Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

EU referendum: 23 June date set for UK vote


Still Waters

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Leto_loves_melange said:

Hi Torchwood, yes I can imagine the U.S. state department and the EU hanging off our every posts trying to work out what went wrong what to do next. :)

...and I agree with you that cool heads must prevail and time is needed to corner Merkel and Hollande into allowing the UK an opportunity to fix the mess that those opportunistic idiots Boris and Nigel created.

So now the president of France and the chancellor of Germany should rectify the "mistakes" that the stupid, gullible Brits have made? By force if necessary? They should be prepared to activate the Humanitarian Intervention to save the stupid Brits from the megalomaniacs that have led them into disaster? 

 

* This is the kind of attitude that you seem to support, from a site called ForeignPolicy.org . It demands that you sign up, but the title of the article surely says enough. 

It's Time for the Elites to Rise Up against the Ignorant Masses

 

 

So how does that differ from a straightforward old fashioned dictatorship, then? it's different if the stupid, ignorant masses are too stupid and gullible to know what's right for them? And who decides what's right for then and what's not? 

Edited by Otto von Pickelhaube
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Otto von Pickelhaube said:

You really would be happy to see democracy subverted by the Good 'Ol' US of A (or anyone else), just because, for whatever reason, you seem utterly obsessed with tirelessly pointing out to everyone at every single opportunity you get that you don't think this should have been the result? You'd be quite happy to see some discredited American politician over-rule democracy in a country he's got nothing to do with? Come to that, why are you so eager to see democracy over-ruled in a country that's not yours? 

the "regret" was from Millennials and the Twitterati, the great majority of them in London, who were sour and bitter than their little liberal metropolitan bubble was no longer able to impose its will on the rest of the country. That's what the regret was about. Do you think that the Twitterati should be allowed to over-rule democracy? 

Was it really Democracy if the population didn't know what they were voting for? And since when is the Brexit vote irreversible? Don't be shy, you can have another., its your country and future after all .. Is it cause Merkel said so... if you have no problem bowing to the economic threats of Merkel and Hollande, then why should it bother you taking proper council with a friend? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Otto von Pickelhaube said:

And please stop ****in' saying Regrexit. I expect you aren't bothered how smug, clever and self-satisfied it is, but it is to everyone else, believe me.

Since when is being repentant "smug and self satisfied?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Otto von Pickelhaube said:

So now the president of France and the chancellor of Germany should rectify the "mistakes" that the stupid, gullible Brits have made? By force if necessary? They should be prepared to activate the Humanitarian Intervention to save the stupid Brits from the megalomaniacs that have led them into disaster? 

 

* This is the kind of attitude that you seem to support, from a site called ForeignPolicy.org . It demands that you sign up, but the title of the article surely says enough. 

It's Time for the Elites to Rise Up against the Ignorant Masses

 

 

So how does that differ from a straightforward old fashioned dictatorship, then? it's different if the stupid, ignorant masses are too stupid and gullible to know what's right for them? And who decides what's right for then and what's not? 

Its only a mistake if you lock it in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2016 at 4:33 PM, RabidMongoose said:

Set in the context of British society you cannot be anti EU, anti free movement of people or anti mass immigration because then you do indeed get morons in Parliament (mostly but not limited to the left) trying to portray you as a xenophobic racist.

 

.

If we wanted to counteract this ---- we could start ranting on about the powerful EU commission having no members from ethnic minorities --

 ----  :innocent: ---- (but we don't NEED to resort to those political games...)

 

Partly due to the member-state selection procedure, only 9 of the current 28 Members are women and no ethnic minorities have ever served on a Commission to date. Peter Mandelson (2004 to October 2008)[1] was the first openly gay Commissioner. The first female Commissioners were Christiane Scrivener and Vasso Papandreou in the 1989 Delors Commission.

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/30/2016 at 11:20 AM, Leto_loves_melange said:

Was it really Democracy if the population didn't know what they were voting for? And since when is the Brexit vote irreversible? Don't be shy, you can have another., its your country and future after all .. Is it cause Merkel said so... if you have no problem bowing to the economic threats of Merkel and Hollande, then why should it bother you taking proper council with a friend? 

