Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 r_squared wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
That link doesn't work, it asks you to subscribe. Got any other news sources?

Found it on The Indipendent as well

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-glastonbury-jeremy-corbyn-george-freeman-conservatives-theresa-may-a7878181.html

The most interesting part of that article for me was the the assertion that the conservative party only has 150k members. The Labour party, in contrast, has just under half a million members. The Tories are only just over the SNP, who have a considerably smaller pool of potential members.

How is it, that a national party that continues to hold the reins of power, can only muster 150k people with the conviction to actually join and support the party?
Even more perplexing is that the Conservatives have been manipulated by a party with a mere 39k members, UKIP. Even the Greens have more committed members, 53k

This has been going on for some time. However this smaller number of people also generated vastly more donations for the Tories in the last election. The vast majority of Tory members are either very wealthy or old. Tory membership is declining because they are failing to attract new members in any significant numbers and more of their members are passing away each year. Hence the Tories are ever more reliant on the rich (and hence it is no surprise that their policies favour the few, rather than the populace as a whole). That a lot of people still vote for them implies Labour still have to fight the "they aren't fiscally responsible" mantra whereas in reality both the main parties are likely to be equally poor. However in the medium to long term Tories may have a problem. With an ever dwindling supporter base it means that the overall quality of their candidates will reduce statistically until they are likely to get to a point where they are putting relative incompetents in charge (I can suggest that having clowns like Gove, Boris, Davis and May is just the start) as the pool of 'good' MPs dwindles. This (hopefully) will eventually making such a mess of the country that even the most deluded of Tory voters will realise that they are just a few idiot rich toffs that use Government as some form of game that they are continuing from schooling days.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 r_squared wrote:


I've got to challenge a couple of assertions here. The loose association of "Remain" doesn't exist anymore, there are only individuals now acting on their own beliefs. Those court challenges were absolutely necessary, the Government were attempting to wrest powers that they absolutely had no right to do so, and our independent judiciary was asked to rule on these issues, and they did, and they protected our democracy in doing so.
Everyone should be very grateful that individuals had the balls to take the Govt to task, Gove and Boris had feth all to do with it.

I think there is no figure head for remain anymore for people to rally around. There is still a grassroots support for remaining (and polls suggest this is growing) but there is no group really taking the government to task over the real impacts (and Labour don't appear to know what they want). I think there is still a large pressure from Leavers because if we go down another referendum that was stated as binding then the result is likely to be different (the question would be by how much and whether it would be enough not just to show the country is still divided). Additionally the youth vote is now more politically engaged and could easily swing the vote. I think this is why Leavers still press the case, they know they've basically ended up with a "smash and grab" raid on the crown jewels and are desperately trying to force things through until it is too late regardless of the consequences in the long term.

I agree that the spread of neo-liberal ideas is insidious, however it has led to a direct increase, in the main, for those nations who've adopted it's tenets. It needs careful control, and appropriate intervention in order to avoid the worst excess of capitalism, but this is what the EU encourages.

However it regularly gets confused with social liberalism (for example equal rights regardless of who you decide to be). The Tories in some ways are the poster child for neo-liberalism and yet the EU is the one blamed for its growth. On the other hand the EU is more supportive of social liberalism and the Tories less so. When people argue that the EU have successfully undertaken a successful propaganda trick then the reality is something different. The reality is more that the certain elements of the wealthy and the Tories have managed to use propaganda to blame the EU for our problems and peoples increasing frustration with the UKs greater neo-liberalist approach. In the end leaving will benefit these people at the expense of the populace at large who will see the 'benefits' of social liberalism in decline.

 r_squared wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
That link doesn't work, it asks you to subscribe. Got any other news sources?

Found it on The Indipendent as well

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-glastonbury-jeremy-corbyn-george-freeman-conservatives-theresa-may-a7878181.html

The most interesting part of that article for me was the the assertion that the conservative party only has 150k members. The Labour party, in contrast, has just under half a million members. The Tories are only just over the SNP, who have a considerably smaller pool of potential members.

How is it, that a national party that continues to hold the reins of power, can only muster 150k people with the conviction to actually join and support the party?
Even more perplexing is that the Conservatives have been manipulated by a party with a mere 39k members, UKIP. Even the Greens have more committed members, 53k

I seem to remember some sketch, it may be a spitting image sketch from way back when or something when a member of the public decked out in tory blue is asked who they voted for they announce 'Labour!'

