BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

orraloon

Trouble is, the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

joelsim

orraloon wrote:

Trouble is, the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

Yep. 20 Remainers in May's cabinet and they're all too scared to do the right thing for the country. Interesting that the guys just on Peston are saying what I'm saying. Media scrutiny, rifts in the Tories will develop, business using their weight, and hopefully Keir pulling Labour together (although there's still the Corbyn issue).

They said interesting times. I think it's disturbing times.

briantrumpet

Joelsim wrote:

Yep. 20 Remainers in May's cabinet and they're all too scared to do the right thing for the country.

I wish that the politicians would have the courage of Paddy Ashdown, when challenged by his constituents after a brutal murder in his constituency. They were baying for blood, and wanted him to vote to bring back hanging. He simply told them that they would have to elect another MP if that's what they wanted, because he would never vote for it.

EDIT - here's the voting record for the last time it was voted on, I think, in 1990: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/comm ... for-murder

surrey_commuter

briantrumpet wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

So, to my mind the whole 'will of the people' argument is deeply flawed and therefore irrelevant.

So you're not a great believer in democracy then?

You know the hanging argument: democracy isn't a simple "give the masses what they want" exercise. We elect politicians to make sensible decisions on our behalf. The electorate can't be trusted with emotive or complicated stuff. As we've proved all too recently.

Ive asked this before to someome else: if the UK had never joined the EU and we were now being asked if we wanted to join, would you agree that there should be a referendum on it?

No - because the general public are not qualified to make the decision.

If we took the analogy of a trial by jury...

Yes, non-experts (the jurors) are asked to consider sometimes some very complicated matters... but, they are both overseen by a non-partisan judge, who can provide guidance on points of law, and prevent the barristers abusing their position... and the jury's decision is usually only accepted if it is unanimous or a very clear majority.

Other than that, sensible non-experts hire people with more knowledge and experience to make decisions on their behalves (doctors, lawyers, etc.) where complex problems or life-changing decisions are involved.

Putting complex problems with life-long ramifications to the electorate in simple yes/no terms is rather like having a jury trial with no judge, unscrupulous barristers, and a majority decision of 7/5.

I think the the Brexit vote shows what a flawed system referendums are for questions more complicated than "Does 2+2=4?"

a very good analogy.

Now bear in mind that Coopster is probably better educated than at least 50% of the electorate but is economically illiterate. That means that Cameron rather than turning the question over to experts turned it over to non-experts. Presumably he seeks legal/medical advice in his local Wethrspoons

briantrumpet

Surrey Commuter wrote:

a very good analogy.

Now bear in mind that Coopster is probably better educated than at least 50% of the electorate but is economically illiterate. That means that Cameron rather than turning the question over to experts turned it over to non-experts. Presumably he seeks legal/medical advice in his local Wethrspoons

Reflecting on my analogy, I think that rather than a 7/5 majority, the referendum result was more like a 6/6 split, but with one member of the jury saying they saying that they didn't like the colour of the defendant's tie.

surrey_commuter

briantrumpet wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

a very good analogy.

Now bear in mind that Coopster is probably better educated than at least 50% of the electorate but is economically illiterate. That means that Cameron rather than turning the question over to experts turned it over to non-experts. Presumably he seeks legal/medical advice in his local Wethrspoons

Reflecting on my analogy, I think that rather than a 7/5 majority, the referendum result was more like a 6/6 split, but with one member of the jury saying they saying that they didn't like the colour of the defendant's tie.

LOL - more like 4/4 as the other 4 did not bother turning up

Stevo_666

orraloon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

So, to my mind the whole 'will of the people' argument is deeply flawed and therefore irrelevant.

So you're not a great believer in democracy then?

You know the hanging argument: democracy isn't a simple "give the masses what they want" exercise. We elect politicians to make sensible decisions on our behalf. The electorate can't be trusted with emotive or complicated stuff. As we've proved all too recently.

Ive asked this before to someome else: if the UK had never joined the EU and we were now being asked if we wanted to join, would you agree that there should be a referendum on it?

Em, there was. In 1975 to join/ stay in the 'Common Market'. I'm old enough to remember that. And the result was 60 something % to join/stay.

Erm, see highlighted bit above...

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

So, to my mind the whole 'will of the people' argument is deeply flawed and therefore irrelevant.

So you're not a great believer in democracy then?

You know the hanging argument: democracy isn't a simple "give the masses what they want" exercise. We elect politicians to make sensible decisions on our behalf. The electorate can't be trusted with emotive or complicated stuff. As we've proved all too recently.

Ive asked this before to someome else: if the UK had never joined the EU and we were now being asked if we wanted to join, would you agree that there should be a referendum on it?

No - because the general public are not qualified to make the decision.

