Org Mobile Site
Thread: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46586673
May says doing a final referendum on the choices before us would say to the people democracy doesn't work. I would argue that it shows it does work, by giving people the say on the matter instead of the failed politics which have been at play. Leave will face the scrutiny and accountability behind the agenda. All those people who voted for buses and 'soft brexit', Norway model, etc, will most likely go with the remain-within-EU camp given the other choice is the May Deal and Hard Brexit.
Also the responsibility of what happens is transferred to the people so something gets done, whatever the outcome, instead of the constant ankle biting.
May says doing a final referendum on the choices before us would say to the people democracy doesn't work. I would argue that it shows it does work, by giving people the say on the matter instead of the failed politics which have been at play. Leave will face the scrutiny and accountability behind the agenda. All those people who voted for buses and 'soft brexit', Norway model, etc, will most likely go with the remain-within-EU camp given the other choice is the May Deal and Hard Brexit.
Also the responsibility of what happens is transferred to the people so something gets done, whatever the outcome, instead of the constant ankle biting.
May the force be with you. I admire her, she was never a supporter of a brexit herself, that is ok, never deny a mind.of your own people will always disagree. She is brave. At this point there should be a second chance though. Remainers do not understand that everything will be fine, and that is what worries eurocrats the most, doing Just fine. Do you want anders enhanced version of an Orwellian dystopia, vote for it but don't call me
i don't really care about a sec ref one way or another, as long as the question is usefully representative of the dilemma faced.
i do think it will reflect badly on parliament if they prove unable to deal with the policy around the decision that was given to them at their request in 2016.
fair warning: anyone who thinks public discourse has been ugly up until now will get a surprise if a sec ref narrowly overturns the first result.
i do think it will reflect badly on parliament if they prove unable to deal with the policy around the decision that was given to them at their request in 2016.
fair warning: anyone who thinks public discourse has been ugly up until now will get a surprise if a sec ref narrowly overturns the first result.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
i don't really care about a sec ref one way or another, as long as the question is usefully representative of the dilemma faced.
i do think it will reflect badly on parliament if they prove unable to deal with the policy around the decision that was given to them at their request in 2016.
fair warning: anyone who thinks public discourse has been ugly up until now will get a surprise if a sec ref narrowly overturns the first result.
"In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way."i don't really care about a sec ref one way or another, as long as the question is usefully representative of the dilemma faced.
i do think it will reflect badly on parliament if they prove unable to deal with the policy around the decision that was given to them at their request in 2016.
fair warning: anyone who thinks public discourse has been ugly up until now will get a surprise if a sec ref narrowly overturns the first result.
Nigel Farage, 17th May 2016
A second referendum would be a great expression of democratic orientation in decision making. It would also be a total cop-out by government, since the goal of government representatives is to balance the will of the people with the best interests of the people and pass laws and resolutions that embody that. Else, why have a legislature? Hold annual referenda covering questions of governance and let ministries manage it.
The Lords could continue as before, since signing in and then taking a bit of a kip doesn't get in the way overmuch.
The Lords could continue as before, since signing in and then taking a bit of a kip doesn't get in the way overmuch.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
A second referendum would be a great expression of democratic orientation in decision making. It would also be a total cop-out by government, since the goal of government representatives is to balance the will of the people with the best interests of the people and pass laws and resolutions that embody that. Else, why have a legislature? Hold annual referenda covering questions of governance and let ministries manage it.
The Lords could continue as before, since signing in and then taking a bit of a kip doesn't get in the way overmuch.
"Will of the people" - Jeremy Corbyn.A second referendum would be a great expression of democratic orientation in decision making. It would also be a total cop-out by government, since the goal of government representatives is to balance the will of the people with the best interests of the people and pass laws and resolutions that embody that. Else, why have a legislature? Hold annual referenda covering questions of governance and let ministries manage it.
The Lords could continue as before, since signing in and then taking a bit of a kip doesn't get in the way overmuch.
"I think we've had enough of experts" - Michael Gove.
"Enemies of the people" - Daily Mail.