I think the tories are 'universally loathed' in public, in private......

For membership, Labour has seen a dramatic uptick, but again, how many are active participants, how many have shown support on the basis of the past election cycle, how many will let their memberships lapse?

I think Tory party membership is fairly constant but I would imagine that Labours membership peak and trough with regularity.

nfe wrote:
Amazing. An invite only, 150-200 person event, with music, food and drinks.

It's not a festival. It's a party.

Poor old Toby Young, there on his own.

Yeah, people might not be so keen to admit to being a Tory since it's likely to get you spat at (or worse) by a certain section of society. You can also say that they have a tiny membership that continues to dwindle, yet they keep coming out on top in general elections. That's the silent majority. Labour might have a bigger membership but I think that's down to two factors; all the middle class Riot Chic types who would have been SWP in the past flocking to Jermony Corbyn in mass, and all the 'fake' members who took advantage of Ed Millibands changes to buy their way in to make sure Corbyn won the leadership contest. A strategy which almost back fired badly there last election.

I doubt any of the other Labour challengers would have done better than Corbyn. People are fed up of them, they're not inspirational.

While I don't agree with all Corbyn says, he's one of the few senior MPs with a sense of vision, he has strong radical ideas for the future and you know what he wants. I feel he wants to serve the UK and a lot of younger voters are enthused by it.

So many of the alternatives in government are craven and self serving, thinking of furthering their career, they bend whichever way the wind blows. There's no vision for Europe or the UK, no sense they have principles or some strong ideological plan for society. That's why they're such a contradictory mess at the moment. Theresa May and others in government just come up with stuff with no conception of how the public will react, and U turn when they screw up. Boris is among the worst, a person whose politics shift constantly but covers it with bluster and stunts.

Many of the challengers to Corbyn are wishy washy too, there's no impression they have a strong vision for the future, just a few ideas to alter a bit of the stuff set in place by the Tories. With Corbyn, you're offered a meaningful alternative to current government.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
... That's the silent majority...

I don't think there is a "silent" majority, there's certainly a lot of gobshites on social media who are unafraid to let you know exactly what they think, and no one I know has any problem with letting you know they're a Tory, or until recently, UKIP.
I think it more likely there's a large pool of centrist voters who bend with the wind, and vote for whatever sounds best at the time. They're not really the types to pin their flag to any particular mast.

Those court challenges were absolutely necessary, the Government were attempting to wrest powers that they absolutely had no right to do so, and our independent judiciary was asked to rule on these issues, and they did, and they protected our democracy in doing so.
Everyone should be very grateful that individuals had the balls to take the Govt to task, Gove and Boris had feth all to do with it.

@r_squared

Protect democracy? It was never anything to do with protecting democracy.

It was a rearguard action to reverse the result of June 24th.

Gina Millar let the cat out of the bag when she declared for Remain weeks later. Her powerful backers were Remain through and through.

It was an attempt to delay A50 activation in the hope that a House of Commons resistance could be galvanized to stop A50 being activated. A blind man could see that.

Obviously, it backfired, but this idea of protecting democracy is a smokescreen.

Our democracy has been in danger from a militant minority of Remainers who are hell bent on reversing the referendum because they think the British public were brain washed into voting the 'wrong' way.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Our democracy has been in danger from a militant minority of Remainers who are hell bent on reversing the referendum because they think the British public were brain washed into voting the 'wrong' way.

How do you reverse a non-binding referendum?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Yeah, people might not be so keen to admit to being a Tory since it's likely to get you spat at (or worse) by a certain section of society. You can also say that they have a tiny membership that continues to dwindle, yet they keep coming out on top in general elections. That's the silent majority. Labour might have a bigger membership but I think that's down to two factors; all the middle class Riot Chic types who would have been SWP in the past flocking to Jermony Corbyn in mass, and all the 'fake' members who took advantage of Ed Millibands changes to buy their way in to make sure Corbyn won the leadership contest. A strategy which almost back fired badly there last election.

There's a difference between those that vote Tory and those that actively engage as a Tory member. Tory membership continues to decline over time from a very high levels in the 60s and 70s.

https://stevehynd.com/2014/09/17/green-party-membership-2002-2014-up-three-fold/

It's difficult to say whether current upsurge in labour figures is long term. However even before this Labour's figures were holding a lot steadier than the Tories were.

