The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 EverybodyDannsNow  SE19 15 Nov 18 4.41pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
This isn't about complexity, it is about will. Your first sentence is akin to those who argue that football is about heart and passion rather than skill and tactics - of course both play a part, but all the will in the world would not have delivered what people expected.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 15 Nov 18 4.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by DanH
I’m not suggesting it wasn’t a majority nor do I want to go back and decide it wasn’t enough. I just disagree with your definition of ‘definitive’. From the OED (that’s the Oxford English Dictionary, by the way): Definitive is often used, rather imprecisely, when definite is actually intended, to mean simply ‘clearly decided’. Although definitive and definite have a clear overlap in meaning, definitive has the additional sense of ‘having an authoritative basis’. Thus, a definitive decision is one which is not only conclusive but also carries the stamp of authority or is a benchmark for the future, while a definite decision is simply one which has been made clearly and is without doubt.. The authoritative basis here is that, in a referendum, more people voted to leave than to remain. Does it get any more authoritative than that? I’ll leave you to email the OED if you disagree with their definition.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| the_mcanuff_stuff Caterham 15 Nov 18 4.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
I think this has been deliberately confused. The referendum required a straight answer: should we remain in or leave the EU. I, and everyone else I know who voted to leave expected just that. Exit from the EU and the paraphernalia that went with it - exit from the Single Market, Customs Union, cessation of funding and everything else that membership involves. No half measures, no wishy-washy ‘half in, half out’ arrangement that would leave our trading capacity, legislature and legal system hamstrung and forever in fief to the EU. ‘Out’ means exactly that. Saying that you can still be subject to some elements of it is as much of an absurdity as the notion that you can be a little bit pregnant. It’s bollocks. The 2016 referendum delivered a definitive answer - and yes it was definitive. Governments have been elected with smaller majorities. Since the referendum, the machinery of politics has swung into action, suggesting somehow that there was ‘something wrong’ with the result and doing everything possible to frustrate, or dilute, what the electorate voted for. By pursuing the line that we can be ‘out’ yet simultaneously ‘in’ is an affront to the democratic process and was emphatically not what the referendum asked. This whole business has been criminally ineptly conducted by a government determined to weasel its way out of the referendum result. I have to conclude that May must be irretrievably stupid to negotiate a ‘deal’ that is patently unacceptable to both the Leave and Reman camps and will get absolutely f*cking slaughtered in the Commons. Never in all my life have I experienced a government that is so thoroughly incapable of government, a government that has gone out of its way to trash this country’s reputation and standing in the world. And that makes me, and I suspect many others, toweringly angry. Whoa! What about all the people who wanted to maintain the economic union, but to have a "Norway or Switzerland" like solution, with no further political union? They may not have been overly prominent (and frankly the solution offered the worst of both worlds IMO) but they probably would have been enough to tip the scales either way? By no means everyone who voted "leave" was envisioning a cut-all-ties solution. And this is part of the problem. If the ballot paper had said e.g. in your own words "exit from the Single Market, Customs Union, cessation of funding and everything else that membership involves" then the PM would have a clear brief and mandate to deliver on that. And no one would have reason to complain. So I'll say again, the PM is delivering according to the wishes expressed in the referendum. It just so happens that the solution seems to be unpalatable to almost everyone, on both sides.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 15 Nov 18 4.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
Well, EU membership is the complex issue - surely anyone can acknowledge that, particularly in light of what’s gone on in the last two years. I can’t really see the complexity, to be honest. And what’s happened over the last two years is solely because we have a government that wats to remain and doesn’t want to implement the referendum result.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 15 Nov 18 4.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
I think the confusion is the inevitable result of trying to resolve an extremely complex issue with a simplistic binary question, and posing the question to an electorate who are not well-informed enough to answer it (that is not a dig at leavers). Other than that, I agree completely that this is the most incompetent government I have experienced. Fair. I also think that even if we were now in a position where the generalist brexiteer preferred agreement (whatever that would have turned out to be) was the one now agreed by the cabinet, the remainers in the govt. would be doing the exact same thing as Rees Mogg and his cronies and the vote would be as dead in the water as it is now. Essentially the brexiteer view of the process being over before it started because of the remainer bias in cabinet is valid (70% remainer led or something like that), but it would be just as bungled even if it was being led by a brexiteer biased cabinet. Democracy works smoothly and quickly when you have a majority. Not so good when you have a split electorate and a split parliament, with a third party (EU) involved just to clog things up even more. US mid-terms show both the problem and the benefit of no majority. It slows things down but allows all sides to have a voice and hold people to account. This is great when you have less time pressure and importance on something like a policy, rather than say, the immediate fate of the UK. If we had 10 years to work this out it might just be possible. Trying to do it in 2 with no majority and no consensus on such a complex issue? As has been proven, more or less impossible. For those on both sides that say 'we should just get behind it' or 'we should just leave with no deal', You cannot expect people to abandon their principles on either side simply for the sake of an agreement that will in the short to mid-term cause serious harm and disruption to all of the UK, especially when remaining currently a far better outcome after todays debacle. I think we will either leave with no deal (highly likely), as I cannot see how anything can be put together that appeases both sides, or May gets ousted, Labour win a GL and change tack completely and opt to remain (highly unlikely). Edited by SW19 CPFC (15 Nov 2018 4.50pm)
