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.

It's only an attempt to stop Brexit if you feel that Parliament would object to the deal, thus you know it's a bad one and it's a situation where Parliament should have sovereignty.

To be honest, the only Brexit argument that is consistent (regardless of merit) is that about migration.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
No. They’re really not.

You’re not gonna win this one. Insurance and assorted financial complaints are what I do.

The vast majority of claims are successful, and don’t come across my desk. And those that are declined, around 50% are overturned.

Some aren’t of course - but that’s nothing to do with allegedly dodgy terms and conditions.

Put simply the onus is on the insured to seek out the right policy for them. The complaints I can’t do much with are where peeps just want to ignore certain terms and conditions.

Seriously dude, you’ve got a bunch of stacked newspaper articles written to get a reaction. I’ve got knocking on for 10:years industry experience

Damn Armchair insurance experts! What do they know?


But seriously, you can't just not pay out. A contract is a contract after all.

Nowt armchair about me! It’s my scientific speciality.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
One of the key attractions of Brexit is supposed to be not to be governed by executive fiat of whoever happens to be Prime Minister in Brussels.

Why would you want to be governed by executive fiat of whoever happens to be Prime Minister in London?

And of course there's this.

https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/941055618760302592

Reminder: for nearly 40 years Eurosceptics insisted on an Act of Parliament before any amendments to the EEC/EU Treaties.

Now they are screeching in anger at the prospect of an Act of Parliament to approve the withdrawal agreement.

It’s all about the policy terms, industry standards and the ABI guidelines.

Some claims fail because the claim itself just isn’t one any insurer would cover. For instance, unemployment claims when you were sacked or walked out. That’s not an unforseeable event, and thus uninsurable. With the caveat that if you win an employment tribunal and it’s ruled Constructive Dismissal, because that’s a different kettle of fish.

Car Insurance? Stuff like drink driving and attempting to park up a tree. Ain’t nobody gonna cover that, because that’s your own stupidity.

Landlord Insurance? Depends upon the claim. I’ve dealt with one where the landlord couldn’t prove there was a tenancy agreement. The last one ended around 3 months before the event, and the story as to why constantly shifted.

But then there’s others where I’ve found in favour of the insured, or have explained to the insured that sometimes delays are inevitable - such as car accidents involving a foreign driver, whether in the UK or abroad. Long story short, there’s a Third Party between the two insurers, and it can be difficult to get legal action involved, as it’s that third party who needs to nominate solicitors - and they simply don’t have to. Man that makes things a right ball ache.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Let me just point out something to you guys: if just one guy switches his vote, a hostile foreign power has still successfully changed the outcome of the election. Not a lot, but has had an impact someplace.

The fact they did it at all suggests that your enemies, at least, believe that they will weaken you through this.

ALL intelligence services do this - why are people pretending that ours have not and are not doing so and acting all outraged?

You're making a very broad claim. Do you have any proof that all intelligence services interfere in democratic elections in other countries using covert means?

Ok, so Parliament will have the final say on the deal. And I presume that this vote also means they can make May change details of the deal on our side. But we’re still bound by law to leave in March 2019 right? So in the end it’s still leave with either deal or no deal.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You're making a very broad claim. Do you have any proof that all intelligence services interfere in democratic elections in other countries using covert means?

Only from my own reading of books and any other material on the subject where it details Western interference in other nations including other western nations - the CIA was notorious for this in South and Central America. Russia does it, East Asia does it.

Hell, major Corporations do it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_electoral_intervention

I am curious why you think they don't? As I said its part of their job to destabilise enemy nations and promote friendly regimes in them and notional friendly countries whilst discouraging unfriendly regimes. Many do this inside their own nations - which is often illegal.

Been that way for hundreds of years if not longer.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Ok, so Parliament will have the final say on the deal. And I presume that this vote also means they can make May change details of the deal on our side. But we’re still bound by law to leave in March 2019 right? So in the end it’s still leave with either deal or no deal.

We're not bound by law to leave in March 2019.

May also wants a legal date of leaving to be written into this bill. That wil come up for a vote next week and is again likely to result in a rebellion, partly because it's BLOODY fething STUPID to lay down specific legal restrictions within which our team can negotiate.

To save another mass of block quoting;

Russia - The issue of Europe has been brewing for decades. If you think a handful of adverts that allegedly were funded by the Russians swayed the result you're living in cloud cuckoo land. It's something that should be investigated but this all has the ring of a "the Russians did it, so we should cancel brexit because it's not fair" argument, i.e. people are clutching at any excuse they can to overturn the majority vote.