Three indicators and drivers of said cop out. All arguments for good government founder when matched against the above. The "will of the people" of the people must be carried out, and anyone standing in the way are "enemies of the people". And all reasoned arguments are dismissed because "I think we've had enough of experts". Such is Brexit. And as Furunculus threatens, if Brexit doesn't happen, things will turn ugly, presumably due to Leavers.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
A second referendum would be a great expression of democratic orientation in decision making. It would also be a total cop-out by government, since the goal of government representatives is to balance the will of the people with the best interests of the people and pass laws and resolutions that embody that. Else, why have a legislature? Hold annual referenda covering questions of governance and let ministries manage it.
The Lords could continue as before, since signing in and then taking a bit of a kip doesn't get in the way overmuch.
Agreed, brexiteers should get a second chance, nobody should deny them that. Just fair play as things have gotten more complicated. I hope the answer will be the same, but if it isn't I really should stfu and watch things roll out. Your choice I will just have respect it. But do remainers have everything succombingA second referendum would be a great expression of democratic orientation in decision making. It would also be a total cop-out by government, since the goal of government representatives is to balance the will of the people with the best interests of the people and pass laws and resolutions that embody that. Else, why have a legislature? Hold annual referenda covering questions of governance and let ministries manage it.
The Lords could continue as before, since signing in and then taking a bit of a kip doesn't get in the way overmuch.
So I started listening to a podcast called "Talking Politics" hosted by a professor from Cambridge University. Turns out he had an earlier podcast called "Election" leading up to the 2015 general election. Just for fun I have been listening to some of these early episodes and there are quite a few precursors leading up to the Brexit vote that have really caught my attention.
As a whole, British political elite seem to be particularly blind to the art of politicking. Many of the guests the host brings on for conversations seem to be in complete agreement that neither Labour or the Conservatives are looped into a 21st century dialogue with their constituents. Compared to the high degree of political penetration that US politicians pursue every day, the following issues were brought up multiple times by multiple parties.
A. Lack of interest in online presence.
Both Milliband and Cameron never used twitter as a platform for quick vitriolic/rhetorical messages in a way that US politicians did following 2008 (and Trump to a greater success later in 2016).
Neither Milliband nor Cameron (at the time of the episodes I listened to), reached out with an AMA on Reddit or with an interactive Q&A session on Facebook or with any social media platform at all really. Completely disconnected to the forums that young people spend their time in.
Most importantly, neither party seems to have learned from Barack Obama's fundraising and community outreach strategy, where most of his campaign money came from millions of small online donations that kept those donors (average middle class citizens) interested in their investment and motivated to give more when asked.
B. Lack of interest in television presence.
At the time (I assume, based on the host implication, they never really explained the history of this) the 2015 election was the first/second? election with television debates. But with so many parties all on the stage, it is a bit of clusterfuck and you are not going to get the message out clearly with all these different brands being pushed at the same time. Some of the debates were cancelled due to disagreements between parties. But really, if you were the labour or the conservative party, why would you dilute your message down like this? Get a debate between you and your biggest opponent and cut him down 1 on 1 as many times as you can. UKIP and Greens and Lib Dems would only serve to undermine your positions and shift the dialogue in directions you can't anticipate. Why have UK political parties only started television debates in the 21st century?!? US politicians have been arguing on air since the 1960s.
C. Lack of dominance in the political realm.
With a first past the post system, the Tories and Labour are structurally advantaged to dominate as the two historically large tent parties. But despite their structural advantage, each only command roughly 30% of the electorate while four other parties split the rest. Why did the Tories lose members to UKIP up until the Brexit vote when the goals of UKIP were achieved and the party was no longer needed? Why is Labour, even under the more leftist Corbyn, not captured the Lib Dem vote? Unless I misunderstand the Lib Dems policy positions (are they more similar to New Labour under Blair?).
All of this seems to indicate from the beginning that the UK has been at least for the past two decades been managed by a political elite that is so far disconnected from their constituents they have neglected to build the infrastructure necessary to communicate with them, and perhaps even understand them.
With leaders like these, what hope does the United Kingdom have of maintaining itself whether they go full Brexit or stay in the EU?
