|
|
Brexit
Dec 4, 2018 19:34:25 GMT 1
via mobile
Brexit, by Daylight Robber on Dec 4, 2018 19:34:25 GMT 1, It's a pretty good indicator that a judgement will be made. The government obviously haven't wanted the people to know that the option could be put on the table. It's huge news if Theresa May doesn't get her deal through. Which she won't. I suspect T. May will not get her deal through parliament but that will not result in a call to revoke article 50. ย It may result in a change of leadership or a change of government or a second public vote - but I don't think anyone has suggested revoking article 50.
And a second public vote can be had in the full knowledge that if the people vote for No Brexit we can easily revoke Article 50.
It's a pretty good indicator that a judgement will be made. The government obviously haven't wanted the people to know that the option could be put on the table. It's huge news if Theresa May doesn't get her deal through. Which she won't. I suspect T. May will not get her deal through parliament but that will not result in a call to revoke article 50. ย It may result in a change of leadership or a change of government or a second public vote - but I don't think anyone has suggested revoking article 50. And a second public vote can be had in the full knowledge that if the people vote for No Brexit we can easily revoke Article 50. |
|
Chris JL
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,766
๐๐ป 1,852
March 2017
|
Brexit, by Chris JL on Dec 4, 2018 23:54:19 GMT 1, It's a pretty good indicator that a judgement will be made. The government obviously haven't wanted the people to know that the option could be put on the table. It's huge news if Theresa May doesn't get her deal through. Which she won't. I suspect T. May will not get her deal through parliament but that will not result in a call to revoke article 50. It may result in a change of leadership or a change of government or a second public vote - but I don't think anyone has suggested revoking article 50.
It actually paves the way to democracy i.e. a 3 way referendum with 3 options: 1) hard brexit i.e. letโs hurt ourselves as much as we can; 2) T-May deal i.e. this sounds reasonable cause the other brexit is just insane; and 3) sorry, we were blatantly lied to, but eventually the liars were caught with no clothes, hence forget about about #50.
It's a pretty good indicator that a judgement will be made. The government obviously haven't wanted the people to know that the option could be put on the table. It's huge news if Theresa May doesn't get her deal through. Which she won't. I suspect T. May will not get her deal through parliament but that will not result in a call to revoke article 50. It may result in a change of leadership or a change of government or a second public vote - but I don't think anyone has suggested revoking article 50. It actually paves the way to democracy i.e. a 3 way referendum with 3 options: 1) hard brexit i.e. letโs hurt ourselves as much as we can; 2) T-May deal i.e. this sounds reasonable cause the other brexit is just insane; and 3) sorry, we were blatantly lied to, but eventually the liars were caught with no clothes, hence forget about about #50. |
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Brexit
Dec 5, 2018 10:51:14 GMT 1
Brexit, by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 10:51:14 GMT 1, That's the problem with a second referendum/people's vote. Presumably there would be more than two options, so you would have...
(1) Existing form of Brexit
(2) An alternative form of Brexit
(3) Forget the whole disastrous idea
In that scenario, number 3 is obviously going to get the most votes. But, equally obviously, that wouldn't mean the majority want to remain in the EU.
So what happens then?
That's the problem with a second referendum/people's vote. Presumably there would be more than two options, so you would have...
(1) Existing form of Brexit
(2) An alternative form of Brexit
(3) Forget the whole disastrous idea
In that scenario, number 3 is obviously going to get the most votes. But, equally obviously, that wouldn't mean the majority want to remain in the EU.
So what happens then?
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Dec 5, 2018 11:36:53 GMT 1
via mobile
Brexit, by Coach on Dec 5, 2018 11:36:53 GMT 1, That's the problem with a second referendum/people's vote. Presumably there would be more than two options, so you would have... (1) Existing form of Brexit (2) An alternative form of Brexit (3) Forget the whole disastrous idea In that scenario, number 3 is obviously going to get the most votes. But, equally obviously, that wouldn't mean the majority want to remain in the EU. So what happens then?
A list of those three questions, whilst in my interests as a remoaner, would be unfair to the people who voted for Brexit. It would split the Brexit vote, as there are two responses that result in Brexit and only one that results in remain.
Iโve heard this discussed, and the suggested solution was some form of proportionate representation. So voters list their preferences in order. Iโm not sure quite how it then works, but the people discussing it seemed to think it would.