Parliamentary sovereignty - If you want to be highly, highly pedantic then MPs are the designated representative of a given area. They go to Westminster to vote so we don't have to. On that basis, brexit won by a landslide and you should be furious that MPs whose constituency voted leave aren't having their voice heard properly in parliament, but people who won't to remain are not interested in that line of argument. Nobody, not the MPs, the journalists, nobody seriously thinks that ammendment had anything to do with the sovereignty of parliament. We're all adults, we all know what happened and we all know what it was about, and that was shuffling in a clause that means if remain MPs can muster enough votes they can reject any deal and perpetually keep sending the government back to Brussels to negotiate, in what they hope will delay Brexit. The two problems standing in their way are the fact that the more politicians drag their heels against the vote, the more they just confirm everyones opinion of politicians as being arrogant, self-serving, lying and thus make it increasing likely that staunch remain MPs will lose their seats, and the small problem of the EU turning around after two years and saying "welp, times up, bye then", which is increasingly where they seem to be headed (Spain in particular has a strong interest in trying to deter future break away attempts...) and which the UK government can do nothing about.

All that's really happening then is that the governments negotiating position has been weakened and in all probability they'll over turn this ammendment later, so the whole thing will end up being a giant waste of everyones time.

bouncingboredom wrote:
Russia - The issue of Europe has been brewing for decades. If you think a handful of adverts that allegedly were funded by the Russians swayed the result you're living in cloud cuckoo land. It's something that should be investigated but this all has the ring of a "the Russians did it, so we should cancel brexit because it's not fair" argument, i.e. people are clutching at any excuse they can to overturn the majority vote.

While that may be true, the idea that your enemies view it in a positive manner and allies view it in a negative manner might suggest it's a bad idea, vote or not. But then reality has never stopped the British from shoving their own face in the meat grinder just to prove that they were right about it not being sharp at all. And once it being shaved off, demanded that some hero save them. Oh, Nelson, what would England have done without you!

 BaronIveagh wrote:

bouncingboredom wrote:
Russia - The issue of Europe has been brewing for decades. If you think a handful of adverts that allegedly were funded by the Russians swayed the result you're living in cloud cuckoo land. It's something that should be investigated but this all has the ring of a "the Russians did it, so we should cancel brexit because it's not fair" argument, i.e. people are clutching at any excuse they can to overturn the majority vote.

While that may be true, the idea that your enemies view it in a positive manner and allies view it in a negative manner might suggest it's a bad idea, vote or not. But then reality has never stopped the British from shoving their own face in the meat grinder just to prove that they were right about it not being sharp at all. And once it being shaved off, demanded that some hero save them. Oh, Nelson, what would England have done without you!

Some of our allies, such as them down under, seem to think it's a positive. The US/UK also thought removing Saddam would be a good idea and that toppling Gaddafi would bring peace and prosperity to Libya. Both your government and ours is happy to turn a blind eye to what some of our allies in the middle east get up to, because it's convenient to do so. I wouldn't worry too much about what other people think, as frequently their opinions are driven by what's best for them, not for us.

bouncingboredom wrote:
To save another mass of block quoting;

Russia - The issue of Europe has been brewing for decades. If you think a handful of adverts that allegedly were funded by the Russians swayed the result you're living in cloud cuckoo land. It's something that should be investigated but this all has the ring of a "the Russians did it, so we should cancel brexit because it's not fair" argument, i.e. people are clutching at any excuse they can to overturn the majority vote.

It goes way beyond Twitter accounts and paid Facebook inserts. or example the think tank guiding the hard brexiteer wing and providing most of the studies kind to the hardest Brexit has deep ties with Russia.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/unrivalled-access-of-secretive-billionaire-christopher-chandler-funds-legatum-institute-885pb9vjc

It's probably a case of the situation making strange bedfellows rather than tinfoil hats and far-flung conspiracies, (each party probably thinks they're using the other one) but if your actions make Putin happy you should really check your footing. Just in case.

 Mr Morden wrote:


ALL intelligence services do this - why are people pretending that ours have not and are not doing so and acting all outraged?