As for voting intentions that is a different issue. By voting any party it does not mean that you are a supporter (for example I voted Labour this year not because I support them, but more that they were the best chance in the area to stop Empress May - I view myself more akin to Greens and LDs). This is likely to apply for other people to, one of my brothers voted in what he believed would make them better off and pay less taxes. That they also complain about the degradation of the NHS, social care and [insert any other Tory disaster] doesn't come across their threshold of linking the fact that voting for their own taxes to be as low as possible equates to the latter issues. In effect then the Tories have an inherent advantage as they benefit from the "what's in it for me", whereas Labour is at a disadvantage as they are generally seen as the party that will take more money off middle England to support our social system. I can surmise then this is probably why people are 'shy' about admitting they vote Tory - they know they are voting selfishly and what is best for them even though they are fully aware of the likely consequences of doing so (and prefer not to have to admit in the open).



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Gina Millar let the cat out of the bag when she declared for Remain weeks later. Her powerful backers were Remain through and through.

It was an attempt to delay A50 activation in the hope that a House of Commons resistance could be galvanized to stop A50 being activated. A blind man could see that.

Obviously, it backfired, but this idea of protecting democracy is a smokescreen.

No it wasn't and this is the sort of nonsense is spouted to try and cow people into thinking that any argument against leaving is "against the democratic process". The democratic process is a live and continuing system, not a once voted means always is...(and should not be reviewed). Gina Miller brought a legal challenge against a government hell bent on pursuing a type of Wrexit that avoided any type of scrutiny from the people elected to undertake this on our behalf. We have a justice system that is there to take the government to account and to ensure they act legally. You should perhaps be in fact thanking her rather than spouting nonsense; if they really wanted to cause chaos then they should have just let May get on with it and then a day before Wrexit start the court case to say it was enacted illegally. On the assumption the courts would have ruled the same way (no reason to think they wouldn't) then the process would have been deemed illegal, the issue of A50 would have had to be withdrawn and chaos would ensue. Just because someone does something that *you* personally disagree with is not a justifiable reason to argue that they are just trying to disrupt democracy. I could easily say you are disrupting democracy by opposing the legal challenge - that you prefer a dictatorial head of government preventing parliament, as the democratically elected representation of the country, to have any say on how Wrexit occurs? I could easily argue that your slating of Gina Miller (and supporters) is in fact just your own smokescreen of protecting democracy whereas in reality you just want to ram home your version of Wrexit? Perhaps I would suggest then that your preferred style of government is a dictatorship?

That she thinks leaving the EU is one of the greatest bone headed decisions the country has ever done (and that's saying something given recent history), which is something I agree with, does not mean she was not entitled to challenge the government process.

Our democracy has been in danger from a militant minority of Remainers who are hell bent on reversing the referendum because they think the British public were brain washed into voting the 'wrong' way.

Alternative I could argue that we are in danger of a militant minority of Leavers who are hell bent on ensuring a type of Wrexit that has never been discussed, never been voted on and when all comes down to it was advertised as non-binding (which may have changed the result if many people just voted against the establishment and actually didn't think it would really change things). Perhaps Leavers are just trying to brainwash people that those continuing the debate should be vilified to avoid scrutiny of their motives?

@whirlwind

I'm not attacking you, but your point about Parliament not having its say is also another smokescreen.

Those who defend parliamentry sovereignty turn a blind eye to the fact that when it came to EU oversight commitees, working groups etc etc

then hardly any of our MPs bothered to turn up to them.

I know this for a fact because the HoC website has a vast archive of these things and you can go and check for yourself.

I also watch BBC parliament during my lunch break (to keep an eye on them) and for most of the time, the Commons is largely empty.

And yet, people complain about non-attending MPs not having a say about the EU.

They never gave two hoots before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Our democracy has been in danger from a militant minority of Remainers who are hell bent on reversing the referendum because they think the British public were brain washed into voting the 'wrong' way.

How do you reverse a non-binding referendum?

The referendum in the 1970s that took us into the EEC was also non-binding, so what's your point?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Our democracy has been in danger from a militant minority of Remainers who are hell bent on reversing the referendum because they think the British public were brain washed into voting the 'wrong' way.

How do you reverse a non-binding referendum?

The referendum in the 1970s that took us into the EEC was also non-binding, so what's your point?

That you can't really reverse a non-binding referendum? Because of the whole non-binding thing meaning that there is nothing legal in it to reverse?

 motyak wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Our democracy has been in danger from a militant minority of Remainers who are hell bent on reversing the referendum because they think the British public were brain washed into voting the 'wrong' way.