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| the_mcanuff_stuff Caterham 15 Nov 18 4.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
From the OED (that’s the Oxford English Dictionary, by the way): Definitive is often used, rather imprecisely, when definite is actually intended, to mean simply ‘clearly decided’. Although definitive and definite have a clear overlap in meaning, definitive has the additional sense of ‘having an authoritative basis’. Thus, a definitive decision is one which is not only conclusive but also carries the stamp of authority or is a benchmark for the future, while a definite decision is simply one which has been made clearly and is without doubt.. The authoritative basis here is that, in a referendum, more people voted to leave than to remain. Does it get any more authoritative than that? I’ll leave you to email the OED if you disagree with their definition. Well yes and the PMs proposal definitively removes the UK from the EU. Absolutely no question. The EU is leaving the UK. But you know as well as I do, that it is a little more complex than that and that the nature of the departure remains very much in debate, as in doubt.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 15 Nov 18 4.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by the_mcanuff_stuff
Whoa! What about all the people who wanted to maintain the economic union, but to have a "Norway or Switzerland" like solution, with no further political union? They may not have been overly prominent (and frankly the solution offered the worst of both worlds IMO) but they probably would have been enough to tip the scales either way? By no means everyone who voted "leave" was envisioning a cut-all-ties solution. And this is part of the problem. If the ballot paper had said e.g. in your own words "exit from the Single Market, Customs Union, cessation of funding and everything else that membership involves" then the PM would have a clear brief and mandate to deliver on that. And no one would have reason to complain. So I'll say again, the PM is delivering according to the wishes expressed in the referendum. It just so happens that the solution seems to be unpalatable to almost everyone, on both sides. But that wasn’t the question, was it? How do you distill the people wanting the Norway option from all the other leave voters? ‘Out’, in this context, I took to mean just that. I never even considered the Norway model as an option.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| the_mcanuff_stuff Caterham 15 Nov 18 4.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
I can’t really see the complexity, to be honest. And what’s happened over the last two years is solely because we have a government that wats to remain and doesn’t want to implement the referendum result. Of course they are. Binary choice. "The United Kigdom should leave the European Union". Bosh. May has fulfilled that requirement 100% in her proposal.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 15 Nov 18 5.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by the_mcanuff_stuff
Of course they are. Binary choice. "The United Kigdom should leave the European Union". Bosh. May has fulfilled that requirement 100% in her proposal. I fail to see how still remaining subject to certain EU rules and regulations constitutes being ‘out’ but hey ho.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| the_mcanuff_stuff Caterham 15 Nov 18 5.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
But that wasn’t the question, was it? How do you distill the people wanting the Norway option from all the other leave voters? That is the crux of my argument since my first post on this thread. "Out" Was never defined. What shape it should take etc. The question was flawed from the start. Therefore people can't bitch and moan when the PM delivers a Brexit they don't personally like. Though, as I've stated before, the Norway option is the least palatable to all sides and personally the worst of-both worlds. It was in no way clear that Brexit represented to everyone, what it did to you or your friends.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| the_mcanuff_stuff Caterham 15 Nov 18 5.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
I fail to see how still remaining subject to certain EU rules and regulations constitutes being ‘out’ but hey ho. Norway are "out" are they not? And still subject to certain EU rules and regulations. Very much not an Eu member.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 15 Nov 18 5.05pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by the_mcanuff_stuff
Of course they are. Binary choice. "The United Kigdom should leave the European Union". Bosh. May has fulfilled that requirement 100% in her proposal. But she hasn't. During the implementation phase we cannot sign trade deals and have to accept EU rules which we have no say in. I don't like this deal because it is lacking an end date. We cannot give notice and leave this deal unilaterally therefore the pressure is on us not the EU. What she should have negotiated is a hard leave date by which everything ends. That is then an incentive for both the UK and the EU to replace this with a free trade deal before that end date. Instead we have a Hotel California deal and it will not be passed by Parliament. Edited by Badger11 (15 Nov 2018 5.05pm)
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.