Because we should be regardless of who is doing it? I suppose the question is whether this is the first instance of states actually trying to change the mindset of a significant fraction of the population through social media. This is something which has not been possible except for the last decade or so as social media becomes the 'norm'. It was far from easy to influence the mass of the population in the past simply because of the limitations of technology and the public access to it.

The question is how influenced were we by it overall, which is of some question. Studies have been done on how we interact and move as a body overall to stimuli. Was the Russian influence more likely to succeed because of the state neoliberalism has left us in. From Putin's perspective he is probably laughing himself silly; our antics have successfully started a whole host of squabbling meaning the world has taken it's eye of things like Crimea etc...

jouso wrote:

bouncingboredom wrote:
To save another mass of block quoting;

Russia - The issue of Europe has been brewing for decades. If you think a handful of adverts that allegedly were funded by the Russians swayed the result you're living in cloud cuckoo land. It's something that should be investigated but this all has the ring of a "the Russians did it, so we should cancel brexit because it's not fair" argument, i.e. people are clutching at any excuse they can to overturn the majority vote.

It goes way beyond Twitter accounts and paid Facebook inserts. or example the think tank guiding the hard brexiteer wing and providing most of the studies kind to the hardest Brexit has deep ties with Russia.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/unrivalled-access-of-secretive-billionaire-christopher-chandler-funds-legatum-institute-885pb9vjc

It's probably a case of the situation making strange bedfellows rather than tinfoil hats and far-flung conspiracies, (each party probably thinks they're using the other one) but if your actions make Putin happy you should really check your footing. Just in case.

It's almost as if I imagined 40 years of Euro-Skeptics, 40 years of anti-EU propaganda from the Daily Mail, and Bojo admitting he started writing anti-EU columns, all those years ago...

It's a long shot, but maybe 40 years of being drip-fed that entered the minds of a lot of people ahead of June 23rd 2016?

I suppose Putin was there in the 1970s, laying the foundations for the Brexit vote. Maybe he inspired Tony Benn to campaign against Britain joining the EEC?

bouncingboredom wrote:
The two problems standing in their way are the fact that the more politicians drag their heels against the vote, the more they just confirm everyones opinion of politicians as being arrogant, self-serving, lying and thus make it increasing likely that staunch remain MPs will lose their seats.

People already had that option in May but decided not to so your thinking is flawed. I don't think anyone would claim that Anne Soubry was anything but against Wrexit yet she is the MP that voted for Remaining. People voted for the Tories in Scotland despite being predominantly remain and so on (though god knows why the only place the Tories deserve to be is in the deepest darkest dankest sewer where all dense faeces end up).

the small problem of the EU turning around after two years and saying "welp, times up, bye then", which is increasingly where they seem to be headed (Spain in particular has a strong interest in trying to deter future break away attempts...) and which the UK government can do nothing about.

We are leaving the EU, their main responsibility is to the EU. This should come as no surprise. We simply don't have the clout to make the EU come to the table at all. The last couple of weeks should have shown that quite clearly.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


ALL intelligence services do this - why are people pretending that ours have not and are not doing so and acting all outraged?

Because we should be regardless of who is doing it? I suppose the question is whether this is the first instance of states actually trying to change the mindset of a significant fraction of the population through social media. This is something which has not been possible except for the last decade or so as social media becomes the 'norm'. It was far from easy to influence the mass of the population in the past simply because of the limitations of technology and the public access to it.

The question is how influenced were we by it overall, which is of some question. Studies have been done on how we interact and move as a body overall to stimuli. Was the Russian influence more likely to succeed because of the state neoliberalism has left us in. From Putin's perspective he is probably laughing himself silly; our antics have successfully started a whole host of squabbling meaning the world has taken it's eye of things like Crimea etc...

Are you saying that successful manipulation of mass media in the 1970s influenced Britain to join the EEC? Because your argument about Russia cuts both ways.

There were an awful lot of people with a vested interest in seeing Britain in the EEC, operating back then...






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Ok, so Parliament will have the final say on the deal. And I presume that this vote also means they can make May change details of the deal on our side. But we’re still bound by law to leave in March 2019 right? So in the end it’s still leave with either deal or no deal.

According to The Guardian's live politics feed, two EU leaders have said that if The Commons rejects the deal, then the EU is not going to start another negotiation.

