Show some patriotism, UK minister tells broadcasters over Brexit

[nauseus]

5 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

All we know is that Farage was one of the leaders (the leader?) of the Brexit movement. When he voiced that opinion, as far as I can find, no objections were raised. The risible reason raised by one person was that his comment wasn't considered important.  You heard the one about the dog that didn't bark in the night.  That supporters who were so outspoken about so many aspects of Brexit said nothing about Farage's comment, is significant.

If you remember, there was never a whole lot of any response to what Farage said during the campaign. He said he would fight on if the UK stayed in but nobody else did. Farage has been consistent on this for ages. The majority of official leave campaign people never vowed to challenge the result if it was remain. The truth is that the majority of leavers would have accepted an in result, while it is obvious (especially now) that the same cannot be said of the remainers after this out vote.

[dunroaming]

50 minutes ago, Richard W said:

So how few people voted for exit expecting it to make them worse off?  Man does not live by bread alone.

That's right, they voted for it because they believed the rhetoric that turned out to be lies and in fact they weren't going to get what they voted for.  Still hard luck to them because brexit means brexit and they just have to live with the let downs and now suffer the consequences.   Suck it up boys because trying to right a wrong ain't going to happen here!

[nauseus]

6 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

That's right, they voted for it because they believed the rhetoric that turned out to be lies and in fact they weren't going to get what they voted for.  Still hard luck to them because brexit means brexit and they just have to live with the let downs and now suffer the consequences.   Suck it up boys because trying to right a wrong ain't going to happen here!

They voted out because of the inliers, not the outliers.

Edited June 25, 2017 by nauseus

[the guest]

Consecutive governments have behaved in a very non patriotic way, in allowing the country to become a mere shadow of it's former glory. 

 

There was once a thriving 'British' industry, now mostly owned by foreigners. 

 

There was once a clear identity, where 'British' values were respected and embraced by all. Now that has become a distant memory.

 

The 1% can be accused of bringing the country to it's knees, and selling everything down to the kitchen sink,

 

So what's left that is British? Answer, not much !

 

Patriotism .... is a thing of the past!

[Nigel Garvie]

4 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

The point isn't' that it received little support. The point is that the indignation on the part of Brexiters now on the subject of a second referendum was nowhere to be seen or heard back when.

Although this particular issue was long discussed, and I agree with this point, there is another implication resulting from the growing recognition (Even among some Daily Heil readers) that leaving the largest and richest free market in the world, will be a very foolish thing to do. The point is this, we elect politicians so they can react to events as they happen. We don't expect to have a referendum on whether to respond to an attack for example, and this referendum was supposed to be advisory, for a reason. Things change, our politicians are supposed to have the ability to respond to changes in the best interests of the country. We are finding out that we can probably almost all expect to be poorer if/when we leave. Do we really want that. 

[Stargeezr]

From what I understand, there were a lot of people who did not go to vote, but indeed stayed at home or at work. Shame on those people who in such an important vote in the UK, did not vote, but now are gripping and complaining about the situation now.  I do hope that Britain can get a successful Brexit and is not too strapped for money in the short term.  Make new rules for the social assistance and kick out the dead beats who came to Great Britain for  handouts, and welfare and free medical. etc.

Geezer

[stevenl]

9 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

So you think that another referendum might change the result and stop the UK leaving the EU?

 

If that results i a remain vote do you think there should be another referendum organised by the Brexit group, or another, or another?

 

I voted to leave as did over 17 million others. I accepted the result in exactly the same way that I would have done should it have been a result to stay.

 

I would NOT have been screaming, crying, moaning and whining.

 

It is called democracy. A referendum was taken. A result was announced that the UK would leave the EU. What is needed now is for everybody to support the result and get behind TM to get the best deal possible.

 

I call it patriotism and I did notice that the BBC during the run up to the election were biased in favour of remaining. I used to like the BBC many years ago for it truth in reporting the news as it came in without putting their own bias on it. Sadly that does not happen any more.

Sorry you don't get it.

