Again it looks good in saying that but it would heighten tensions as accusations would be made its a way of stopping Brexit!

So are you saying that those of us who want to stop this disastrous move shouldn't be allowed to have a voice? What sort of democracy is that?

I am saying the counter argument to stop another referendum which could mean unravelling everything that's happened since is far to easy to counter argue against and if it occurred would cause even more division in the country at large.

I would say Daily Mail, followed by politcal and media elites, HAVE silenced our voice. We are painted as 'saboteurs' for 'losing' 2-2 on nations and on 52%. It is a very dangerous precedent. They expect u to CHANGE our political beliefs to go along with the majority, end of, no arguments. 52 = 100%. We must cow down or face ridicule and anti-democratic epithets like, remoaner.

I would say Daily Mail, followed by politcal and media elites, HAVE silenced our voice. We are painted as 'saboteurs' for 'losing' 2-2 on nations and on 52%. It is a very dangerous precedent. They expect u to CHANGE our political beliefs to go along with the majority, end of, no arguments. 52 = 100%. We must cow down or face ridicule and anti-democratic epithets like, remoaner.

Precisely. There may be a bunch of MPs who are able to change their mind overnight, but I am more principled than that.

I have learned one thing since the referendum. I am not now, nor have I ever been just 'British'. I am European and I will be damned if I'm going to let some spineless shirkers, the rightwing gutter press and a bunch of delusional idiots swept on a bed of lies and racism stand in my way.

 

I was born a European citizen and if I have to emigrate to stay one, then so be it. If the price of that is surrendering my citizenship because the Germans don't allow dual-citizenship with non-EU countries, then give me the bit of paper because I will sign it here and now.

I have learned one thing since the referendum. I am not now, nor have I ever been just 'British'. I am European and I will be damned if I'm going to let some spineless shirkers, the rightwing gutter press and a bunch of delusional idiots swept on a bed of lies and racism stand in my way.

 

I was born a European citizen and if I have to emigrate to stay one, then so be it. If the price of that is surrendering my citizenship because the Germans don't allow dual-citizenship with non-EU countries, then give me the bit of paper because I will sign it here and now.

 

The division,and largely generarional one at that, following the division with the Scottish vote a couple years before, and death threats to/ actual death of MPs, elected reresentatives of we the people, is far too big a price to pay for a grubby little referendum to save the Tory party from splitting. We aren't even allowed a second referendum on the deal after a razor thin vote! I bet if Leave 'won' by just one vote or two it would be the same result. We have been silenced politicallt and economically and had our European birthright stripped away by an older generation. Surely people could just personally opt out the EU and its regulations? Or at least now have company and personal opt-ins? I hope Germany does what it suggested the day after the vote and offer all UK nationals who want it EU citizenship. I reckon the amount who accept will be considerably higher than 52% of the electorate and much gigher tha those who get jollies to blue passporrs...

 

I'm not, but the Liberal Democrats have spent the past 18 months talking about nothing else. How about some ideas about the ACTUAL current problems facing this country (not helped by the 5 years spent in coalition) that led to the result that we got in that referendum? I didn't like the result either but they are becoming like UKIP - a 1 policy party with absolutely nothing else to say.

 

IMO that's part pf their electoral problem - in the past they've relied heavily on tactical votes to win marginal seats, but by emphasising their pro-EU credentials so strongly, they are effectively cutting off half of their potential tactical votes.

 

That's why we need to shake off the ageing late stage neoliberal capitalism like a moth-bitten robe and adopt socialist, left of centre policies. Neoliberalism has created a divided unequal society. No to New Labour and no to Tories.

 

Changing party alignments wont change people's opinions - right-wingers will not become socialists just because you changed party names, for example.

 

 

So are you saying that those of us who want to stop this disastrous move shouldn't be allowed to have a voice? What sort of democracy is that?

 

But they *do* have a voice - on 23/6/16, and ever since - but decisions aren't made on the basis of who shouts the loudest about a decision they don't like.

 

I would say Daily Mail, followed by politcal and media elites, HAVE silenced our voice. We are painted as 'saboteurs' for 'losing' 2-2 on nations and on 52%. It is a very dangerous precedent. They expect u to CHANGE our political beliefs to go along with the majority, end of, no arguments. 52 = 100%. We must cow down or face ridicule and anti-democratic epithets like, remoaner.