One of these days, Parliament is going to learn that its authority stops at Dover.

bouncingboredom wrote:

Parliamentary sovereignty - If you want to be highly, highly pedantic then MPs are the designated representative of a given area. They go to Westminster to vote so we don't have to. On that basis, brexit won by a landslide and you should be furious that MPs whose constituency voted leave aren't having their voice heard properly in parliament, but people who won't to remain are not interested in that line of argument.

Only if you’re argument is that this is an attempt to stop us leaving the EU, which it isn’t. And then it only made sense if you assume that all leave voters were “leave at all costs”. Perhaps many of those MPs are representing the people who voted for them and voted leave, but may not be the leave that is being offered?

Whirlwind wrote:People already had that option in May but decided not to so your thinking is flawed.

Back then the process had only just begun and things were moving forward. While Anna Soubry et al were still complaining, they were not actively preventing the process from going ahead.

We are leaving the EU, their main responsibility is to the EU. This should come as no surprise.

To me and you it doesn't, but it seems there are many MPs and some on the Remain side who seem convinced they can stop brexit or perhaps tie it up by using the ammendment to keep sending parliament back to the EU to negotiate, or that if parliament says no then brexit will just cease. The EU however has made it clear that this is all going ahead, whether some MPs like it or not.

Steve steveson wrote:Only if you’re argument is that this is an attempt to stop us leaving the EU, which it isn’t.

I would only respond to put forth in the kindest of terms that I think you're being incredibly naive.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

jouso wrote:

bouncingboredom wrote:
To save another mass of block quoting;

Russia - The issue of Europe has been brewing for decades. If you think a handful of adverts that allegedly were funded by the Russians swayed the result you're living in cloud cuckoo land. It's something that should be investigated but this all has the ring of a "the Russians did it, so we should cancel brexit because it's not fair" argument, i.e. people are clutching at any excuse they can to overturn the majority vote.

It goes way beyond Twitter accounts and paid Facebook inserts. or example the think tank guiding the hard brexiteer wing and providing most of the studies kind to the hardest Brexit has deep ties with Russia.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/unrivalled-access-of-secretive-billionaire-christopher-chandler-funds-legatum-institute-885pb9vjc

It's probably a case of the situation making strange bedfellows rather than tinfoil hats and far-flung conspiracies, (each party probably thinks they're using the other one) but if your actions make Putin happy you should really check your footing. Just in case.

It's almost as if I imagined 40 years of Euro-Skeptics, 40 years of anti-EU propaganda from the Daily Mail, and Bojo admitting he started writing anti-EU columns, all those years ago...

It's a long shot, but maybe 40 years of being drip-fed that entered the minds of a lot of people ahead of June 23rd 2016?

I suppose Putin was there in the 1970s, laying the foundations for the Brexit vote. Maybe he inspired Tony Benn to campaign against Britain joining the EEC?

`

I guess this makes it four:

Herzlos wrote:

Why do you keep thinking that the Russian involvement is responsible for all 17 million votes? It's a strawman we've burnt down 3 times already.

No-one is saying that the Russians caused Brexit. No-one. What we're saying is that the Russians paid for some pro-brexit propaganda, targeted at the undecided. That may have swayed some number of voters, and may or may not have been significant. Given the narrow margin, it may have nudged it over the line.

bouncingboredom wrote:

Steve steveson wrote:Only if you’re argument is that this is an attempt to stop us leaving the EU, which it isn’t.

I would only respond to put forth in the kindest of terms that I think you're being incredibly naive.

And I think your being rude by dismissing my viewpoint as naive and peddling opinion as fact.

Please tell me then why parliament should not get a vote on the final agreement? Or do you believe that we should accept whatever is offered, even if it involves paying £90billion, agreeing to the 4 freedoms, ongoing payments more than what we currently make, to retain access to various EU things such as are and research, but no ability to influence? (All of which is possible, but an extreme to the degree of a no deal exit) Or is your wish to prevent parliamentary scrutiny purely based on the assumption that any outcome will be acceptable to you?

To be fair, if we follow the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty under the constitution of the UK, then the Remainers can halt Brexit by bringing a successful vote to do so.

I don’t disagree that it is possible for parliament to stop Brexit, I just don’t agree with the assertion that this is the aim of the rebellion on this vote. If that were the aim there are far better ways. If the majority of MPs wanted to stop Brexit they could just bring down the government with a vote of no confidence or have bloked the Brexit bill in full.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


ALL intelligence services do this - why are people pretending that ours have not and are not doing so and acting all outraged?