.

re underlined above --

I presume you are including the Remain voters in that sweeping statement...?....

I noticed a bit earlier in the thread - you said that the result of the referendum didn't give a mandate to leave (in your opinion) -

If the result had been the other way round would you have said the same.?

I think it's safe to say that if the result was the other way round all the Remainers who are now saying the majority wasn't big enough
to give a mandate to leave --- would be more than happy to Remain on that majority -- and would have definitely considered it
enough of a majority and a mandate to stay --

.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

 

something horrible has happened ---- I was listening to BBC Radio 4 earlier and Tony Blair has been sticking his oar in and
dispensing  advice on Brexit --- just hearing him being given quite a bit of air time was --- not nice -

He even had the nerve to use the words....'we the people' --- saying something like--- if we the people decide that it is now
considered not a good idea for the country to leave the EU -----

With the Chilcot Report coming out this week I'm thinking he is deliberately being bold and public because that is how he
is going to play it --- attack being the best form of defense kind of thing..? ---- it seems like a long time that he spoke much
about anything publicly because he is so despised about the Iraq war -

I heard an interesting little tidbit somewhere that Jeremy Corbyn might take the opportunity to slam Blair about the Iraq war
in Parliament when the Chilcot report comes out and even accuse him of being a war criminal and bringing the Labour Party
into disrepute..... perhaps Corbyn is hanging on in to do that..?...

I think Direct Democracy through referendums is a good thing for the country and would certainly sharpen up the
political senses for  citizens who have all but given up on the political system where two parties dominate and representative
democracy becomes pretty unrepresentative -- 

We could have done with a referendum about invading Iraq --- and IMO Blair would not have been given permission to take
us into war --- the MPs were conned into it but the public wasn't - not even from the beginning --- 

.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

 

Blair is all over Sky News ---- headline item - saying Britain may never leave the EU - in so many words saying the will of
the people can change -- there's no rush... the subtext being... what's the problem? the vote can be ignored...

It's not 70 to 30% --or 60 40% he says - like all the others saying it was too close to give a clear mandate, but as I said before
I'm sure if it had gone 52 to 48% in favour of remaining that would have been considered more than enough ---

And guess what --- and this is where it dove tails into the Chilcot Report - he's just potentially won himself 16 million + 'supporters' -
to take the sting out of what is coming re. Iraq --

or will it work the other way and his cavalier attitude - towards what the public think and want - harden attitudes towards leaving --

The cheek of the man beggars belief ---

.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bee said:

I presume you are including the Remain voters in that sweeping statement...?....

I noticed a bit earlier in the thread - you said that the result of the referendum didn't give a mandate to leave (in your opinion) -

If the result had been the other way round would you have said the same.?

I think it's safe to say that if the result was the other way round all the Remainers who are now saying the majority wasn't big enough
to give a mandate to leave --- would be more than happy to Remain on that majority -- and would have definitely considered it
enough of a majority and a mandate to stay --

.  

A small majority for maintaining the status quo seems reasonable (I.e. nothing's fallen horribly apart in 40+ years so let's not bugger about with it) whereas a small majority for a massive change isn't so convincing (i.e. potentially make things fall apart by buggering about with it for the sake of just 4%).

Throw in the lies and half-truths on both sides but mainly the massive backsliding on promises since the result and you have good grounds for claiming there is not a clear mandate to leave.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Setton said:

A small majority for maintaining the status quo seems reasonable (I.e. nothing's fallen horribly apart in 40+ years so let's not bugger about with it) whereas a small majority for a massive change isn't so convincing (i.e. potentially make things fall apart by buggering about with it for the sake of just 4%).

Throw in the lies and half-truths on both sides but mainly the massive backsliding on promises since the result and you have good grounds for claiming there is not a clear mandate to leave.

 

How massive do you think the swing to UKIP would be if the referendum result were to be ignored by the government? They certainly wouldn't be able to avoid an early election without riots. What would the plan be then? Overturn a general election result to pander to those who'd see democracy destroyed?

