Brexit has created chaos in Britain – nobody voted for this

[aright]

5 hours ago, StreetCowboy said:

I think that what he is saying is that the membership of parliament does not necessarily accurately reflect the views of the people that they represent

That, then begs the question why have elections if we can't trust the views of the people charged with representing the will of the people. In the main Parliament has served us well since the 13th Century. Who can we trust outside of Parliament(an accountable body) if we can't trust them? Suggestions please.

[Ahab]

On ‎5‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 8:59 AM, Grouse said:

I assume you have not seen the news today. Would you trust Trump?

If you are referring to the US exiting the terrible Iran nuclear deal then yes I would trust Trump. The whole of the rational world knows this is I crap deal, and Trump is telling the emperor that he is wearing no clothes. Shocking!

 

President Obama knew that the crap deal would never be approved by congress (as required by the US constitution) so he did not bother even trying and signed it all by his lonesome. A US President is not King and there is a process that needs to be followed to ratify an international treaty. A non ratified treaty can be undone at any time by any other President, and Trump is doing the right thing. In my opinion the Iran deal had the same bad smell as Neville Chamberlain's peace agreement with Nazi Germany and likely an equal amount of effectiveness.

[StreetCowboy]

3 hours ago, aright said:

That, then begs the question why have elections if we can't trust the views of the people charged with representing the will of the people. In the main Parliament has served us well since the 13th Century. Who can we trust outside of Parliament(an accountable body) if we can't trust them? Suggestions please.

I don't think anyone said we could not trust parliament.  The point was that the membership of parliament is not necessarily an accurate quantitative indication of the views of the people.  You might remember that from the Thatcher years.

[tebee]

Parliament is supposed to be a representative democracy. But this leads to the question should those representatives have a tribal loyalty to the party  they belong to or should they reflect the views of their constituents? FTP makes it hard for minority views to be heard, but any self-respecting democracy needs to take account of those. 

A democracy that merely blindly follows the tyranny of the majority and ignores minority viewpoints will disintegrate into chaos at some point - Northern Ireland being a  very British case of this,  the poll tax another.       

[tebee]

Just how near are we to chaos ? We are running out of time to sort out post brexit customs and other problems, but no one seems to be addressing these.

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86869

 

[transam]

3 minutes ago, tebee said:

Parliament is supposed to be a representative democracy. But this leads to the question should those representatives have a tribal loyalty to the party  they belong to or should they reflect the views of their constituents? FTP makes it hard for minority views to be heard, but any self-respecting democracy needs to take account of those. 

A democracy that merely blindly follows the tyranny of the majority and ignores minority viewpoints will disintegrate into chaos at some point - Northern Ireland being a  very British case of this,  the poll tax another.       

100% of the people will never agree on 100% of issues whoever is in government.

 

Same as at times a court jury may not all agree when they have all heard the case put forward..

The UK locked pension thing that was put in front of a European court with 13 judges, the vote against was 8, and fore 5.... All 13 heard the facts...

[RuamRudy]

10 hours ago, aright said:

Once again you keep ignoring the central question. Two answers to your implied question. In my opinion Scotland can have a referendum any time it wants one Why has NS not called for one? Because I don't think she feels she would win it. Secondly are you calling SNP members who want independence on a political and social par with extreme right wing MPs in Germany France and Italy. If  not my question still needs an answer . 

That is not the central question at all, but a totally fabricated and horribly contrived deflection from yourself. The point was about the validity or otherwise of the EU satisfaction poll. I used the SNP merely as an example of why your dismissal of the poll based upon national elections was wrong. Now if you are not prepared to address that, fine - but if you want to discuss the SNP there are SNP related threads that would be more appropriate.

[RuamRudy]

5 hours ago, aright said:

That, then begs the question why have elections if we can't trust the views of the people charged with representing the will of the people. In the main Parliament has served us well since the 13th Century. Who can we trust outside of Parliament(an accountable body) if we can't trust them? Suggestions please.

It was an opinion poll of European sentiment towards the EU. Opinion polls happen every day of the week - they are generally focused on specfic issues that are relevant at that point in time. Elections, in contrast, are rarely dominated by single issue parties - and voters tend to be pragmatic in their voting in that they will vote for the party which best represents them across a range of issues.

 

So - to put this to bed: you rubbished the poll that showed widespread satisfaction across Europe with the EU, based on your assertion that national election results in certain countries returned MPs critical of the EU. I have given a clear example of how election results do not provide a mirror image of sentiment on single issues.  If you like, we can develop this further and explore the voting mechanisms that also distort the picture?