Because we should be regardless of who is doing it? I suppose the question is whether this is the first instance of states actually trying to change the mindset of a significant fraction of the population through social media. This is something which has not been possible except for the last decade or so as social media becomes the 'norm'. It was far from easy to influence the mass of the population in the past simply because of the limitations of technology and the public access to it.

The question is how influenced were we by it overall, which is of some question. Studies have been done on how we interact and move as a body overall to stimuli. Was the Russian influence more likely to succeed because of the state neoliberalism has left us in. From Putin's perspective he is probably laughing himself silly; our antics have successfully started a whole host of squabbling meaning the world has taken it's eye of things like Crimea etc...

We have many more forms of media now than before so arguably its harder to manipulate populations without controlling a large proportion of them. Might be wrong there - but often the source of information for society as whole in the past was much more restricted as to access and the nature of the information.

Social media may be new - manipulation of a type media to achieve the goals of a foreign or domestic power is not at all new. Does it matter the exact tool of manipulation - again this is just something that one agency will be mroe effective until the others catch up or indeed counter it by their own manipulation of other media channels.

What interests me in this case is the outrage about one power doing it as a distraction technique by the other power/s or is it a straight counter?

Agree few in the media are looking much at the Crimea or indeed Syria but then who is looking at Yemen, Tibet or the Kurdish/ Turkish border or any of the other forgotton wars / outrages.

bouncingboredom wrote:

To me and you it doesn't, but it seems there are many MPs and some on the Remain side who seem convinced they can stop brexit or perhaps tie it up by using the ammendment to keep sending parliament back to the EU to negotiate, or that if parliament says no then brexit will just cease. The EU however has made it clear that this is all going ahead, whether some MPs like it or not.

I'm not sure that is correct. I'm sure the EU would be quite happy to keep us in the EU as that would benefit both sides (other than the damage done for losing institutions like the Banking and medicine authority). I'm also sure they would accept an ultra light Wrexit where we keep everything the same but have no voice at the table. What they won't accept is the UK trying to have its cake and eat it (so keeping all the good things and paying for none of it).

Now the argument is that for the hard Wrexit nutcase MPs like Boris the Clown, David the fool and so on they will quite happily take a no deal Wrexit deal despite the horrendous damage it would do to the future and our children's future prospects because it keeps them popular with a large part of the newUKIP faithful. A large proportion of these are elderly and in some ways will benefit from such a Wrexit as they will see their pensions jump massively. The younger generations will have to pay for it though (and likely again not see the benefits when they get to that age). So if an MP thinks that it is better to protect the younger generation then they are entitled to say "absolutely not" and send May back to the drawing board. If that in the end means we stay in the EU then fair enough because in the end that is what they as the MPs decide is best for the UK and that is what we vote them in for. I'd prefer they stand by what they think is best for the country rather than let May bribe them with chief whip positions despite using derogatory and racist language just so they can get some semblance of power. I've said it before if we had a referendum on the national speed limit then the chance are we would vote for 90mph or whatever. That doesn't mean it's a sensible or rational thing to do, so should MPs then just wave it through regardless of the damage?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:


We have many more forms of media now than before so arguably its harder to manipulate populations without controlling a large proportion of them. Might be wrong there - but often the source of information for society as whole in the past was much more restricted as to access and the nature of the information.

Social media may be new - manipulation of a type media to achieve the goals of a foreign or domestic power is not at all new. Does it matter the exact tool of manipulation - again this is just something that one agency will be mroe effective until the others catch up or indeed counter it by their own manipulation of other media channels.

It's the speed that such information can be disseminate now. There's little control and anyone can post anything (not that I would entertain any form of free speech being withheld). However it does open an avenue to persuading people without rational argument, just reinforcing stereotypes and "it sounds obvious" statements (although the Daily Fail, Sunday Distress and Scum aren't helping in this regard). That message can reach tens of thousands of people and become a monster before even traditional media can respond.

The problem is that many (if not all in different fields) of us don't have the ability to differentiate between unreliable information and challenge what is being said, but that's an education issue. The governments response is to try and control that flow of information instead, effectively resulting in state control of what you read and see which is never a good thing because it reduces peoples ability to challenge them.

Arugably that could be done previously with more relaibility through the limited mass media outlets mostly via a government, religious or corporate entity - now others can do it as well with more likelyhood of success.