The status quo has already gone. If the referendum was overturned now, uncertainty would turn to chaos, and we'd see problems in Britain that haven't been seen for centuries. In fact, I'd imagine many would be praying for UKIP to be the choice, as I'll bet there are many nasty far-right voices out there waiting for people to reach the end of their tethers - god help us all if that happens.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, bee said:

.

re underlined above --

I presume you are including the Remain voters in that sweeping statement...?....

I noticed a bit earlier in the thread - you said that the result of the referendum didn't give a mandate to leave (in your opinion) -

If the result had been the other way round would you have said the same.?

I think it's safe to say that if the result was the other way round all the Remainers who are now saying the majority wasn't big enough
to give a mandate to leave --- would be more than happy to Remain on that majority -- and would have definitely considered it
enough of a majority and a mandate to stay --

.  

Yes of course, why shouldn't the remain camp also be excluded from an ill informed process. They were part of it afterall.

Okay I see your point, if remain had won the day, the recriminations that the referendum created would not have been as great. Fair enough.

So allow me to ask you some questions bee...would you have still voted to leave knowing that any free trade agreement outside the EU would still be subjected to free movement of EU citizens? Or that the break-up of the U.K. would be become a casualty of leaving the EU? Or that the UK's banking system would lose a big proportion of its business? 

As for a mandate the referendum result was not conclusive enough to act upon as the only thing it achieved was dividing British society. But then again the remain Camp could have lived without the referendum. Therefore the onus was on leave to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the will of the people and not the other way around. And considering how close the referendum was and how ill informed the people were it did not achieve any level of democracy worthy of such a change.

Edited by Leto_loves_melange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there no value in deciding who makes the laws you are governed by? As someone from the other side of the world with family in the UK, it strikes me as odd the way that the "Remainers" want to destroy democracy and lock themselves into a political system where the representatives they vote for do not have the final say on their laws.

 

It would be like in the US of A only being able to vote for state representatives and never getting to vote for the president. Your basic "taxation without representation" situation

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, LLM is still treating us to his advice from the other side of the world about how the stupid, racist, gullible Brits ought to follow his advice because he's the expert, is he. Has he explained yet just why he seems so concerned about what a different country from his does?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Setton said:

A small majority for maintaining the status quo seems reasonable (I.e. nothing's fallen horribly apart in 40+ years so let's not bugger about with it) whereas a small majority for a massive change isn't so convincing (i.e. potentially make things fall apart by buggering about with it for the sake of just 4%).

Throw in the lies and half-truths on both sides but mainly the massive backsliding on promises since the result and you have good grounds for claiming there is not a clear mandate to leave.

 

.

The thing is that they can't move the goal posts and change the rules after the vote - 
all this about what constitutes a mandate should have been settled before people went to the polling stations -

And on the subject of goalposts --- I do think that Cameron rushed it probably because he was sure he would win 
and having the referendum in the middle of the Euro Cup was probably part of the plan - (and in the middle of summer)

We were told over and over what a huge decision this was for the country and for generations to come so IMO there should
have been more  than a few weeks to focus on it - but I do think rushing into the vote was part of Cameron's Remain plan 
that backfired - 

The nation-wide debate took a while to warm up and reached fever pitch in the days before the 23rd - there could have been
educational programmes and what not if there had been more time and more of a build up --- but I can only presume
that the less we knew about the actual workings of the EU and the power process and the direction it's going in --
 the better for Remaining...?...and that Project Fear was considered the best route to get it rushed through...

 

 

Edited by bee
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Leto_loves_melange said:

 

So allow me to ask you some questions bee...would you have still voted to leave knowing that any free trade agreement outside the EU would still be subjected to free movement of EU citizens? Or that the break-up of the U.K. would be become a casualty of leaving the EU? Or that the UK's banking system would lose a big proportion of its business? 

As for a mandate the referendum result was not conclusive enough to act upon as the only thing it achieved was dividing British society. But then again the remain Camp could have lived without the referendum. Therefore the onus was on leave to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the will of the people and not the other way around. And considering how close the referendum was and how ill informed the people were it did not achieve any level of democracy worthy of such a change.

