Why Is Betting On The Date Of The...
Politics0 min ago
Nice One Tezza....
37 Answers
http://
Stop the whining SGB from trying to derail the will of the people. The PM already has the cleanest mandate possible so she is right to just get on with it.
Stop the whining SGB from trying to derail the will of the people. The PM already has the cleanest mandate possible so she is right to just get on with it.
Answers
The penny with politicians never really drops because they are too busy doing everything they can to feather their own nests! Reality is that the huge splits in the leanings of the country hasn't been this stark certainly in my 50 years. 25 years of the politics of mediocrity we'are saddled with groups who have no direction. The country gave direction, May has...
15:28 Mon 10th Oct 2016
I do sort of agree with Jim360 a bit. In that parliament should scrutinise the deal.
On the other I don't think the government (well any U.K. Government) has the ability to know which way their backside is pointing most of the time let alone run a country !!) However the 'fear' if there is one, with having a a big remain contingent on the decision making team is that they will in fact water any agreement down so that in the end it isn't worth the hassle.
Let the remainders have a say. It is after all only right everyone is heard. But TBH I don't think any one within the Bretix negotiating team has anything other than the best interests of the country as a whole in mind.
They wouldn't be stupid enough to make it harder for business. They will not shut the boarders so no one can get in. They will not rescind all employment laws. They will not suddenly and for no reason nuke the bstds.
Perhaps the fears of the remainers have been amplified by fear and self loathing. They curtainly like to show how PC they are by inferring or out right stating the Bretixers are racist. That does seem to be the main one but of course other reasons rear their heads when one argument is shown to be without merit.
On the other I don't think the government (well any U.K. Government) has the ability to know which way their backside is pointing most of the time let alone run a country !!) However the 'fear' if there is one, with having a a big remain contingent on the decision making team is that they will in fact water any agreement down so that in the end it isn't worth the hassle.
Let the remainders have a say. It is after all only right everyone is heard. But TBH I don't think any one within the Bretix negotiating team has anything other than the best interests of the country as a whole in mind.
They wouldn't be stupid enough to make it harder for business. They will not shut the boarders so no one can get in. They will not rescind all employment laws. They will not suddenly and for no reason nuke the bstds.
Perhaps the fears of the remainers have been amplified by fear and self loathing. They curtainly like to show how PC they are by inferring or out right stating the Bretixers are racist. That does seem to be the main one but of course other reasons rear their heads when one argument is shown to be without merit.
"I don't think any one within the Bretix negotiating team has anything other than the best interests of the country as a whole in mind. "
I expect this is true for most of those leading Brexit or who voted for it, although I think it's been implied that more than a few had their political careers in mind too. But either way this is hardly exclusive to Brexit supporters. I voted the way I did because I thought it was in the best interests of the country. Ditto most Remain voters, I shouldn't wonder. Apparently, Leave voters disagreed with the decision. Time alone will tell if they were right to do so or not.
For the rest of cassa's last post, it seems to me to show simultaneously far too much faith in Brexit supporters and far too little in Remainers.
I expect this is true for most of those leading Brexit or who voted for it, although I think it's been implied that more than a few had their political careers in mind too. But either way this is hardly exclusive to Brexit supporters. I voted the way I did because I thought it was in the best interests of the country. Ditto most Remain voters, I shouldn't wonder. Apparently, Leave voters disagreed with the decision. Time alone will tell if they were right to do so or not.
For the rest of cassa's last post, it seems to me to show simultaneously far too much faith in Brexit supporters and far too little in Remainers.
Everyone votes in their own self interest or what they think is there own self interest.
That is human nature.
You can't stereotype all the people one one side or the other:
Our neighbours:
One gay couple: pro-immigration at current levels, lived in France for many years - voted LEAVE
One gentleman of 100: fought in WWII, working class: voted REMAIN
And that is just three people: so it is odd for the current government to extrapolate so much from the result.
That is human nature.
You can't stereotype all the people one one side or the other:
Our neighbours:
One gay couple: pro-immigration at current levels, lived in France for many years - voted LEAVE
One gentleman of 100: fought in WWII, working class: voted REMAIN
And that is just three people: so it is odd for the current government to extrapolate so much from the result.
//it seems to me to show simultaneously far too much faith in Brexit supporters and far too little in Remainers.//
I don’t see how those who voted ‘Leave’ can have faith that ‘Remainers’ in parliament will work to carry out the wishes of the majority of the electorate. Why would they? It’s not what they want. I too think Mrs May should just get on with it.