Is that a good thing - dunno thats beyond me - however it is interesting to watch the media fighting about it - watching CNN, Russia Today, Sky, and Fox, Al jeraera news in succession can be quite interesting - also we do now have the choice betwen all these various mouthpieces

Steve steveson wrote:And I think your being rude by dismissing my viewpoint as naive and peddling opinion as fact.

Because pretty much everyone involved or around the issue, who knows the MPs that rebelled etc, understands exactly why they did what they did. Nobody from an unbiased standpoint is under any real illusion as to what this was about and why the amendment was worded the way it was.

Please tell me then why parliament should not get a vote on the final agreement? Or do you believe that we should accept whatever is offered, even if it involves paying £90billion, agreeing to the 4 freedoms, ongoing payments more than what we currently make, to retain access to various EU things such as are and research, but no ability to influence? (All of which is possible, but an extreme to the degree of a no deal exit) Or is your wish to prevent parliamentary scrutiny purely based on the assumption that any outcome will be acceptable to you?

I'm not sure you understand what the amendment entails. To clarify, the previous position was that Parliament would be allowed a vote on the deal; they either accept its terms or we leave the EU without a deal, which seems reasonable enough. The new amendment requires a seperate piece of legislation to be put through parliament, one which can be tied up and amended in turn. If that bill is changed then it effectively means the deal has changed and as such the government has to go back to the EU and get them to agree to a new deal, which they then have to put through their parliaments etc. It is designed to try and extend the process out for as long as possible. In theory (but unlikely in practice) it could be used to indefinitely delay the UK leaving the EU, which is why nobody is under any real illusion as to what this is about. It's not about sovereignty or the supremacy of parliament. It's about trying to prevent Brexit by any means possible.

I hope this helps clarify the argument.

Kilkrazy wrote:To be fair, if we follow the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty under the constitution of the UK, then the Remainers can halt Brexit by bringing a successful vote to do so.

Only if we assume that the EU would allow them to do so. The process has begun now and the EU has the power to basically say "nope, you're commited now and you're leaving when your times up, bye". Which they might use as an attempt to prevent other regions from considering using article 50 as a way of negotiating more favourable terms, e.g. (an albeit unlikely scenario) if Germany were to try and use an "article 50, but not really, lolz" tactic to try and force concessions from the EU that left it in a more favourable position.

Whirlwind wrote:Now the argument is that for the hard Wrexit nutcase MPs like Boris the Clown, David the fool and so on they will quite happily take a no deal Wrexit deal despite the horrendous damage it would do to the future and our children's future prospects because it keeps them popular with a large part of the newUKIP faithful. A large proportion of these are elderly and in some ways will benefit from such a Wrexit as they will see their pensions jump massively. The younger generations will have to pay for it though (and likely again not see the benefits when they get to that age). So if an MP thinks that it is better to protect the younger generation then they are entitled to say "absolutely not" and send May back to the drawing board. If that in the end means we stay in the EU then fair enough because in the end that is what they as the MPs decide is best for the UK and that is what we vote them in for. I'd prefer they stand by what they think is best for the country rather than let May bribe them with chief whip positions despite using derogatory and racist language just so they can get some semblance of power. I've said it before if we had a referendum on the national speed limit then the chance are we would vote for 90mph or whatever. That doesn't mean it's a sensible or rational thing to do, so should MPs then just wave it through regardless of the damage?

I'm picking up a variety of subtle hints which suggest you might be opposed to Brexit?

Our party system works on a fairly simple basis. The party funds your campaign, provides you with helpers and the like, and you also benefit (in theory) from the national exsposure and recognition that your party has. You go from being a nobody, perhaps a minor figure recognised among a handful of local business people or councillors, to being the labour candidate or the tory candidate. If your party wins you even have a shot at getting into the government as a minister. In return, you vote as you're told to. If you don't like your party's stance on an issue you can normally get away with voting against them (or really, by abstaining) on certain issues, such as when a free vote is offered or when the whip is just a one line, and as long as you don't do it too often. But on a vote like this, a three line whip, you're expected to tow the party line. If you don't, you can always attempt to get re-elected at the next GE on your own, with no party support and with a party candidate now running against you. This is the bargain that MPs make with their party. If they don't like it, they shouldn't stand for the party in the first place.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Are you saying that successful manipulation of mass media in the 1970s influenced Britain to join the EEC? Because your argument about Russia cuts both ways.

There were an awful lot of people with a vested interest in seeing Britain in the EEC, operating back then...

