OV9

Broccers wrote: Fri Mar 29, 2019 9:51 pm Not really. The whole thing has been engineered to this outcome. Wear everyone down to the point they lose the will to live. Everyone is a fuckin expert these days on all subjects. Most eye opening for me tho is a dramatic realisation that MPs don't give a fuck about us at all ... not.

I'm bored of the whole thing. Just waiting for the next thing to grasp our media so we all fear about that instead.

I'm sure without the news we will all just be fine without higher blood pressure. #itsallagame

BIC

DeskJockey wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:15 am

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 12:18 am

DeskJockey wrote: Fri Mar 29, 2019 9:17 pm https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/u ... ng-britain

Worth a read, calling out the architects behind the Brexit mess and their shameful actions (or lack thereof as the case may be).

That's full of horse crap

In what way?

TBH DJ, while it's "worth a read" as much as any other in terms of commentary on the issue to make our minds up about, as a remainer even I find that article is a bit too biased.

To essentially say that it's all DC's fault for having the referendum and he was the worst PM in history as a result is to ignore the 52% of voters that voted for it, in the same way that he villifies TM for ignoring the 48%. To say that the public was not clamouring for a referendum ignores the 5 million or so UKIP voters who cast aside their normal voting preferences to make this point (a lot of a bigger deal to many than a vote in a referendum or an online petition).

If the public didn't want the vote and were happy with the status quo, we wouldn't be having these conversations, and if you believe in democracy public votes shouldn't be an issue on a variety of topics.

The fact that politicians peddled all that bullshit in the run up to the vote is the real issue here, not the fact that there was a vote in the first place.

It’s an opinion piece but the only inaccuracy I can see is that Cameron was a worse PM than May.

I just think that people need to acknowledge that although the MPs got us to the mess we're in now, the electorate did ask for it (albeit based on false information that they were incredibly naive to believe), and should not be exonerated from all blame in favour of any particular scapegoat who played a role.

duncs500 wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 9:07 am I just think that people need to acknowledge that although the MPs got us to the mess we're in now, the electorate did ask for it (albeit based on false information that they were incredibly naive to believe), and should not be exonerated from all blame in favour of any particular scapegoat who played a role.

I agree. But that doesn't mean that the people driving the agenda aren't to be blamed or castigated.

DeskJockey wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 9:10 am

duncs500 wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 9:07 am I just think that people need to acknowledge that although the MPs got us to the mess we're in now, the electorate did ask for it (albeit based on false information that they were incredibly naive to believe), and should not be exonerated from all blame in favour of any particular scapegoat who played a role.

I agree. But that doesn't mean that the people driving the agenda aren't to be blamed or castigated.

Agreed... for what difference it will make.

So, fourth time this deal will be rejected?

Orange Cola wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 9:25 pm So, fourth time this deal will be rejected?

Best of 10?

Jobbo wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 8:29 am It’s an opinion piece but the only inaccuracy I can see is that Cameron was a worse PM than May.

Its difficult to pin inaccuracies on something that is basically a 1500 word emotional outburst. It doesn't have any facts to be inaccurate about

"Martin Fletcher is a former foreign editor of the Times and a New Statesman contributing writer". Reminds me why I stopped reading the times in my early twenties. I think it was actually Germaine Greer's opinion pieces that prompted it but I'm pretty sure I haven't been missing out for the past decade.

Richard wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 7:47 am

Broccers wrote: Fri Mar 29, 2019 9:51 pm Not really. The whole thing has been engineered to this outcome. Wear everyone down to the point they lose the will to live. Everyone is a fuckin expert these days on all subjects. Most eye opening for me tho is a dramatic realisation that MPs don't give a fuck about us at all ... not.

I'm bored of the whole thing. Just waiting for the next thing to grasp our media so we all fear about that instead.

I'm sure without the news we will all just be fine without higher blood pressure. #itsallagame

BIC

Broccers has lost his faith in brexit, truly these are dark days

This thread is brilliant. I can’t wait to hear GGs views on it.

DeskJockey wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:15 am

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 12:18 am

DeskJockey wrote: Fri Mar 29, 2019 9:17 pm https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/u ... ng-britain

Worth a read, calling out the architects behind the Brexit mess and their shameful actions (or lack thereof as the case may be).

That's full of horse crap

In what way?

I must admit I didn't get too far to actually be able to categorically state that it's full of horse crap - the bias is actually so strong in one direction that it's just a laughable piece, as others have outlined above.