I don’t see how those who voted ‘Leave’ can have faith that ‘Remainers’ in parliament will work to carry out the wishes of the majority of the electorate. Why would they? It’s not what they want. I too think Mrs May should just get on with it.
Some thoughts on questions raised by Jim and others; what IS Brexit? what should Parliament's role be in implementing it?
The referendum options were to remain in the EU or to leave it. Leaving it means repealing the law that took us into the Common Market. Once out the UK is not compelled to accept law and regulation formulated in Brussels, and British courts can no longer be overridden by the European Court of Justice. That to me is Brexit. The government's promise was that they "will implement the people's decision". That was an unqualified commitment. There were many arguments for and against, prominently about the free movement of EU workers, but these particulars were to be found in the manifestos of the campaigners and NOT in the referendum question on which we voted. So I disagree with trying to get inside the heads of the voters to guess what their definition of Brexit was and their reasons for voting as they did; Brexiters have the right to ask, but not to demand that specific agenda are part of our leave deal with the EU. If, say, (not that I think this will happen) the government accepts free movement as the price of remaining in the free market it will disappoint a lot of people (me for one), but it will not (in my opinion) be a betrayal of the leave vote. Future governments will be free to renegotiate that agreement or withdraw from it.
Parliament's role in Brexit? Described by Jim as a possible "clash between two forms of democracy". I see the clash, but prefer term "expressions of" to "forms of". Not trying to be pedantic. I am against the principle of "direct-democracy" which invokes the popular vote to decide all "important" issues, and am for parliamentary democracy so, on the whole, against referendums. But there are cases when a nation is faced with a political decision (do we or do we not?) which may change its future for generations to come. Entering the Common Market was one such. There may be deep convictions and violent passions on both sides and these differences may not align themselves along traditional party lines. Whatever and however the issue is decided everyone will have to suffer the consequences be they for better or for worse. That's the case for deciding the issue by a simple majority decision. On Brexit we have that decision. I'd like to see the "winners" more magnanimous in victory than some of us have been so far, and some of the "losers" (I believe, certainly hope, by the way, that we will ALL be winners from Brexit) being more gracious in defeat. As for Parliament I agree with Jim that both Remainers and Leavers inside Parliament should continue to argue their points of view, BUT about the hows not the fact of Brexit. The reality, however, is that the terms of our future relationship with the EU will be determined largely by the EU, not by the government or any faction in any party.
The dangers I see in Jim's "clash" are twofold. Hard-line Brexiters may delay our exit if, say, they think the government has offered too many concessions on free movement in order to get better trading arrangements with the EU. The greater danger, however, as I see it, is that hard-line Remainers in both chambers may impede exit by opposing the Great Repeal Bill.
The referendum options were to remain in the EU or to leave it. Leaving it means repealing the law that took us into the Common Market. Once out the UK is not compelled to accept law and regulation formulated in Brussels, and British courts can no longer be overridden by the European Court of Justice. That to me is Brexit. The government's promise was that they "will implement the people's decision". That was an unqualified commitment. There were many arguments for and against, prominently about the free movement of EU workers, but these particulars were to be found in the manifestos of the campaigners and NOT in the referendum question on which we voted. So I disagree with trying to get inside the heads of the voters to guess what their definition of Brexit was and their reasons for voting as they did; Brexiters have the right to ask, but not to demand that specific agenda are part of our leave deal with the EU. If, say, (not that I think this will happen) the government accepts free movement as the price of remaining in the free market it will disappoint a lot of people (me for one), but it will not (in my opinion) be a betrayal of the leave vote. Future governments will be free to renegotiate that agreement or withdraw from it.
Parliament's role in Brexit? Described by Jim as a possible "clash between two forms of democracy". I see the clash, but prefer term "expressions of" to "forms of". Not trying to be pedantic. I am against the principle of "direct-democracy" which invokes the popular vote to decide all "important" issues, and am for parliamentary democracy so, on the whole, against referendums. But there are cases when a nation is faced with a political decision (do we or do we not?) which may change its future for generations to come. Entering the Common Market was one such. There may be deep convictions and violent passions on both sides and these differences may not align themselves along traditional party lines. Whatever and however the issue is decided everyone will have to suffer the consequences be they for better or for worse. That's the case for deciding the issue by a simple majority decision. On Brexit we have that decision. I'd like to see the "winners" more magnanimous in victory than some of us have been so far, and some of the "losers" (I believe, certainly hope, by the way, that we will ALL be winners from Brexit) being more gracious in defeat. As for Parliament I agree with Jim that both Remainers and Leavers inside Parliament should continue to argue their points of view, BUT about the hows not the fact of Brexit. The reality, however, is that the terms of our future relationship with the EU will be determined largely by the EU, not by the government or any faction in any party.