How do you reverse a non-binding referendum?

The referendum in the 1970s that took us into the EEC was also non-binding, so what's your point?

That you can't really reverse a non-binding referendum? Because of the whole non-binding thing meaning that there is nothing legal in it to reverse?

A number of high profile Remain supporters in the media and in politics have sought to invalidate or de-legitimize last year's referendum result by saying that it was non-binding, which it was. I'm merely highlighting the point that by their logic, we should ignore the 1975 referendum result as well, because that too was non-binding.

Furthermore, all this talk of non-binding is hogwash if you think about it. Parliament passed a bill allowing a referendum to go ahead by 6-1 in favour. The word advisary was thrown around?

Does Parliament really need to pass a bill to advise itself? Seriously? Who was it supposed to advise?

That's like saying you'll have a vote on having a vote!

Parliament passed the referendum bill in good faith. The British public voted in good faith on June 23rd 2016.

I have zero time for anybody trying to reverse the referendum. Had the nation voted to Remain, I would have accepted the result 100% and criticsed anybody on the leave side who tried to reverse it.

I'll say this again. By making it non-binding you just created a situation of 'heads we win tails you lose'.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@whirlwind

I'm not attacking you, but your point about Parliament not having its say is also another smokescreen.

Those who defend parliamentry sovereignty turn a blind eye to the fact that when it came to EU oversight commitees, working groups etc etc

then hardly any of our MPs bothered to turn up to them.

I know this for a fact because the HoC website has a vast archive of these things and you can go and check for yourself.

I also watch BBC parliament during my lunch break (to keep an eye on them) and for most of the time, the Commons is largely empty.

And yet, people complain about non-attending MPs not having a say about the EU.

They never gave two hoots before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Our democracy has been in danger from a militant minority of Remainers who are hell bent on reversing the referendum because they think the British public were brain washed into voting the 'wrong' way.

How do you reverse a non-binding referendum?

The referendum in the 1970s that took us into the EEC was also non-binding, so what's your point?

My point is that the entire point of a non-binding referendum is to see whether or not something has sufficient popular support to do. When the result is marginally to one side's favour it's absolutely mental to draw the conclusion that you should just bulldoze on with sweeping societal changes. There's a mandate to think about how to make Brexit happen, but the referendum didn't actually define what "leaving the European Union" meant. The 1973 referendum was a 63/37 split, which isn't close enough that the weather could swing the result.

Look at it this way: What you're doing is essentially the equivalent of a change to the constitution. In the US you'd have to jump through a bunch of hoops to ratify a change to the Constitution, in Sweden you'd have to get it through parliament, have a parliamentary election and then have it pass the new parliament too, and in most other stable democracies have some sort of check on sweeping constitutional changes. The UK, of course, doesn't even have a constitution, but sweeping changes of this kind without any sort of check is a much, MUCH bigger threat to democracy than the people you're raging against.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I'm not attacking you, but your point about Parliament not having its say is also another smokescreen.

Those who defend parliamentry sovereignty turn a blind eye to the fact that when it came to EU oversight commitees, working groups etc etc

then hardly any of our MPs bothered to turn up to them.

No it isn't. We live in a parliamentary democracy. If our MPs aren't doing the task we allocate to them then we, as the voters, are the ones for deciding that MP is not suitable. However they are still there to represent the populace. You can't have a one off direct democracy to force through a regime change with minimal input (and a statements to the public that are effectively a lie - 350m to the NHS, WWIII etc).

Not every MP needs to turn up to every debate, every committee and so on. The MPs are tasked with certain work elements, not all of them. If you expected every MP to turn up to every sub-committee then nothing would get done simply because they'd be stuck in every debate going. Instead they are allocated to certain areas (say public health) and they are expected to go to those committees and working groups (but not the ones on the environment). That's why you have commons with few people in at times. Those that need to be there are, those that have other tasks are doing just that. If you work in a business you don't go to every meeting, just the ones you need to attend; otherwise your whole working day would be in meetings and you'd never get anything done.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Look at it this way: What you're doing is essentially the equivalent of a change to the constitution. In the US you'd have to jump through a bunch of hoops to ratify a change to the Constitution, in Sweden you'd have to get it through parliament, have a parliamentary election and then have it pass the new parliament too, and in most other stable democracies have some sort of check on sweeping constitutional changes. The UK, of course, doesn't even have a constitution, but sweeping changes of this kind without any sort of check is a much, MUCH bigger threat to democracy than the people you're raging against.