SC, you've already answered it once, I was asking Mr. Trumpet. (I do appreciate that you do try to address these sorts of questions)

TheBigBean

A leader that knows more than the electorate is how most dictatorships start.

rick_chasey

She's bending Brexit towards her own personal cause rather than to the most beneficial overall solution.

rick_chasey

And it's rare that a Prime Minster singles out people specifically she is opposed to, but I'm certainly one of them.

They find their patriotism distasteful, their concerns about immigration parochial, their views about crime illiberal, their attachment to their job security inconvenient. They find the fact that more than seventeen million people voted to leave the European Union simply bewildering

though i wouldn't particularly refer to myself as 'liberal elite', just because I've bothered to pick up a book, but anyway. I do find patriotism distasteful, I do find a lot of the voiced concerns about immigration parochial, I do find the right's view on crime illiberal (but more importantly, not addressing the cause, merely the aftermath), and I object to drawing a line between immigration and job security - I have always supported policies that improve job security, but anyway.

It's quite galling and depressing that there is so little interest in liberal values that she can get away with this.

She will have a go at company bosses for making jobs insecure, for taking too much money and generally be anti-business and she knows they'll still vote tory because of Labour.

I find the secrecy around big key issues in brexit, such as whether we stay in the single market or not, worrying for they point to three possible scenarios. A) that they know they're not going to get much out of brexit and they're keeping it a secret. they don't know what to do or C) they do want a very hard brexit and they know that won't go down well.

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

SC, you've already answered it once, I was asking Mr. Trumpet. (I do appreciate that you do try to address these sorts of questions)

If you've read my analogy about juries, you should know my answer.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

SC, you've already answered it once, I was asking Mr. Trumpet. (I do appreciate that you do try to address these sorts of questions)

If you've read my analogy about juries, you should know my answer.

I guess you're not in favour of general elections either then? More complex than referendums as they cover who is representing us on most things.

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

SC, you've already answered it once, I was asking Mr. Trumpet. (I do appreciate that you do try to address these sorts of questions)

If you've read my analogy about juries, you should know my answer.

I guess you're not in favour of general elections either then? More complex than referendums as they cover who is representing us on most things.

Quite different - in general elections you have a range of people with differing views, and you select the one you feel best represents your range of views (or the least worst): that person then represents you in the further democratic process of parliamentary process. Parliamentary process has a long history of checks and balances, and though I'll happily concede it throws up curious decisions from time to time, overall it has served us pretty well in the modern era.

If you're saying that because someone doesn't believe that referendums are the best way to decide complex single issues it means that they don't believe that general elections are the least worst option for electing a government, then I'd suggest your analysis is mistaken.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

SC, you've already answered it once, I was asking Mr. Trumpet. (I do appreciate that you do try to address these sorts of questions)

If you've read my analogy about juries, you should know my answer.

I guess you're not in favour of general elections either then? More complex than referendums as they cover who is representing us on most things.

I can see how somebody could look at the US Presidential elections and argue that universal suffrage has gone too far

If another crazy haired buffoon wins an election after making sh1t up there could be a case for looking at how elections are run. Would it be possible to make a law stopping people from outright lying and making sh1t up?

briantrumpet

Surrey Commuter wrote:

If another crazy haired buffoon wins an election after making sh1t up there could be a case for looking at how elections are run. Would it be possible to make a law stopping people from outright lying and making sh1t up?

One of the checks on elections (not applied to referendums): http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/

mrfpb

briantrumpet wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

If another crazy haired buffoon wins an election after making sh1t up there could be a case for looking at how elections are run. Would it be possible to make a law stopping people from outright lying and making sh1t up?

One of the checks on elections (not applied to referendums): http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/

What exactly is your point. The electoral commission oversees referendums, including the EU referendum. It is on the front page when you highlight particular tabs eg "I am a ...electoral administrator" or "Find information by subject..." - "Elections and referendums"

surrey_commuter

mrfpb wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

If another crazy haired buffoon wins an election after making sh1t up there could be a case for looking at how elections are run. Would it be possible to make a law stopping people from outright lying and making sh1t up?

One of the checks on elections (not applied to referendums): http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/

What exactly is your point. The electoral commission oversees referendums, including the EU referendum. It is on the front page when you highlight particular tabs eg "I am a ...electoral administrator" or "Find information by subject..." - "Elections and referendums"

are you saying we can report Boris for the £350m? if so what sanctions are available?

mrfpb

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

If another crazy haired buffoon wins an election after making sh1t up there could be a case for looking at how elections are run. Would it be possible to make a law stopping people from outright lying and making sh1t up?

One of the checks on elections (not applied to referendums): http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/

What exactly is your point. The electoral commission oversees referendums, including the EU referendum. It is on the front page when you highlight particular tabs eg "I am a ...electoral administrator" or "Find information by subject..." - "Elections and referendums"

are you saying we can report Boris for the £350m? if so what sanctions are available?