 

Otherwise, unless you have credible evidence to the contrary or a valid reason to dispute this particular data, this stands as the best available picture of the perception of the EU amongst the constituent countries:

 

 

 

[tebee]

38 minutes ago, transam said:

100% of the people will never agree on 100% of issues whoever is in government.

 

Same as at times a court jury may not all agree when they have all heard the case put forward..

The UK locked pension thing that was put in front of a European court with 13 judges, the vote against was 8, and fore 5.... All 13 heard the facts...

Oh yes, I'll quite happily agree you are never going to get 100% unanimity all the time or even any of the time. My point is that true democracy  needs to respect the points of views of minorities otherwise tensions build up that will eventually destroy civil society.   

Edited May 13, 2018 by tebee

[Kieran00001]

9 hours ago, nontabury said:

So where did he actually say “All People who went to a state school” 

In this report from the so called Independent.

it’s akin to me saying than many, if not most remoaners are selfish individuals. However I accept that not All are.

 

While 7% of British Children are privately educated, 52% of Tory MP's were, the reason he gave for this is that they would not be able to form a government with potted plants, he is not saying that all state educated people are potted plants, 48% of his MP's are state educated, he is saying that he has such low expectation of state education that he believes 93% of the population can only produce 48% of their MP's which implies that out of the 50 odd million who went to state school in the UK, only a couple hundred are not potted plants, which may not be quite all, but as it is 99.9996% it is close enough for most people to refer to it as "people who went to state school" rather than as you want to gloss it over as, "most people".

Your analogy of Remainers is not a good one, it is not about 'many if not most', but about almost all, and when we examine the voting patterns we see that Remainers were the least likely to suffer the effect of Brexit, so they were not selfish votes on average, Remain largely voted to try to stop the poor getting poorer.

[RuamRudy]

7 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

While 7% of British Children are privately educated, 52% of Tory MP's were, the reason he gave for this is that they would not be able to form a government with potted plants, he is not saying that all state educated people are potted plants, 48% of his MP's are state educated, he is saying that he has such low expectation of state education that he believes 93% of the population can only produce 48% of their MP's which implies that out of the 50 odd million who went to state school in the UK, only a couple hundred are not potted plants, which may not be quite all, but as it is 99.9996% it is close enough for most people to refer to it as "people who went to state school" rather than as you want to gloss it over as, "most people".

Your analogy of Remainers is not a good one, it is not about 'many if not most', but about almost all, and when we examine the voting patterns we see that Remainers were the least likely to suffer the effect of Brexit, so they were not selfish votes on average, Remain largely voted to try to stop the poor getting poorer.

Does he not also want to scrap most, if not all, tariffs on imports in an effort to 'reduce prices', ignoring the fact that this will force many British companies out of business and affect income levels across the country for the poorest?

[Kieran00001]

5 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Does he not also want to scrap most, if not all, tariffs on imports in an effort to 'reduce prices', ignoring the fact that this will force many British companies out of business and affect income levels across the country for the poorest?

 

He is as slimy as they come, the Bexiteers are jumping to his defence when he disparages the plebs and calling conflict of interest of the Remain supporting Lords, quite ironic.  The Lords they manage to find 'dirt' on have nothing like the conflict of interests he does, they have the likes of farm subsidy's, something the Leave campaign have always pledged to match, while the Leave campaign have 23 million in tobacco imports, while voting in parliament against raising taxes on tobacco imports, and have 2.3 million in oil and gas while speaking out against subsidy's for renewable energy production, the conflicts of interest are large and are clear with Rees-fleece the plebs-Mogg.

[RuamRudy]

13 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

He is as slimy as they come, the Bexiteers are jumping to his defence when he disparages the plebs and calling conflict of interest of the Remain supporting Lords, quite ironic.  The Lords they manage to find 'dirt' on have nothing like the conflict of interests he does, they have the likes of farm subsidy's, something the Leave campaign have always pledged to match, while the Leave campaign have 23 million in tobacco imports, while voting in parliament against raising taxes on tobacco imports, and have 2.3 million in oil and gas while speaking out against subsidy's for renewable energy production, the conflicts of interest are large and are clear with Rees-fleece the plebs-Mogg.

We have been conditioned into doffing our hats to these parasites for hundreds of years - nothing will change for the better as long nauseating sights such as this continue to be tolerated.

 

 

Edited May 13, 2018 by RuamRudy

[Grouse]

10 hours ago, nontabury said:

So where did he actually say “All People who went to a state school” 

In this report from the so called Independent.

it’s akin to me saying than many, if not most remoaners are selfish individuals. However I accept that not All are.

Just me then! ?