That's the problem with a second referendum/people's vote. Presumably there would be more than two options, so you would have... (1) Existing form of Brexit (2) An alternative form of Brexit (3) Forget the whole disastrous idea In that scenario, number 3 is obviously going to get the most votes. But, equally obviously, that wouldn't mean the majority want to remain in the EU. So what happens then? A list of those three questions, whilst in my interests as a remoaner, would be unfair to the people who voted for Brexit. It would split the Brexit vote, as there are two responses that result in Brexit and only one that results in remain. Iโve heard this discussed, and the suggested solution was some form of proportionate representation. So voters list their preferences in order. Iโm not sure quite how it then works, but the people discussing it seemed to think it would. |
|
cizza19
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 215
๐๐ป 118
April 2017
|
Brexit
Dec 5, 2018 11:53:41 GMT 1
Brexit, by cizza19 on Dec 5, 2018 11:53:41 GMT 1, Either preferences in order with different weights applied depending on what position they are given (i.e first choice 3 points, second choice 1 point, last choice 0 points)
Or 2 questions (i.e Q1 Leave or Remain - Q2 If Leave were to occur which form of leave: Current Deal or No Deal)
Problem in so far as I see it with the first is it gives May's deal the advantage as that would pick up second choice votes from both leave and remain
Either preferences in order with different weights applied depending on what position they are given (i.e first choice 3 points, second choice 1 point, last choice 0 points)
Or 2 questions (i.e Q1 Leave or Remain - Q2 If Leave were to occur which form of leave: Current Deal or No Deal)
Problem in so far as I see it with the first is it gives May's deal the advantage as that would pick up second choice votes from both leave and remain
|
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Brexit
Dec 5, 2018 12:00:34 GMT 1
Brexit, by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 12:00:34 GMT 1, That's the problem with a second referendum/people's vote. Presumably there would be more than two options, so you would have... (1) Existing form of Brexit (2) An alternative form of Brexit (3) Forget the whole disastrous idea In that scenario, number 3 is obviously going to get the most votes. But, equally obviously, that wouldn't mean the majority want to remain in the EU. So what happens then? A list of those three questions, whilst in my interests as a remoaner, would be unfair to the people who voted for Brexit. It would split the Brexit vote, as there are two responses that result in Brexit and only one that results in remain. Iโve heard this discussed, and the suggested solution was some form of proportionate representation. So voters list their preferences in order. Iโm not sure quite how it then works, but the people discussing it seemed to think it would.
That's the problem with a second referendum/people's vote. Presumably there would be more than two options, so you would have... (1) Existing form of Brexit (2) An alternative form of Brexit (3) Forget the whole disastrous idea In that scenario, number 3 is obviously going to get the most votes. But, equally obviously, that wouldn't mean the majority want to remain in the EU. So what happens then? A list of those three questions, whilst in my interests as a remoaner, would be unfair to the people who voted for Brexit. It would split the Brexit vote, as there are two responses that result in Brexit and only one that results in remain. Iโve heard this discussed, and the suggested solution was some form of proportionate representation. So voters list their preferences in order. Iโm not sure quite how it then works, but the people discussing it seemed to think it would. As a Remainer I am against a second referendum as I feel it will be unfair to Brexiters - unless there are just two possible options, i.e. 'stay in' and 'leave'. But if 'leave' win again we are no further forward. I don't really see how a second referendum solves anything. |
|
|
|
Chris JL
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,766
๐๐ป 1,852
March 2017
|
Brexit, by Chris JL on Dec 5, 2018 12:02:56 GMT 1, That's the problem with a second referendum/people's vote. Presumably there would be more than two options, so you would have... (1) Existing form of Brexit (2) An alternative form of Brexit (3) Forget the whole disastrous idea In that scenario, number 3 is obviously going to get the most votes. But, equally obviously, that wouldn't mean the majority want to remain in the EU. So what happens then?
(The majority did not vote to leave anyway... but thatโs irrelevant)
The key is that democracy and majoritarianism are two VERY different concepts (worth checking Wikipedia), albeit the trend - a very dangerous one tbh - is to blur the line between the two concepts.
That's the problem with a second referendum/people's vote. Presumably there would be more than two options, so you would have... (1) Existing form of Brexit (2) An alternative form of Brexit (3) Forget the whole disastrous idea In that scenario, number 3 is obviously going to get the most votes. But, equally obviously, that wouldn't mean the majority want to remain in the EU. So what happens then? (The majority did not vote to leave anyway... but thatโs irrelevant) The key is that democracy and majoritarianism are two VERY different concepts (worth checking Wikipedia), albeit the trend - a very dangerous one tbh - is to blur the line between the two concepts. |
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Brexit
Dec 5, 2018 12:09:24 GMT 1
Brexit, by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 12:09:24 GMT 1, That's the problem with a second referendum/people's vote. Presumably there would be more than two options, so you would have... (1) Existing form of Brexit (2) An alternative form of Brexit (3) Forget the whole disastrous idea In that scenario, number 3 is obviously going to get the most votes. But, equally obviously, that wouldn't mean the majority want to remain in the EU. So what happens then? (The majority did not vote to leave anyway... but thatโs irrelevant) The key is that democracy and majoritarianism are two VERY different concepts (worth checking Wikipedia), albeit the trend - a very dangerous one tbh - is to blur the line between the two concepts.
That's the problem with a second referendum/people's vote. Presumably there would be more than two options, so you would have... (1) Existing form of Brexit (2) An alternative form of Brexit (3) Forget the whole disastrous idea In that scenario, number 3 is obviously going to get the most votes. But, equally obviously, that wouldn't mean the majority want to remain in the EU. So what happens then? (The majority did not vote to leave anyway... but thatโs irrelevant) The key is that democracy and majoritarianism are two VERY different concepts (worth checking Wikipedia), albeit the trend - a very dangerous one tbh - is to blur the line between the two concepts. The majority, who bothered to go out and vote, voted to leave. That's all that matters. You can't count those people who didn't vote. No government is ever voted in to office by the majority of its citizens - unless there is compulsory voting, of course. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Dec 5, 2018 12:25:20 GMT 1
via mobile
Brexit, by Coach on Dec 5, 2018 12:25:20 GMT 1, Either preferences in order with different weights applied depending on what position they are given (i.e first choice 3 points, second choice 1 point, last choice 0 points) Or 2 questions (i.e Q1 Leave or Remain - Q2 If Leave were to occur which form of leave: Current Deal or No Deal) Problem in so far as I see it with the first is it gives May's deal the advantage as that would pick up second choice votes from both leave and remain
Good point.