EDIT: Fixed some words
As a whole, British political elite seem to be particularly blind to the art of politicking. Many of the guests the host brings on for conversations seem to be in complete agreement that neither Labour or the Conservatives are looped into a 21st century dialogue with their constituents. Compared to the high degree of political penetration that US politicians pursue every day, the following issues were brought up multiple times by multiple parties.
A. Lack of interest in online presence.
Both Milliband and Cameron never used twitter as a platform for quick vitriolic/rhetorical messages in a way that US politicians did following 2008 (and Trump to a greater success later in 2016).
Neither Milliband nor Cameron (at the time of the episodes I listened to), reached out with an AMA on Reddit or with an interactive Q&A session on Facebook or with any social media platform at all really. Completely disconnected to the forums that young people spend their time in.
Most importantly, neither party seems to have learned from Barack Obama's fundraising and community outreach strategy, where most of his campaign money came from millions of small online donations that kept those donors (average middle class citizens) interested in their investment and motivated to give more when asked.
B. Lack of interest in television presence.
At the time (I assume, based on the host implication, they never really explained the history of this) the 2015 election was the first/second? election with television debates. But with so many parties all on the stage, it is a bit of clusterfuck and you are not going to get the message out clearly with all these different brands being pushed at the same time. Some of the debates were cancelled due to disagreements between parties. But really, if you were the labour or the conservative party, why would you dilute your message down like this? Get a debate between you and your biggest opponent and cut him down 1 on 1 as many times as you can. UKIP and Greens and Lib Dems would only serve to undermine your positions and shift the dialogue in directions you can't anticipate. Why have UK political parties only started television debates in the 21st century?!? US politicians have been arguing on air since the 1960s.
C. Lack of dominance in the political realm.
With a first past the post system, the Tories and Labour are structurally advantaged to dominate as the two historically large tent parties. But despite their structural advantage, each only command roughly 30% of the electorate while four other parties split the rest. Why did the Tories lose members to UKIP up until the Brexit vote when the goals of UKIP were achieved and the party was no longer needed? Why is Labour, even under the more leftist Corbyn, not captured the Lib Dem vote? Unless I misunderstand the Lib Dems policy positions (are they more similar to New Labour under Blair?).
All of this seems to indicate from the beginning that the UK has been at least for the past two decades been managed by a political elite that is so far disconnected from their constituents they have neglected to build the infrastructure necessary to communicate with them, and perhaps even understand them.
With leaders like these, what hope does the United Kingdom have of maintaining itself whether they go full Brexit or stay in the EU?
EDIT: Fixed some words
"All of this seems to indicate from the beginning that the UK has been at least for the past two decades been managed by a political elite that is so far disconnected from their constituents they have neglected to build the infrastructure necessary to communicate with them, and perhaps even understand them."
An argument might be made that that MP's have become increasingly superfluous as ever-closer-union brought the EU in to do more.
It is often said that politicians are made from ambitious people who wish to wield the levers of power. How disappointing to reach that position of pre-eminence only to to find out that those levers are no longer connected to anything...
Forty years of the Mother of all Parliaments acting as a rubber stamp for statutory instruments created on behalf of the EU, agreed by the executive in Brussels.
Quelle surprise - that modern politics is more vacuous than visceral, more charlatanry than considerate.
An argument might be made that that MP's have become increasingly superfluous as ever-closer-union brought the EU in to do more.
It is often said that politicians are made from ambitious people who wish to wield the levers of power. How disappointing to reach that position of pre-eminence only to to find out that those levers are no longer connected to anything...
Forty years of the Mother of all Parliaments acting as a rubber stamp for statutory instruments created on behalf of the EU, agreed by the executive in Brussels.
Quelle surprise - that modern politics is more vacuous than visceral, more charlatanry than considerate.
Quelle surprise, look at the bright side your French has improved
Thousands of troops on standby for Brexit, as No10 warns families to prepare for No Deal
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...a4020741.html?
I think these headlines underestimate the armchair politics of the British electorate...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...a4020741.html?
I think these headlines underestimate the armchair politics of the British electorate...
