Politics, politics, politics

[scaramanga]

But the majority of the house think Brexit is a bad idea. They are only continuing down this path because it's the 'will of the people..... except and this is crucial, the people were lied to when making their decision. As has been proved beyond doubt in the negotiations so far.

Only idiots voted on lies (and there have been plenty from both sides). I have less than no respect for the votes of stupid people.

 

[scaramanga]

Sure we get that, but this is an exceptional event. Furthermore the "decisions" have not been decided! People haven't voted at all on anything concrete. That is fundamental in this instance. A Norway model is a world apart from a hard WTO Brexit. I'm not sure how a vote would work either, but to allow dictatorial control to decide Brexit - May's decision - when there are such hotly debated considerations, just doesn't seem right in a democracy.

If we can't negotiate new trade deals until we're out of the EU, how can we possibly know what we're voting on until those deals are made?

If what you really want is a vote in full knowledge then we need to wait the best part of a decade.

 

[SpurMeUp]

If we can't negotiate new trade deals until we're out of the EU, how can we possibly know what we're voting on until those deals are made?

If what you really want is a vote in full knowledge then we need to wait the best part of a decade.

Obviously we don’t need a complete idea of trade deals, just the blueprint of Brexit. Will we control immigration, will the UK be in the single market and at what cost? Knowing those three things would do.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[DTA]

Only idiots voted on lies (and there have been plenty from both sides). I have less than no respect for the votes of stupid people.

That is a truly brick arguement. Every vote was equal in the referendum, so plenty of stupid people voted.

Prove to me that there was an equal amount of stupid voters that voted for remain as voted for Brexit and i will become a fully fledged brexitier.

The fact that the sun and the daily mail were so pro Brexit while the FT was pro remain... tells me something. And if your honest tell you something as well.

In fairness the people on this forum in the most part @Parklaner81 @Parklaner81 @nayimfromthehalfwayline @Gutter Boy and chich and some others have actually provided reasoned debate (which I may not agree with but I respect) but if you look at other social media accounts some of the responses by some of the clams on there just make me fudging cringe.

So to come back to your point. The fact that you don' respect stupid voters.... maybe thats why referendums are a bad idea.

 

[monkeybarry]

Interesting question.

My first thought was, "why not? It would at least put any disent to rest".

Then I thought, "but why would you?"

Isnt the point of a vote for a decision to be made? Should we open up the option to vote and re vote on everything?

And yes, I do appreciate the argument that we didnt necessarily know what we were actually voting for, but I think its a question that is (likely unintended) rather loaded and would need some major thought.

I think it would make sense to have a second vote.
We would have a very clear picture of what Brexit would like and therefore be able to draw solid conclusions about whether we think that is for the best.
It's similar in principle to a general election - parliamentary terms include alot groundwork etc being done for changes in the way the national is governed and administered, then every five years we get to say "yes, carry on, as you were" or "what the hell??!? Stooopp
Let someone else screw it instead"

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Brexit may be the biggest change to the UK economy in our lifetime. And we're passengers on this train. We got on it with a simple destination in mind. But after the doors closed we found out the track wasn't even laid let alone knowing what the destination is. Now what might be delivered is a broad spectrum - from EU light - to a radical change to a tax haven like Singapore (and that's not even covering immigration). Its crazy that we glibly follow. What is delivered might not make you happy. Suppose May says look we need to be like Norway, we'll keep free movement but be in the customs union. You're up for it regardless?

Of course the truth is, leave supporters don't want another vote, because it may jeopardise the original vote. Conversely, Remain sympathisers want another vote. Why beat around the bush!

I understand all of that, which is why my immediate thought was "why not?", but as others have said, it sets a very dangerous precedent. And THAT I dont agree with.

At that point it is not about the subject, it is about what it means to be able to re-do any votes until a supposed preferred answer can be had.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

I think it would make sense to have a second vote.
We would have a very clear picture of what Brexit would like and therefore be able to draw solid conclusions about whether we think that is for the best.
It's similar in principle to a general election - parliamentary terms include alot groundwork etc being done for changes in the way the national is governed and administered, then every five years we get to say "yes, carry on, as you were" or "what the hell??!? Stooopp
Let someone else screw it instead"

I suppose it depends what you are voting for. I agree with May, Brexit means Brexit, that decision has been made. So no, I dont want to vote on that again.

But a vote on what Brexit means? Maybe that could be worth looking into. Whatever the EU deal ends up as, vs WTO or something.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

The fact that the sun and the daily mail were so pro Brexit while the FT was pro remain... tells me something. And if your honest tell you something as well.

The Daily Mail and The Sun have the highest monthly reach out of all our papers:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/246077/reach-of-selected-national-newspapers-in-the-uk/

The Average age of a Daily Mail reader is 58.
Half of the Sun readership is between 25-54, though in fairness to them their split is relatively even across all age ranges.
The each even have a fairly balanced split between male and female readers, DM = 47.5m / 52.5f, The Sun = 58m / 42f.

https://www.themediabriefing.com/article/youth-audiences-newspaper-old-demographics-advertising

Regardless of what you perceive each paper to offer, and Im a fan of neither myself, what I see is two different papers that cover the length and breadth of our population. Papers that want to sell, and so primarily offer what the reader wants to read (horrific thought, but it is what it is).