[Kieran00001]

11 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

We have been conditioned into doffing our hats to these parasites for hundreds of years - nothing will change for the better as long nauseating sights such as this continue to be tolerated.

 

 

 

 

We also need to get rid of the press who support them, who will happily paint a picture of lies if it pacifies the public.  

 

Quote

“There is this sort of myth that comes from the annals of time that says whenever a member of the Royal family went past you did a curtsy or bow. But there is no hard and fast rule, and if you can’t do it or don’t feel comfortable doing it or don’t want to do it that’s fine, it doesn’t mean you hold the Queen in any less respect and you won’t be sent to the Tower.

“The Queen is very relaxed about it, she doesn’t make rules, she understands that some people feel comfortable doing this sort of thing and others don’t. People think she will ignore you if you haven’t curtsied, but the truth is nothing of the sort.

“The whole thing about waiting for the Queen to speak first is also a myth. In reality, people are so tongue-tied when the Queen approaches them but she is only a human being after all. When she breaks the ice it gives a lead-in to start people talking.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/queen-elizabeth-II/11123074/Bowing-and-curtsying-to-the-Queen-not-necessary.html

 

This is just tosh, my dad met the queen twice, both times he was interviewed beforehand where is was agreed the words that he would say to her, he was told in no uncertain terms that a single word derivation from the agreed script would mean that his meeting would end immediately.  He was also instructed on how to bow, and never to reach out his hand toward her as if to shake hands, and that if he did so he should expect to be jumped on.

[tebee]

35 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Does he not also want to scrap most, if not all, tariffs on imports in an effort to 'reduce prices', ignoring the fact that this will force many British companies out of business and affect income levels across the country for the poorest?

Oh no those tariffs are  for protecting inefficient producers elsewhere in the EU - must be true I read it in the Torygraph

 

 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/05/12/theresa-may-must-tell-uk-customs-union-costs/

[tebee]

Remember those 70 million Turks  who were coming to the UK because of EU enlargement ? Well now they are coming because we need trade deals post-brexit.

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/763220/Turkey-Theresa-May-free-trade-deal-UK-freedom-movement

[Grouse]

12 hours ago, nontabury said:

She is from Zambia,and is a supporter of Mugabes policy of removing all white farmers from that country. Is that in itself not racist?

One of her 3 jobs is as a research assistant at the AfricanCentre for migration(ACMS)at the university of Witwatersrand.

 She decided to visit the UK for eleven days, yes that’s correct 11days in her U.N. capacity. And then concluded that the U.K. is less tolerant than Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia,China,Sudan and Thailand. Stateing that the UK racially discriminates and is more Xenophobic than other countries.

And all this because of Brexit. Amazing.

 

This woman came to the UK with her agenda, stayed 11 days, wrote her report and left.

She has been in post 6 months and still holds down her positions as an Assistant Professor at UCLA’s School of Law and, very poignantly, a research associate of the African Center for Migration and Society (ACMS), at the University of Witwatersrand.

So effectively running three jobs, she decided in her UN capacity, that of all the countries in the world, that the UK was top on her list to visit. The UK is so bad, worse than Saudi, China, Japan, Zimbabwe, Sudan, etc in Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, that this must be one of her first ports of call?

What a biased and one sided piece of nonsense it really is, she is pushing her agenda totally.

 

This woman came to the UK with her agenda, stayed 11 days, wrote her report and left.

She has been in post 6 months and still holds down her positions as an Assistant Professor at UCLA’s School of Law and, very poignantly, a research associate of the African Center for Migration and Society (ACMS), at the University of Witwatersrand.

So effectively running three jobs, she decided in her UN capacity, that of all the countries in the world, that the UK was top on her list to visit. The UK is so bad, worse than Saudi, China, Japan, Zimbabwe, Sudan, etc in Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, that this must be one of her first ports of call?

What a biased and one sided piece of nonsense it really is, she is pushing her agenda totally.

This woman came to the UK with her agenda, stayed 11 days, wrote her report and left.This woman came to the UK with her agenda, stayed 11 days, wrote her report and left.

She has been in post 6 months and still holds down her positions as an Assistant Professor at UCLA’s School of Law and, very poignantly, a research associate of the African Center for Migration and Society (ACMS), at the University of Witwatersrand.

So effectively running three jobs, she decided in her UN capacity, that of all the countries in the world, that the UK was top on her list to visit. The UK is so bad, worse than Saudi, China, Japan, Zimbabwe, Sudan, etc in Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, that this must be one of her first ports of call?

What a biased and one sided piece of nonsense it really is, she is pushing her agenda totally.

She has been in post 6 months and still holds down her positions as an Assistant Professor at UCLA’s School of Law and, very poignantly, a research associate of the African Center for Migration and Society (ACMS), at the University of Witwatersrand.