Agreed - just look at Turkey for example. In the end Wrexit is a right wing coup by parts of the Tory party. Cameron thought he could put the issue to bed, instead he's split the country so badly its likely to take generations to repair.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


A number of high profile Remain supporters in the media and in politics have sought to invalidate or de-legitimize last year's referendum result by saying that it was non-binding, which it was. I'm merely highlighting the point that by their logic, we should ignore the 1975 referendum result as well, because that too was non-binding.

Furthermore, all this talk of non-binding is hogwash if you think about it. Parliament passed a bill allowing a referendum to go ahead by 6-1 in favour. The word advisary was thrown around?

Does Parliament really need to pass a bill to advise itself? Seriously? Who was it supposed to advise?

That's like saying you'll have a vote on having a vote!

Parliament passed the referendum bill in good faith. The British public voted in good faith on June 23rd 2016.

I have zero time for anybody trying to reverse the referendum. Had the nation voted to Remain, I would have accepted the result 100% and criticsed anybody on the leave side who tried to reverse it.

You host an advisory referendum to gauge public support before you start the actual workings of passing parliamentary law in motion. As we have all seen, leaving the EU is going to be a very complicated mess, should the MPs have instead started to get things ready and devote resources to it before finding out whether it was something which the UK populace actually wanted? If it turned out to be something that the population was against then it would just result in a large waste of money and time.

It is not hogwash, you're just creating strawman arguments to try and paint it so as part of your continued ramblings about how the UK is stuck in a spiraling crime wave with no massive vision for the future and undermined by people who launch successful court challenges against executive overreach.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
[your continued ramblings about how the UK is stuck in a spiraling crime wave with no massive vision for the future and undermined by people who launch successful court challenges against executive overreach.

Welcome to the United States of Great Britain. At least in America they just shoot you instead of spraying acid in your face.

 Whirlwind wrote:
Alternative I could argue that we are in danger of a militant minority of Leavers who are hell bent on ensuring a type of Wrexit that has never been discussed, never been voted on and when all comes down to it was advertised as non-binding

Especially when you review most of the arguments from the Leave side they all seem to point to a soft Brexit (glossing over what it would mean regarding payments, contributions and EU overseeing UK institutions).

Not only can Britain leave the EU and have access to the single market, we'd actually get a better deal
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SKW-iDyIz2kJ:www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/13/not-only-can-britain-can-leave-the-eu-and-have-access-to-the-sin/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=opera

Vote Leave leaflets had this:

Europe yes, EU no. We have a new UK-EU Treaty based on free trade and friendly cooperation. There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it.

And the Boris himself said this on the weekend after the vote
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/26/i-cannot-stress-too-much-that-britain-is-part-of-europe--and-alw/

EU citizens living in this country will have their rights fully protected, and the same goes for British citizens living in the EU.

British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down. As the German equivalent of the CBI – the BDI – has very sensibly reminded us, there will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market.

The only change – and it will not come in any great rush – is that the UK will extricate itself from the EU’s extraordinary and opaque system of legislation:

No wonder people are confused and angry about the EU being "unfair" on poor Britain. They only voted to get all the perks while at the same time removing themselves from the evil eurocrats.

But even a leading Brexit advocate like Alistair Heath advocated that the best Brexit solution was EFTA with a Norway-style deal (which included keeping all four freedoms, and payments to the EU budget)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/05/25/brexit-will-make-us-richer-thats-why-leave-could-still-win/

The discussion on the kind of Brexit people wanted to started only after the vote, and after waking up to the reality of what Brexit really meant (formerly known as project fear)

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Protect democracy? It was never anything to do with protecting democracy.

It was a rearguard action to reverse the result of June 24th.

Gina Millar let the cat out of the bag when she declared for Remain weeks later. Her powerful backers were Remain through and through.

It was an attempt to delay A50 activation in the hope that a House of Commons resistance could be galvanized to stop A50 being activated. A blind man could see that.

Obviously, it backfired, but this idea of protecting democracy is a smokescreen.

Our democracy has been in danger from a militant minority of Remainers who are hell bent on reversing the referendum because they think the British public were brain washed into voting the 'wrong' way.