The dangers I see in Jim's "clash" are twofold. Hard-line Brexiters may delay our exit if, say, they think the government has offered too many concessions on free movement in order to get better trading arrangements with the EU. The greater danger, however, as I see it, is that hard-line Remainers in both chambers may impede exit by opposing the Great Repeal Bill.
"That's not what you said at the time. Your concern was that funding for science would be lost."
I believe I said that that was just *one* of the reasons I voted the way I did. I absolutely never said it was the only reason.
But anyway, it should be a given that not everything I say or think is shared on this site, or anywhere else for that matter. I did vote for what I thought were in the country's best interests and my own, just as most people did.
I believe I said that that was just *one* of the reasons I voted the way I did. I absolutely never said it was the only reason.
But anyway, it should be a given that not everything I say or think is shared on this site, or anywhere else for that matter. I did vote for what I thought were in the country's best interests and my own, just as most people did.
Thanks vetuste for a thoughtful response -- there's a lot I agree with. In particular, perhaps a tad surprisingly given the result, I was also in favour beforehand of holding the referendum in the first place. Time alone will tell if I regret this position... what perhaps I find saddest is the spirit in which it was often conducted, defined by bile, misinformation or downright lies (and yes, from both sides to one extent or another).
In that sense, my wondering about the "clash between two expressions of democracy" only really occurred to me after the vote went against what I was, clearly naively, expecting to happen (towards the end I thought Brexit might edge it but I think that was less excellent foresight and more my negative mindset happening to be right this time). A lot of people were caught out by this one, and maybe that too colours the feelings of those on the losing side of the vote. It cuts deep to lose. Cuts even deeper when it was a near-total shock.
But anyway, Brexit now happening means it is about the how and not the if, for sure, but the "how" proposed by May seems far too extreme and it's pretty obviously had an immediate impact on, for example, the value of sterling. I don't think that's enough (at the moment) to give anyone cause to change their mind about the approach, Brexit being a long game, but I do hope that the masters of Brexit pay attention to more than what seems like a very narrow and extreme interpretation of it.
In that sense, my wondering about the "clash between two expressions of democracy" only really occurred to me after the vote went against what I was, clearly naively, expecting to happen (towards the end I thought Brexit might edge it but I think that was less excellent foresight and more my negative mindset happening to be right this time). A lot of people were caught out by this one, and maybe that too colours the feelings of those on the losing side of the vote. It cuts deep to lose. Cuts even deeper when it was a near-total shock.
But anyway, Brexit now happening means it is about the how and not the if, for sure, but the "how" proposed by May seems far too extreme and it's pretty obviously had an immediate impact on, for example, the value of sterling. I don't think that's enough (at the moment) to give anyone cause to change their mind about the approach, Brexit being a long game, but I do hope that the masters of Brexit pay attention to more than what seems like a very narrow and extreme interpretation of it.
v_e, //If, say, (not that I think this will happen) the government accepts free movement as the price of remaining in the free market it will disappoint a lot of people (me for one), but it will not (in my opinion) be a betrayal of the leave vote.//
I disagree. I think it would be a shameful betrayal of the leave vote. As I see it an end to uncontrolled immigration was a cornerstone of the ‘Leave’ campaign.
I disagree. I think it would be a shameful betrayal of the leave vote. As I see it an end to uncontrolled immigration was a cornerstone of the ‘Leave’ campaign.
Leaving aside the question of what I said several months ago, I think it's interesting that you and vetuste are disagreeing about the question of immigration. I won't comment on who's right or wrong -- I think you have a good point that it seemed to be a key feature of the campaign -- but surely the fact that all of these details are to be settled and are in dispute even amongst the Leave voters means that there still has to be a serious debate about what kind of Brexit we want. Holding referenda on each separate facet of the negotiation is clearly out of the question, but it seems that May and her Brexiteers' alternative seems to be to leave it to a small handful of people to decide the answers instead. I don't see how that amounts to "taking back control", or more generally restoring sovereignty to Parliament.