Either preferences in order with different weights applied depending on what position they are given (i.e first choice 3 points, second choice 1 point, last choice 0 points) Or 2 questions (i.e Q1 Leave or Remain - Q2 If Leave were to occur which form of leave: Current Deal or No Deal) Problem in so far as I see it with the first is it gives May's deal the advantage as that would pick up second choice votes from both leave and remain Good point. |
|
silvermyn
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,612
๐๐ป 781
April 2008
|
Brexit
Dec 5, 2018 12:47:39 GMT 1
Brexit, by silvermyn on Dec 5, 2018 12:47:39 GMT 1, (The majority did not vote to leave anyway... but thatโs irrelevant) The key is that democracy and majoritarianism are two VERY different concepts (worth checking Wikipedia), albeit the trend - a very dangerous one tbh - is to blur the line between the two concepts. You can't count those people who didn't vote. No government is ever voted in to office by the majority of its citizens - unless there is compulsory voting, of course. IMHO this is not all that matters. Every person that voted to leave, voted on the basis of information that was available to them (or thrust upon them by the Daily Mail) at the time. A lot of it was BS but see link below for specific BS.
www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2018/mar/28/11-brexit-promises-leavers-quietly-dropped
Does it not matter at all to you that the information put before voters was largely a pile of toss? Maybe there are leave voters out there that feel they have a much clearer understanding of the realities of BREXIT but can't do anything about it now.
(The majority did not vote to leave anyway... but thatโs irrelevant) The key is that democracy and majoritarianism are two VERY different concepts (worth checking Wikipedia), albeit the trend - a very dangerous one tbh - is to blur the line between the two concepts. You can't count those people who didn't vote. No government is ever voted in to office by the majority of its citizens - unless there is compulsory voting, of course. IMHO this is not all that matters. Every person that voted to leave, voted on the basis of information that was available to them (or thrust upon them by the Daily Mail) at the time. A lot of it was BS but see link below for specific BS.
www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2018/mar/28/11-brexit-promises-leavers-quietly-dropped
Does it not matter at all to you that the information put before voters was largely a pile of toss? Maybe there are leave voters out there that feel they have a much clearer understanding of the realities of BREXIT but can't do anything about it now.
|
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Brexit
Dec 5, 2018 13:01:10 GMT 1
Brexit, by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 13:01:10 GMT 1, The majority, who bothered to go out and vote, voted to leave. That's all that matters. You can't count those people who didn't vote. No government is ever voted in to office by the majority of its citizens - unless there is compulsory voting, of course. IMHO this is not all that matters. Every person that voted to leave, voted on the basis of information that was available to them (or thrust upon them by the Daily Mail) at the time. A lot of it was BS but see link below for specific BS.
www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2018/mar/28/11-brexit-promises-leavers-quietly-dropped
Does it not matter at all to you that the information put before voters was largely a pile of toss? Maybe there are leave voters out there that feel they have a much clearer understanding of the realities of BREXIT but can't do anything about it now.
I am a Remainer, by the way. I only say these things as I think many people don't realise the mindset of Brexiters.
The majority, who bothered to go out and vote, voted to leave. That's all that matters. You can't count those people who didn't vote. No government is ever voted in to office by the majority of its citizens - unless there is compulsory voting, of course. IMHO this is not all that matters. Every person that voted to leave, voted on the basis of information that was available to them (or thrust upon them by the Daily Mail) at the time. A lot of it was BS but see link below for specific BS.
www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2018/mar/28/11-brexit-promises-leavers-quietly-dropped
Does it not matter at all to you that the information put before voters was largely a pile of toss? Maybe there are leave voters out there that feel they have a much clearer understanding of the realities of BREXIT but can't do anything about it now.
We all know lies were spread during the run up to the Brexit referendum. But, strange as it may seem, most Brexiters still want to leave the EU. They don't care about the lies. They just want us to leave and be an independent country again. Even if it means the UK will be poorer, they still want to leave. I am a Remainer, by the way. I only say these things as I think many people don't realise the mindset of Brexiters. |
|
nex
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,573
๐๐ป 1,819
February 2009
|
Brexit
Dec 5, 2018 13:06:34 GMT 1
via mobile
Brexit, by nex on Dec 5, 2018 13:06:34 GMT 1, It seems quite clear to me that to a greater or lesser degree xenophobia drove the leave vote not facts
It seems quite clear to me that to a greater or lesser degree xenophobia drove the leave vote not facts
|
|
iamzero
Full Member
๐จ๏ธ 9,190
๐๐ป 8,545
May 2011
|
Brexit
Dec 5, 2018 13:19:44 GMT 1
via mobile
Brexit, by iamzero on Dec 5, 2018 13:19:44 GMT 1, Interesting thing on Radio 2 right now.
Interesting thing on Radio 2 right now.
|
|
silvermyn
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,612
๐๐ป 781
April 2008
|
Brexit
Dec 5, 2018 13:21:09 GMT 1
Brexit, by silvermyn on Dec 5, 2018 13:21:09 GMT 1, IMHO this is not all that matters. Every person that voted to leave, voted on the basis of information that was available to them (or thrust upon them by the Daily Mail) at the time. A lot of it was BS but see link below for specific BS.
www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2018/mar/28/11-brexit-promises-leavers-quietly-dropped
Does it not matter at all to you that the information put before voters was largely a pile of toss? Maybe there are leave voters out there that feel they have a much clearer understanding of the realities of BREXIT but can't do anything about it now.