We've been through this before, but whether Gina Miller wanted to stop Brexit or not is irrelevant, the challenge was necessary and important - the government were about to set a precedent for removing citizens rights without any parliamentary scrutiny. Anyone shouting about sovereignty should have been utterly appalled at the prospect.

It didn't backfire, her case succeded. I asked you to spell out exactly how it backfired when you said you were 'glad that it backfired' a while back. I don't think you ever answered. So you could clarify how it backfired now, if you fancy? Other than getting her reems of racist abuse and the scorn of the Mail, how does successfully taking the givernment to court and forcing them to properly go through parliament constitute backfiring?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Protect democracy? It was never anything to do with protecting democracy.

It was a rearguard action to reverse the result of June 24th.

Gina Millar let the cat out of the bag when she declared for Remain weeks later. Her powerful backers were Remain through and through.

It was an attempt to delay A50 activation in the hope that a House of Commons resistance could be galvanized to stop A50 being activated. A blind man could see that.

I'm sure delaying A50 was a part of it, but I still think it's hard to claim it had nothing to do with democracy - and it did defend democracy - everything has to be ratified by parliament.

Yes she was a Remainer, but do you imagine any Brexiteers would have brought the challenge to get the required government checks and bounds involved?

A lot of people have posted well argued points to my earlier comments. I won't answer them all, and even though I obviously disagree with the Remain position, you still have my respect for sticking to your guns.

As a general response to everybody, I will say two things:

1. Before the June 23rd vote, everybody knew the rules of the game. From the Prime Minister to MPs, business leaders to the man in the street. We knew what we were doing and what we signed up to. We all voted in good faith, and the vast majority of us would respect the result, whatever way it went. All this talk of non-binding referendums and parliamentary scrutiny is neither here nor there.
I'm obviously a stranger to people here, some random internet guy, and you only have my word for this, but despite my loathing of all things EU, I would have fought tooth and nail to uphold the referendum result had it went Remain's way.

2. The British public got a second chance to reverse the referendum result on June 8th 2017. One party, the Liberal Democrats, stood on a pro-EU, second referendum platform.

They won 12 FETHING seats from 600+

Twice the British public have been asked, and twice they have endorsed the decision to leave the EU.

That's why I get mad at people who try and de-legitimize our withdrawal from the EU.

If people want to say it will be a disaster, then fine - that's their God given right, but I have no time for people trying to keep us in the EU at any cost

Well said DINLT.

And I have no time for people trying to drag us out at any cost, especially when many of the people doing so are not the ones who will actually be paying the cost.

Also, the election was not solely about the EU or even what kind of exit we were seeking, so to hold it up as "proof" that the British people are happy with the hard exit the Tories are pursuing is asinine.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
We all voted in good faith, and the vast majority of us would respect the result, whatever way it went. All this talk of non-binding referendums and parliamentary scrutiny is neither here nor there.

I disagree here. We voted (on both sides) based on some terrible campaigning and outright lies. I'm not sure the vast majority respected the result either, but a small majority seem to want everyone else to just "get over it you lost".

I'd also disagree that the GE vote had a significant amount to do with Brexit - the only 2 serious parties were on the Leave side (did anyone thing we'd get a Lib Dem win?) and there were many other issues at play.

The point of non-binding being mentioned is that many of us are stunned anyone can regard a 51.9% majority as enough to steamroll everything. It's enough for a parliamentary review/investigation certainly, but that's it.

As for parliamentary scrutiny - everyone on both sides should want the job done correctly, without boundless power grabs. That some seem to ignore that because they are currently getting their way is worrying. I don't want us to leave, I think it's a total own goal. But I know we are leaving, so I'd rather we did it properly and tried to maintain our sovereignty rather that giving May literal Carte Blanche to do what she wants; especially since she's got a bad track record in that regard already.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
And I have no time for people trying to drag us out at any cost, especially when many of the people doing so are not the ones who will actually be paying the cost.

Also, the election was not solely about the EU or even what kind of exit we were seeking, so to hold it up as "proof" that the British people are happy with the hard exit the Tories are pursuing is asinine.

Wasn't about the EU?

Theresa May asked for a majority to give her a strong hand in Brussels.

Tim Farron more or less said that if you cut him open, he'd bleed blue and yellow. The Lib Dems were banging on about the EU and another referendum from Day 1 of the campaign.

Up here, all the SNP ever talked about was Scotland being dragged out of the EU against it's will.