My reply was to Briantrumpet's posting the link with the suggestion that the electoral commission has authority in elections but not referendums. I don't know what teeth the commission has but I suspect it is toothless as the government ignored it before the referendum started by issuing their pro-EU leaflet despite the Electoral Commission's advice.

The report on the referendum is not exactly hard to find, but it is only advisory.

The Commission has published a report on the referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the EU, which looks at the key issues that arose on the way to polling day, including the conduct of campaigners and our regulation of them, and provides data on the views of voters and the experience they had throughout this period.

The report also points to a number of recommendations that would improve the administration, regulation, and delivery of future referendums.

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/215279/2016-EU-referendum-report.pdf)

from the introduction:

At every electoral event, there is fierce questioning about the accuracy of campaign arguments, and this poll
was no different. It is right that campaigners and the media should scrutinise each other’s contentions and that information is widely available for voters to do the same. But we do not believe that a role as a “truth Commission” would be appropriate for us given the breadth of our other functions.

So no, there are no existing or proposed sanctions against lying in referendums or general elections. It is for the voter to seek the facts and opponents and the media to point out eachr sides fibs.

surrey_commuter

mrfpb wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

If another crazy haired buffoon wins an election after making sh1t up there could be a case for looking at how elections are run. Would it be possible to make a law stopping people from outright lying and making sh1t up?

One of the checks on elections (not applied to referendums): http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/

What exactly is your point. The electoral commission oversees referendums, including the EU referendum. It is on the front page when you highlight particular tabs eg "I am a ...electoral administrator" or "Find information by subject..." - "Elections and referendums"

are you saying we can report Boris for the £350m? if so what sanctions are available?

My reply was to Briantrumpet's posting the link with the suggestion that the electoral commission has authority in elections but not referendums. I don't know what teeth the commission has but I suspect it is toothless as the government ignored it before the referendum started by issuing their pro-EU leaflet despite the Electoral Commission's advice.

The report on the referendum is not exactly hard to find, but it is only advisory.

The Commission has published a report on the referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the EU, which looks at the key issues that arose on the way to polling day, including the conduct of campaigners and our regulation of them, and provides data on the views of voters and the experience they had throughout this period.

The report also points to a number of recommendations that would improve the administration, regulation, and delivery of future referendums.

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/215279/2016-EU-referendum-report.pdf)

from the introduction:

At every electoral event, there is fierce questioning about the accuracy of campaign arguments, and this poll
was no different. It is right that campaigners and the media should scrutinise each other’s contentions and that information is widely available for voters to do the same. But we do not believe that a role as a “truth Commission” would be appropriate for us given the breadth of our other functions.

So no, there are no existing or proposed sanctions against lying in referendums or general elections. It is for the voter to seek the facts and opponents and the media to point out eachr sides fibs.

As the gulf in intelligence between the campaigns and the electorate widens maybe there is a need for a policeman.

briantrumpet

mrfpb wrote:

So no, there are no existing or proposed sanctions against lying in referendums or general elections. It is for the voter to seek the facts and opponents and the media to point out eachr sides fibs.

Apologies - linked in haste and not checked - I was under the impression that the EC had a wider remit for elections, but not referendums. Well, they do have a wider remit, in that they guard against untrue statements about candidates, and electoral fraud, but not against Boriswhoppers.

mrfpb

Surrey Commuter wrote:

As the gulf in intelligence between the campaigns and the electorate widens maybe there is a need for a policeman.

Are you saying the electorate is substantially less intelligent than the campaigners - or vice versa?

The rules are the same for elections and referendums, so ignoring the referendum result due to lying in the campaign is no more acceptable than ignoring a council or parliamentary election result because ethier side lied or misled- unless they actually broke a law of the land.

However, I think we can agree that misleading and lying was more prominent in this campaign than in any in living memory in this country (although the North East Assembly referendum was pretty bad). So maybe parliament needs to get it's act together and beef up the watchdog's powers.

kingstongraham

Surrey Commuter wrote:

are you saying we can report Boris for the £350m? if so what sanctions are available?

Can we not give the £350m a rest finally? Do you think that if they'd said we send a more accurate £250m a week that any leave voters would have gone "oh, well in that case, that sounds like a wholly reasonable amount, and I'm all in favour"? They should have done that.

(And the bus didn't say that all £350m was going to the NHS either. Just whistled in that direction.)

surrey_commuter

mrfpb wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

As the gulf in intelligence between the campaigns and the electorate widens maybe there is a need for a policeman.

Are you saying the electorate is substantially less intelligent than the campaigners - or vice versa?

