishment that's twice the price of McDonalds, queued all the way out the door due to strict ID checks, chaotically ran by undertrained staff and serves BigMacs without any lettuce as they've fallen out with their supplier. Sadly, the local owner turns out to be Mike Ashley. True, the man who recommended the restaurant is not responsible for running the restaurant, but I find it difficult to accept that he believed in his restaurant recommendation quite as much as he made out. I change my mind and walk to McDonalds as originally planned. When I arrive, I spot the man who accosted me earlier sitting at a reserved table with his family. Turns out he invested heavily in McDonalds shortly after recommending I visit the other restaurant. You were under no obligation to accept his advice - you could and should have conducted your own research and formed your own opinion. Taking advice from strangers on the street is not advisable, and you can hardly sue him for having poor taste in fast food. I'm amazed at how many remainers rely on the fallacy that the majority of the electorate are so dim that they were unable to form an independent view on the way they wanted to vote, and instead relied on sales-pitches from either side. IMHO, very few people were actually swayed either way from their original position during the campaigning.
|
|
KoR_Wraith
Member of DD Central
Posts: 293
Likes: 297
|
Post by KoR_Wraith on Feb 20, 2019 18:53:08 GMT
In my view, Leave was a protest vote against the establishment; an establishment that for too long has allowed inequality to grow whilst doing little to implement progressive and evidence-based policies for fear of upsetting core groups of reliable voters. People are upset at the increasing divide in wealth trajectory, upset with a broken tax system, upset with party politics taking precedence over public good, upset with a political system which they feel they have little influence on and which doesn't represent them, upset by the decline in their local high streets, upset by the increasingly isolated way in which we live our lives.
The referendum was seen as an opportunity to take all of those frustrations and stick it to the man. Unfortunately, I don't see how leaving the EU positively impacts any of the above.
I'm sure there are many people who have many other reasons for voting leave and we could argue about the validity of those reasons all day, however, I firmly believe the reasons above to be the deciding factor in the referendum outcome.
|
|
delboy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 79
Likes: 49
|
Post by delboy on Feb 20, 2019 18:58:33 GMT
In my view, Leave was a protest vote against the establishment; an establishment that for too long has allowed inequality to grow whilst doing little to implement progressive and evidence-based policies for fear of upsetting core groups of reliable voters. People are upset at the increasing divide in wealth trajectory, upset with a broken tax system, upset with party politics taking precedence over public good, upset with a political system which they feel they have little influence on and which doesn't represent them, upset by the decline in their local high streets, upset by the increasingly isolated way in which we live our lives. The referendum was seen as an opportunity to take all of those frustrations and stick it to the man. Unfortunately, I don't see how leaving the EU positively impacts any of the above. I'm sure there are many people who have many other reasons for voting leave and we could argue about the validity of those reasons all day, however, I firmly believe the reasons above to be the deciding factor in the referendum outcome. I happen to agree that a large proportion did vote in protest at some of those things you list. The big question therefore is what have Soubry, Umunna, Clarke etc. actually done to try to address any of those things? The most dangerous thing they could try to do is thwart the referendum outcome - this would serve only to prove those protest voters were right to be cynical.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Feb 20, 2019 19:01:48 GMT
In my view, Leave was a protest vote against the establishment; an establishment that for too long has allowed inequality to grow whilst doing little to implement progressive and evidence-based policies for fear of upsetting core groups of reliable voters. People are upset at the increasing divide in wealth trajectory, upset with a broken tax system, upset with party politics taking precedence over public good, upset with a political system which they feel they have little influence on and which doesn't represent them, upset by the decline in their local high streets, upset by the increasingly isolated way in which we live our lives. The referendum was seen as an opportunity to take all of those frustrations and stick it to the man. Unfortunately, I don't see how leaving the EU positively impacts any of the above. I'm sure there are many people who have many other reasons for voting leave and we could argue about the validity of those reasons all day, however, I firmly believe the reasons above to be the deciding factor in the referendum outcome. I happen to agree that a large proportion did vote in protest at some of those things you list. The big question therefore is what have Soubry, Umunna, Clarke etc. actually done to try to address any of those things? The most dangerous thing they could try to do is thwart the referendum outcome - this would serve only to prove those protest voters were right to be cynical. Get ready for MPs to back TM's deal contingent on a ratification referendum on it. Binding this time, so no foul play allowed. Can't see what's antidemocratic about that.
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Feb 20, 2019 19:30:02 GMT
I happen to agree that a large proportion did vote in protest at some of those things you list. The big question therefore is what have Soubry, Umunna, Clarke etc. actually done to try to address any of those things? The most dangerous thing they could try to do is thwart the referendum outcome - this would serve only to prove those protest voters were right to be cynical. Get ready for MPs to back TM's deal contingent on a ratification referendum on it. Binding this time, so no foul play allowed. Can't see what's antidemocratic about that. This is a proposition that TM must find tempting. But the ERG would explode, as would the paid members of the Tory party who would vote for a new leader. So diving through that door would probably explode the party and lose TM her job. You have to consider that neither does Theresa May want to be the one who crashed the economy into the disaster that is obviously beckoning, but neither does she want to go down in history as the woman who broke the oldest and most successful party in Europe. Which is why she seems just to be frozen, hoping against objective reality that something might happen.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Feb 20, 2019 19:44:29 GMT
Get ready for MPs to back TM's deal contingent on a ratification referendum on it. Binding this time, so no foul play allowed. Can't see what's antidemocratic about that. This is a proposition that TM must find tempting. But the ERG would explode, as would the paid members of the Tory party who would vote for a new leader. So diving through that door would probably explode the party and lose TM her job. You have to consider that neither does Theresa May want to be the one who crashed the economy into the disaster that is obviously beckoning, but neither does she want to go down in history as the woman who broke the oldest and most successful party in Europe. Which is why she seems just to be frozen, hoping against objective reality that something might happen. Maybe. But ERG don't really have anywhere else to go so their bluff needs calling. The other wing is already leaving and does have somewhere to go. And she is immune for 12 months due to the last vote of confidence. So she may well go for it as the only option to avoid a no deal catastrophe, and dare the ERG to break the Tory party.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 6,316
|
Post by registerme on Feb 20, 2019 19:48:44 GMT
Get ready for MPs to back TM's deal contingent on a ratification referendum on it. Binding this time, so no foul play allowed. Can't see what's antidemocratic about that. This is a proposition that TM must find tempting. But the ERG would explode, as would the paid members of the Tory party who would vote for a new leader. So diving through that door would probably explode the party and lose TM her job. You have to consider that neither does Theresa May want to be the one who crashed the economy into the disaster that is obviously beckoning, but neither does she want to go down in history as the woman who broke the oldest and most successful party in Europe. Which is why she seems just to be frozen, hoping against objective reality that something might happen. I bumped into TM last night.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Feb 20, 2019 19:49:17 GMT
Leave voters: Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”.
One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.”
Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.”
Remain voters: the single most important reason for their decision was that “the risks of voting to leave the EU looked too great when it came to things like the economy, jobs and prices” (43%).
Just over three in ten (31%) reasoned that remaining would mean the UK having “the best of both worlds”, having access to the EU single market without Schengen or the euro.
Just under one in five (17%) said their main reason was that the UK would “become more isolated from its friends and neighbours”
(Clearly, people may have been asked prepared questions, rather than free-format 'why did you vote as you did?')
|
|