Death Of Three Young Ladies Backpacking...
News1 min ago
Revoke Brexit On Day One......
101 Answers
https:/
Well I do admire the clarity of our non dem friends but as we know there will not be an election before Halloween I assume she means she'll apply to rejoin in the unlikely even they get elected.
Well I do admire the clarity of our non dem friends but as we know there will not be an election before Halloween I assume she means she'll apply to rejoin in the unlikely even they get elected.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I should add, perhaps, that I also hold that it's perfectly rational *not* to believe in some or all of those things. I can perfectly clearly see the case you are making, or have made in the past, that a referendum once promised and held should be carried through "to the bitter end", "do or die", etc. I have never thought that wanting to leave the EU is by its nature irrational. There is perfectly clearly a case for it. It is one I clearly don't believe in -- but it would be the height of arrogance to presume that only something I believe in can be rational.
//
Being rational does make it true or desirous. //
I accept that. But pixie (and some others) and I have long since moved beyond this. The post previous to my last more or less confined itself to "this is so clearly irrational I can't believe anybody would come out with it and I can't be bothered to spell out *why*" -- which is no longer a discussion, or a debate, and is clearly just an insult.
Being rational does make it true or desirous. //
I accept that. But pixie (and some others) and I have long since moved beyond this. The post previous to my last more or less confined itself to "this is so clearly irrational I can't believe anybody would come out with it and I can't be bothered to spell out *why*" -- which is no longer a discussion, or a debate, and is clearly just an insult.
That is what you might choose to read into it, but, as a matter of fact, it isn't there. I have stated that time and time again. And now I've stated it explicitly. As far as I'm concerned that should be an end of the matter. Anyone who states that I either think or imply that disagreeing with me must be inherently irrational is simply wrong.
jim; could it be that along with the rest of the arts & science luvvies, you think that before the present EU set-up there was no funding for either arts or science programmes?
The EU funds "given" to these causes originate from within the UK in the first place & billions are retained by Brussels to do with whatever they like, most of it wasted or unnecessary.
The EU funds "given" to these causes originate from within the UK in the first place & billions are retained by Brussels to do with whatever they like, most of it wasted or unnecessary.
I *do* think about it, all the time. Far more, I dare say, than I should. But it doesn't change the fact of my intentions.
I cannot make this clearer: whatever you may read into what I say, the simple fact of the matter is that I have never held that agreeing with me and being rational are one and the same. It's a complete and utter nonsense.
I cannot make this clearer: whatever you may read into what I say, the simple fact of the matter is that I have never held that agreeing with me and being rational are one and the same. It's a complete and utter nonsense.
What you may or may not read into it, and what is actually there, are two different things.
I stand by everything I have said. I always believe in it, I evaluate it as best I can constantly, and I will treat people I debate with with all the respect they deserve. As far as I am concerned, what you read into what I say from now on is a matter for you, rather than for me. I've told you what is actually there.
I stand by everything I have said. I always believe in it, I evaluate it as best I can constantly, and I will treat people I debate with with all the respect they deserve. As far as I am concerned, what you read into what I say from now on is a matter for you, rather than for me. I've told you what is actually there.
Fine. So you will accept what I write when I say, "I have never held that agreeing with me and being rational are one and the same."
Or will you *not* read that?
It is a choice *how* you read what I say. But if what you read into it isn't actually there, that is your lookout, rather than mine. That's the last thing I have to say on the matter. Now, for the last time, can we return please to discussing substance, rather than style? I shouldn't have to keep defending my character and intentions from baseless attacks.
Or will you *not* read that?
It is a choice *how* you read what I say. But if what you read into it isn't actually there, that is your lookout, rather than mine. That's the last thing I have to say on the matter. Now, for the last time, can we return please to discussing substance, rather than style? I shouldn't have to keep defending my character and intentions from baseless attacks.
Sorry, been at work.... Jim, I have never intended anything as a "personal attack" and I can only apologise if it looks that way. It may be because I (irrationally, obviously) would expect a scientist to think in a rational way. Maybe unfairly.
I have explained my reasons, but the reason the irrationality is a problem, is because you can't reason with it. If your argument was simply "this is what I personally want"- that would be honest and nobody could argue, but I suspect the attempts at justifying it...
For instance... 3 years ago is in the past.. yes, I think we are all fed up it has taken so long, but deliberate procrastination is not a reason to deny this.
Suggesting the same number of people want a second referendum as wanted Brexit in the first place... where is that from? I was never asked... and how is it relevant even if it is true.