The rules are the same for elections and referendums, so ignoring the referendum result due to lying in the campaign is no more acceptable than ignoring a council or parliamentary election result because ethier side lied or misled- unless they actually broke a law of the land.

However, I think we can agree that misleading and lying was more prominent in this campaign than in any in living memory in this country (although the North East Assembly referendum was pretty bad). So maybe parliament needs to get it's act together and beef up the watchdog's powers.

the campaigns are far more intelligent than the electorate and in the referendum took media manipulation to a new level. Trump seems to have learnt the lesson and whether he wins or loses his campaign has been a success. So yes to avoid a race to the bottom there should be some sort of punitive sanctions available

surrey_commuter

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

are you saying we can report Boris for the £350m? if so what sanctions are available?

Can we not give the £350m a rest finally? Do you think that if they'd said we send a more accurate £250m a week that any leave voters would have gone "oh, well in that case, that sounds like a wholly reasonable amount, and I'm all in favour"? They should have done that.

(And the bus didn't say that all £350m was going to the NHS either. Just whistled in that direction.)

Fine - point me in the direction of a more obvious lie that has subsequently been disowned by everybody.

Their polling and focus groups would have said that £350m would win more votes than £180m and that linking it to the NHS multiplied the effect.

Sadiq Khan's promise not to raise Tube fares lasted about 48 hours before he came clean - if you prefer that as an example then we can discuss what sanctions should be in place to stop politicians making up obvious lies

More than a whistle - here is a link to Boris stood in front of a massive screen saying "Let's give our NHS the £350m the EU takes every week"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... a-mistake/

kingstongraham

Surrey Commuter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

are you saying we can report Boris for the £350m? if so what sanctions are available?

Can we not give the £350m a rest finally? Do you think that if they'd said we send a more accurate £250m a week that any leave voters would have gone "oh, well in that case, that sounds like a wholly reasonable amount, and I'm all in favour"? They should have done that.

(And the bus didn't say that all £350m was going to the NHS either. Just whistled in that direction.)

Fine - point me in the direction of a more obvious lie that has subsequently been disowned by everybody.

Their polling and focus groups would have said that £350m would win more votes than £180m and that linking it to the NHS multiplied the effect.

Sadiq Khan's promise not to raise Tube fares lasted about 48 hours before he came clean - if you prefer that as an example then we can discuss what sanctions should be in place to stop politicians making up obvious lies

More than a whistle - here is a link to Boris stood in front of a massive screen saying "Let's give our NHS the £350m the EU takes every week"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... a-mistake/

I'll take that as a no.

surrey_commuter

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

are you saying we can report Boris for the £350m? if so what sanctions are available?

Can we not give the £350m a rest finally? Do you think that if they'd said we send a more accurate £250m a week that any leave voters would have gone "oh, well in that case, that sounds like a wholly reasonable amount, and I'm all in favour"? They should have done that.

(And the bus didn't say that all £350m was going to the NHS either. Just whistled in that direction.)

Fine - point me in the direction of a more obvious lie that has subsequently been disowned by everybody.

Their polling and focus groups would have said that £350m would win more votes than £180m and that linking it to the NHS multiplied the effect.

Sadiq Khan's promise not to raise Tube fares lasted about 48 hours before he came clean - if you prefer that as an example then we can discuss what sanctions should be in place to stop politicians making up obvious lies

More than a whistle - here is a link to Boris stood in front of a massive screen saying "Let's give our NHS the £350m the EU takes every week"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... a-mistake/

I'll take that as a no.

I did invite you to suggest an alternative - and even proffered one up

mamba80

the Outers told some hefty lies and from what i saw, people got very angry about what they perceived as the UK gov wasting 350m a week on the EU, money they were told and believed should go to them and would do IF they voted OUT.

Regardless of which side of the argument you are on, lying to win, cannot be good for democracy, we ve a lower enough GE turn out as it is.

of course we ll never know what the result would have been if Boris had said £28m per week to spend on the NHS but as the result was very close, well, it should be challenged.

TheBigBean

Cameron triggering article 50 if Leave won. He knew that he would resign, and that even if he had hung on, there was simply no way that this would happen.

There was no chance any leader would trigger article 50 the day after because no work or consideration had even gone into how to do it. Cameron knew this and lied.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean wrote:

Cameron triggering article 50 if Leave won. He knew that he would resign, and that even if he had hung on, there was simply no way that this would happen.

There was no chance any leader would trigger article 50 the day after because no work or consideration had even gone into how to do it. Cameron knew this and lied.

Good example. So somebody telling a known lie such as the £350m could be threatened with jail if repeated ( an extreme example to illustrate a point) but how do you you stop somebody telling a lie that only becomes a lie after the result ie Cameron in the above example and Sadiq Khan with his fare freeze. I guess a year in prison would put most of them off.