 

I don't care about leaving or not, I care about the will of the people. And at present the will of the people is not listed to.  Democracy should be to listen to that, in stead of keep on hammering on about a vote that is clearly not the representation of what is wanted.

[Airbagwill]

"Patriotism is the city's if the vicious"

 

"Nationalism is the measles of mankind"

[Airbagwill]

I think many people outside UK fail to grasp how utterly abhorrent words line "patriotism" and "nationalism" traditionally are (and for centuries have been) to most British people.

 

They are inherently regarded as words used by those trying to tell or order the Britsh what to do.

 

Anyone using these words is displaying one or both of the following...

 

An ignorance of history

 

An over authoritarian attitude

[Airbagwill]

Ps Brexiteers might note that Hitler justified his coming to power on a one time simple nationalistic majority.

Proof that you can fool enough of the people for just enough time?

Edited June 26, 2017 by Airbagwill

[rixalex]

55 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Sorry you don't get it.

 

I don't care about leaving or not, I care about the will of the people. And at present the will of the people is not listed to.  Democracy should be to listen to that, in stead of keep on hammering on about a vote that is clearly not the representation of what is wanted.

The government can't continually go back and forth to the people to check that they are following their will. The people were given their opportunity to have their say and be listened to last year. The referendum wasn't sprung out of the blue. People had a good year to listen to all sides of the debate and make their decision. And they did. The majority said leave. That decision has to be final. If it's not, referenda will henceforth be a complete waste of time because whichever way a referendum vote might go, it can subsequently be argued that the people have changed their mind.

[soalbundy]

52 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

I think many people outside UK fail to grasp how utterly abhorrent words line "patriotism" and "nationalism" traditionally are (and for centuries have been) to most British people.

 

They are inherently regarded as words used by those trying to tell or order the Britsh what to do.

 

Anyone using these words is displaying one or both of the following...

 

An ignorance of history

 

An over authoritarian attitude

Americans like it,especially the red necks. A lot of third world countries like it which doesn't say much for the Americans, ''Thank you for your service''  makes me laugh every time.

[soalbundy]

5 minutes ago, rixalex said:

The government can't continually go back and forth to the people to check that they are following their will. The people were given their opportunity to have their say and be listened to last year. The referendum wasn't sprung out of the blue. People had a good year to listen to all sides of the debate and make their decision. And they did. The majority said leave. That decision has to be final. If it's not, referenda will henceforth be a complete waste of time because whichever way a referendum vote might go, it can subsequently be argued that the people have changed their mind.

You have a point but the majority in this case was very small 4% I think that the decision is so complicated and so important that a second referendum could clear the air. What have the Brexiteers to fear ? after all they are the ones harping on about democracy. I see two scenarios, one, it doesn't happen, two it happens and three years later we are back in with the Euro as a currency.

[Airbagwill]

5 minutes ago, rixalex said:

The government can't continually go back and forth to the people to check that they are following their will. The people were given their opportunity to have their say and be listened to last year. The referendum wasn't sprung out of the blue. People had a good year to listen to all sides of the debate and make their decision. And they did. The majority said leave. That decision has to be final. If it's not, referenda will henceforth be a complete waste of time because whichever way a referendum vote might go, it can subsequently be argued that the people have changed their mind.

An essential part of any democracy is your right to demonstrate your opposition to anything you don't like.

Democracy is not simple majority rule or referendums...it is government of (all) the people by the people and most importantly...FOR THE PEOPLE.

If a law is not in the interests of the people then it is not democratic. 

Brexit is so against the people"s interests it is probably illegal, this is why on constitutional issues like this in most countries a 2 thirds majority is required.

It is also why the referendum was not legally binding in the first place....but a bandwagon eagerly jumped on by the extreme right

 

[rixalex]

1 minute ago, soalbundy said:

You have a point but the majority in this case was very small 4% I think that the decision is so complicated and so important that a second referendum could clear the air. What have the Brexiteers to fear ? after all they are the ones harping on about democracy. I see two scenarios, one, it doesn't happen, two it happens and three years later we are back in with the Euro as a currency.