The EU was front and centre of the last GE


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
We all voted in good faith, and the vast majority of us would respect the result, whatever way it went. All this talk of non-binding referendums and parliamentary scrutiny is neither here nor there.

I disagree here. We voted (on both sides) based on some terrible campaigning and outright lies. I'm not sure the vast majority respected the result either, but a small majority seem to want everyone else to just "get over it you lost".

I'd also disagree that the GE vote had a significant amount to do with Brexit - the only 2 serious parties were on the Leave side (did anyone thing we'd get a Lib Dem win?) and there were many other issues at play.

The point of non-binding being mentioned is that many of us are stunned anyone can regard a 51.9% majority as enough to steamroll everything. It's enough for a parliamentary review/investigation certainly, but that's it.

As for parliamentary scrutiny - everyone on both sides should want the job done correctly, without boundless power grabs. That some seem to ignore that because they are currently getting their way is worrying. I don't want us to leave, I think it's a total own goal. But I know we are leaving, so I'd rather we did it properly and tried to maintain our sovereignty rather that giving May literal Carte Blanche to do what she wants; especially since she's got a bad track record in that regard already.

Every political campaign in human history has had some sort of lying in it. As for the Lib Dems, if they're a feeble, wishy-washy bunch who couldn't organise a funeral in a graveyard, then that's their fault and not the British public's.

Like you, I also want the job done properly, but it's clear to me that there is a hard core Remain minority in the Commons who are throwing up any roadblock they can, in the hope we'll come to our 'senses.'

I do not use this term lightly, but IMO, some of them seem to be acting like an EU 5th column.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
And I have no time for people trying to drag us out at any cost, especially when many of the people doing so are not the ones who will actually be paying the cost.

Also, the election was not solely about the EU or even what kind of exit we were seeking, so to hold it up as "proof" that the British people are happy with the hard exit the Tories are pursuing is asinine.

Wasn't about the EU?

Theresa May asked for a majority to give her a strong hand in Brussels.

Tim Farron more or less said that if you cut him open, he'd bleed blue and yellow. The Lib Dems were banging on about the EU and another referendum from Day 1 of the campaign.

Up here, all the SNP ever talked about was Scotland being dragged out of the EU against it's will.

The EU was front and centre of the last GE

Nobody actually believed that May called the election to get a strong hand for negotiations. You certainly didn't at the time she called it.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Theresa May asked for a majority to give her a strong hand in Brussels.

Which she lost (the majority, not the election). That's not screaming support for Brexit. Of course, she held the election because her sponsors thought it'd be an easy win from Labour.

Up here, all the SNP ever talked about was Scotland being dragged out of the EU against it's will.

And SNP got a vast majority in Scotland. But that's not enough.

Every political campaign in human history has had some sort of lying in it.

Oh definitely. But on the scale of the Brexit campaign? The migrant signs, maps highlighting Syria, claims that Turkey was going to let them all in, that £350m a week for the NHS?

Like you, I also want the job done properly, but it's clear to me that there is a hard core Remain minority in the Commons who are throwing up any roadblock they can, in the hope we'll come to our 'senses.'

So why do you object to people ensuring that the job is done properly, because they are one of that 48.1% minority? Aren't you glad that Brexit requires parliamentary approval now? Or are you viewing that as an unnecessary delay in leaving?

Because Britain is a First past the post system.

If you lose by one vote or one million it doesn't matter. Largest vote wins.

Brexit won. So rather than the remainers trying to stop it from happening, they should embrace it and make sure that we get the best deal from it.

But alas, that isn't happening.

 welshhoppo wrote:

Brexit won. So rather than the remainers trying to stop it from happening, they should embrace it and make sure that we get the best deal from it.

That's exactly the problem. Now that Brexit "won", all counter arguments are unwelcome.

Why should we embrace it and make sure we get the best deal? "Brexit" and "best deal" are completely at odds with each other; any "good deal" is "as far away from Brexit as possible".

Normally, if we made a bad decision, it's still valid to discuss it and potentially undo it. Just because Brexit "won", doesn't mean the other half of us need to suddenly start thinking it's a good idea.

Half of us thought it was a good idea, why aren't that trying to make it work?

. The British public got a second chance to reverse the referendum result on June 8th 2017. One party, the Liberal Democrats, stood on a pro-EU, second referendum platform.

They won 12 FETHING seats from 600+

UKIP ran on a hard brexit platform, how many seats did they get ?