Maybe? Mass media does influence the population to a degree, advertisement works, and so on. I wasn't alive in the 70s but if some media owner had ways to benefit from Britain joining the EEC then they probably would have tried to influence their company to make that idea look better. That might not have decided everything but it could have swayed opinions to a degree. Add up enough misinformation and deception and you can make people vote against their own interest if better resources are not available or hard to identify. The internet has made that type of work more precise and effective (it's called microtargeting). Here are a few links that explore what's recently been going on with that type of media manipulation:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-brexit-robbery-hijacked-democracy
http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/mercers/
https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/62czny/russia_actively_involved_in_french_election_warns/dfm4o80/?context=3
In the last link the relevant post should be marked with a yellow (or blue) background.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Arugably that could be done previously with more relaibility through the limited mass media outlets mostly via a government, religious or corporate entity - now others can do it as well with more likelyhood of success.

Is that a good thing - dunno thats beyond me - however it is interesting to watch the media fighting about it - watching CNN, Russia Today, Sky, and Fox, Al jeraera news in succession can be quite interesting - also we do now have the choice betwen all these various mouthpieces

The thing is that a lot of people don't bother to get a variety of views and information from different sources, and try to consider an issue from all angles before making a decision about it. Instead they form opinions on what amounts to little more than prejudice and then gather scraps of things that feed their opinion through confirmation bias.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

bouncingboredom wrote:

Steve steveson wrote:And I think your being rude by dismissing my viewpoint as naive and peddling opinion as fact.

Because pretty much everyone involved or around the issue, who knows the MPs that rebelled etc, understands exactly why they did what they did. Nobody from an unbiased standpoint is under any real illusion as to what this was about and why the amendment was worded the way it was.

Please tell me then why parliament should not get a vote on the final agreement? Or do you believe that we should accept whatever is offered, even if it involves paying £90billion, agreeing to the 4 freedoms, ongoing payments more than what we currently make, to retain access to various EU things such as are and research, but no ability to influence? (All of which is possible, but an extreme to the degree of a no deal exit) Or is your wish to prevent parliamentary scrutiny purely based on the assumption that any outcome will be acceptable to you?

I'm not sure you understand what the amendment entails. To clarify, the previous position was that Parliament would be allowed a vote on the deal; they either accept its terms or we leave the EU without a deal, which seems reasonable enough. The new amendment requires a seperate piece of legislation to be put through parliament, one which can be tied up and amended in turn. If that bill is changed then it effectively means the deal has changed and as such the government has to go back to the EU and get them to agree to a new deal, which they then have to put through their parliaments etc. It is designed to try and extend the process out for as long as possible. In theory (but unlikely in practice) it could be used to indefinitely delay the UK leaving the EU, which is why nobody is under any real illusion as to what this is about. It's not about sovereignty or the supremacy of parliament. It's about trying to prevent Brexit by any means possible.

I hope this helps clarify the argument.

Kilkrazy wrote:To be fair, if we follow the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty under the constitution of the UK, then the Remainers can halt Brexit by bringing a successful vote to do so.

Only if we assume that the EU would allow them to do so. The process has begun now and the EU has the power to basically say "nope, you're commited now and you're leaving when your times up, bye". Which they might use as an attempt to prevent other regions from considering using article 50 as a way of negotiating more favourable terms, e.g. (an albeit unlikely scenario) if Germany were to try and use an "article 50, but not really, lolz" tactic to try and force concessions from the EU that left it in a more favourable position.

My point is that the parliament of the UK, not the government or the prime minister, is the body that holds sovereignty about this kind of decision.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Arugably that could be done previously with more relaibility through the limited mass media outlets mostly via a government, religious or corporate entity - now others can do it as well with more likelyhood of success.

Is that a good thing - dunno thats beyond me - however it is interesting to watch the media fighting about it - watching CNN, Russia Today, Sky, and Fox, Al jeraera news in succession can be quite interesting - also we do now have the choice betwen all these various mouthpieces

The thing is that a lot of people don't bother to get a variety of views and information from different sources, and try to consider an issue from all angles before making a decision about it. Instead they form opinions on what amounts to little more than prejudice and then gather scraps of things that feed their opinion through confirmation bias.

Ah but my point is that how is that any different from history apart from the fact that most people can access much more information than ever before - should they choose to do so. Previously they were severely limited, now they are only limited by their own inclinations and time.