So effectively running three jobs, she decided in her UN capacity, that of all the countries in the world, that the UK was top on her list to visit. The UK is so bad, worse than Saudi, China, Japan, Zimbabwe, Sudan, etc in Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, that this must be one of her first ports of call?

What a biased and one sided piece of nonsense it really is, she is pushing her agenda totally.

https://law.ucla.edu/faculty/faculty-profiles/e-tendayi-achiume/

 

I really don't want to discuss this further with you Nontabury.  Let's leave it that I think, and have said this for a long time, that the UK is becoming nastier: loutish and xenophobic. I hope we learn courtesy, neighbourliness, tolerance and become the society we once were.

[Grouse]

7 hours ago, aright said:

That, then begs the question why have elections if we can't trust the views of the people charged with representing the will of the people. In the main Parliament has served us well since the 13th Century. Who can we trust outside of Parliament(an accountable body) if we can't trust them? Suggestions please.

Come on aright, you know that's not correct. Under our system, MPs are supposed to vote according to their conscience for what they believe to be in the best interests of their constituents and the country; party whips not withstanding.

[Grouse]

5 hours ago, Ahab said:

If you are referring to the US exiting the terrible Iran nuclear deal then yes I would trust Trump. The whole of the rational world knows this is I crap deal, and Trump is telling the emperor that he is wearing no clothes. Shocking!

 

President Obama knew that the crap deal would never be approved by congress (as required by the US constitution) so he did not bother even trying and signed it all by his lonesome. A US President is not King and there is a process that needs to be followed to ratify an international treaty. A non ratified treaty can be undone at any time by any other President, and Trump is doing the right thing. In my opinion the Iran deal had the same bad smell as Neville Chamberlain's peace agreement with Nazi Germany and likely an equal amount of effectiveness.

Then you should read some history! If Chamberlain had not bought time we would have lost the war! The Americans only joined in 3 years later,  after Germany declared war on the USA. Where were they when we were fighting off German invasion? ( making money probably).

 

All sensible people understood that the Iran agreement was a holding pattern to stop nuclear warhead development while the  Iranian people recovered their economy and became strong enough to oust the Republican Guards and extrem right wing Mullahs. I wouldn't expect isolationist America to understand that. ?

[SheungWan]

5 hours ago, aright said:

That, then begs the question why have elections if we can't trust the views of the people charged with representing the will of the people. In the main Parliament has served us well since the 13th Century. Who can we trust outside of Parliament(an accountable body) if we can't trust them? Suggestions please.

In the main? Some might argue that Parliament didn't really come into its own until it chopped off King Charles 1's head in 1649. Others would say not until universal suffrage for men and women. Good to see though Hard Brexiteers arguing the parliamentary case, however flawed, after their hopeless defence of Royal Prerogative against, wait for it... Parliamentary Authority.

[Grouse]

2 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

In the main? Some might argue that Parliament didn't really come into its own until it chopped off King Charles 1's head in 1649. Others would say not until universal suffrage for men and women. Good to see though Hard Brexiteers arguing the parliamentary case, however flawed, after their hopeless defence of Royal Prerogative against, wait for it... Parliamentary Authority.

You're keeping a low profile, SheungWan; we miss your erudite contributions ?

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

We have been conditioned into doffing our hats to these parasites for hundreds of years - nothing will change for the better as long nauseating sights such as this continue to be tolerated.

 

 

I guess you are anti monarchist then?

 

I don't believe in bowing and scraping but I am a monarchist. I like the long term outlook as opposed to the short term desire to remain in Parliament

 

Northern European countries have the balance about right

[Grouse]

I have nothing against most public schools. My first wife and I were both grammar school educated but state education standards have dropped dramatically since the 60s.

 

We sent our kids to Bedales in Hampshire, which is a progressive public school. Excellent but expensive.

 

At least my son and daughter can use apostrophes and semi-colons correctly ?

Edited May 13, 2018 by Grouse

[RuamRudy]

3 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I guess you are anti monarchist then?

 

I don't believe in bowing and scraping but I am a monarchist. I like the long term outlook as opposed to the short term desire to remain in Parliament

 

Northern European countries have the balance about right

 

In an ideal world, we wouldn't have a need for a supreme being, but I understand the importance of a head of state separate from the government. Until we find a better way of achieving that (I cannot think of many Brits other than maybe David Attenborough I would choose as president), I will stick with the monarchy, but it is the bowing and scraping, as you say, that is the undoing of us.

 

I don't know the lady in red, but I am willing to bet that she is not less worthy of respect than some American actress or her spoilt, entitled fiancee.

 

I was in Bhutan a couple of years ago, being driven outside Thimphu where the roads are steep, narrow and windy. The king and his entourage (in total a land rover and a sedan) approached us from the opposite direction and pulled into a layby to allow us to pass. That is how I want our British monarchy to be. But no, we continue to put them on pedestals as if they were gods; we even exalt the hangers-on who cling to their coat tails. We are a servile country indeed.

[billd766]

14 hours ago, nontabury said:

 

Can you please provide a link to show that JRM or Nigel Farage, did in fact ever make these quotes. Otherwise expect people will think it’s all lies. Thank you.

 

I have done a quick Google search for the quote and the quote apparently came from that bastion of truth and non bias, the Independent newspaper.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/state-school-pupils-are-potted-plants-says-tory-418767.html

 

Quote from that report "Mr Rees-Mogg was asked for his reaction to a survey by the BBC programme Newsnight which showed that 28 per cent of those on the A-list of people that Mr Cameron wants as future Tory MPs are from Oxford or Cambridge, and a majority - 52 per cent - were privately educated."

 

Here is an opinion from that other bastion of truth and non bias, the Guardian newspaper.

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/06/jacob-rees-mogg-isnt-old-fashioned-thoroughly-modern-bigot-suzanne-moore

 

 

[CharlesSwann]

My first appearance in this thread. To me the issue is so banal I don't usually bother commenting on it, but as this thread is taking on historic proportions, here is my say.

 

Brexit is all about curbing rampant immigration, getting our country back, clawing back some of the cultural integrity of the nation - meaning, the simple ability to talk and behave in the way we have become accustomed over generations going back to... Stonehenge. That's why the people voted out. Don't deny it.

 

Problem is, no one is allowed to acknowledge this - not the mainstream media and certainly not the politicians - as it goes against the multicultural narrative that the politicians have been forcing down our throats as a result of post-war virtue signalling and a desperation to keep on delivering economic growth by constantly importing cheap labour.

 

Of course, the other half of the nation (many of which are now immigrants themselves) profess to be more concerned about the economic consequences. Personally I don't care. If the economy takes a hit - good - everyone should have less in any case - it's good for their soul. However, I think the economic concerns are exaggerated and if Brexit had bee implemented immediate after the referendum, all those issues would have been solved long ago, and, if some issues proved to be insurmountable, then by now Britain could have legitimately had another referendum and rejoined the EU on new terms. The EU would certainly be pleased to have Britain back on any basis.

 

The delay in Brexiting since the referendum has been shabby, reprehensible, incompetent, and agonising for everyone. And the foot-dragging has come about because of the simple inability of everyone to honestly express and acknowledge the issue above. The result is massive cognitive dissonence in the country.

[RuamRudy]

Independence Day 2019.

The Prime Minister addresses her cabinet about the bold future ahead for us.

[oldhippy]

12 minutes ago, CharlesSwann said:

My first appearance in this thread. To me the issue is so banal I don't usually bother commenting on it, but as this thread is taking on historic proportions, here is my say.

 

Brexit is all about curbing rampant immigration, getting our country back, clawing back some of the cultural integrity of the nation - meaning, the simple ability to talk and behave in the way we have become accustomed over generations going back to... Stonehenge. That's why the people voted out. Don't deny it.

 

Problem is, no one is allowed to acknowledge this - not the mainstream media and certainly not the politicians - as it goes against the multicultural narrative that the politicians have been forcing down our throats as a result of post-war virtue signalling and a desperation to keep on delivering economic growth by constantly importing cheap labour.

 

Of course, the other half of the nation (many of which are now immigrants themselves)the other half of the nation (many of which are now immigrants themselves) profess to be more concerned about the economic consequences. Personally I don't care. If the economy takes a hit - good - everyone should have less in any case - it's good for their soul. However, I think the economic concerns are exaggerated and if Brexit had bee implemented immediate after the referendum, all those issues would have been solved long ago, and, if some issues proved to be insurmountable, then by now Britain could have legitimately had another referendum and rejoined the EU on new terms. The EU would certainly be pleased to have Britain back on any basis.

 

The delay in Brexiting since the referendum has been shabby, reprehensible, incompetent, and agonising for everyone. And the foot-dragging has come about because of the simple inability of everyone to honestly express and acknowledge the issue above. The result is massive cognitive dissonence in the country.

QUOTE:  ..." the other half of the nation (many of which are now immigrants themselves)"...

 

Absolutely priceless!

[Grouse]

Why does TM keep banging on about regaining control of our money? I thought we were still out of the Euro area and retained the right to stay with Sterling for as long as we wish?