We all know lies were spread during the run up to the Brexit referendum. But, strange as it may seem, most Brexiters still want to leave the EU. They don't care about the lies. They just want us to leave and be an independent country again. Even if it means the UK will be poorer, they still want to leave. I am a Remainer, by the way. I only say these things as I think many people don't realise the mindset of Brexiters. Yeah, I get that there are people out there that think like that. But I don't think that it's right to say that the majority of voters voted to Leave and that's all that matters. That isn't the only thing that matters.
If you discount the Leavers with their "own personal reasons", those that voted Leave based on what they thought was a set of objective arguments have been conned. I think that matters a lot.
IMHO this is not all that matters. Every person that voted to leave, voted on the basis of information that was available to them (or thrust upon them by the Daily Mail) at the time. A lot of it was BS but see link below for specific BS.
www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2018/mar/28/11-brexit-promises-leavers-quietly-dropped
Does it not matter at all to you that the information put before voters was largely a pile of toss? Maybe there are leave voters out there that feel they have a much clearer understanding of the realities of BREXIT but can't do anything about it now.
We all know lies were spread during the run up to the Brexit referendum. But, strange as it may seem, most Brexiters still want to leave the EU. They don't care about the lies. They just want us to leave and be an independent country again. Even if it means the UK will be poorer, they still want to leave. I am a Remainer, by the way. I only say these things as I think many people don't realise the mindset of Brexiters. Yeah, I get that there are people out there that think like that. But I don't think that it's right to say that the majority of voters voted to Leave and that's all that matters. That isn't the only thing that matters.
If you discount the Leavers with their "own personal reasons", those that voted Leave based on what they thought was a set of objective arguments have been conned. I think that matters a lot.
|
|
|
|
caruso
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,181
๐๐ป 818
August 2017
|
Brexit
Dec 5, 2018 13:22:04 GMT 1
Brexit, by caruso on Dec 5, 2018 13:22:04 GMT 1, It seems quite clear to me that to a greater or lesser degree xenophobia drove the leave vote not facts
It seems quite clear to me that to a greater or lesser degree xenophobia drove the leave vote not facts Quite clearly, peppered with a subtle hint of stupidity and delusions of grandeur of a long, long gone British empire. I have had some totally surreal conversations with British people who argued GB is still ruling the world, somehow. Also, every leaver I spoke to is very quick to mention it was not a racist vote. Err, right, then why is it the first thing you mention to me? |
|
caruso
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,181
๐๐ป 818
August 2017
|
Brexit
Dec 5, 2018 13:32:12 GMT 1
Brexit, by caruso on Dec 5, 2018 13:32:12 GMT 1, "May" I add I was quietly amused by the incredible show of arrogance from the UK following the vote in their approach to the negotiations with the EU, claiming they were in a better position to negotiate than the EU. Right.
Also the multiple incredibly aggressive newspaper headlines showing such hatred and ignorance towards immigration, which as the educated ones here will know, is actually a strength for any country. As a matter of fact, no economic power today (except China for obvious demographics reason) wasn't built on the back of hard working immigrants. Anyone willing to argue this point, I'm happy to debate with you and counter any example you may want to bring forward. History and economics are a passion of mine.
Last but not least, the UK was quick to announce flamboyant future partnerships, with the USA (we all know where it's at right now), Australia (good idea to stop trading with the EU and start with Australia), oh and yes that amazing security partnership with.. Nigeria. Says it all.
"May" I add I was quietly amused by the incredible show of arrogance from the UK following the vote in their approach to the negotiations with the EU, claiming they were in a better position to negotiate than the EU. Right.
Also the multiple incredibly aggressive newspaper headlines showing such hatred and ignorance towards immigration, which as the educated ones here will know, is actually a strength for any country. As a matter of fact, no economic power today (except China for obvious demographics reason) wasn't built on the back of hard working immigrants. Anyone willing to argue this point, I'm happy to debate with you and counter any example you may want to bring forward. History and economics are a passion of mine.
Last but not least, the UK was quick to announce flamboyant future partnerships, with the USA (we all know where it's at right now), Australia (good idea to stop trading with the EU and start with Australia), oh and yes that amazing security partnership with.. Nigeria. Says it all.
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Dec 5, 2018 13:33:22 GMT 1
via mobile
Brexit, by Schrรถdinger's Chat on Dec 5, 2018 13:33:22 GMT 1, You get people like Davis and Raab suggesting that we should go back to the EU and sort out a better deal.
If only we had had those clowns involved negotiating things for us we would be in a much better position, maybe we should give them a chance, oh wait a minute! ๐คก
Easist deal in history ๐
Liam Fox is a bit quiet on all those fantastic trade deals that must just be dropping sweetly into place.
You get people like Davis and Raab suggesting that we should go back to the EU and sort out a better deal.