The FT? A paper committed to the economy and finance, something that everybody loves to be stable, and nobody can predict what will happen when a random variable is thrown in. Is it any surprise they are anti Brexit?

And Im not even reaching to see this point of view, Im not coming at it with an agenda - this is what these two instances are about.

... if you look at other social media accounts some of the responses by some of the clams on there just make me fudging cringe.

Well thats where you are going wrong, why do it to yourself!?

Social media makes even smart and sorted people look stupid, while giving voice to idiots that were hitherto unheard. Its best left alone....

 

[Gutter Boy]

The Europhiles had 41 years to make their bed after the first referendum. Europhobes won't even really get started shaping the future till 2021.

A third referendum in 2057 sounds fair

 

[Rorschach]

Social media makes even smart and sorted people look stupid, while giving voice to idiots that were hitherto unheard. Its best left alone....

Well said.

 

[Rorschach]

So no hard border and 'full alignment' north and south of Ireland guaranteed but no real solution to make that happen either from what I've read. Sounds like they've just kicked the can down the road.

 

[scaramanga]

Obviously we don’t need a complete idea of trade deals, just the blueprint of Brexit. Will we control immigration, will the UK be in the single market and at what cost? Knowing those three things would do.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

That will only tell us a small fraction of what Brexit is about - our relationship with the EU. It's not surprising that your focus lies there - you've clearly shown your focus to be very EU-centric.

But if we're to take a vote on how Brexit is, rather than just whether it happens, then we need to wait until after we've negotiated our trade deals.

 

[Gutter Boy]

So no hard border and 'full alignment' north and south of Ireland guaranteed but no real solution to make that happen either from what I've read. Sounds like they've just kicked the can down the road.

A FTA covering diary, shoddy ships, explosives and Game of Thrones should solve it long term

 

[scaramanga]

That is a truly brick arguement. Every vote was equal in the referendum, so plenty of stupid people voted.

Prove to me that there was an equal amount of stupid voters that voted for remain as voted for Brexit and i will become a fully fledged brexitier.

The fact that the sun and the daily mail were so pro Brexit while the FT was pro remain... tells me something. And if your honest tell you something as well.

In fairness the people on this forum in the most part @Parklaner81 @Parklaner81 @nayimfromthehalfwayline @Gutter Boy and chich and some others have actually provided reasoned debate (which I may not agree with but I respect) but if you look at other social media accounts some of the responses by some of the clams on there just make me fudging cringe.

So to come back to your point. The fact that you don' respect stupid voters.... maybe thats why referendums are a bad idea.

Why should votes from stupid people count? Ideally I'd like to see a minimum understanding of economics before people can vote - otherwise how do they know what they're voting on?

In fact, you could take that a step further. I pay for what our government does to a far higher level than your average person - why not weight votes based on contribution to the exchequer? If you want your vote to count more you can voluntarily pay some more tax. Might reduce avoidance too.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Barnier is talking BETA:

"Just one thing - a free trade agreement on the Canadian model. It is not us, it is the British government, which is indicating these red lines that is closing certain doors. That is the model we are going to have to work on."

 

[SpurMeUp]

That will only tell us a small fraction of what Brexit is about - our relationship with the EU. It's not surprising that your focus lies there - you've clearly shown your focus to be very EU-centric.

But if we're to take a vote on how Brexit is, rather than just whether it happens, then we need to wait until after we've negotiated our trade deals.

The vote was about leaving the EU. Knowing how and on what terms makes perfect sense. As you outlined we can't possibly wait 10 years to know how it will all play out. That would be absurd. But with the knowledge of how immigration controls would work with the EU, how access to the single market would work, and whether there would be a payment for access etc. would give us all we need to make an informed decision. The ramifications for car factory workers, banks, people who care about EU immigrant numbers are profound.

 

[Rorschach]

Why should votes from stupid people count? Ideally I'd like to see a minimum understanding of economics before people can vote - otherwise how do they know what they're voting on?

In fact, you could take that a step further. I pay for what our government does to a far higher level than your average person - why not weight votes based on contribution to the exchequer? If you want your vote to count more you can voluntarily pay some more tax. Might reduce avoidance too.

Sounds a bit like you are more equal than others comrade.

 

[scaramanga]

Sounds a bit like you are more equal than others comrade.

I am significantly more equal than others. If I could make it all work on my vote and my vote alone I would, but then I'd be voting on stuff I don't care about all the time.

 

[scaramanga]

The vote was about leaving the EU. Knowing how and on what terms makes perfect sense. As you outlined we can't possibly wait 10 years to know how it will all play out. That would be absurd. But with the knowledge of how immigration controls would work with the EU, how access to the single market would work, and whether there would be a payment for access etc. would give us all we need to make an informed decision. The ramifications for car factory workers, banks, people who care about EU immigrant numbers are profound.

None of those ramifications will even begin to become clear until we have completed our trade deals around the world.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Why should votes from stupid people count? Ideally I'd like to see a minimum understanding of economics before people can vote - otherwise how do they know what they're voting on?
.

So you are advocating voiding the BREXIT vote - ok I am in.