That is dumb, did they ever consider that at last half of them doesn't agree with wat they want them to do. Just givethe referendum a second chance, this kind of escalation isn't necesary
UK politics are NOT disconnected from the important people. It is just the important people are not the voters - the decision has been made long before they are involved. Conservatives and Labour choose who stands to be an MP in closed-door events with local party members and Party Grandees choosing.
When one becomes a MP, one doesn't want anything but one's job to continue for as long as possible. No sitting MP wants a competitive landscape - some stranger might win but they might loose!
So don't engage the populace. There's really no need and far better they vote like sheep once every 5 years or so for the party of their choice without really knowing much about who they are voting for.
Different voting systems would change the dynamic and mean that the populace are important. But I'm not holding my breath.
When one becomes a MP, one doesn't want anything but one's job to continue for as long as possible. No sitting MP wants a competitive landscape - some stranger might win but they might loose!
So don't engage the populace. There's really no need and far better they vote like sheep once every 5 years or so for the party of their choice without really knowing much about who they are voting for.
Different voting systems would change the dynamic and mean that the populace are important. But I'm not holding my breath.
Obviously UK politics need more capitalism to stop them from being a zero sum game. With capitalism, everyone could have a seat! Just allow banks to loan out ten seats for every seat an MP stores at the bank. 
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
UK politics are NOT disconnected from the important people. It is just the important people are not the voters - the decision has been made long before they are involved. Conservatives and Labour choose who stands to be an MP in closed-door events with local party members and Party Grandees choosing.
When one becomes a MP, one doesn't want anything but one's job to continue for as long as possible. No sitting MP wants a competitive landscape - some stranger might win but they might loose!
So don't engage the populace. There's really no need and far better they vote like sheep once every 5 years or so for the party of their choice without really knowing much about who they are voting for.
Different voting systems would change the dynamic and mean that the populace are important. But I'm not holding my breath.
And see Brexit for what happens when you have direct engagement. Ignore the vote, listen to the reasoning given by voters. Liam Fox's welcoming of the EU-Japan deal as a vindication of Brexit is symptomatic of the disconnect between mouth and brain of many Leave voters, who are unable to do much more than repeat slogans, regardless of how one sentence directly contradicts another uttered just a few seconds earlier. The House of Lords needs to be empowered as a House of Technocrats, staffed with people who are appointed for their expertise in fields that your bog standard citizen won't have.UK politics are NOT disconnected from the important people. It is just the important people are not the voters - the decision has been made long before they are involved. Conservatives and Labour choose who stands to be an MP in closed-door events with local party members and Party Grandees choosing.
When one becomes a MP, one doesn't want anything but one's job to continue for as long as possible. No sitting MP wants a competitive landscape - some stranger might win but they might loose!
So don't engage the populace. There's really no need and far better they vote like sheep once every 5 years or so for the party of their choice without really knowing much about who they are voting for.
Different voting systems would change the dynamic and mean that the populace are important. But I'm not holding my breath.
In a jury, the closest thing we have to an everyday citizens' decision-making body, the jurors are directed by experts in procedure, and the status quo is presumed unless there is a super-super majority. And if one or more sides outright lies or tries to deceive through one trick or another, the judge will drag them up on it, prejudicing their argument. In the Brexit referendum, Leave lied and deceived like no other political campaign in my life time, and with a narrow majority, the government is planning for a radical implementation, up to and including calling out troops.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
"All of this seems to indicate from the beginning that the UK has been at least for the past two decades been managed by a political elite that is so far disconnected from their constituents they have neglected to build the infrastructure necessary to communicate with them, and perhaps even understand them."
An argument might be made that that MP's have become increasingly superfluous as ever-closer-union brought the EU in to do more.
It is often said that politicians are made from ambitious people who wish to wield the levers of power. How disappointing to reach that position of pre-eminence only to to find out that those levers are no longer connected to anything...
Forty years of the Mother of all Parliaments acting as a rubber stamp for statutory instruments created on behalf of the EU, agreed by the executive in Brussels.
Quelle surprise - that modern politics is more vacuous than visceral, more charlatanry than considerate.