.

re the first paragraph --- we don't know if what you said is going to happen --- that's just Project Fear continuing
So nothing's changed and therefore I would still vote Leave - my main reason for voting Leave was about having
a self governing democracy anyway - 

And the second paragraph - see what I said to Setton in my post above :) 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

9 hours ago, Setton said:

A small majority for maintaining the status quo seems reasonable (I.e. nothing's fallen horribly apart in 40+ years so let's not bugger about with it) whereas a small majority for a massive change isn't so convincing (i.e. potentially make things fall apart by buggering about with it for the sake of just 4%).

Throw in the lies and half-truths on both sides but mainly the massive backsliding on promises since the result and you have good grounds for claiming there is not a clear mandate to leave.

 

So you're not worried about  an unelected super-government becoming increasingly dominant? Nothing's fallen apart in 40 years, so just sit back and let them get on with it? Until it reaches a point where there's nothing anyone can do about it, we mustn't bugger about with it and just let the super-government continually increase their power ? You're not worried about the EU Central Bank and all their Commissioners just throwing small, poor countries off the boat if that's what it takes to keep their common currency afloat?

Edited by Otto von Pickelhaube
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nigel Farage has just resigned.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, seeder said:

Nigel Farage has just resigned.....

Not surprised.  Like him or not, like what he stood for or not he has invested 25 years of his life into getting the UK out of Europe. 

The referendum may be won but leaving Europe is probably no nearer than when he begun his campaign.

It is looking likely a pro-Europe PM will be elected and I don't trust they will start article 50. 

All you hear now is boo-hoo we lost the referendum, boo-hoo no UK in Europe, boo-hoo we love Europe all of a sudden.  The whole thing is enough to make you sick.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, seeder said:

Nigel Farage has just resigned.....

.

bit shocked but can't blame him for wanting his life back - 
politics will be more boring without him --- but cheers for everything Nige ... ..:tu:

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Farage has driven off in his carriage. Now he'll have plenty of time for that project I've been advising, a new TV show where he shows viewers round his extensive collection of classics cars. It'll be called, of course, Farage's Garage. 

 

 

Or he could replace the undoubtedly soon-to-be-fired Chris Evans as the presenter of the no doubt soon-to-be-axed New Top Gear, at least. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, LV-426 said:

How massive do you think the swing to UKIP would be if the referendum result were to be ignored by the government? They certainly wouldn't be able to avoid an early election without riots. What would the plan be then? Overturn a general election result to pander to those who'd see democracy destroyed?

The status quo has already gone. If the referendum was overturned now, uncertainty would turn to chaos, and we'd see problems in Britain that haven't been seen for centuries. In fact, I'd imagine many would be praying for UKIP to be the choice, as I'll bet there are many nasty far-right voices out there waiting for people to reach the end of their tethers - god help us all if that happens.

I don't recall advocating ignoring the referendum. I would be in favour of a second referendum once we have an idea what terms and deals the rest of the world is willing to offer. You, and so many others, seem to fundamentally misunderstand the type of democracy we live in. Trying to portray anyone who calls for composure of panic or national interest over emotion as 'trying to destroy democracy' is really a bit of a stretch and frankly laughable. We live in a representative democracy. Whether you like that or not, it means parliament is sovereign. Personally, I think representative democracy doesn't work in the modern world but that's another debate.

Anyone who claims parliament must follow the referendum result, regardless of their expertise, is the one opposing our democracy. Anyone in favour of politicians spreading misinformation and outright lies to further their own career is opposing our democracy.

1 hour ago, bee said:

.

The thing is that they can't move the goal posts and change the rules after the vote - 
all this about what constitutes a mandate should have been settled before people went to the polling stations -

And on the subject of goalposts --- I do think that Cameron rushed it probably because he was sure he would win 
and having the referendum in the middle of the Euro Cup was probably part of the plan - (and in the middle of summer)

We were told over and over what a huge decision this was for the country and for generations to come so IMO there should
have been more  than a few weeks to focus on it - but I do think rushing into the vote was part of Cameron's Remain plan 
that backfired - 

The nation-wide debate took a while to warm up and reached fever pitch in the days before the 23rd - there could have been
educational programmes and what not if there had been more time and more of a build up --- but I can only presume
that the less we knew about the actual workings of the EU and the power process and the direction it's going in --
 the better for Remaining...?...and that Project Fear was considered the best route to get it rushed through...

