BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

19101214152114

Comments

  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,918
    Ballysmate wrote:
    I find it hard to credit the stance of some people on here who bemoan the fact that we are having a vote at all. They are invariably from the IN side of the argument. I suppose they are just feared that the result may not go their way. But that is no position to take if you wish to live in a democracy.
    There is also the rather condescending view expressed by some that this is too big and too complex an issue for 'the people' to decide - although if we took that view then we shouldn't have general elections.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    I find it hard to credit the stance of some people on here who bemoan the fact that we are having a vote at all. They are invariably from the IN side of the argument. I suppose they are just feared that the result may not go their way. But that is no position to take if you wish to live in a democracy.
    There is also the rather condescending view expressed by some that this is too big and too complex an issue for 'the people' to decide - although if we took that view then we shouldn't have general elections.

    Vox pop on BBC news took the other side of the same coin. Words to the effect of "why should we be made to vote on something we don't understand?"
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,918
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    I find it hard to credit the stance of some people on here who bemoan the fact that we are having a vote at all. They are invariably from the IN side of the argument. I suppose they are just feared that the result may not go their way. But that is no position to take if you wish to live in a democracy.
    There is also the rather condescending view expressed by some that this is too big and too complex an issue for 'the people' to decide - although if we took that view then we shouldn't have general elections.

    Vox pop on BBC news took the other side of the same coin. Words to the effect of "why should we be made to vote on something we don't understand?"
    A bit like general elections then?

    They can always abstain if they want.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    I find it a curious argument, the "it's not democratic not to have a referendum". By that rationale, why don't you ask for referendums for every single law or parliament action?
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 16,017
    I find it a curious argument, the "it's not democratic not to have a referendum". By that rationale, why don't you ask for referendums for every single law or parliament action?

    But no-one has said that have they?
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,572
    I find it a curious argument, the "it's not democratic not to have a referendum". By that rationale, why don't you ask for referendums for every single law or parliament action?
    It could be because DC was voted into power on a manifesto of having a vote.
    Inconvenient things like that.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • I find it a curious argument, the "it's not democratic not to have a referendum". By that rationale, why don't you ask for referendums for every single law or parliament action?
    Stop that crazy talk. Giving people a say on stuff? This isn't Switzerland, you know. Madness.
    No, the people will take their crumbs from the table, and be grateful.
    Ecrasez l’infame
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    It's an arguement I heard a lot from the Brexit crowd before the election.

    I don't think the electorate is necessarily best placed to understand the consequences of either decision. People say that's condescending. Sure. Maybe it is. S'what I think though! If you think you really understand the consequences, you probably think you know more than you do!
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    PBlakeney wrote:
    I find it a curious argument, the "it's not democratic not to have a referendum". By that rationale, why don't you ask for referendums for every single law or parliament action?
    It could be because DC was voted into power on a manifesto of having a vote.
    Inconvenient things like that.

    He also was voted in on not cutting tax credits and he is doing that too.

    Why's this different?

    Sooner people start voting for politicians as governors rather than individual policies, the better.

    Get better governors then. And you avoid the loss of confidence by politicians backing out on specific policies because circumstances are different.

    But that makes me unpopular.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 16,017
    So you reckon that because people don't understand the ramifications of leaving OR staying, we should stay in? It sounds that YOU believe that YOU understand the consequences but the rest of us don't.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Nah I don't. Tried to read up on it and even the people in possession of the info and the time don't really know.

    I can guess like we all can.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    (But yeah, I probably know more than the average. That's a fairly low bar) ;)
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,918
    (But yeah, I probably know more than the average. That's a fairly low bar) ;)
    Maybe you do. But the referendum is happening regardless :wink:
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,918
    Rick, if the UK had never joined the EU and there was a referendum being held now to decide if we should join, would you support that referendum? Bearing in mind that the issues would be too complex for most people to understand.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Democracy bears no relation to understanding anything. At least with a vote we can apply a short drop calliper when most people don't like where it's going. Doesn't matter what anyone knows.
  • bobmcstuff
    bobmcstuff Posts: 11,445
    It's an arguement I heard a lot from the Brexit crowd before the election.

    I don't think the electorate is necessarily best placed to understand the consequences of either decision. People say that's condescending. Sure. Maybe it is. S'what I think though! If you think you really understand the consequences, you probably think you know more than you do!

    Was exactly the same with the Scottish independence referendum. People believe what they want to believe and pick evidence from their chosen side to back up whatever viewpoint they had chosen. It's impossible to actually know what would happen either way so people just stick to their prejudice.
  • (But yeah, I probably know more than the average. That's a fairly low bar) ;)
    By definition average isn't a low bar, low is low, average is average. I aim to be average.
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    Ballysmate wrote:
    I find it hard to credit the stance of some people on here who bemoan the fact that we are having a vote at all. They are invariably from the IN side of the argument. I suppose they are just feared that the result may not go their way. But that is no position to take if you wish to live in a democracy.
    It may well come to pass that immigration will be a prime driver. But parties from both left and right have shied away from a proper debate on immigration, treating the electorate with contempt, (Brown and that bigoted woman for example) that chickens may come home to roost.
    Immigration is an emotive subject and sometimes even otherwise rational people have trouble differentiating between EU and external immigration, much to Rick's chagrin.