You are, in my opinion, overly optimistic in assuming that modern politics is somehow less vacuous than historical politics. The old stuff just gets a better short summary write up in the history books."All of this seems to indicate from the beginning that the UK has been at least for the past two decades been managed by a political elite that is so far disconnected from their constituents they have neglected to build the infrastructure necessary to communicate with them, and perhaps even understand them."
An argument might be made that that MP's have become increasingly superfluous as ever-closer-union brought the EU in to do more.
It is often said that politicians are made from ambitious people who wish to wield the levers of power. How disappointing to reach that position of pre-eminence only to to find out that those levers are no longer connected to anything...
Forty years of the Mother of all Parliaments acting as a rubber stamp for statutory instruments created on behalf of the EU, agreed by the executive in Brussels.
Quelle surprise - that modern politics is more vacuous than visceral, more charlatanry than considerate.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
You are, in my opinion, overly optimistic in assuming that modern politics is somehow less vacuous than historical politics. The old stuff just gets a better short summary write up in the history books.
See the infamous (passed) state congressional motion to set pi to 3.2. Eventually overturned by the state senate on the grounds that the motion was stupid and bore no relation to reality. Brexit is similarly stupid, but this time Der People have got the bit between their teeth and are determined to run off the cliff in a democratic fashion. If Brexiteers had been living in the 19th century, they'd have been foaming at the mouth at the presumption of a senate to overturn the democratically declared will of the people, would have been threatening all sorts if the senate did not ratify their motion to set pi to 3.2.You are, in my opinion, overly optimistic in assuming that modern politics is somehow less vacuous than historical politics. The old stuff just gets a better short summary write up in the history books.
Will any Brexiteers admit that it might not be a good idea to drink the kool aid, even though 52% of Jonestown voted to do so? Does it not ring any bells that the leaders who'd urged them to drink said kool aid have all made excuses to be elsewhere when the moment of drinking comes? When most of the Leave campaign is based on lies, deception and fantasy, whereas much of what Remain said that had been dismissed as Project Fear is now coming true, does it not occur to you that Remain may have been correct, and Leave may have been wrong? If there is another referendum, between Remain and No Deal, would you vote for No Deal?
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Will any Brexiteers admit that it might not be a good idea to drink the kool aid, even though 52% of Jonestown voted to do so? ... When most of the Leave campaign is based on lies, deception and fantasy
Lol, that is sweet; you still presume that a large proportion of the electorate were swayed in the run up to the vote by Nige pointing at foriegners, and boris being a clown!Will any Brexiteers admit that it might not be a good idea to drink the kool aid, even though 52% of Jonestown voted to do so? ... When most of the Leave campaign is based on lies, deception and fantasy
Somehow, your enormous optimism persuades you to ignore the:
1. decade of opinion polls that showed leave sitting around 40-50%
2. decade of opinion polls that showed the need for a refgerendum at 50-60%
3. decades of eustat polls showing that only 15-20% of the electorate consider 'europe' to be an important part of their political identity
The EU is going to a place we cannot follow, and the factor that made that judgement concrete was the outcome of Cameron's renegotiation.
Putin explicitly supports Brexit. What do Brexiteers think of his urge to implement "the will of the people"?
Let me repeat:
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
Lol, that is sweet; you still presume that a large proportion of the electorate were swayed in the run up to the vote by Nige pointing at foriegners, Boris being a clown, and Putin rolling his twitter-bots!
Somehow, your enormous optimism persuades you to ignore the:
1. decade of opinion polls that showed leave sitting around 40-50%
2. decade of opinion polls that showed the need for a refgerendum at 50-60%
3. decades of eustat polls showing that only 15-20% of the electorate consider 'europe' to be an important part of their political identity
The EU is going to a place we cannot follow, and the factor that made that judgement concrete was the outcome of Cameron's renegotiation.
Lol, that is sweet; you still presume that a large proportion of the electorate were swayed in the run up to the vote by Nige pointing at foriegners, Boris being a clown, and Putin rolling his twitter-bots!