If only we had had those clowns involved negotiating things for us we would be in a much better position, maybe we should give them a chance, oh wait a minute! ๐คก
Easist deal in history ๐
Liam Fox is a bit quiet on all those fantastic trade deals that must just be dropping sweetly into place.
|
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Brexit
Dec 5, 2018 15:13:55 GMT 1
Brexit, by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 15:13:55 GMT 1, It seems quite clear to me that to a greater or lesser degree xenophobia drove the leave vote not facts
It seems quite clear to me that to a greater or lesser degree xenophobia drove the leave vote not facts To be fair, facts tend not to sway people on any given subject. Psychologists have known this for a very long time. |
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Brexit
Dec 5, 2018 15:21:55 GMT 1
Brexit, by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 15:21:55 GMT 1, "May" I add I was quietly amused by the incredible show of arrogance from the UK following the vote in their approach to the negotiations with the EU, claiming they were in a better position to negotiate than the EU. Right. Also the multiple incredibly aggressive newspaper headlines showing such hatred and ignorance towards immigration, which as the educated ones here will know, is actually a strength for any country. As a matter of fact, no economic power today (except China for obvious demographics reason) wasn't built on the back of hard working immigrants. Anyone willing to argue this point, I'm happy to debate with you and counter any example you may want to bring forward. History and economics are a passion of mine. Last but not least, the UK was quick to announce flamboyant future partnerships, with the USA (we all know where it's at right now), Australia (good idea to stop trading with the EU and start with Australia), oh and yes that amazing security partnership with.. Nigeria. Says it all.
"May" I add I was quietly amused by the incredible show of arrogance from the UK following the vote in their approach to the negotiations with the EU, claiming they were in a better position to negotiate than the EU. Right. Also the multiple incredibly aggressive newspaper headlines showing such hatred and ignorance towards immigration, which as the educated ones here will know, is actually a strength for any country. As a matter of fact, no economic power today (except China for obvious demographics reason) wasn't built on the back of hard working immigrants. Anyone willing to argue this point, I'm happy to debate with you and counter any example you may want to bring forward. History and economics are a passion of mine. Last but not least, the UK was quick to announce flamboyant future partnerships, with the USA (we all know where it's at right now), Australia (good idea to stop trading with the EU and start with Australia), oh and yes that amazing security partnership with.. Nigeria. Says it all. The ironic thing about Brexit is that it will not stop immigration. We will still need to import highly skilled people from abroad and, in fact, low skilled/unskilled people as well, for fruit picking, menial factory work and low-paid jobs like care work in the NHS and elsewhere. It's a sad fact that many British people don't want to do such jobs; they would rather sit at home and live off welfare benefits instead. |
|
silvermyn
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,612
๐๐ป 781
April 2008
|
Brexit
Dec 5, 2018 15:29:00 GMT 1
Brexit, by silvermyn on Dec 5, 2018 15:29:00 GMT 1, It seems quite clear to me that to a greater or lesser degree xenophobia drove the leave vote not facts To be fair, facts tend not to sway people on any given subject. Psychologists have known this for a very long time. Interesting... So the fact that you may die (or be seriously injured) if you jump from a great height into the sea will "tend not to sway" anyone considering jumping.
In my younger days I considered leaping into the sea from a rock on holiday but dismissed the idea once I weighed up the risks against the benefits. I must be a very usual case from a psychologist's point of view. The normal thing would be to just leap without giving the consequences much thought, right?
It seems quite clear to me that to a greater or lesser degree xenophobia drove the leave vote not facts To be fair, facts tend not to sway people on any given subject. Psychologists have known this for a very long time. Interesting... So the fact that you may die (or be seriously injured) if you jump from a great height into the sea will "tend not to sway" anyone considering jumping.
In my younger days I considered leaping into the sea from a rock on holiday but dismissed the idea once I weighed up the risks against the benefits. I must be a very usual case from a psychologist's point of view. The normal thing would be to just leap without giving the consequences much thought, right? |
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Brexit
Dec 5, 2018 15:42:47 GMT 1
Brexit, by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 15:42:47 GMT 1, To be fair, facts tend not to sway people on any given subject. Psychologists have known this for a very long time. Interesting... So the fact that you may die (or be seriously injured) if you jump from a great height into the sea will "tend not to sway" anyone considering jumping.
In my younger days I considered leaping into the sea from a rock on holiday but dismissed the idea once I weighed up the risks against the benefits. I must be a very usual case from a psychologist's point of view. The normal thing would be to just leap without giving the consequences much thought, right?
To be fair, facts tend not to sway people on any given subject. Psychologists have known this for a very long time. Interesting... So the fact that you may die (or be seriously injured) if you jump from a great height into the sea will "tend not to sway" anyone considering jumping.
In my younger days I considered leaping into the sea from a rock on holiday but dismissed the idea once I weighed up the risks against the benefits. I must be a very usual case from a psychologist's point of view. The normal thing would be to just leap without giving the consequences much thought, right? Yeah, lots of people still jump from the top of high cliffs. But a better example is smoking. People know it gives you lung cancer and seriously f***s up your lungs...but people still do it whilst telling you "my grand-dad smoked 40-a-day and lived to be 95". Oh well, that's alright then. I guess all the demographical evidence is wrong. |
|
caruso
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,181
๐๐ป 818
August 2017
|
Brexit
Dec 5, 2018 16:01:48 GMT 1
Brexit, by caruso on Dec 5, 2018 16:01:48 GMT 1, Interesting... So the fact that you may die (or be seriously injured) if you jump from a great height into the sea will "tend not to sway" anyone considering jumping.
In my younger days I considered leaping into the sea from a rock on holiday but dismissed the idea once I weighed up the risks against the benefits. I must be a very usual case from a psychologist's point of view. The normal thing would be to just leap without giving the consequences much thought, right? Yeah, lots of people still jump from the top of high cliffs. But a better example is smoking. People know it gives you lung cancer and seriously f***s up your lungs...but people still do it whilst telling you "my grand-dad smoked 40-a-day and lived to be 95". Oh well, that's alright then. I guess all the demographical evidence is wrong.