 

I think you overestimate the Mail's influence - AIUI, their circulation is about 4m - just about 1/16th of the population. It does make a very convenient scapegoat though...

What are you talking about Keir Starmer has been fighting tooth and nail in making sure DD doesn't do what he likes in the negotiations opposing where he needs too and accepting when they are right and at the same time respecting the No vote which is what the referendum result was and ALOT of their voters have sympathy with.

 

He is a decent politician, but he isn't running the show and the main decisions (or lack of) come from elsewhere. He is very good on speeches, yes.

It is important to remember that you can imprint a left or right view on events when in reality the labour government followed by a Tory government all governed from the centre with all these policies.

 

Regardless of the political bent of the Labour Party at that time, it wasn't the Lib Dems or Tories who were in power, so it's a rewriting of history.

The complete opposite actually. I don't even pretend to know how the process is going to go but I do share your concerns, particularly given the current lot in charge of negotiations from our side, however...

 

...I think that the arguments/debate should be framed around policy once we have left the EU rather than this constant battle about whether it was the right thing to do. Dramatic shifts in policy to greater investment in the young to up skill them for the jobs that a green technology revolution will present over the next decade, investing further in our thriving tech sector in Cambridge/surrounding area, thinking about infrastructure investment programme that helps to spread out high skilled jobs across the UK rather than concentrate them all in London and SE, a huge social housing revolution, a land value tax (yes, a Lib Dem idea I believe) to bring about a fairer and more progressive society. Big ideas intended to heal the growing divides in our society that have been accelerating since the financial crisis in 2008 under yes, a Labour government but not reversed under a Con/Lib coalition in the following decade.

 

Simon made exactly the point that the Lib Dems have little airtime now, and using up all of that airtime to go on about how we should reverse Brexit is quite literally strangling the party of anything else they might want to say.

 

I am sad that we are leaving the EU but it only took me about a week to get over it because I reasoned that there are far more pressing concerns and issues that need to be addressed NOW. Clinging on to the idea of a second national take it or leave it referendum on a deal that would be so complex that even those highly trained civil servants would struggle to understand the main arguments within a short frame of time, let alone you or I or the rest of the general public, is not helpful. The way forward is a middle way that brings together the majority of people, yes it won't please everyone but we're in this mess now..

 

Brexit is complex. None of what you say is against anything I have said, but I recognise the complexity and the notion that it needs staunch politicians to stand up and make sure we get the best result possible, not wait till it's all happened and a mess on the assumption that you can step in and sort it out afterwards. Once a deal is signed, it's signed and that's the end. For ever. Too late to change things.

 

Infrastructure and the rest is not part of Brexit, it's part of the normal political process after Brexit. That you fail to recognise that Brexit is vital to the well being of the UK in the future and choose to focus on issues that WILL be affected by a bad deal (as in less tax, less cash available, less NHS workers etc etc etc) shows a lack of planning and forethought that is typical of Corbyn's bucket list while ignoring the current major problem which is how to make sure we limit damage to the minimum.

The Lib Dems don't get to choose the subjects on which they get air time. If a spokesman makes an announcement on policy they can't force the broadcasters to report it. If Vince Cable (or anyone else) is interviewed, they don't get to choose the questions. All too often they don't even get the chance to comment on the EU farrago despite having a different policy on the issue than either Labour (whatever their policy may be) or the Tories.

 

 

...and I'd add Nigel farage, who represents no elected party, gets constant airtime to air his divisive views. Perhaps those who see the LibDems, who speak up for at least a fair portion of the 48% who didn't vote for a Hard Brexit, as in some way not standing up for democracy, might want to reflect on that and criticise that instead.

But then it looks terrible as it's like saying you didn't answer correctly first time round so go again. Like what happened in Ireland 10 years ago. Only this time opinions are so polarised in England especially there could be actual violence or public disturbances if this scenario played out.

 

...and what happens in Brexit will affect the Irish situation. Complexity. Remainers said it would be and it will be. To deny there are issues is sticking your head in the sand. Accepting the result doesn't make those problems go away and we all know how long violence can go on for if it goes badly.

Again it looks good in saying that but it would heighten tensions as accusations would be made its a way of stopping Brexit!