However, the horse crap starts with "The original sin was that of David Cameron", before going on that the public were not clamouring for a referendum. Re: Cameron, that's incorrect and a fairly ignorant statement. It goes further back as has been joked about in this thread. Arguably Major is the real sinner, setting aside Heath taking us into the very beginnings of the EU construct. Cameron is only guilty of picking up the can that had been being kicked down the road by successive Governments since Major took us into the EU.

The issue of Europe (and by that I mean the political construct obvs), and our role/position within it, is one which has been festering in the UK for decades. It was always going to be the case that a referendum would have to be held (it's been a tenet of manifestos since early New Labour days IIRC), the only hope against doing so being that we stayed in long enough that the majority of the populace were young enough to know/care no different. IMO it was never going to go away, and it has been affecting party politics for far too long. Whilst the current situation is undeniably a total shitshow, that is entirely because the issue has never been addressed in this country until now, when arguably it should have been dealt with at the outset. As a result it's been affecting the general Governance of this country ever since - you only need to look back at the sorry state the Cons were in the whole time that New Labour were in power to see that. We had no effective Opposition for a decade, if not more.

It then goes on to identify the unarguable issue of the Leave campaign's law breaking. It mentions nothing, however, of the fact that Cameron's Government used public funds to campaign for the Remain vote, contrary to the (admittedly not legally binding) Venice Commission Code of good practice which states that “public authorities (national, regional and local) must not influence the outcome by excessive, one-sided campaigning. The use of public funds for campaigning purposes must be prohibited”.

I'm not sure the public were clamouring for a referendum. UKIP didn't have *that* much support.

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:20 amIt then goes on to identify the unarguable issue of the Leave campaign's law breaking. It mentions nothing, however, of the fact that Cameron's Government used public funds to campaign for the Remain vote, contrary to the (admittedly not legally binding) Venice Commission Code of good practice which states that “public authorities (national, regional and local) must not influence the outcome by excessive, one-sided campaigning. The use of public funds for campaigning purposes must be prohibited”.

I love this argument being put forward by Brexiteers.

First we have the false equivalence: “OK, our side broke the law, leading to criminal charges against individuals but the other side went against a good practice document. A GOOD PRACTICE DOCUMENT!!”

Then, rather than accept that the result of the referendum is therefore suspect due to said law breaking and wanton disregard for good practice, they’re quite happy to accept the result of the non-binding referendum, but equally, if the government fails to implement the result of the illegally-fought, non-binding referendum, then they’re “traitors” and “quislings” etc.

What is it now? 4 years since this really began in earnest and there’s still NOTHING that stacks up as a logical argument.

Jobbo wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:34 am I'm not sure the public were clamouring for a referendum. UKIP didn't have *that* much support.

They weren’t. It’s more Brexiteer bullshit, whitewashing and gaslighting. Very few people gave a shit. UKIP only gained prominence due to being excessively represented in the media given their stature and support base compared to other parties.

NotoriousREV wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:42 am

Jobbo wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:34 am I'm not sure the public were clamouring for a referendum. UKIP didn't have *that* much support.

They weren’t. It’s more Brexiteer bullshit, whitewashing and gaslighting. Very few people gave a shit. UKIP only gained prominence due to being excessively represented in the media given their stature and support base compared to other parties.

UKIP won 12.5% of all votes cast in the 2015 election and pushed the liberal democrats into fourth place. I'd say they did have a very significant amount of support. Under a PR system they'd have had over 50 MPs in parliament.

Also remember that Cameron won an outright majority with an explicit manifesto pledge to call an EU referendum and significantly outperformed the previous GE.

The "noone cared" and "UKIP wan't that popular" arguments don't hold much water when trying to explain why a pro-Europe prime minister who was desperate to avoid being dragged into the debate about Europe decided to do what he did. He did it because he thought it was a necessity.

Get back to work.

Didn't last long did it

GG. wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:00 am
The "noone cared" and "UKIP wan't that popular" arguments don't hold much water when trying to explain why a pro-Europe prime minister who was desperate to avoid being dragged into the debate about Europe decided to do what he did. He did it because he was scared of losing eurosceptic tories to the kippers.

FTFY

I don't disagree with that - and he thought, probably correctly, that the pressure had built up to a point that without a pledge for a referendum, UKIP would have broken through to a point where it put the conservatives out of power.

I know people dislike the idea of that and think that as a result this whole thing came about as a desire to keep the conservatives in power but given the turnout levels in the referendum itself and also the fact leave won, its clear that there was a huge groundswell of opposition to the EU in the UK and that if UKIP weren't full of "fruitcakes and loonies" and generally the furthest to the right of all mainstream parties (I use that term to exclude the BNP), the chances are their voteshare would have been even higher.