Interesting... So the fact that you may die (or be seriously injured) if you jump from a great height into the sea will "tend not to sway" anyone considering jumping.
In my younger days I considered leaping into the sea from a rock on holiday but dismissed the idea once I weighed up the risks against the benefits. I must be a very usual case from a psychologist's point of view. The normal thing would be to just leap without giving the consequences much thought, right? Yeah, lots of people still jump from the top of high cliffs. But a better example is smoking. People know it gives you lung cancer and seriously f***s up your lungs...but people still do it whilst telling you "my grand-dad smoked 40-a-day and lived to be 95". Oh well, that's alright then. I guess all the demographical evidence is wrong. It's true, unfortunately people will tend to stick to their beliefs even confronted with hard facts. Self sabotage, fear of losing face, I don't know. But look at Trump's strategy and his 'fake news' psychological war on media. Not too far from the outrageous propaganda the world has known in darker times. It seems to be working. In fact the less subtle the claims the more people will buy it. |
|
|
|
silvermyn
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,612
๐๐ป 781
April 2008
|
Brexit
Dec 5, 2018 16:10:41 GMT 1
Brexit, by silvermyn on Dec 5, 2018 16:10:41 GMT 1, Interesting... So the fact that you may die (or be seriously injured) if you jump from a great height into the sea will "tend not to sway" anyone considering jumping.
In my younger days I considered leaping into the sea from a rock on holiday but dismissed the idea once I weighed up the risks against the benefits. I must be a very usual case from a psychologist's point of view. The normal thing would be to just leap without giving the consequences much thought, right? Yeah, lots of people still jump from the top of high cliffs. But a better example is smoking. People know it gives you lung cancer and seriously f***s up your lungs...but people still do it whilst telling you "my grand-dad smoked 40-a-day and lived to be 95". Oh well, that's alright then. I guess all the demographical evidence is wrong. Your example may have more to do with nicotine addiction (and the excuses addicts make to justify their addiction) than objective consideration of facts.
Let's face it, those that choose to jump of cliffs, or smoke, take risks with their lives that are entirely their own business. Many of them will die as a result of the decisions they make but that's their problem not mine! However, with Brexit, the Leavers have taken the decision on behalf of everyone else despite the stong evidence suggesting that it's the wrong path to take.
Why should we (or our children) have to pay for the decision of some uneducated, ill informed and/or reckless fools? I'm sure that most of the unwashed British public would vote not to pay income tax, but that would result in immense longterm damage to our society.
I cannot fathom why David Cameron thought the gamble with an in/out referendum was worth it. He should have known he was born to lose, and gambling's for fools. But that's the way he liked it baby, he didn't want to be PM forever... and don't forget the joker (aka Borris).
Interesting... So the fact that you may die (or be seriously injured) if you jump from a great height into the sea will "tend not to sway" anyone considering jumping.
In my younger days I considered leaping into the sea from a rock on holiday but dismissed the idea once I weighed up the risks against the benefits. I must be a very usual case from a psychologist's point of view. The normal thing would be to just leap without giving the consequences much thought, right? Yeah, lots of people still jump from the top of high cliffs. But a better example is smoking. People know it gives you lung cancer and seriously f***s up your lungs...but people still do it whilst telling you "my grand-dad smoked 40-a-day and lived to be 95". Oh well, that's alright then. I guess all the demographical evidence is wrong. Your example may have more to do with nicotine addiction (and the excuses addicts make to justify their addiction) than objective consideration of facts.
Let's face it, those that choose to jump of cliffs, or smoke, take risks with their lives that are entirely their own business. Many of them will die as a result of the decisions they make but that's their problem not mine! However, with Brexit, the Leavers have taken the decision on behalf of everyone else despite the stong evidence suggesting that it's the wrong path to take.
Why should we (or our children) have to pay for the decision of some uneducated, ill informed and/or reckless fools? I'm sure that most of the unwashed British public would vote not to pay income tax, but that would result in immense longterm damage to our society.
I cannot fathom why David Cameron thought the gamble with an in/out referendum was worth it. He should have known he was born to lose, and gambling's for fools. But that's the way he liked it baby, he didn't want to be PM forever... and don't forget the joker (aka Borris). |
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Brexit
Dec 5, 2018 16:24:54 GMT 1
via mobile
Brexit, by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 16:24:54 GMT 1, "May" I add I was quietly amused by the incredible show of arrogance from the UK following the vote in their approach to the negotiations with the EU, claiming they were in a better position to negotiate than the EU. Right. Also the multiple incredibly aggressive newspaper headlines showing such hatred and ignorance towards immigration, which as the educated ones here will know, is actually a strength for any country. As a matter of fact, no economic power today (except China for obvious demographics reason) wasn't built on the back of hard working immigrants. Anyone willing to argue this point, I'm happy to debate with you and counter any example you may want to bring forward. History and economics are a passion of mine. Last but not least, the UK was quick to announce flamboyant future partnerships, with the USA (we all know where it's at right now), Australia (good idea to stop trading with the EU and start with Australia), oh and yes that amazing security partnership with.. Nigeria. Says it all.
Heres something positive....
New Zealand will be happy when we import more lamb again.
Vote to be poorer.... oh, too late we already did
"May" I add I was quietly amused by the incredible show of arrogance from the UK following the vote in their approach to the negotiations with the EU, claiming they were in a better position to negotiate than the EU. Right. Also the multiple incredibly aggressive newspaper headlines showing such hatred and ignorance towards immigration, which as the educated ones here will know, is actually a strength for any country. As a matter of fact, no economic power today (except China for obvious demographics reason) wasn't built on the back of hard working immigrants. Anyone willing to argue this point, I'm happy to debate with you and counter any example you may want to bring forward. History and economics are a passion of mine. Last but not least, the UK was quick to announce flamboyant future partnerships, with the USA (we all know where it's at right now), Australia (good idea to stop trading with the EU and start with Australia), oh and yes that amazing security partnership with.. Nigeria. Says it all. Heres something positive.... New Zealand will be happy when we import more lamb again. Vote to be poorer.... oh, too late we already did |
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Brexit
Dec 5, 2018 16:45:10 GMT 1
Brexit, by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 16:45:10 GMT 1, Yeah, lots of people still jump from the top of high cliffs. But a better example is smoking. People know it gives you lung cancer and seriously f***s up your lungs...but people still do it whilst telling you "my grand-dad smoked 40-a-day and lived to be 95". Oh well, that's alright then. I guess all the demographical evidence is wrong. Your example may have more to do with nicotine addiction (and the excuses addicts make to justify their addiction) than objective consideration of facts.
Let's face it, those that choose to jump of cliffs, or smoke, take risks with their lives that are entirely their own business. Many of them will die as a result of the decisions they make but that's their problem not mine! However, with Brexit, the Leavers have taken the decision on behalf of everyone else despite the stong evidence suggesting that it's the wrong path to take.
Why should we (or our children) have to pay for the decision of some uneducated, ill informed and/or reckless fools? I'm sure that most of the unwashed British public would vote not to pay income tax, but that would result in immense longterm damage to our society.
I cannot fathom why David Cameron thought the gamble with an in/out referendum was worth it. He should have known he was born to lose, and gambling's for fools. But that's the way he liked it baby, he didn't want to be PM forever... and don't forget the joker (aka Borris).
But joking aside....
The problem with democracy and referendums (on Brexit or anything else) is that the majority dictate the terms to the minority. And it doesn't matter if the majority are ignorant or ill-informed or racists or psychopaths. What the majority wants, the majority gets. So the answer to your question "should we have to pay for the decision of...fools" is "unfortunately, yes". That's how democracy works.
Yeah, lots of people still jump from the top of high cliffs. But a better example is smoking. People know it gives you lung cancer and seriously f***s up your lungs...but people still do it whilst telling you "my grand-dad smoked 40-a-day and lived to be 95". Oh well, that's alright then. I guess all the demographical evidence is wrong. Your example may have more to do with nicotine addiction (and the excuses addicts make to justify their addiction) than objective consideration of facts.
Let's face it, those that choose to jump of cliffs, or smoke, take risks with their lives that are entirely their own business. Many of them will die as a result of the decisions they make but that's their problem not mine! However, with Brexit, the Leavers have taken the decision on behalf of everyone else despite the stong evidence suggesting that it's the wrong path to take.
Why should we (or our children) have to pay for the decision of some uneducated, ill informed and/or reckless fools? I'm sure that most of the unwashed British public would vote not to pay income tax, but that would result in immense longterm damage to our society.
I cannot fathom why David Cameron thought the gamble with an in/out referendum was worth it. He should have known he was born to lose, and gambling's for fools. But that's the way he liked it baby, he didn't want to be PM forever... and don't forget the joker (aka Borris). Gosh! A Motorhead fan! I didn't think such things still existed. But joking aside.... The problem with democracy and referendums (on Brexit or anything else) is that the majority dictate the terms to the minority. And it doesn't matter if the majority are ignorant or ill-informed or racists or psychopaths. What the majority wants, the majority gets. So the answer to your question "should we have to pay for the decision of...fools" is "unfortunately, yes". That's how democracy works. |
|
silvermyn
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,612
๐๐ป 781
April 2008
|
Brexit
Dec 5, 2018 16:57:16 GMT 1
Brexit, by silvermyn on Dec 5, 2018 16:57:16 GMT 1, Your example may have more to do with nicotine addiction (and the excuses addicts make to justify their addiction) than objective consideration of facts.
Let's face it, those that choose to jump of cliffs, or smoke, take risks with their lives that are entirely their own business. Many of them will die as a result of the decisions they make but that's their problem not mine! However, with Brexit, the Leavers have taken the decision on behalf of everyone else despite the stong evidence suggesting that it's the wrong path to take.
Why should we (or our children) have to pay for the decision of some uneducated, ill informed and/or reckless fools? I'm sure that most of the unwashed British public would vote not to pay income tax, but that would result in immense longterm damage to our society.
I cannot fathom why David Cameron thought the gamble with an in/out referendum was worth it. He should have known he was born to lose, and gambling's for fools. But that's the way he liked it baby, he didn't want to be PM forever... and don't forget the joker (aka Borris). Gosh! A Motorhead fan! I didn't think such things still existed. But joking aside.... The problem with democracy and referendums (on Brexit or anything else) is that the majority dictate the terms to the minority. And it doesn't matter if the majority are ignorant or ill-informed or racists or psychopaths. What the majority wants, the majority gets. So the answer to your question "should we have to pay for the decision of...fools" is "unfortunately, yes". That's how democracy works. Nuts is it "unfortunately, yes".
