Brian Kirby Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-10-19 2:22 PM Brian Kirby - 2018-10-19 11:14 AM Barryd999 - 2018-10-18 8:59 AM http://www.senat.fr/leg/pjl18-009.html All checks of goods and passengers will be restablished immediately as will SPS, veterinary checks and default safety customs declarations/checks...………………………... As they are obliged to do as the border they are policing is the EU border and not just that of France. What then follows Barry's post is an extraordinary display of the level of ignorance of some forum members regarding history and the EU. And yet they all get to vote. I despair for democracy! :-( When did you last care about democracy? 8-) ........... Oh yeah I remember ;-) ...... 22nd June 2016 >:-) ........ Daily, Dave, but then, I understand it! :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-10-19 3:19 PM pelmetman - 2018-10-19 2:22 PM Brian Kirby - 2018-10-19 11:14 AM Barryd999 - 2018-10-18 8:59 AM http://www.senat.fr/leg/pjl18-009.html All checks of goods and passengers will be restablished immediately as will SPS, veterinary checks and default safety customs declarations/checks...………………………... As they are obliged to do as the border they are policing is the EU border and not just that of France. What then follows Barry's post is an extraordinary display of the level of ignorance of some forum members regarding history and the EU. And yet they all get to vote. I despair for democracy! :-( When did you last care about democracy? 8-) ........... Oh yeah I remember ;-) ...... 22nd June 2016 >:-) ........ Daily, Dave, but then, I understand it! :-D You mean you understand your version *-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-10-19 3:24 PM Brian Kirby - 2018-10-19 3:19 PM pelmetman - 2018-10-19 2:22 PM Brian Kirby - 2018-10-19 11:14 AM Barryd999 - 2018-10-18 8:59 AM http://www.senat.fr/leg/pjl18-009.html All checks of goods and passengers will be restablished immediately as will SPS, veterinary checks and default safety customs declarations/checks...………………………... As they are obliged to do as the border they are policing is the EU border and not just that of France. What then follows Barry's post is an extraordinary display of the level of ignorance of some forum members regarding history and the EU. And yet they all get to vote. I despair for democracy! :-( When did you last care about democracy? 8-) ........... Oh yeah I remember ;-) ...... 22nd June 2016 >:-) ........ Daily, Dave, but then, I understand it! :-D You mean you understand your version *-) ......... Is there another 'version'? :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 Bulletguy - 2018-10-19 5:50 PM pelmetman - 2018-10-19 3:24 PM Brian Kirby - 2018-10-19 3:19 PM pelmetman - 2018-10-19 2:22 PM Brian Kirby - 2018-10-19 11:14 AM Barryd999 - 2018-10-18 8:59 AM http://www.senat.fr/leg/pjl18-009.html All checks of goods and passengers will be restablished immediately as will SPS, veterinary checks and default safety customs declarations/checks...………………………... As they are obliged to do as the border they are policing is the EU border and not just that of France. What then follows Barry's post is an extraordinary display of the level of ignorance of some forum members regarding history and the EU. And yet they all get to vote. I despair for democracy! :-( When did you last care about democracy? 8-) ........... Oh yeah I remember ;-) ...... 22nd June 2016 >:-) ........ Daily, Dave, but then, I understand it! :-D You mean you understand your version *-) ......... Is there another 'version'? :-S Yeah ;-) .......... Where 48% means more then 52% *-) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-10-19 5:53 PM ………………………….Where 48% means more then 52% *-) .......... That a vote on a given day resulted in a majority on a given subject does not seal that result in perpetuity. That would be undemocratic. Democracy allows that opinions, and circumstances, change, and that the answer the demos gave on that day may no longer be satisfactory the next day. People are entitled to change their minds, which is why we have periodic elections. People are also allowed to continue advancing the case that lost the last plebiscite, which is why we alternate between left, and right, wing governments. So with Brexit. I accept that there was a majority of votes cast in favour of Brexit (though I'm not entirely satisfied that the referendum itself was truly democratic). But, I think Brexit will prove a fundamental error, and that a lot of people in the UK will be worse off as a result. Not instantly, but over time. I think it's a bad decision, that can only be reversed now. It cannot be reversed in the future, whatever people than may want. Why would I, or any democrat, change my mind on that? Why would any democrat not argue for the decision to be reversed? How would doing that be remotely democratic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-10-23 7:01 PM pelmetman - 2018-10-19 5:53 PM ………………………….Where 48% means more then 52% *-) .......... That a vote on a given day resulted in a majority on a given subject does not seal that result in perpetuity. That would be undemocratic. Democracy allows that opinions, and circumstances, change, and that the answer the demos gave on that day may no longer be satisfactory the next day. People are entitled to change their minds, which is why we have periodic elections. People are also allowed to continue advancing the case that lost the last plebiscite, which is why we alternate between left, and right, wing governments. So with Brexit. I accept that there was a majority of votes cast in favour of Brexit (though I'm not entirely satisfied that the referendum itself was truly democratic). But, I think Brexit will prove a fundamental error, and that a lot of people in the UK will be worse off as a result. Not instantly, but over time. I think it's a bad decision, that can only be reversed now. It cannot be reversed in the future, whatever people than may want. Why would I, or any democrat, change my mind on that? Why would any democrat not argue for the decision to be reversed? How would doing that be remotely democratic? That's funny?.......I don't recall any of this tosh post 74 *-) ......... But at least that means that if you do win the next referendum if we have one ;-) ....... Then Us Brexiteers can expect to have another one soon after? >:-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-10-23 7:07 PM Brian Kirby - 2018-10-23 7:01 PM pelmetman - 2018-10-19 5:53 PM ………………………….Where 48% means more then 52% *-) .......... That a vote on a given day resulted in a majority on a given subject does not seal that result in perpetuity. That would be undemocratic. Democracy allows that opinions, and circumstances, change, and that the answer the demos gave on that day may no longer be satisfactory the next day. People are entitled to change their minds, which is why we have periodic elections. People are also allowed to continue advancing the case that lost the last plebiscite, which is why we alternate between left, and right, wing governments. So with Brexit. I accept that there was a majority of votes cast in favour of Brexit (though I'm not entirely satisfied that the referendum itself was truly democratic). But, I think Brexit will prove a fundamental error, and that a lot of people in the UK will be worse off as a result. Not instantly, but over time. I think it's a bad decision, that can only be reversed now. It cannot be reversed in the future, whatever people than may want. Why would I, or any democrat, change my mind on that? Why would any democrat not argue for the decision to be reversed? How would doing that be remotely democratic? That's funny?.......I don't recall any of this tosh post 74 *-) ......... But at least that means that if you do win the next referendum if we have one ;-) ....... Then Us Brexiteers can expect to have another one soon after? >:-) ......... By the time any new referendum can be organised and held, it will be at about 30 months from the 23 June 2016. The democratic 1974 referendum was on whether we should remain in the EEC, or leave. The result was stay in. There has now been a further democratic referendum on the same issue, and the result was leave. Which version of democracy are you calling tosh? The one that lets you win the vote, or the one that might leave you on the losing side. Strange definition of democracy, that: if I win it's democratic, if I don't it isn't! Seig Heil? :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-10-24 6:35 PM pelmetman - 2018-10-23 7:07 PM Brian Kirby - 2018-10-23 7:01 PM pelmetman - 2018-10-19 5:53 PM ………………………….Where 48% means more then 52% *-) .......... That a vote on a given day resulted in a majority on a given subject does not seal that result in perpetuity. That would be undemocratic. Democracy allows that opinions, and circumstances, change, and that the answer the demos gave on that day may no longer be satisfactory the next day. People are entitled to change their minds, which is why we have periodic elections. People are also allowed to continue advancing the case that lost the last plebiscite, which is why we alternate between left, and right, wing governments. So with Brexit. I accept that there was a majority of votes cast in favour of Brexit (though I'm not entirely satisfied that the referendum itself was truly democratic). But, I think Brexit will prove a fundamental error, and that a lot of people in the UK will be worse off as a result. Not instantly, but over time. I think it's a bad decision, that can only be reversed now. It cannot be reversed in the future, whatever people than may want. Why would I, or any democrat, change my mind on that? Why would any democrat not argue for the decision to be reversed? How would doing that be remotely democratic? That's funny?.......I don't recall any of this tosh post 74 *-) ......... But at least that means that if you do win the next referendum if we have one ;-) ....... Then Us Brexiteers can expect to have another one soon after? >:-) ......... By the time any new referendum can be organised and held, it will be at about 30 months from the 23 June 2016. The democratic 1974 referendum was on whether we should remain in the EEC, or leave. The result was stay in. There has now been a further democratic referendum on the same issue, and the result was leave. Which version of democracy are you calling tosh? The one that lets you win the vote, or the one that might leave you on the losing side. Strange definition of democracy, that: if I win it's democratic, if I don't it isn't! Seig Heil? :-D Nothing wrong with another referendum.......so long as you wait the same length of time as I've had to *-) ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartO Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-10-23 7:01 PMpelmetman - 2018-10-19 5:53 PM………………………….Where 48% means more then 52% *-) ..........That a vote on a given day resulted in a majority on a given subject does not seal that result in perpetuity. That would be undemocratic.Democracy allows that opinions, and circumstances, change, and that the answer the demos gave on that day may no longer be satisfactory the next day. People are entitled to change their minds, which is why we have periodic elections.People are also allowed to continue advancing the case that lost the last plebiscite, which is why we alternate between left, and right, wing governments.So with Brexit. I accept that there was a majority of votes cast in favour of Brexit (though I'm not entirely satisfied that the referendum itself was truly democratic).But, I think Brexit will prove a fundamental error, and that a lot of people in the UK will be worse off as a result. Not instantly, but over time. I think it's a bad decision, that can only be reversed now. It cannot be reversed in the future, whatever people than may want.Why would I, or any democrat, change my mind on that? Why would any democrat not argue for the decision to be reversed? How would doing that be remotely democratic? If you insist on a democratic right to seek to reverse a decision before it has even been implimented (and maybe also a right to be disruptive in the course of that seeking of reversal) you risk bringing society to a grinding halt unless and until you get your own way - and that's hardly democratic, is it?We elect a Parliament for a five year period and we have a Prime Minister who is working hard to impliment Brexit. Why not let it go ahead and see how it works out for a while? No parliament can bind its successor and there is an EU mechanism for applying to rejoin the EU if we decide to do that in due course. Why insist on your right to wreck the implimentation of the democratic decision which was made by the voting public straight away just because you voted the other way at the time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 StuartO - 2018-10-25 9:06 AMBrian Kirby - 2018-10-23 7:01 PMpelmetman - 2018-10-19 5:53 PM………………………….Where 48% means more then 52% *-) ..........That a vote on a given day resulted in a majority on a given subject does not seal that result in perpetuity. That would be undemocratic.Democracy allows that opinions, and circumstances, change, and that the answer the demos gave on that day may no longer be satisfactory the next day. People are entitled to change their minds, which is why we have periodic elections.People are also allowed to continue advancing the case that lost the last plebiscite, which is why we alternate between left, and right, wing governments.So with Brexit. I accept that there was a majority of votes cast in favour of Brexit (though I'm not entirely satisfied that the referendum itself was truly democratic).But, I think Brexit will prove a fundamental error, and that a lot of people in the UK will be worse off as a result. Not instantly, but over time. I think it's a bad decision, that can only be reversed now. It cannot be reversed in the future, whatever people than may want.Why would I, or any democrat, change my mind on that? Why would any democrat not argue for the decision to be reversed? How would doing that be remotely democratic? If you insist on a democratic right to seek to reverse a decision before it has even been implimented (and maybe also a right to be disruptive in the course of that seeking of reversal) you risk bringing society to a grinding halt unless and until you get your own way - and that's hardly democratic, is it?We elect a Parliament for a five year period and we have a Prime Minister who is working hard to impliment Brexit. Why not let it go ahead and see how it works out for a while? No parliament can bind its successor and there is an EU mechanism for applying to rejoin the EU if we decide to do that in due course. Why insist on your right to wreck the implimentation of the democratic decision which was made by the voting public straight away just because you voted the other way at the time?Exaggeration does not make a good argument, Stuart - though it may make a straw man! :-DFar better to reverse a bad decision before it is implemented, than to stick to the bad decision simply because it was made, whoever made it. That isn't a democratic right, it is common sense. I claim no right to "be disruptive" - that is your first straw man.I think the implementation of Brexit is far more likely to damage the functioning of society than not Brexiting. Why/how would an exit from Brexit bring society to this grinding halt? If people no longer think Brexit is the best idea, they will vote accordingly. Second straw man.Yes we elect governments for five years, but Brexit is not a party political issue. The government is merely an executive. Parliament has to vote in a government's policies before they can be implemented. I am amazed that Theresa May has not cracked under the strain of trying to implement the Brexit policy, but however hard she works, she can't make a bad policy into a good one. This is not a straw man, but I don't see its relevance to whether or not Brexit is a good policy.We should not let Brexit proceed on a "suck it and see" basis because, once we are out, the opt-outs previously negotiated with the EEC/EU (Schengen, Monetary Union, Charter of Fundamental Rights, Area of Freedom, Security and Justice), will be lost, and it is extremely unlikely we should be able to regain them were we to re-join. The notion of re-joining on the terms we currently enjoy is another straw man.I make no claim on a right to wreck the Brexit decision (final straw man), either straight away (though 30 months later seems to me far from straight away) or in the longer term. What I do claim is the democratic right to argue that Brexit is a bad, potentially economically damaging, and wholly unnecessary, decision that should be democratically (either a further referendum, or a parliamentary vote) abandoned, and the Article 50 notification withdrawn. Democracy does not die with a single vote, it is a continuing process. That is democracy. :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted October 25, 2018 Author Share Posted October 25, 2018 Well said Brian. Brilliantly put as usual. What could be more democratic than the public voting on whatever deal is negotiated seeing as it was the public that initiated the process not to mention the tiny margins in favour all that time ago? Brexit should not be a lucky dip that is carried out regardless of how bad the deal is and certainly if there is no deal on offer. Of course people should be given the chance to revisit it and decide if they want to continue or not. If you buy something online, anything without seeing it you have a cooling off period by right and thats even when you have a picture of said goods and a proper description. We had neither for Brexit but shortly we will. Lets face it, the Brexiteers do not want a second vote (some do) simply because they fear they may lose. Doesnt sound like they like Democracy to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 Barryd999 - 2018-10-25 12:12 PM Well said Brian. Brilliantly put as usual. What could be more democratic than the public voting on whatever deal is negotiated seeing as it was the public that initiated the process not to mention the tiny margins in favour all that time ago? Brexit should not be a lucky dip that is carried out regardless of how bad the deal is and certainly if there is no deal on offer. Of course people should be given the chance to revisit it and decide if they want to continue or not. If you buy something online, anything without seeing it you have a cooling off period by right and thats even when you have a picture of said goods and a proper description. We had neither for Brexit but shortly we will. Lets face it, the Brexiteers do not want a second vote (some do) simply because they fear they may lose. Doesnt sound like they like Democracy to me. Jeez Barry ... Your talking for a lot of Brexiteers ... The ones I know don't want a second neverendum because we already had one it's that simple and to be fair all the whinging by the likes of you , Campbell , Adonis etc etc has only cemented that position more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 antony1969 - 2018-10-25 12:36 PM...............….The ones I know don't want a second neverendum because we already had one it's that simple and to be fair all the whinging by the likes of you, Campbell, Adonis etc etc has only cemented that position more Well no, Antony, we've actually had two referendums, and both asked approximately the same question. One said remain, the other leave. But, setting any opinion in stone on the mere basis that other people argue against it is perverse. It is the application of personal pride over logic. It is "no-one can "tell" me what to do, because I make my own decisions on a far better basis than anyone else". It is fool's logic, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted October 25, 2018 Author Share Posted October 25, 2018 antony1969 - 2018-10-25 12:36 PM Barryd999 - 2018-10-25 12:12 PM Well said Brian. Brilliantly put as usual. What could be more democratic than the public voting on whatever deal is negotiated seeing as it was the public that initiated the process not to mention the tiny margins in favour all that time ago? Brexit should not be a lucky dip that is carried out regardless of how bad the deal is and certainly if there is no deal on offer. Of course people should be given the chance to revisit it and decide if they want to continue or not. If you buy something online, anything without seeing it you have a cooling off period by right and thats even when you have a picture of said goods and a proper description. We had neither for Brexit but shortly we will. Lets face it, the Brexiteers do not want a second vote (some do) simply because they fear they may lose. Doesnt sound like they like Democracy to me. Jeez Barry ... Your talking for a lot of Brexiteers ... The ones I know don't want a second neverendum because we already had one it's that simple and to be fair all the whinging by the likes of you , Campbell , Adonis etc etc has only cemented that position more https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/three-point-three-million-leave-voters-support-peoples-vote-says-new-poll-1-5719471 Ok its The New European but its been reported in MSM and in September it was 2.6 million I think so support is growing. Even if the figures are wildly wrong there are clearly Breixteers that support a second vote. The ones you know are probably as entrenched as yourself. Most of the people debating Brexit on social media are pretty entrenched but there are a massive number of people out there that would support a second vote or are perhaps unsure about Brexit. Only 19% of us think now we are going to get good deal. I think the chances of a second vote are slim to be honest but by a country mile its the logical thing to do once we have all the facts, particularly with such a narrow margin initially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-10-25 12:56 PM antony1969 - 2018-10-25 12:36 PM...............….The ones I know don't want a second neverendum because we already had one it's that simple and to be fair all the whinging by the likes of you, Campbell, Adonis etc etc has only cemented that position more Well no, Antony, we've actually had two referendums, and both asked approximately the same question. One said remain, the other leave. But, setting any opinion in stone on the mere basis that other people argue against it is perverse. It is the application of personal pride over logic. It is "no-one can "tell" me what to do, because I make my own decisions on a far better basis than anyone else". It is fool's logic, IMO. To be fair Brian I don't believe most folk are against others opinions but the thing with Brexit has been the style both on here and in the media that some Remainers have gone about it ... Started off with us being racist and too thick to know and it's continued in much the same way ever since ... Tha's only so much belittling one can take don't ya know ... Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 Barryd999 - 2018-10-25 1:22 PM antony1969 - 2018-10-25 12:36 PM Barryd999 - 2018-10-25 12:12 PM Well said Brian. Brilliantly put as usual. What could be more democratic than the public voting on whatever deal is negotiated seeing as it was the public that initiated the process not to mention the tiny margins in favour all that time ago? Brexit should not be a lucky dip that is carried out regardless of how bad the deal is and certainly if there is no deal on offer. Of course people should be given the chance to revisit it and decide if they want to continue or not. If you buy something online, anything without seeing it you have a cooling off period by right and thats even when you have a picture of said goods and a proper description. We had neither for Brexit but shortly we will. Lets face it, the Brexiteers do not want a second vote (some do) simply because they fear they may lose. Doesnt sound like they like Democracy to me. Jeez Barry ... Your talking for a lot of Brexiteers ... The ones I know don't want a second neverendum because we already had one it's that simple and to be fair all the whinging by the likes of you , Campbell , Adonis etc etc has only cemented that position more https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/three-point-three-million-leave-voters-support-peoples-vote-says-new-poll-1-5719471 Ok its The New European but its been reported in MSM and in September it was 2.6 million I think so support is growing. Even if the figures are wildly wrong there are clearly Breixteers that support a second vote. The ones you know are probably as entrenched as yourself. Most of the people debating Brexit on social media are pretty entrenched but there are a massive number of people out there that would support a second vote or are perhaps unsure about Brexit. Only 19% of us think now we are going to get good deal. I think the chances of a second vote are slim to be honest but by a country mile its the logical thing to do once we have all the facts, particularly with such a narrow margin initially. Of course there are Brexiteers that support a second vote , with all the nonsense spoken on both sides since the vote who could blame them but there are Remainers who now would vote leave ... Kinda works both ways Barry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-10-25 12:00 PMStuartO - 2018-10-25 9:06 AMBrian Kirby - 2018-10-23 7:01 PMpelmetman - 2018-10-19 5:53 PM………………………….Where 48% means more then 52% *-) ..........That a vote on a given day resulted in a majority on a given subject does not seal that result in perpetuity. That would be undemocratic.Democracy allows that opinions, and circumstances, change, and that the answer the demos gave on that day may no longer be satisfactory the next day. People are entitled to change their minds, which is why we have periodic elections.People are also allowed to continue advancing the case that lost the last plebiscite, which is why we alternate between left, and right, wing governments.So with Brexit. I accept that there was a majority of votes cast in favour of Brexit (though I'm not entirely satisfied that the referendum itself was truly democratic).But, I think Brexit will prove a fundamental error, and that a lot of people in the UK will be worse off as a result. Not instantly, but over time. I think it's a bad decision, that can only be reversed now. It cannot be reversed in the future, whatever people than may want.Why would I, or any democrat, change my mind on that? Why would any democrat not argue for the decision to be reversed? How would doing that be remotely democratic? If you insist on a democratic right to seek to reverse a decision before it has even been implimented (and maybe also a right to be disruptive in the course of that seeking of reversal) you risk bringing society to a grinding halt unless and until you get your own way - and that's hardly democratic, is it?We elect a Parliament for a five year period and we have a Prime Minister who is working hard to impliment Brexit. Why not let it go ahead and see how it works out for a while? No parliament can bind its successor and there is an EU mechanism for applying to rejoin the EU if we decide to do that in due course. Why insist on your right to wreck the implimentation of the democratic decision which was made by the voting public straight away just because you voted the other way at the time?Exaggeration does not make a good argument, Stuart - though it may make a straw man! :-DFar better to reverse a bad decision before it is implemented, than to stick to the bad decision simply because it was made, whoever made it. That isn't a democratic right, it is common sense. I claim no right to "be disruptive" - that is your first straw man.I think the implementation of Brexit is far more likely to damage the functioning of society than not Brexiting. Why/how would an exit from Brexit bring society to this grinding halt? If people no longer think Brexit is the best idea, they will vote accordingly. Second straw man.Yes we elect governments for five years, but Brexit is not a party political issue. The government is merely an executive. Parliament has to vote in a government's policies before they can be implemented. I am amazed that Theresa May has not cracked under the strain of trying to implement the Brexit policy, but however hard she works, she can't make a bad policy into a good one. This is not a straw man, but I don't see its relevance to whether or not Brexit is a good policy.We should not let Brexit proceed on a "suck it and see" basis because, once we are out, the opt-outs previously negotiated with the EEC/EU (Schengen, Monetary Union, Charter of Fundamental Rights, Area of Freedom, Security and Justice), will be lost, and it is extremely unlikely we should be able to regain them were we to re-join. The notion of re-joining on the terms we currently enjoy is another straw man.I make no claim on a right to wreck the Brexit decision (final straw man), either straight away (though 30 months later seems to me far from straight away) or in the longer term. What I do claim is the democratic right to argue that Brexit is a bad, potentially economically damaging, and wholly unnecessary, decision that should be democratically (either a further referendum, or a parliamentary vote) abandoned, and the Article 50 notification withdrawn. Democracy does not die with a single vote, it is a continuing process. That is democracy. :-DIf there is another referendum and you win........do you think us Brexiteers will just crawl back into our holes and die? *-) ...........Nah the fight will go on >:-) .........and we'll expect another referendum within the same timescale as yours ..........anything else would be undemocratic :-| ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 Barryd999 - 2018-10-25 1:22 PM antony1969 - 2018-10-25 12:36 PM Barryd999 - 2018-10-25 12:12 PM Well said Brian. Brilliantly put as usual. What could be more democratic than the public voting on whatever deal is negotiated seeing as it was the public that initiated the process not to mention the tiny margins in favour all that time ago? Brexit should not be a lucky dip that is carried out regardless of how bad the deal is and certainly if there is no deal on offer. Of course people should be given the chance to revisit it and decide if they want to continue or not. If you buy something online, anything without seeing it you have a cooling off period by right and thats even when you have a picture of said goods and a proper description. We had neither for Brexit but shortly we will. Lets face it, the Brexiteers do not want a second vote (some do) simply because they fear they may lose. Doesnt sound like they like Democracy to me. Jeez Barry ... Your talking for a lot of Brexiteers ... The ones I know don't want a second neverendum because we already had one it's that simple and to be fair all the whinging by the likes of you , Campbell , Adonis etc etc has only cemented that position more https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/three-point-three-million-leave-voters-support-peoples-vote-says-new-poll-1-5719471 Ok its The New European but its been reported in MSM and in September it was 2.6 million I think so support is growing. Even if the figures are wildly wrong there are clearly Breixteers that support a second vote. The ones you know are probably as entrenched as yourself. Most of the people debating Brexit on social media are pretty entrenched but there are a massive number of people out there that would support a second vote or are perhaps unsure about Brexit. Only 19% of us think now we are going to get good deal. I think the chances of a second vote are slim to be honest but by a country mile its the logical thing to do once we have all the facts, particularly with such a narrow margin initially. 3 million is that all??? 8-) ..........The way you lot were blathering on I'd expect it to be over 10 by now *-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted October 25, 2018 Author Share Posted October 25, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-10-25 2:24 PMBrian Kirby - 2018-10-25 12:00 PMStuartO - 2018-10-25 9:06 AMBrian Kirby - 2018-10-23 7:01 PMpelmetman - 2018-10-19 5:53 PM………………………….Where 48% means more then 52% *-) ..........That a vote on a given day resulted in a majority on a given subject does not seal that result in perpetuity. That would be undemocratic.Democracy allows that opinions, and circumstances, change, and that the answer the demos gave on that day may no longer be satisfactory the next day. People are entitled to change their minds, which is why we have periodic elections.People are also allowed to continue advancing the case that lost the last plebiscite, which is why we alternate between left, and right, wing governments.So with Brexit. I accept that there was a majority of votes cast in favour of Brexit (though I'm not entirely satisfied that the referendum itself was truly democratic).But, I think Brexit will prove a fundamental error, and that a lot of people in the UK will be worse off as a result. Not instantly, but over time. I think it's a bad decision, that can only be reversed now. It cannot be reversed in the future, whatever people than may want.Why would I, or any democrat, change my mind on that? Why would any democrat not argue for the decision to be reversed? How would doing that be remotely democratic? If you insist on a democratic right to seek to reverse a decision before it has even been implimented (and maybe also a right to be disruptive in the course of that seeking of reversal) you risk bringing society to a grinding halt unless and until you get your own way - and that's hardly democratic, is it?We elect a Parliament for a five year period and we have a Prime Minister who is working hard to impliment Brexit. Why not let it go ahead and see how it works out for a while? No parliament can bind its successor and there is an EU mechanism for applying to rejoin the EU if we decide to do that in due course. Why insist on your right to wreck the implimentation of the democratic decision which was made by the voting public straight away just because you voted the other way at the time?Exaggeration does not make a good argument, Stuart - though it may make a straw man! :-DFar better to reverse a bad decision before it is implemented, than to stick to the bad decision simply because it was made, whoever made it. That isn't a democratic right, it is common sense. I claim no right to "be disruptive" - that is your first straw man.I think the implementation of Brexit is far more likely to damage the functioning of society than not Brexiting. Why/how would an exit from Brexit bring society to this grinding halt? If people no longer think Brexit is the best idea, they will vote accordingly. Second straw man.Yes we elect governments for five years, but Brexit is not a party political issue. The government is merely an executive. Parliament has to vote in a government's policies before they can be implemented. I am amazed that Theresa May has not cracked under the strain of trying to implement the Brexit policy, but however hard she works, she can't make a bad policy into a good one. This is not a straw man, but I don't see its relevance to whether or not Brexit is a good policy.We should not let Brexit proceed on a "suck it and see" basis because, once we are out, the opt-outs previously negotiated with the EEC/EU (Schengen, Monetary Union, Charter of Fundamental Rights, Area of Freedom, Security and Justice), will be lost, and it is extremely unlikely we should be able to regain them were we to re-join. The notion of re-joining on the terms we currently enjoy is another straw man.I make no claim on a right to wreck the Brexit decision (final straw man), either straight away (though 30 months later seems to me far from straight away) or in the longer term. What I do claim is the democratic right to argue that Brexit is a bad, potentially economically damaging, and wholly unnecessary, decision that should be democratically (either a further referendum, or a parliamentary vote) abandoned, and the Article 50 notification withdrawn. Democracy does not die with a single vote, it is a continuing process. That is democracy. :-DIf there is another referendum and you win........do you think us Brexiteers will just crawl back into our holes and die? *-) ...........Nah the fight will go on >:-) .........and we'll expect another referendum within the same timescale as yours ..........anything else would be undemocratic :-| ...........I said earlier I wouldnt object to further referendums but bear in mind that as of January next year if nobody has changed their minds there will be no majority for Brexit because of the number of deaths and new voters eligible to vote. Of course the youngsters may start to change their minds but not likely and not in as great a number than elderly voters are clocking off. Sad but true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted October 25, 2018 Author Share Posted October 25, 2018 antony1969 - 2018-10-25 1:38 PM Brian Kirby - 2018-10-25 12:56 PM antony1969 - 2018-10-25 12:36 PM...............….The ones I know don't want a second neverendum because we already had one it's that simple and to be fair all the whinging by the likes of you, Campbell, Adonis etc etc has only cemented that position more Well no, Antony, we've actually had two referendums, and both asked approximately the same question. One said remain, the other leave. But, setting any opinion in stone on the mere basis that other people argue against it is perverse. It is the application of personal pride over logic. It is "no-one can "tell" me what to do, because I make my own decisions on a far better basis than anyone else". It is fool's logic, IMO. To be fair Brian I don't believe most folk are against others opinions but the thing with Brexit has been the style both on here and in the media that some Remainers have gone about it ... Started off with us being racist and too thick to know and it's continued in much the same way ever since ... Tha's only so much belittling one can take don't ya know ... Regards Well the abuse has been on both sides to be fair. On here its mainly Panto though really but you do make a valid point. Im ashamed of how we have all behaved towards one another really. Too much emotion. You leavers are all still dinosaurs that didnt know what you were voting for though. (lol) Cant help myself. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 Barryd999 - 2018-10-25 2:37 PM antony1969 - 2018-10-25 1:38 PM Brian Kirby - 2018-10-25 12:56 PM antony1969 - 2018-10-25 12:36 PM...............….The ones I know don't want a second neverendum because we already had one it's that simple and to be fair all the whinging by the likes of you, Campbell, Adonis etc etc has only cemented that position more Well no, Antony, we've actually had two referendums, and both asked approximately the same question. One said remain, the other leave. But, setting any opinion in stone on the mere basis that other people argue against it is perverse. It is the application of personal pride over logic. It is "no-one can "tell" me what to do, because I make my own decisions on a far better basis than anyone else". It is fool's logic, IMO. To be fair Brian I don't believe most folk are against others opinions but the thing with Brexit has been the style both on here and in the media that some Remainers have gone about it ... Started off with us being racist and too thick to know and it's continued in much the same way ever since ... Tha's only so much belittling one can take don't ya know ... Regards Well the abuse has been on both sides to be fair. On here its mainly Panto though really but you do make a valid point. Im ashamed of how we have all behaved towards one another really. Too much emotion. You leavers are all still dinosaurs that didnt know what you were voting for though. (lol) Cant help myself. :D It's a bad world ... Looks like some nutter possibly right wing has sent those parcel bombs to some of those who dont care for our POTUS ... I for one while not condoning it in anyway can't say I'm surprised ... The language used by some of those involved over a democratic vote which POTUS Trump won is shocking ... Hilary only a couple of weeks ago , De Niro saying he'd like to punchPOTUS Trumps face in ... I'm surprised so called comedienne Kathy Griffin hasn't received a bomb given her chopped head of POTUS Trump stunt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 Barryd999 - 2018-10-25 2:35 PMpelmetman - 2018-10-25 2:24 PMBrian Kirby - 2018-10-25 12:00 PMStuartO - 2018-10-25 9:06 AMBrian Kirby - 2018-10-23 7:01 PMpelmetman - 2018-10-19 5:53 PM………………………….Where 48% means more then 52% *-) ..........That a vote on a given day resulted in a majority on a given subject does not seal that result in perpetuity. That would be undemocratic.Democracy allows that opinions, and circumstances, change, and that the answer the demos gave on that day may no longer be satisfactory the next day. People are entitled to change their minds, which is why we have periodic elections.People are also allowed to continue advancing the case that lost the last plebiscite, which is why we alternate between left, and right, wing governments.So with Brexit. I accept that there was a majority of votes cast in favour of Brexit (though I'm not entirely satisfied that the referendum itself was truly democratic).But, I think Brexit will prove a fundamental error, and that a lot of people in the UK will be worse off as a result. Not instantly, but over time. I think it's a bad decision, that can only be reversed now. It cannot be reversed in the future, whatever people than may want.Why would I, or any democrat, change my mind on that? Why would any democrat not argue for the decision to be reversed? How would doing that be remotely democratic? If you insist on a democratic right to seek to reverse a decision before it has even been implimented (and maybe also a right to be disruptive in the course of that seeking of reversal) you risk bringing society to a grinding halt unless and until you get your own way - and that's hardly democratic, is it?We elect a Parliament for a five year period and we have a Prime Minister who is working hard to impliment Brexit. Why not let it go ahead and see how it works out for a while? No parliament can bind its successor and there is an EU mechanism for applying to rejoin the EU if we decide to do that in due course. Why insist on your right to wreck the implimentation of the democratic decision which was made by the voting public straight away just because you voted the other way at the time?Exaggeration does not make a good argument, Stuart - though it may make a straw man! :-DFar better to reverse a bad decision before it is implemented, than to stick to the bad decision simply because it was made, whoever made it. That isn't a democratic right, it is common sense. I claim no right to "be disruptive" - that is your first straw man.I think the implementation of Brexit is far more likely to damage the functioning of society than not Brexiting. Why/how would an exit from Brexit bring society to this grinding halt? If people no longer think Brexit is the best idea, they will vote accordingly. Second straw man.Yes we elect governments for five years, but Brexit is not a party political issue. The government is merely an executive. Parliament has to vote in a government's policies before they can be implemented. I am amazed that Theresa May has not cracked under the strain of trying to implement the Brexit policy, but however hard she works, she can't make a bad policy into a good one. This is not a straw man, but I don't see its relevance to whether or not Brexit is a good policy.We should not let Brexit proceed on a "suck it and see" basis because, once we are out, the opt-outs previously negotiated with the EEC/EU (Schengen, Monetary Union, Charter of Fundamental Rights, Area of Freedom, Security and Justice), will be lost, and it is extremely unlikely we should be able to regain them were we to re-join. The notion of re-joining on the terms we currently enjoy is another straw man.I make no claim on a right to wreck the Brexit decision (final straw man), either straight away (though 30 months later seems to me far from straight away) or in the longer term. What I do claim is the democratic right to argue that Brexit is a bad, potentially economically damaging, and wholly unnecessary, decision that should be democratically (either a further referendum, or a parliamentary vote) abandoned, and the Article 50 notification withdrawn. Democracy does not die with a single vote, it is a continuing process. That is democracy. :-DIf there is another referendum and you win........do you think us Brexiteers will just crawl back into our holes and die? *-) ...........Nah the fight will go on >:-) .........and we'll expect another referendum within the same timescale as yours ..........anything else would be undemocratic :-| ...........I said earlier I wouldnt object to further referendums but bear in mind that as of January next year if nobody has changed their minds there will be no majority for Brexit because of the number of deaths and new voters eligible to vote. Of course the youngsters may start to change their minds but not likely and not in as great a number than elderly voters are clocking off. Sad but true.Don't let Brian & Bullet know 8-).............. they're older than me :D ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 antony1969 - 2018-10-25 1:38 PM...…………... To be fair Brian I don't believe most folk are against others opinions but the thing with Brexit has been the style both on here and in the media that some Remainers have gone about it ... Started off with us being racist and too thick to know and it's continued in much the same way ever since ... Tha's only so much belittling one can take don't ya know ... Regards I agree Antony, but your argument cuts both ways. As during the campaign, neither side has chosen its words with care or consideration. Shame. If we could just get away from the school playground language, and unending attempts to score political points on an issue that is, in general, not a party-political difference, there could be a sensible, reasonable, mature, debate on the pros and cons of leaving or remaining. We might then all learn something to our advantage. But, we are where we are, so I guess that won't be happening anytime soon - if ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-10-25 2:24 PM...…………………..If there is another referendum and you win........do you think us Brexiteers will just crawl back into our holes and die? *-) ........... Nah the fight will go on >:-) .........and we'll expect another referendum within the same timescale as yours ..........anything else would be undemocratic :-| ........... On the first point, no, of course I don't. Farage said he'd carry on if he Brexit was lost by a narrow margin, so what's sauce for the goose etc. If there is a sound argument for a new referendum subsequently, then fine, lets have one. But pleading for a re-run on the basis of time elapsed since last time is hardly an argument for a re-run. There would need to be something that the EU had decided upon, that was against UK interests, and that the UK could not opt out of, to justify a further referendum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-10-25 6:52 PM pelmetman - 2018-10-25 2:24 PM...…………………..If there is another referendum and you win........do you think us Brexiteers will just crawl back into our holes and die? *-) ........... Nah the fight will go on >:-) .........and we'll expect another referendum within the same timescale as yours ..........anything else would be undemocratic :-| ........... On the first point, no, of course I don't. Farage said he'd carry on if he Brexit was lost by a narrow margin, so what's sauce for the goose etc. If there is a sound argument for a new referendum subsequently, then fine, lets have one. But pleading for a re-run on the basis of time elapsed since last time is hardly an argument for a re-run. There would need to be something that the EU had decided upon, that was against UK interests, and that the UK could not opt out of, to justify a further referendum. Cant say I've heard any sound argument for another referendum *-) .......... Just a constant bitching......which I guess passes as sound arguments to Remoaners >:-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.