    Well, Bally, you would support a vote (in principle) on Hanging, Trident or Nato membership? all very emotive subjects and would no doubt be v popular.
    We need to look at why DC chose to have a vote on this subject and not others, as far as i m aware, it was never a huge issue in the country but it is in the tory party and he was worried about UKIP.

    the decision on the eu, is a once in a life time choice, unlike a GE every 5 years, if leaving turns out to be the wrong choice, we could see this country, over time, go into steep decline.

    People dont see alot of difference between eu and non eu migration because the evidence says that once a non eu migrant is in eu, they are here to stay... so Sweden would like to deport 100s of 1000s of eco migrants but even if they knew where to send them, they reckon it would take years to do - Germany is in the same position.

    I do totally agree that non and EU migration should have been far higher up the agenda years ago, poss for reasons of PC we didnt have this discussion and neither did the rest of the EU
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,572
    PBlakeney wrote:
    I find it a curious argument, the "it's not democratic not to have a referendum". By that rationale, why don't you ask for referendums for every single law or parliament action?
    It could be because DC was voted into power on a manifesto of having a vote.
    Inconvenient things like that.

    He also was voted in on not cutting tax credits and he is doing that too.

    Why's this different?

    Sooner people start voting for politicians as governors rather than individual policies, the better.

    Get better governors then. And you avoid the loss of confidence by politicians backing out on specific policies because circumstances are different.

    But that makes me unpopular.
    But how do you decide on which governor other than by manifesto? Their face? How funny they are?
    Vote them in on their manifesto. Vote them out on failure of their manifesto. That is how the system works, unless you advocate dictatorship.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • bbrap
    bbrap Posts: 610
    Had to laugh at the bloke on the breakfast news this morning. Two of them (one for, one against) arguing over the cost of being in the EU. One said that being in allows regions of the UK to get subsidies/grants for various things from the EU. When it was pointed out that the money we pay in vastly overshadows what we get out and that we could just spend it directly he came up with this corker, he stated that the money might not be spent where it was needed and that the EU somehow had a better idea of what we should spend money on than our own elected government. Whilst I agree that our government do spend money on some dubious things I'd rather they had the say than some EU committee/dogsbody.
    Rose Xeon CDX 3100, Ultegra Di2 disc (nice weather)
    Ribble Gran Fondo, Campagnolo Centaur (winter bike)
    Van Raam 'O' Pair
    Land Rover (really nasty weather :lol: )
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 16,017
    Well, Bally, you would support a vote (in principle) on Hanging, Trident or Nato membership? all very emotive subjects and would no doubt be v popular.
    We need to look at why DC chose to have a vote on this subject and not others, as far as i m aware, it was never a huge issue in the country but it is in the tory party and he was worried about UKIP.

    Funny how your 'never a huge issue' has the country split about 50/50 according to some polls. Although I think we will vote to remain, it is proving to be a bigger issue than you thought.
    The decision to leave would be non reversible so I think it right that any government that wished to do so, gets a mandate from the people. As others have said, the intention to hold a referendum was a well publicised part of the Tory manifesto, so there was evidently some popular support for the idea.
    Capital punishment and unilateral disarmament are reversible issues and as such the people need not be polled.
    BTW how many votes did Labour haemorrhage to UKIP in their northern seats? The 4m UKIP voters were not all dyed in the wool Tory blues.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 16,017
    edited February 2016
    the decision on the eu, is a once in a life time choice, unlike a GE every 5 years, if leaving turns out to be the wrong choice, we could see this country, over time, go into steep decline.

    It could well turn out to be the wrong decision, as could staying put. But if staying in proved to be the wrong decision, it is a mistake that the people who would deny the voters a referendum, would be happy to perpetuate daily.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 16,017
    People dont see alot of difference between eu and non eu migration because the evidence says that once a non eu migrant is in eu, they are here to stay... so Sweden would like to deport 100s of 1000s of eco migrants but even if they knew where to send them, they reckon it would take years to do - Germany is in the same position.

    I do totally agree that non and EU migration should have been far higher up the agenda years ago, poss for reasons of PC we didnt have this discussion and neither did the rest of the EU

    Immigration is a massive problem for the EU. The people now arriving from N Africa will no doubt be EU citizens in years to come and the EU needs to get its sh1t together sharpish.
    Mamba, I. like you believe immigration is a big issue. You have recently stated that they are starting to get to grips with it, a view that I would find hard to support.

    http://www.dw.com/en/germany-ready-to-s ... a-18789797

    How bad do you thing it would be if this came to pass and the migrants that are in Turkey were suddenly within the EU? I believe France and Austria have promised their citizens a referendum on Turkey joining but given your view on referendums, that will come as a disappointment no doubt.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,918
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Rick, if the UK had never joined the EU and there was a referendum being held now to decide if we should join, would you support that referendum? Bearing in mind that the issues would be too complex for most people to understand.
    Come on Rick, answer the question - it's a simple yes or no. Although people probably realise that you have painted yourself into a corner here :wink:
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Rick, if the UK had never joined the EU and there was a referendum being held now to decide if we should join, would you support that referendum? Bearing in mind that the issues would be too complex for most people to understand.
    Come on Rick, answer the question - it's a simple yes or no. Although people probably realise that you have painted yourself into a corner here :wink:

    Course not.