 

 

But, as you say, the rules were not settled so wouldn't need changing. Legally, parliament could totally ignore the referendum, adopt the Euro and make French the official language of the UK. They would be crazy to do so but legally they could.

I agree it was all too rushed, probably because of Cameron's paranoia. Ironically, a longer campaign would have allowed more fact checking and exposure of the many false claims made.

 

1 hour ago, Otto von Pickelhaube said:

 

So you're not worried about  an unelected super-government becoming increasingly dominant? Nothing's fallen apart in 40 years, so just sit back and let them get on with it? Until it reaches a point where there's nothing anyone can do about it, we mustn't bugger about with it and just let the super-government continually increase their power ? You're not worried about the EU Central Bank and all their Commissioners just throwing small, poor countries off the boat if that's what it takes to keep their common currency afloat?

A few points:

I haven't said how, or even if, I voted. I don't come down as strictly pro- or anti- EU. It all depends on how things pan out from here. Please don't assume things about me without reason. Nor did I say the referendum should be ignored. It should be used, as it has been, as a warning note to the EU for more radical change. And that's what France and Germany are at each other's throats over now. In short, if Germany, with their argument for more independence and less Brussels oversight, wins, I'd be in favour of staying. If France, arguing 'more Europe' wins, it's time to get out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Setton said:

And that's what France and Germany are at each other's throats over now. In short, if Germany, with their argument for more independence and less Brussels oversight, wins, I'd be in favour of staying. If France, arguing 'more Europe' wins, it's time to get out.

Well, France in the form of the French Government may be arguing that, but it seems as if the French people don't seem quite as keen .. 

 

Perhaps M. Farage could revert to his French ancestry and lead a new, er, French revolution! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Setton said:

 We live in a representative democracy. Whether you like that or not, it means parliament is sovereign. Personally, I think representative democracy doesn't work in the modern world but that's another debate.

Anyone who claims parliament must follow the referendum result, regardless of their expertise, is the one opposing our democracy.  

So how would it be representative if they did overrule the wishes of a majority of the People? Anyway, the entire concept of that depends on the notion that Parliament knows better than the ignorant, emotionally swayed masses, which is, as you say, laughable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Otto von Pickelhaube said:

Well, France in the form of the French Government may be arguing that, but it seems as if the French people don't seem quite as keen .. 

 

Perhaps M. Farage could revert to his French ancestry and lead a new, er, French revolution! 

Well given that France is also a representative democracy, France is used to refer to the people's representative government. Sorry, couldn't resist :P

And I would very much like to see Monsieur Farage leading the French revolution (Mk. II)

2 minutes ago, Otto von Pickelhaube said:

So how would it be representative if they did overrule the wishes of a majority of the People? Anyway, the entire concept of that depends on the notion that Parliament knows better than the ignorant, emotionally swayed masses, which is, as you say, laughable. 

It would still be representative. They were elected by the people as their representatives. Basically, in our representative democracy, the people delegate their power to MPs for five years at a time. After that, they have no say.

Of course Parliament knows better than most everyday people. It's their job to and they have the entire civil service to advise them. But then they bring in personal interests and ignore the advice and their own expertise to further their careers (especially on the EU debate - e.g. I want to work for the EU when I'm voted out or I want a better position in government).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Otto von Pickelhaube said:

So how would it be representative if they did overrule the wishes of a majority of the People? Anyway, the entire concept of that depends on the notion that Parliament knows better than the ignorant, emotionally swayed masses, which is, as you say, laughable. 

Can't make edit work:

Also, parliament would not be overruling the majority of 'The People'. It would be overruling 27.6% of the People. The People includes those who didn't or couldn't vote as well and it is Parliament's duty to consider them when making a decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.