The PM's deal with the backstop isn't a run off a cliff edge and a further referendum cannot be ruled out. Staying in the EU, even if it is by way of the backdoor, is very much on the table despite the outcome of the referendum.
The only card we need is the Ace of Spades.
Your example may have more to do with nicotine addiction (and the excuses addicts make to justify their addiction) than objective consideration of facts.
Let's face it, those that choose to jump of cliffs, or smoke, take risks with their lives that are entirely their own business. Many of them will die as a result of the decisions they make but that's their problem not mine! However, with Brexit, the Leavers have taken the decision on behalf of everyone else despite the stong evidence suggesting that it's the wrong path to take.
Why should we (or our children) have to pay for the decision of some uneducated, ill informed and/or reckless fools? I'm sure that most of the unwashed British public would vote not to pay income tax, but that would result in immense longterm damage to our society.
I cannot fathom why David Cameron thought the gamble with an in/out referendum was worth it. He should have known he was born to lose, and gambling's for fools. But that's the way he liked it baby, he didn't want to be PM forever... and don't forget the joker (aka Borris). Gosh! A Motorhead fan! I didn't think such things still existed. But joking aside.... The problem with democracy and referendums (on Brexit or anything else) is that the majority dictate the terms to the minority. And it doesn't matter if the majority are ignorant or ill-informed or racists or psychopaths. What the majority wants, the majority gets. So the answer to your question "should we have to pay for the decision of...fools" is "unfortunately, yes". That's how democracy works. Nuts is it "unfortunately, yes".
The PM's deal with the backstop isn't a run off a cliff edge and a further referendum cannot be ruled out. Staying in the EU, even if it is by way of the backdoor, is very much on the table despite the outcome of the referendum.
The only card we need is the Ace of Spades.
|
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Brexit
Dec 5, 2018 17:03:37 GMT 1
Brexit, by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 17:03:37 GMT 1, What a mess
What a mess
|
|
cogitobcn
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 159
๐๐ป 97
August 2017
|
Brexit
Dec 5, 2018 19:22:06 GMT 1
via mobile
Brexit, by cogitobcn on Dec 5, 2018 19:22:06 GMT 1, I have had some totally surreal conversations with British people who argued GB is still ruling the world, somehow. Also, every leaver I spoke to is very quick to mention it was not a racist vote. Err, right, then why is it the first thing you mention to me?
To be fair, because all the remainer media has repeated a million times that the real motives from brexiters are racisms and low level education. So, your point is not really significative.
I have had some totally surreal conversations with British people who argued GB is still ruling the world, somehow. Also, every leaver I spoke to is very quick to mention it was not a racist vote. Err, right, then why is it the first thing you mention to me? To be fair, because all the remainer media has repeated a million times that the real motives from brexiters are racisms and low level education. So, your point is not really significative. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Dec 5, 2018 19:32:29 GMT 1
via mobile
Brexit, by Daylight Robber on Dec 5, 2018 19:32:29 GMT 1, I have had some totally surreal conversations with British people who argued GB is still ruling the world, somehow. Also, every leaver I spoke to is very quick to mention it was not a racist vote. Err, right, then why is it the first thing you mention to me? To be fair, because all the remainer media has repeated a million times that the real motives from brexiters are racisms and low level education. So, your point is not really significative.
Not everyone who voted for Brexit was a racist but you can pretty much guarantee every racist who voted, voted for Brexit.
The education factor has been researched substantially by the University of Leicester and they established that those with low levels of education were more likely to vote leave and those with higher levels, remain.
All that said, the 'remainer media' has been pretty much none existent.
I have had some totally surreal conversations with British people who argued GB is still ruling the world, somehow. Also, every leaver I spoke to is very quick to mention it was not a racist vote. Err, right, then why is it the first thing you mention to me? To be fair, because all the remainer media has repeated a million times that the real motives from brexiters are racisms and low level education. So, your point is not really significative. Not everyone who voted for Brexit was a racist but you can pretty much guarantee every racist who voted, voted for Brexit. The education factor has been researched substantially by the University of Leicester and they established that those with low levels of education were more likely to vote leave and those with higher levels, remain. All that said, the 'remainer media' has been pretty much none existent. |
|
Masong
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,223
๐๐ป 2,887
March 2017
|
Brexit
Dec 5, 2018 19:56:52 GMT 1
via mobile
Brexit, by Masong on Dec 5, 2018 19:56:52 GMT 1, To be fair, because all the remainer media has repeated a million times that the real motives from brexiters are racisms and low level education. So, your point is not really significative. Not everyone who voted for Brexit was a racist but you can pretty much guarantee every racist who voted, voted for Brexit. The education factor has been researched substantially by the University of Leicester and they established that those with low levels of education were more likely to vote leave and those with higher levels, remain. All that said, the 'remainer media' has been pretty much none existent.
Must make it so much harder to swallow knowing you lost to a bunch of uneducated racist morons.
To be fair, because all the remainer media has repeated a million times that the real motives from brexiters are racisms and low level education. So, your point is not really significative. Not everyone who voted for Brexit was a racist but you can pretty much guarantee every racist who voted, voted for Brexit. The education factor has been researched substantially by the University of Leicester and they established that those with low levels of education were more likely to vote leave and those with higher levels, remain. All that said, the 'remainer media' has been pretty much none existent. Must make it so much harder to swallow knowing you lost to a bunch of uneducated racist morons. |
|