There surely is a small risk that handing the decisions to Parliament would result in the government being blocked at every turn but that would be the far more democratic way of handling things. And anyway, not allowing a vote because you are worried of the outcome was one of the single biggest complaints about the delay in holding the referendum in the first place, or at least that's what I gathered.
Alternatively you can see this as a different facet of something I've been trying to mention at every opportunity since the referendum, which is that perhaps the way we conduct our democracy should be seriously re-evaluated. Perhaps Theresa May is worried that MPs don't represent their constituents' views properly (and on this issue she is right, or at least was a few months ago). So maybe we should be looking at whether we elect MPs in the right way? Why not, if we don't trust the current lot? It's surely not as simple as who they are, but how they got there, that is leading to the issues and the apparent distrust of Parliament's ability to reflect the will of the people.
There are still, I believe, five months to go before Article 50 is due to be triggered, so that gives plenty of time for the current direction to be changed, improved, or at least the process made more open. Given that Brexit is happening, it at least provides an opportunity to address the many problems that led to the referendum result -- at least some of which weren't to do with the EU at all -- so I guess we may as well take that opportunity and ask the question.
There surely is a small risk that handing the decisions to Parliament would result in the government being blocked at every turn but that would be the far more democratic way of handling things. And anyway, not allowing a vote because you are worried of the outcome was one of the single biggest complaints about the delay in holding the referendum in the first place, or at least that's what I gathered.
Alternatively you can see this as a different facet of something I've been trying to mention at every opportunity since the referendum, which is that perhaps the way we conduct our democracy should be seriously re-evaluated. Perhaps Theresa May is worried that MPs don't represent their constituents' views properly (and on this issue she is right, or at least was a few months ago). So maybe we should be looking at whether we elect MPs in the right way? Why not, if we don't trust the current lot? It's surely not as simple as who they are, but how they got there, that is leading to the issues and the apparent distrust of Parliament's ability to reflect the will of the people.
There are still, I believe, five months to go before Article 50 is due to be triggered, so that gives plenty of time for the current direction to be changed, improved, or at least the process made more open. Given that Brexit is happening, it at least provides an opportunity to address the many problems that led to the referendum result -- at least some of which weren't to do with the EU at all -- so I guess we may as well take that opportunity and ask the question.
Im intrigued at the "two forms of democracy" comment. What are they?? As a very late 40 something this is news to me as a British voter?
Two forms: is that the "we've had a vote lets follow the will of the people" type of democracy or the "We've had a vote, we lost lets complain like hell about the outcome till we get another shot??"
Two forms: is that the "we've had a vote lets follow the will of the people" type of democracy or the "We've had a vote, we lost lets complain like hell about the outcome till we get another shot??"
Jim, I think it's interesting that you and vetuste are disagreeing about the question of immigration.//
You misunderstand.
v_e said. // If, say, (not that I think this will happen) the government accepts free movement as the price of remaining in the free market it will disappoint a lot of people (me for one)//
On that we agree.
And then he said, // it will not (in my opinion) be a betrayal of the leave vote.//
On that we disagree.
You misunderstand.
v_e said. // If, say, (not that I think this will happen) the government accepts free movement as the price of remaining in the free market it will disappoint a lot of people (me for one)//
On that we agree.
And then he said, // it will not (in my opinion) be a betrayal of the leave vote.//
On that we disagree.
Jim (5th effort to answer, really getting tired of trying to access this site) I have no objection to Remainers having opinions on the ways they feel Brexit should work - and vocalising them in debate. You, for instance, would be very valuable in explaining about international scientific co-operation. I (and others) object to has-been, power-hungry, discredited politicians who are trying to somehow stop Brexit happening. Telegraph Editorial today supports.
Now spent over an hour trying to post this - if site doesn't improve I may not be around long. (ED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Now spent over an hour trying to post this - if site doesn't improve I may not be around long. (ED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Sorry Naomi, you're correct to point that out. I did actually mean what you said, as in the "question of immigration" was how much it would be a betrayal of the Leave vote or not to allow it to continue at about the present rate, rather than immigration per se. Thanks for the clarification.
Also thanks jourdain. As much as we've disagreed about Brexit, it's nice to feel that my opinions about how to shape it might be valuable.
Also thanks jourdain. As much as we've disagreed about Brexit, it's nice to feel that my opinions about how to shape it might be valuable.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Good Morning Early Wednesday Birds!
ChatterBank13 mins ago
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.