    Can't see what corner I've painted myself in?


    Thing is there's no well informed debate on this since in parliament they just grandstand for the public who rightly have much better things to get on with that looking into the the spaghetti of correlation and causation and pros and cons that is EU membership.
    There's a reason we have people who's job it is to to research and rebate this stuff - so we can get on with living our own lives.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Normal people don't have time for this - so they look for a simple answer to the binary question.

    Unfortunately it's not simple! As the thread demonstrates.

    It also distracts from governing.

    Elections are generally better informed because the broader question mean you live in less complex answers.

    It's not a question which hinges on the technicalities of EU vs sovereign law making or the ins and outs of EU free trade agreements and EU council voting policies and blocs.


    It's '"which MP from which party do you want to govern us? Here's what s/he says s/he plans to do".

    It's a simpler issue.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,572
    There's a reason we have people who's job it is to to research and rebate this stuff - so we can get on with living our own lives.
    Nice in theory.
    I wouldn't trust our governors to tell me the correct date without checking first, or handing over a brown envelope.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,918
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Rick, if the UK had never joined the EU and there was a referendum being held now to decide if we should join, would you support that referendum? Bearing in mind that the issues would be too complex for most people to understand.
    Come on Rick, answer the question - it's a simple yes or no. Although people probably realise that you have painted yourself into a corner here :wink:

    Course not.

    Can't see what corner I've painted myself in?


    Thing is there's no well informed debate on this since in parliament they just grandstand for the public who rightly have much better things to get on with that looking into the the spaghetti of correlation and causation and pros and cons that is EU membership.
    There's a reason we have people who's job it is to to research and rebate this stuff - so we can get on with living our own lives.
    So basically by opposing a referendum either in the real situation we have or the hypothetical situation I gave above, you are saying that the status quo should prevail.

    At least its a better answer than the other possibility...

    I agree with you that it is a complex situation and very difficult for anyone to call correctly. But that is the same for running a country and it is not a reason to not have general elections. Do you disagree with that?
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    Ballysmate wrote:
    People dont see alot of difference between eu and non eu migration because the evidence says that once a non eu migrant is in eu, they are here to stay... so Sweden would like to deport 100s of 1000s of eco migrants but even if they knew where to send them, they reckon it would take years to do - Germany is in the same position.

    I do totally agree that non and EU migration should have been far higher up the agenda years ago, poss for reasons of PC we didnt have this discussion and neither did the rest of the EU

    Immigration is a massive problem for the EU. The people now arriving from N Africa will no doubt be EU citizens in years to come and the EU needs to get its sh1t together sharpish.
    Mamba, I. like you believe immigration is a big issue. You have recently stated that they are starting to get to grips with it, a view that I would find hard to support.

    http://www.dw.com/en/germany-ready-to-s ... a-18789797

    How bad do you thing it would be if this came to pass and the migrants that are in Turkey were suddenly within the EU? I believe France and Austria have promised their citizens a referendum on Turkey joining but given your view on referendums, that will come as a disappointment no doubt.

    i dont think we are a world apart here......

    Allowing Turkey to join would be a huge mistake BUT unless Merkel can get Turkey to halt the flow of refugees (hence giving in to turkeys demands) they are going to keep turning up on EU's borders, just as they do from N Africa... Turkey or Libya NOT being in EU do nothing to stop refugees heading for EU.

    so, UK leaves, what exactly is to stop France from allowing refugees to get in boats and head across the channel? nothing at all and what would we do? put them in camps? open up old army barracks?

    EU is spending so much time dealing with the UK and that is time that should be spent on border control etc, the problem is that EU hasnt the stomach to be super hard on these people and unfortunately, until they do, they will keep coming.

    I ve big doubts about the EU but when i hear Ian duncan smith (IBS) stating UK is at risk from a Paris style attack if we stay in, you realise they ve no real argument (and i ll vote IN) even he knows the french terrorists were home grown (just as the 7/7 ones were)
    the UK with border controls cannot stop the flow of uk nations and families going to Syria and coming back!!! - the UK in EU ? so, countries can and will willing share intel, will they be so keen to share with us on the outside? maybe or not.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 16,017
    Mamba, as I said earlier, the scare stories will come thick and fast from both sides. As Stevo alluded to earlier, if we weren't already in, we certainly wouldn't be voting to join. The status quo always seems to have an advantage when it comes to a referendum and I think we will vote to stay in.