As far as I can see, their are many people on here who voted to leave, but more or less everyone else seems to have accepted that democracy means the majority vote will be carried through (as promised).
Even if the vote had gone against me personally, I would still be quite horrified if it hadn't actually happened. It is still possible to have morals and principles, even when things are not going your way. In fact- that is usually the point where you can see who does or doesn't.
I have explained my reasons, but the reason the irrationality is a problem, is because you can't reason with it. If your argument was simply "this is what I personally want"- that would be honest and nobody could argue, but I suspect the attempts at justifying it...
For instance... 3 years ago is in the past.. yes, I think we are all fed up it has taken so long, but deliberate procrastination is not a reason to deny this.
Suggesting the same number of people want a second referendum as wanted Brexit in the first place... where is that from? I was never asked... and how is it relevant even if it is true.
As far as I can see, their are many people on here who voted to leave, but more or less everyone else seems to have accepted that democracy means the majority vote will be carried through (as promised).
Even if the vote had gone against me personally, I would still be quite horrified if it hadn't actually happened. It is still possible to have morals and principles, even when things are not going your way. In fact- that is usually the point where you can see who does or doesn't.
I appreciate your apology but it does ring a little hollow when you continue to insist that what I'm saying is objectively irrational -- which, not incidentally, is what I'm also accused of constantly assuming of everybody else who disagrees with me!
All I can say is that there is, presumably, a difference between thinking in a (mainly) rational way and reaching a rational conclusion. I'd contend, of course, that I have done both.
Leaving the style aside, though:
// Suggesting the same number of people want a second referendum as wanted Brexit in the first place... where is that from? //
I don't think I said this -- what I said was "At the moment, the country seems evenly split on the issue of holding said second referendum, and it's more or less the same as the Leave/Remain split.", by which I mean that the country is as divided as before. I didn't mean that 17.5 million people or whatever want a second referendum. Polling does indicates that some people have changed their mind since 2016, but in either direction. Maybe slightly more one way than the other, but hardly convincingly. In brief, a second referendum would be as impossible to call today as it was three years ago. But the fact remains that the nation is clearly more or less evenly divided between the two positions, and even people seeking compromises would accept that the starting points are still poles apart.
The question of how relevant it is is merely that a referendum, or any other vote for that, cannot be held to be indefinitely binding on our future. Especially a referendum, in fact, because the UK never got around to writing formal rules for referendums and so holds them on an entirely ad hoc basis. I accept that we were told that it was our decision, once in a generation, etc, but such promises have no legal or constitutional weight, and belong in the same class as Cameron's promise to carry out the decision personally, which lasted all of a few hours before he ran away from the responsibility of his defeat like a coward.
One other thing: when you say that "democracy means the majority vote will be carried through", I accept the sentence as far as it goes but it's also incomplete. Democracy means that the majority vote will be carried through only until the point where the majority vote no longer agrees on that point. That is why I have argued elsewhere previously, and indeed in this very thread, for a second referendum before revoking Article 50, as opposed to the present, albeit entirely hypothetical, LibDem policy of revoking Article 50 immediately following a General Election victory. As a matter of constitutional law, there could be no objection to the LibDems doing that, should they have the support of a General Election mandate, but it would clearly leave a bad taste in the mouth should we get to that stage.
All I can say is that there is, presumably, a difference between thinking in a (mainly) rational way and reaching a rational conclusion. I'd contend, of course, that I have done both.
Leaving the style aside, though:
// Suggesting the same number of people want a second referendum as wanted Brexit in the first place... where is that from? //
I don't think I said this -- what I said was "At the moment, the country seems evenly split on the issue of holding said second referendum, and it's more or less the same as the Leave/Remain split.", by which I mean that the country is as divided as before. I didn't mean that 17.5 million people or whatever want a second referendum. Polling does indicates that some people have changed their mind since 2016, but in either direction. Maybe slightly more one way than the other, but hardly convincingly. In brief, a second referendum would be as impossible to call today as it was three years ago. But the fact remains that the nation is clearly more or less evenly divided between the two positions, and even people seeking compromises would accept that the starting points are still poles apart.
The question of how relevant it is is merely that a referendum, or any other vote for that, cannot be held to be indefinitely binding on our future. Especially a referendum, in fact, because the UK never got around to writing formal rules for referendums and so holds them on an entirely ad hoc basis. I accept that we were told that it was our decision, once in a generation, etc, but such promises have no legal or constitutional weight, and belong in the same class as Cameron's promise to carry out the decision personally, which lasted all of a few hours before he ran away from the responsibility of his defeat like a coward.