Somehow, your enormous optimism persuades you to ignore the:
1. decade of opinion polls that showed leave sitting around 40-50%
2. decade of opinion polls that showed the need for a refgerendum at 50-60%
3. decades of eustat polls showing that only 15-20% of the electorate consider 'europe' to be an important part of their political identity
The EU is going to a place we cannot follow, and the factor that made that judgement concrete was the outcome of Cameron's renegotiation.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Putin explicitly supports Brexit. What do Brexiteers think of his urge to implement "the will of the people"?
Wat do you think of It, russia isn't hostilePutin explicitly supports Brexit. What do Brexiteers think of his urge to implement "the will of the people"?
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Wat do you think of It, russia isn't hostile
Explain that to Dawn Sturgess.Wat do you think of It, russia isn't hostile
As the saying goes, if you Brexit, you Buyit.
Gatwick completely down and Heathrow with many flights grounded from IT crash. And Brexiteers dismiss the importance of the Calais-Dover trade route.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
You are, in my opinion, overly optimistic in assuming that modern politics is somehow less vacuous than historical politics. The old stuff just gets a better short summary write up in the history books.
"less", or do you mean "more"?You are, in my opinion, overly optimistic in assuming that modern politics is somehow less vacuous than historical politics. The old stuff just gets a better short summary write up in the history books.
@ Pannonian - no real reply/response to this then?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053788298
If a referendum is held in Northern Ireland as to the province's status in 2019:
Based on May's deal, roughly equal numbers in favour of remaining in UK and becoming part of Ireland.
Based on no deal: Large majority in favour of becoming part of Ireland (60%), with 48% definite.
Based on UK's continued membership of the EU: a large majority (60%) in favour of remaining in UK, with 47% definite.
I'd imagine the numbers in Scotland won't be much more in favour of remaining within the UK. Brexiteers, is the break up of the UK a price worth paying for Brexit? Did it factor into your considerations when voting Leave? It was what Remainers had warned, after all.
Based on May's deal, roughly equal numbers in favour of remaining in UK and becoming part of Ireland.
Based on no deal: Large majority in favour of becoming part of Ireland (60%), with 48% definite.
Based on UK's continued membership of the EU: a large majority (60%) in favour of remaining in UK, with 47% definite.
I'd imagine the numbers in Scotland won't be much more in favour of remaining within the UK. Brexiteers, is the break up of the UK a price worth paying for Brexit? Did it factor into your considerations when voting Leave? It was what Remainers had warned, after all.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
Let me repeat:
What do you think of that Northern Ireland poll I linked to? A price worth paying? Also, what do you think of the government's warnings as to what preparations are necessary?Let me repeat:
I noticed you didn't address the point made, again, choosing instead to divert conversation off a tangent.
It is a very recognisable debating style. Not one I favour, but horses for courses...
It is a very recognisable debating style. Not one I favour, but horses for courses...
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
"less", or do you mean "more"?
@ Pannonian - no real reply/response to this then?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053788298
oops. you were correct"less", or do you mean "more"?
@ Pannonian - no real reply/response to this then?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053788298
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
I noticed you didn't address the point made, again, choosing instead to divert conversation off a tangent.
It is a very recognisable debating style. Not one I favour, but horses for courses...
I'll address your point then, with the answer that I've given before. A stupid idea does not stop being a stupid idea just because it's been democratically voted through. Democracy is good for preventing tyranny. It's not good for preventing stupidity. Or at least not without safeguards, which Parliament is supposed to be. I'll point you to the example of the Georgian state congress that I cited earlier. Just because that motion got voted through, does not make it a good idea, and it was eventually overturned for being a bloody stupid idea that bore no relation to reality.I noticed you didn't address the point made, again, choosing instead to divert conversation off a tangent.
It is a very recognisable debating style. Not one I favour, but horses for courses...
My other point is that anything that Russia is in favour of, Britain should be automatically suspicious of, and double check the arguments. If Russia says Brexit is good, double check the arguments involving Brexit. Since the referendum, what evidence is there favouring Brexit? Apart from, we won, you lost, get over it. There is plenty of evidence saying it's a stupendously bad idea. Double check the arguments. What does the evidence indicate?
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO