UK Politics: The Beast From The East

[mankytoes]

4 hours ago, mormont said:

Second of all, 'project fear' is used in a derogatory way to suggest fears that have been exaggerated cynically to political ends. Again, that's what we have got, for decades, and it's why the referendum went the way it did. False fears whipped up for cynical political reasons. 

I can't name a single principle that Theresa May possesses. If she has one, I've never seen it. Can you point to what these principles are? 

Well, since you are in the group being dismissed as such, I can understand that view: nobody would appreciate that. And I, personally, wouldn't ever do that. But at the same time, you were guilty of dismissing the views of the other half of the country, albeit in a somewhat less insulting way, by talking about how 'this is something most people support', as if that should close down opposition. A major change that up to half the country have severe reservations about deserves more acknowledgement than that. 

 

I think that's exactly what happened. You see the language all the time still, things like "our economy is going off a cliff". Obviously that's a somewhat vague metaphor, but it's definitely frightening to people, as was Cameron's recession prediction, Osbourne's punishment budget, all this stuff. 

What I mean is, I think she actually believes in most of what she says. 

Well that's true, but I also don't think any intelligent person would dismiss such a huge and diverse group as idiots. 

I didn't mean to give that impression, I certainly don't want to shut down all opposition. Of course I want the referendum result to be carried out, but anything that still entails us exiting the EU is up for debate as far as I'm aware. If you want a popular vote to be flat out ignored by politicians because they think they know better, to me that is a serious breach of democracy, and that is something to fear, because I don't think our democracy is invincible. 

 

[Blue Roses]

14 hours ago, williamjm said:

In other news, UKIP are apparently on the verge of bankruptcy, which is perhaps not too surprising given the chaos in their leadership and the fact that they now don't seem to have any reason for existing.

We have three parties MIA since last year. UKIP, the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party. With the last one, it seems Labour has been morphing into The Jeremy Corbyn Momentum Party. Russian style hats optional.

[mormont]

54 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

I think that's exactly what happened.

No comment to offer on the fact that this has been the default mode of Eurosceptics for most of the time we have actually been in the EU?

'Our economy will go off a cliff' may be a fearful statement, and it may or may not turn out to be true, but the people saying it sincerely believe it to be true and have a factual basis for that belief, however overblown you might consider it.

On the other side, it is a matter of fact that outright lies have been told for decades. They continue to be told. Members of this government have told them, knowing them to be lies.

If you're concerned about people's fears being cynically manipulated, you should be condemning the Brexiteers. But you don't appear to be concerned about that, just calling for it to happen in the other direction - which is daft, because that manifestly has been happening to a far greater degree for a far longer time. 

Quote

What I mean is, I think she actually believes in most of what she says. 

I think she doesn't believe any of it. 

Quote

I didn't mean to give that impression, I certainly don't want to shut down all opposition.

Oh good. 

Quote

 If you want a popular vote to be flat out ignored by politicians because they think they know better, to me that is a serious breach of democracy, and that is something to fear, because I don't think our democracy is invincible. 

Oh dear.

if the first statement is true, the second is ill-advised to say the least. It's absolutist, caricatures the other side and offers no space for discussion. The argument against is that the referendum result was a narrow win, in a campaign so ill-informed as to pose a serious threat to democracy itself. A vote of 52-48 that results from misinformation and deception is certainly not such a great exemplar of democracy that it must, at all costs, be regarded as sacrosanct. A second referendum on the terms of Brexit is a reasonable request in the circumstances, and definitely respects democracy. 

[HexMachina]

MPs have now summoned Zuckerberg to appear before their select committee

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/20/officials-seek-warrant-to-enter-cambridge-analytica-hq?CMP=fb_gu

[Werthead]

2 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

MPs have now summoned Zuckerberg to appear before their select committee

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/20/officials-seek-warrant-to-enter-cambridge-analytica-hq?CMP=fb_gu

They've asked him, they can't summon him as he's not a British national. They point out that another representative is possible (although they do specifically ask him).

I'd be interested to see what sanctions they can bring to bear. They can prosecute people at Facebook UK for breaking British law, but the ultimate sanction would be to block Facebook from operating in the UK, which would be hugely unpopular and economically affect many thousands of British businesses which rely on Facebook for advertising and marketing. But it might be necessary to keep them in line and would also send a warning about these companies not keeping their houses in order.

It might also have dark implications for freedom of speech.

[mankytoes]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

No comment to offer on the fact that this has been the default mode of Eurosceptics for most of the time we have actually been in the EU?

'Our economy will go off a cliff' may be a fearful statement, and it may or may not turn out to be true, but the people saying it sincerely believe it to be true and have a factual basis for that belief, however overblown you might consider it.

On the other side, it is a matter of fact that outright lies have been told for decades. They continue to be told. Members of this government have told them, knowing them to be lies.

If you're concerned about people's fears being cynically manipulated, you should be condemning the Brexiteers. But you don't appear to be concerned about that, just calling for it to happen in the other direction - which is daft, because that manifestly has been happening to a far greater degree for a far longer time.

if the first statement is true, the second is ill-advised to say the least. It's absolutist, caricatures the other side and offers no space for discussion. The argument against is that the referendum result was a narrow win, in a campaign so ill-informed as to pose a serious threat to democracy itself. A vote of 52-48 that results from misinformation and deception is certainly not such a great exemplar of democracy that it must, at all costs, be regarded as sacrosanct. A second referendum on the terms of Brexit is a reasonable request in the circumstances, and definitely respects democracy. 

Well, certainly the ukippers liked stirring things up, but they were seen by most people, even those of the right, as a bit radical at best. I guess it's a bit different when the PM and chancellor abuse their positions like that.

I mean there's not much I can say to change your mind there, I'm sure some of them really believe it, but all of them? It's a tactic, and it works, especially in a country like this one that is instinctively anti-radical. It's the same reason the Tories keep trying to paint Corbyn as some crazy commie.

I think that's a bit of a rash conclusion based on about four posts. Trust me, I have strongly condemned many Brexiters many times, especially Boris and Farage.

You appear to have misunderstood (or perhaps I wasn't clear)- a second referendum ON THE TERMS OF BREXIT is something that it is absolutely legitimate to support. We were not told we wouldn't have a second referendum on the terms. What we were told was that if we voted to leave, we would. That has to happen. Everything else is still on the table.

I'm not opposed to a referendum on the terms in principle. It does seem like a bad idea in practise, that would seriously harm our negotiation position. And seeing as a lot of people thought the first vote was too complex for the public, it's hard to see how a second one wouldn't be far more complex.

I've voted for the losing side in every vote I've ever voted on. Remember the AV referendum? That didn't capture the public's imagination, but that was a big deal, which, as someone who understands politics, I imagine you understand. The Tory campaigning was fucking horrible on that, they had pictures of babies in incubators saying "the money going to this vote could be going to the NHS". And, unlike the EU vote, the campaigning had a clear effect- the polling started off close, but FPTP won on a landslide. Yet I accepted that. This is a very dark path to go down.

I don't know if Corbyn's refusal to consider trying to block Brexit altogether will win him or his party support, but I am certain it's very good for this country on a long term issue far more important than the EU. Western democracy is not indestructable.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, mankytoes said:

Well, certainly the ukippers liked stirring things up, but they were seen by most people, even those of the right, as a bit radical at best. I guess it's a bit different when the PM and chancellor abuse their positions like that.

We're talking about decades of outright lying by people on the anti-EU side of the argument (which has been going on for long before UKIP existed). You just want to handwave it away as 'stirring things up'?

1 hour ago, mankytoes said:

You appear to have misunderstood (or perhaps I wasn't clear)- a second referendum ON THE TERMS OF BREXIT is something that it is absolutely legitimate to support.

It would be meaningless if it did not allow for the option of 'No Brexit'.

The idea that this vote can only be taken once does not come over as a principled defence of democracy: it comes across as a desperate defence of the result.

[mankytoes]

38 minutes ago, mormont said:

We're talking about decades of outright lying by people on the anti-EU side of the argument (which has been going on for long before UKIP existed). You just want to handwave it away as 'stirring things up'?

It would be meaningless if it did not allow for the option of 'No Brexit'.

The idea that this vote can only be taken once does not come over as a principled defence of democracy: it comes across as a desperate defence of the result.

You'll have to give concrete examples if you want more of a response, because there's obviously a big difference between random, powerless loudmouths chatting shit and people in real positions of power.

Meaningless? So there's no difference between hard and soft Brexit?

It was made absolutely explicit before we voted that if we voted Leave, we would leave the EU. No asterisks. The Tories and Labour both committed to that. Of course we could apply to rejoin in the future.

If deliberately not following the result of a referendum isn't a betrayal of the prinicples of representive democracy, I don't know what is.

I don't need to desperately defend the result, it defends itself. When we voted to keep FPTP, we kept FPTP. When the Tories got the most seats, we got a Tory Government. When the Scottish voted to remain a part of the UK, they remained a part of the UK. We voted to leave the EU, we will leave the EU.

Can you honestly say you'd accept a second referendum if your side had won? If we voted reaminer, and were asking for a second Brexit referendum now? The whole principle of democracy depends of the side that lose accepting the result. You see in failing democracies, that doesn't happen, the result is always contested. We all know Trump taking over from Obama was a fucking disaster. But did we try and stop it? No, because we know there are more important things.

[Which Tyler]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

 

The idea that this vote can only be taken once does not come over as a principled defence of democracy: it comes across as a desperate defence of the result.

To be fair, only votes that Person A disagrees with should be voted on again. Be they general elections, the inevitable re-run of the Scottish Independence vote, or Brexit (EEC entry vote absolutely did have to be re-run, because not doing so would be undemocratic - re-run Brexit vote though? No, that vote is for ever!).

 

Actually, what would precedent dictate is a reasonable time for the Brexit vote to last before a re-run? The Brexit were have absolutely set this precedent, so maybe we should do some back-of-a-fag-packet maths...

The 1975 referrendum passed with 67.5% of the vote, which lasted for 41 years.

The 2016 referrendum passed with 51.9% of the vote... (41/17.2 x 1.9 =) 4.53 years.

Anyone claiming that that would be undemocratic would either be failing basic maths, or simultaneously declaring that the Brexit vote was undemocratic (without even looking at Russian interference or Cambridge Analytica... at least our votes require the use of paper and a pencil, rather than hackable machines).

 

[Which Tyler]

1 hour ago, mankytoes said:

 

It was made absolutely explicit before we voted that if we voted Leave, we would leave the EU. No asterisks. The Tories and Labour both committed to that. Of course we could apply to rejoin in the future.

I just feel obliged to point out that this is a lie.

 

It was made abundantly clear, repeatedly, that the referrendum was non-binding.

Despite Brexiteer protests, and absoluteky shameful press coverage, we even had to have a vote in parliament before activating Article 20.

The explicit statements were the precise opposite of your claim. No asterisks required as it was absolutely, 100% non-binding and did NOT authorise Article 20 in an for itself.

[mankytoes]

10 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

To be fair, only votes that Person A disagrees with should be voted on again. Be they general elections, the inevitable re-run of the Scottish Independence vote, or Brexit (EEC entry vote absolutely did have to be re-run, because not doing so would be undemocratic - re-run Brexit vote though? No, that vote is for ever!).

Actually, what would precedent dictate is a reasonable time for the Brexit vote to last before a re-run? The Brexit were have absolutely set this precedent, so maybe we should do some back-of-a-fag-packet maths...

The 1975 referrendum passed with 67.5% of the vote, which lasted for 41 years.

The 2016 referrendum passed with 51.9% of the vote... (41/17.2 x 1.9 =) 4.53 years.

Anyone claiming that that would be undemocratic would either be failing basic maths, or simultaneously declaring that the Brexit vote was undemocratic (without even looking at Russian interference or Cambridge Analytica... at least our votes require the use of paper and a pencil, rather than hackable machines).

I know the phrase in the Scottish referendum was "once in a generation", and that seems like a good principle to avoid the "neverendum" scenario, but still accepting these results aren't permanent.

EEC entry was only voted on once, the EU is significantly different. A lot of people are pro EEC but anti EU.

To be fair, they could have one in four years, it might be against the spirit of the thing, but at least not the word. But some of these people actually want a second vote before we've even implemented the first... At least with the SNPs ill fated second referendum baiting in the last general election, they had a point about leaving the EU involving major constitutional change. But the the Remainers haven't really changed any of their major arguments since the first referendum, there hasn't been any major change in circumstances. The people now saying "Brexit will be a disaster!" were saying that in the campaign as well, and they are still just making a prediction, because we haven't actually Brexited.

4 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

I just feel obliged to point out that this is a lie.

It was made abundantly clear, repeatedly, that the referrendum was non-binding.

Despite Brexiteer protests, and absoluteky shameful press coverage, we even had to have a vote in parliament before activating Article 20.

The explicit statements were the precise opposite of your claim. No asterisks required as it was absolutely, 100% non-binding and did NOT authorise Article 20 in an for itself.

Parliament is sovereign in the UK, every legal change has to be passed by them. In that sense, a referendum is non binding. But you know, I am sure, that it was made explicitely and repeatedly clear by our leaders that if we voted to leave, we would leave.

Don't call me a liar, my statement was 100% true. I did not say the referendum was binding. I said it was made clear to us.

Of course we did, rightly so. Again, parliament is soverign. Parliament passes all of our laws. We are not a direct democracy.

In fact, the original EEC referendum was advisory as well, so I guess parliament could have just removed us from the EU without a vote, I'm sure all the Remainers would have accepted that as legitimate...

Right. There's no disagreement here.

[mormont]

12 hours ago, mankytoes said:

You'll have to give concrete examples if you want more of a response, because there's obviously a big difference between random, powerless loudmouths chatting shit and people in real positions of power.

Oh, come on. 

You can't be taken seriously in any discussion of the EU/UK relationship if you're going to pretend not to be aware of the numerous lies told about the EU by successive UK governments, politicians of major parties, the mainstream press, and other people in public life. 

If you want to pick just one example, Boris Johnson is now the Foreign Secretary, but as a journalist, long before the Brexit campaign, he wrote a series of articles in national newspapers claiming that Jacques Delors wanted to 'rule Europe' or that the EU wanted to ban British sausages. Stories that he knew were lies when he wrote them. But he wrote them anyway because it benefited his career to do so. And now as Foreign Secretary, his approach is no different. 

To pretend that there is some equivalency here between the sides is itself dishonest: either that or a level of naivete that's genuinely hard to credit.

12 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Meaningless? So there's no difference between hard and soft Brexit?

I don't see how you get to that conclusion from what I wrote. No, there is a difference - but no Brexit is and must be an option if the Brexit deal is unsatisfactory. A choice to straight-up accept or reject the deal, with rejection meaning Brexit with no deal, is not a meaningful choice. It's blackmail. Accept this deal, soft or hard, or face the hardest Brexit of all. 

12 hours ago, mankytoes said:

 Of course we could apply to rejoin in the future.

Which is precisely why the Brexiteers favour a hard Brexit - to make it harder to do so. 

12 hours ago, mankytoes said:

I don't need to desperately defend the result, it defends itself.

It really doesn't. It's a result that can be and has been questioned in a host of ways. A result based on a false prospectus, taken in the absence of key facts, won by the narrowest of margins, where the circumstances have since moved on significantly, even in the short time since. If this result defended itself, people would not continually be both criticising and defending it. 

12 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Can you honestly say you'd accept a second referendum if your side had won?

An apples and oranges comparison, because if Remain had won, we would not have had the shambles that has followed. But I guarantee that if Remain had won, the calls for a second referendum would be loud and long from Leavers. 

11 hours ago, mankytoes said:

EEC entry was only voted on once, the EU is significantly different. A lot of people are pro EEC but anti EU.

In other words, people complained because what they voted for was not what they thought they had voted for. The timescale is different, but the problem is the same. 

[SeanF]

3 hours ago, mormont said:

Oh, come on. 

You can't be taken seriously in any discussion of the EU/UK relationship if you're going to pretend not to be aware of the numerous lies told about the EU by successive UK governments, politicians of major parties, the mainstream press, and other people in public life. 

If you want to pick just one example, Boris Johnson is now the Foreign Secretary, but as a journalist, long before the Brexit campaign, he wrote a series of articles in national newspapers claiming that Jacques Delors wanted to 'rule Europe' or that the EU wanted to ban British sausages. Stories that he knew were lies when he wrote them. But he wrote them anyway because it benefited his career to do so. And now as Foreign Secretary, his approach is no different. 

To pretend that there is some equivalency here between the sides is itself dishonest: either that or a level of naivete that's genuinely hard to credit.

 

To take one example, I'm not convinced that George Osborne was being sincere when he promised a "punishment budget" or a sharp fall in GDP in the event of a Leave vote. 

[SeanF]

15 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

I just feel obliged to point out that this is a lie.

 

It was made abundantly clear, repeatedly, that the referrendum was non-binding.

Despite Brexiteer protests, and absoluteky shameful press coverage, we even had to have a vote in parliament before activating Article 20.

The explicit statements were the precise opposite of your claim. No asterisks required as it was absolutely, 100% non-binding and did NOT authorise Article 20 in an for itself.

Most referenda are not legally binding, as only Parliament can pass laws, but it would be very unusual for Parliament to ignore the result of a referendum.  The government's own leaflet, which recommended a Remain vote, made plain that the government would implement whichever decision the voters opted for.

The point is moot in any case, as the Commons voted in favour of A50 with a huge majority.

[SeanF]

15 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

To be fair, only votes that Person A disagrees with should be voted on again. Be they general elections, the inevitable re-run of the Scottish Independence vote, or Brexit (EEC entry vote absolutely did have to be re-run, because not doing so would be undemocratic - re-run Brexit vote though? No, that vote is for ever!).

 

Actually, what would precedent dictate is a reasonable time for the Brexit vote to last before a re-run? The Brexit were have absolutely set this precedent, so maybe we should do some back-of-a-fag-packet maths...

The 1975 referrendum passed with 67.5% of the vote, which lasted for 41 years.

The 2016 referrendum passed with 51.9% of the vote... (41/17.2 x 1.9 =) 4.53 years.

Anyone claiming that that would be undemocratic would either be failing basic maths, or simultaneously declaring that the Brexit vote was undemocratic (without even looking at Russian interference or Cambridge Analytica... at least our votes require the use of paper and a pencil, rather than hackable machines).

 

If Scotland had voted in favour of independence, I very much doubt that the winners would consider it reasonable to have a re-run.

[mankytoes]

4 hours ago, mormont said:

Oh, come on. 

You can't be taken seriously in any discussion of the EU/UK relationship if you're going to pretend not to be aware of the numerous lies told about the EU by successive UK governments, politicians of major parties, the mainstream press, and other people in public life. 

If you want to pick just one example, Boris Johnson is now the Foreign Secretary, but as a journalist, long before the Brexit campaign, he wrote a series of articles in national newspapers claiming that Jacques Delors wanted to 'rule Europe' or that the EU wanted to ban British sausages. Stories that he knew were lies when he wrote them. But he wrote them anyway because it benefited his career to do so. And now as Foreign Secretary, his approach is no different. 