One other thing: when you say that "democracy means the majority vote will be carried through", I accept the sentence as far as it goes but it's also incomplete. Democracy means that the majority vote will be carried through only until the point where the majority vote no longer agrees on that point. That is why I have argued elsewhere previously, and indeed in this very thread, for a second referendum before revoking Article 50, as opposed to the present, albeit entirely hypothetical, LibDem policy of revoking Article 50 immediately following a General Election victory. As a matter of constitutional law, there could be no objection to the LibDems doing that, should they have the support of a General Election mandate, but it would clearly leave a bad taste in the mouth should we get to that stage.
// "At the moment, the country seems evenly split on the issue of holding said second referendum, and it's more or less the same as the Leave/Remain split."//
As I said, where has this come from? And... so what, even if it were true. You may call it not "substance", but personally, i think that honesty, morals, trust, integrity are the most substantial qualities that anyone should have...
I don't understand, sorry, about a hollow apology because others are accusing you of other things? I am happy to clarify though, if you are happy to explain...
And no, even if we made a major presumption that the entire country has changed their minds.... democracy still needs to be honoured and trustworthy, so another referendum after several years to see how people feel about the result- fair enough. Just refusing to do it in the first place, just isn't. There may even be some brain donors who would change their minds from leave to remain- just purely because they think it would be easiest and quickest, which is clearly no way to run a country.
As I said, where has this come from? And... so what, even if it were true. You may call it not "substance", but personally, i think that honesty, morals, trust, integrity are the most substantial qualities that anyone should have...
I don't understand, sorry, about a hollow apology because others are accusing you of other things? I am happy to clarify though, if you are happy to explain...
And no, even if we made a major presumption that the entire country has changed their minds.... democracy still needs to be honoured and trustworthy, so another referendum after several years to see how people feel about the result- fair enough. Just refusing to do it in the first place, just isn't. There may even be some brain donors who would change their minds from leave to remain- just purely because they think it would be easiest and quickest, which is clearly no way to run a country.
Meanwhile, to this point: // For instance... 3 years ago is in the past.. yes, I think we are all fed up it has taken so long, but deliberate procrastination is not a reason to deny this. //
Different people can speak to different motives, but I don't really see the procrastination as (entirely, at least) "deliberate". Some of the delay was because we discovered that, legally, the UK government had no power to notify under Article 50 without express permission from Parliament. So that accounts for the nine months between June 23rd, 2016, when the referendum was held, and March 29th, 2017, when Theresa May sent the notification letter. Then, following that, there were eighteen months of Article 50 negotiation, during which both sides were clearly entitled to press as hard as they could for what they thought suited them best. So far we are up to December last year. Only since then has the procrastination started, but it should be noted that we'd already be well on the way out now had hardline Brexit MPs decided, in the end, to accept the Withdrawal Agreement as it then stood. That they did not is completely rational, mind -- it was rotten -- but that's more or less my point. If you want to Leave, then you want to leave presumably on terms that benefit rather than hinder the UK, so you'd naturally vote down the Deal. But if you had wanted to remain, then you might vote against both a Deal that you think is far worse for the UK, and a No Deal that you think is worse still. It's perfectly rational here still, to resist fates that you think honour the result in name only, without bringing the hoped-for benefits or mitigating the worst-feared risks.
Different people can speak to different motives, but I don't really see the procrastination as (entirely, at least) "deliberate". Some of the delay was because we discovered that, legally, the UK government had no power to notify under Article 50 without express permission from Parliament. So that accounts for the nine months between June 23rd, 2016, when the referendum was held, and March 29th, 2017, when Theresa May sent the notification letter. Then, following that, there were eighteen months of Article 50 negotiation, during which both sides were clearly entitled to press as hard as they could for what they thought suited them best. So far we are up to December last year. Only since then has the procrastination started, but it should be noted that we'd already be well on the way out now had hardline Brexit MPs decided, in the end, to accept the Withdrawal Agreement as it then stood. That they did not is completely rational, mind -- it was rotten -- but that's more or less my point. If you want to Leave, then you want to leave presumably on terms that benefit rather than hinder the UK, so you'd naturally vote down the Deal. But if you had wanted to remain, then you might vote against both a Deal that you think is far worse for the UK, and a No Deal that you think is worse still. It's perfectly rational here still, to resist fates that you think honour the result in name only, without bringing the hoped-for benefits or mitigating the worst-feared risks.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.