Firstly, another referendum would completely undermine our Brexit negotiations because the EU could be completely ruthless with us, knowing that the messier the potential divorce, the more likely Britain ends up reversing its decision and returning with cap in hand... a win win for the EU. Another referendum in the offing pretty much guarantees a bad deal for the UK. Perhaps this is why remainers like the idea.

 

Secondly, regarding your point about clearing the air, supposing that this second referendum goes the way remainers wish it to, with them winning by a small margin, do you really think those who voted leave will simply hold up their hands and accept the loss? Of course they won't. They will justifiably argue that when they won the decision wasn't respected, so why should they respect the second referendum. It will never end. The precedent will have been set for ignoring referendum results.

 

[Airbagwill]

1 minute ago, rixalex said:

Firstly, another referendum would completely undermine our Brexit negotiations because the EU could be completely ruthless with us, knowing that the messier the potential divorce, the more likely Britain ends up reversing its decision and returning with cap in hand... a win win for the EU. Another referendum in the offing pretty much guarantees a bad deal for the UK. Perhaps this is why remainers like the idea.

 

Secondly, regarding your point about clearing the air, supposing that this second referendum goes the way remainers wish it to, with them winning by a small margin, do you really think those who voted leave will simply hold up their hands and accept the loss? Of course they won't. They will justifiably argue that when they won the decision wasn't respected, so why should they respect the second referendum. It will never end. The precedent will have been set for ignoring referendum results.

 

"Firstly, another referendum would completely undermine our Brexit negotiations because the EU could be completely ruthless with us, knowing that the messier the potential divorce, the more likely Britain ends up reversing its decision and returning with cap in hand... a win win for the EU"

 

I suspect you already know the result!

of course a referendum would simply mean scrapping Brexit and save g a lot of time and money.

[Airbagwill]

4 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Firstly, another referendum would completely undermine our Brexit negotiations because the EU could be completely ruthless with us, knowing that the messier the potential divorce, the more likely Britain ends up reversing its decision and returning with cap in hand... a win win for the EU. Another referendum in the offing pretty much guarantees a bad deal for the UK. Perhaps this is why remainers like the idea.

 

Secondly, regarding your point about clearing the air, supposing that this second referendum goes the way remainers wish it to, with them winning by a small margin, do you really think those who voted leave will simply hold up their hands and accept the loss? Of course they won't. They will justifiably argue that when they won the decision wasn't respected, so why should they respect the second referendum. It will never end. The precedent will have been set for ignoring referendum results.

"The precedent will have been set for ignoring referendum results"

 

That is already the default preference in the UK and has been as along as voting was the norm. In the UK we normally elect a parliament to debate and sort out complicated issues like this.

 

The best way to scrap Brexit will not be by referendum....parliament will throw out the negotiated settlement and UK will remain. 

It would be nice then to pass on the bill to the Brexiteers.

 

[rixalex]

24 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

An essential part of any democracy is your right to demonstrate your opposition to anything you don't like.

Democracy is not simple majority rule or referendums...it is government of (all) the people by the people and most importantly...FOR THE PEOPLE.

If a law is not in the interests of the people then it is not democratic. 

Brexit is so against the people"s interests it is probably illegal, this is why on constitutional issues like this in most countries a 2 thirds majority is required.

It is also why the referendum was not legally binding in the first place....but a bandwagon eagerly jumped on by the extreme right

 

Remainers spend a lot of time complaining about lies and mistruths, and then in the next breath come out with stuff like, "ah yes, but the referendum wasn't legally binding anyway". Staggering dishonesty going on there.

 

If you wanted to argue that the vote was only advisory or indeed that the vote needed a two thirds majority, the time to have done that was before the vote.

 

Doing it after is like losing a football match by a goal to nil and then saying, "ah yes, didn't i mention this... you need to win by a two goal margin to have  won and besides, we were only playing for fun weren't we, so the game doesn't really officially count anyway".

 

[soalbundy]

15 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Firstly, another referendum would completely undermine our Brexit negotiations because the EU could be completely ruthless with us, knowing that the messier the potential divorce, the more likely Britain ends up reversing its decision and returning with cap in hand... a win win for the EU. Another referendum in the offing pretty much guarantees a bad deal for the UK. Perhaps this is why remainers like the idea.

 

Secondly, regarding your point about clearing the air, supposing that this second referendum goes the way remainers wish it to, with them winning by a small margin, do you really think those who voted leave will simply hold up their hands and accept the loss? Of course they won't. They will justifiably argue that when they won the decision wasn't respected, so why should they respect the second referendum. It will never end. The precedent will have been set for ignoring referendum results.

 

I'm not a fan of referendums anyway, MP's are elected presumably to govern in our best interests with an army of experts at their disposal while Mrs Smith of number 4 railway crossing, East Cheam, votes because she remembers something that she read in the Daily Express. A more or less 50/50 result from a referendum should be ignored.

[rixalex]

7 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

I'm not a fan of referendums anyway, MP's are elected presumably to govern in our best interests with an army of experts at their disposal while Mrs Smith of number 4 railway crossing, East Cheam, votes because she remembers something that she read in the Daily Express. A more or less 50/50 result from a referendum should be ignored.

The decision to have a referendum itself was one that was made by MPs in parliament. MPs, working as you say with their team of experts and with the best interests of the nation in mind, voted in favour of having a referendum. They shouldn't have done that if they planned on ignoring the vote, or suddenly moving the goalposts on what constitutes a win and what doesn't after the vote.

 

[rockingrobin]

10 minutes ago, rixalex said:

The decision to have a referendum itself was one that was made by MPs in parliament. MPs, working as you say with their team of experts and with the best interests of the nation in mind, voted in favour of having a referendum. They shouldn't have done that if they planned on ignoring the vote, or suddenly moving the goalposts on what constitutes a win and what doesn't after the vote.

 

When the referendum act was going through parliament, the gov , in the form of D.Liddington, told MPs the referendum was advisory

Edited June 26, 2017 by rockingrobin

[soalbundy]

5 minutes ago, rixalex said:

The decision to have a referendum itself was one that was made by MPs in parliament. MPs, working as you say with their team of experts and with the best interests of the nation in mind, voted in favour of having a referendum. They shouldn't have done that if they planned on ignoring the vote, or suddenly moving the goalposts on what constitutes a win and what doesn't after the vote.

 

The referendum was politically motivated to shut up the conspiracies of the back bencher's and because they thought remain would win, they hadn't reckoned with the educated opinion of Mrs.Smith.

[Baerboxer]

On 6/25/2017 at 8:10 AM, Grouse said:

I thought Leadsom was buried last year! Loathsome!

 

That's a bit harsh Grousy! She's probably just in favor of bringing back Victorian Values - workhouses, restrict voting to the right classes, child labor, widespread poverty, crap education and health services for the poor, and all whilst reminding them how lucky they are so they mustn't ever complain or criticize. They must be patriotic and support the ruling class who know best what to do and don't need to explain it.

 

And people voted for her.

[stevenl]

2 hours ago, rixalex said:

The government can't continually go back and forth to the people to check that they are following their will. The people were given their opportunity to have their say and be listened to last year. The referendum wasn't sprung out of the blue. People had a good year to listen to all sides of the debate and make their decision. And they did. The majority said leave. That decision has to be final. If it's not, referenda will henceforth be a complete waste of time because whichever way a referendum vote might go, it can subsequently be argued that the people have changed their mind.

Spoken like a true Brexiteer.

 

Independent observers may have a different opinion.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a solution. But simply continuing because 'the people have spoken' when it is clear that the people want something different is IMO not the way to go.

Edited June 26, 2017 by stevenl

[Grouse]

The referendum was illadvisory

[rixalex]

7 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Spoken like a true Brexiteer.

 

Independent observers may have a different opinion.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a solution. But simply continuing because 'the people have spoken' when it is clear that the people want something different is IMO not the way to go.

"...clear that the people want something different..."

 

Clear to whom? The only people who think it is clear that people want something different, are those people who voted to remain, and are clinging on to the desperate hope that people have changed their minds. They may have. They may not have. Nobody has a clue, unless there is another referendum. And then what if there is? What's to say that people won't change their minds again after referendum number two? So then presumably we'll need referendum number three...

 

For goodness sake. Remainers have to accept they lost. Get on board with the decision. If in ten, fifteen years time things have all gone to pot as they tell us it will, and the EU is flourishing, they can say i told you so and the country can go in another direction, but until brexit happens and we all see how the things actually pan out (rather than how they are speculated to pan out), we'll never know.

[stevenl]

22 minutes ago, rixalex said:

"...clear that the people want something different..."

 

Clear to whom? The only people who think it is clear that people want something different, are those people who voted to remain, and are clinging on to the desperate hope that people have changed their minds. They may have. They may not have. Nobody has a clue, unless there is another referendum. And then what if there is? What's to say that people won't change their minds again after referendum number two? So then presumably we'll need referendum number three...

 

For goodness sake. Remainers have to accept they lost. Get on board with the decision. If in ten, fifteen years time things have all gone to pot as they tell us it will, and the EU is flourishing, they can say i told you so and the country can go in another direction, but until brexit happens and we all see how the things actually pan out (rather than how they are speculated to pan out), we'll never know.

Clear to me, an independent observer.

 

I find it a real pity that the Brexiteers are sticking to the same mantra 'the people have spoken' and 'remainers have to accept', without any eye for present reality, and probably also reality at the time of the vote.

 

 

Edited June 26, 2017 by stevenl

[billd766]

12 hours ago, Richard W said:

So how few people voted for exit expecting it to make them worse off?  Man does not live by bread alone.

 

I knew that I would be worse off for a period of time (though how long I am not sure). Every person living abroad should have known that quite simply through the forex rates.

 

I was and still am worse off but I expect to live through it though at a reduced quality of life.

[billd766]

4 hours ago, stevenl said:

Sorry you don't get it.

 

I don't care about leaving or not, I care about the will of the people. And at present the will of the people is not listed to.  Democracy should be to listen to that, in stead of keep on hammering on about a vote that is clearly not the representation of what is wanted.

 

You keep quoting "The will of the people" so much that it is getting boring.

 

Neither you nor I nor anybody else knows what "the will of the people really is".

 

Who are you to say, and I quote you "a vote that is clearly not the representation of what is wanted."

 

How do you KNOW that for a fact? Have you personally done a survey of all the elegible voters in the UK or are you relying on the opinion polls? If you are do you know the questions that were asked, the size of the survey, the target groups, age, social class etc? Did each opinion poll ask exactly the same questions or were they different?

 

If you want an opinion poll result, then first decide what result you want, then frame the questions to get that result and then target the group who you think will give you that result.

 

It is called democracy whether you like the result or not.

 

A referendum was offered, a vote was taken and the result was to leave the EU.

 

Why can you not accept that result?

 

Should I demand a replay if I choose to buy a lottery ticket and not win because I got the numbers wrong?

 

Should a football team demand a replay because they lost?

[stevenl]

7 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

You keep quoting "The will of the people" so much that it is getting boring.

 

Neither you nor I nor anybody else knows what "the will of the people really is".

 

Who are you to say, and I quote you "a vote that is clearly not the representation of what is wanted."

 

How do you KNOW that for a fact? Have you personally done a survey of all the elegible voters in the UK or are you relying on the opinion polls? If you are do you know the questions that were asked, the size of the survey, the target groups, age, social class etc? Did each opinion poll ask exactly the same questions or were they different?

 

If you want an opinion poll result, then first decide what result you want, then frame the questions to get that result and then target the group who you think will give you that result.

 

It is called democracy whether you like the result or not.

 

A referendum was offered, a vote was taken and the result was to leave the EU.

 

Why can you not accept that result?

 

Should I demand a replay if I choose to buy a lottery ticket and not win because I got the numbers wrong?

 

Should a football team demand a replay because they lost?

Unfortunately you and some others keep on with the same arguments, without addressing arguments given by others. This way it is not a discussion, just one way traffic with the same arguments. If you don't want to listen to others there is no discussion.