To pretend that there is some equivalency here between the sides is itself dishonest: either that or a level of naivete that's genuinely hard to credit.

It really doesn't. It's a result that can be and has been questioned in a host of ways. A result based on a false prospectus, taken in the absence of key facts, won by the narrowest of margins, where the circumstances have since moved on significantly, even in the short time since. If this result defended itself, people would not continually be both criticising and defending it. 

An apples and oranges comparison, because if Remain had won, we would not have had the shambles that has followed. But I guarantee that if Remain had won, the calls for a second referendum would be loud and long from Leavers. 

But all UK governments since the EU was formed have been broadly pro EU. So those lies have also been on that side. 

Boris is a shameless opportunist, I will not defend his actions at all, that's a reasonable point you've made.

I mean, it's pretty surprising to me how little people seem to think of the PM predicting a recession, or the chancellor a punishment budget. Those are both massive. 

People are criticising it because it didn't go how they wanted and expected. People are defending it because people are criticising it a lot. 

Not the majority of leavers, not in the short term. Of course there would be the loudmouths, the dogmatic types- but unfortunately that does make you the UKIP equivalent. 

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Most referenda are not legally binding, as only Parliament can pass laws, but it would be very unusual for Parliament to ignore the result of a referendum.  The government's own leaflet, which recommended a Remain vote, made plain that the government would implement whichever decision the voters opted for.

The point is moot in any case, as the Commons voted in favour of A50 with a huge majority.

Exactly, that's without even mentioning how said leaflet exceeded the Remain budget for campaigning at a stroke. 

Yeah, I get sucked into these arguments when they are really irrelevant. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

17 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

I just feel obliged to point out that this is a lie.

 

It was made abundantly clear, repeatedly, that the referrendum was non-binding.

Despite Brexiteer protests, and absoluteky shameful press coverage, we even had to have a vote in parliament before activating Article 20.

The explicit statements were the precise opposite of your claim. No asterisks required as it was absolutely, 100% non-binding and did NOT authorise Article 20 in an for itself.

I don't mean to be a smartass, but I think you mean Article 50.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, mankytoes said:

But all UK governments since the EU was formed have been broadly pro EU. So those lies have also been on that side. 

What is this supposed to mean? That the governments telling anti-EU lies were 'broadly pro-EU' so those lies shouldn't count as anti-EU? That's nonsensical. That the lies were in fact pro-EU lies? That's just not factual. 

This is, forgive me for saying so, a ridiculous thing to say. 

1 hour ago, mankytoes said:

Not the majority of leavers, not in the short term. Of course there would be the loudmouths, the dogmatic types- but unfortunately that does make you the UKIP equivalent. 

It really doesn't. The cries for a referendum did not start with UKIP and would not end with them.

In any case, those calling for a second referendum are not the equivalent of UKIP: they are largely moderate and mainstream people representing a view that commands a plurality, if not majority, support in many opinion polls. 

[mankytoes]

35 minutes ago, mormont said:

What is this supposed to mean? That the governments telling anti-EU lies were 'broadly pro-EU' so those lies shouldn't count as anti-EU? That's nonsensical. That the lies were in fact pro-EU lies? That's just not factual. 

This is, forgive me for saying so, a ridiculous thing to say. 

It really doesn't. The cries for a referendum did not start with UKIP and would not end with them.

In any case, those calling for a second referendum are not the equivalent of UKIP: they are largely moderate and mainstream people representing a view that commands a plurality, if not majority, support in many opinion polls. 

For me to respond, you've got to tell me what lies you're referring to. You've given one example, it was a good one, but it was by someone acting as a journalist, not a current member of a government. I've given you specific lies (or insincere/wrong predictions, if you prefer) by actual leading government figures. 

I'll forgive you, though the tone is a little tiring, to be honest. 

I know, but that doesn't mean we'd all cry for a re-referendum. 

 

[Pebble thats Stubby]

How about what was printed on the side of a bus?