 

...and having a society which is severely damaged would heighten tensions amongst those suffering. We have seen how quickly people turn to radical solutions following a drop in living standards and blame everyone but the real culprits. The banking crisis might turn out to be a piece of piss if we get a terrible deal.

IMO that's part pf their electoral problem - in the past they've relied heavily on tactical votes to win marginal seats, but by emphasising their pro-EU credentials so strongly, they are effectively cutting off half of their potential tactical votes.

Changing party alignments wont change people's opinions - right-wingers will not become socialists just because you changed party names, for example.

But they *do* have a voice - on 23/6/16, and ever since - but decisions aren't made on the basis of who shouts the loudest about a decision they don't like.

I think you overestimate the Mail's influence - AIUI, their circulation is about 4m - just about 1/16th of the population. It does make a very convenient scapegoat though...

No paper has sold anywhere near 4 million copies for a very long time.

No paper has sold anywhere near 4 million copies for a very long time.

 

In which case that supports my point about over-estimating the Mail's influence!

Edited December 23, 20177 yr by vidsanta

In which case that supports my point about over-estimating the Mail's influence!

It doesn't. The Mail's front pages are designed so that people take note of them without actually buying the paper. Look at their recent front page story about someone arrested on suspicion of terrorist offences who used the Human Rights Act to claim compensation. The story was utter bollocks but the retraction appeared on an inside page. No doubt there are a lot of people who think the original story is true.

 

Their headlines also influence broadcasters, particularly at election times. How often has the headline in the Mail (or some equally right-wing rag) dominated the news agenda for the rest of the day? In contrast, how often has a headline in one of the few left-leaning papers dominated the agenda? Because of their numerical dominance the right-wing papers also get more coverage in the various paper reviews. At least the Today programme (in one of the few decent things done by the former Telegraph and Mail journalist who edits the programme) has now recognised the problem and started to include news websites in its review.

It doesn't. The Mail's front pages are designed so that people take note of them without actually buying the paper. Look at their recent front page story about someone arrested on suspicion of terrorist offences who used the Human Rights Act to claim compensation. The story was utter bollocks but the retraction appeared on an inside page. No doubt there are a lot of people who think the original story is true.

 

Their headlines also influence broadcasters, particularly at election times. How often has the headline in the Mail (or some equally right-wing rag) dominated the news agenda for the rest of the day? In contrast, how often has a headline in one of the few left-leaning papers dominated the agenda? Because of their numerical dominance the right-wing papers also get more coverage in the various paper reviews. At least the Today programme (in one of the few decent things done by the former Telegraph and Mail journalist who edits the programme) has now recognised the problem and started to include news websites in its review.

 

Surely there's no objective measure of influence though, so how can you be so confident that the Mail has more of it than anyone else?

If you read what I said, you will see that much of it is aimed at the right-wing press in general. There is only one daily paper that regularly has overtly left-wing headlines whereas there are several right-wing ones. Examples such as the one I gave are either deliberate distortions (safe in the knowledge that any retraction will be a lot less visible) or such sloppy journalism that the perpetrators should now be in possession of a P45.

 

There are plenty of other examples. A lot of people remain convinced that councils across the land started celebrating "Winterval" rather than Christmas. That all stems from one council celebrating the whole of winter to coincide with the opening of a new city centre. In december they celebrated Christmas just like the rest of the country.

If you read what I said, you will see that much of it is aimed at the right-wing press in general. There is only one daily paper that regularly has overtly left-wing headlines whereas there are several right-wing ones. Examples such as the one I gave are either deliberate distortions (safe in the knowledge that any retraction will be a lot less visible) or such sloppy journalism that the perpetrators should now be in possession of a P45.

 

There are plenty of other examples. A lot of people remain convinced that councils across the land started celebrating "Winterval" rather than Christmas. That all stems from one council celebrating the whole of winter to coincide with the opening of a new city centre. In december they celebrated Christmas just like the rest of the country.

 

I didn't *disagree* with what you said - it's just that the Mail seems to be singled out for more criticism than any other...

 

Why don't we have a general election every time the main parties switch places in the polls?

 

An absurd suggestion of course - but then why do I hear calls for a fresh referendum on Brexit all the time? :rolleyes:

Edited December 23, 20177 yr by vidsanta