Jump to content

EU/Brexit Discussion Thread II

Brett-Butler
in News and Politics

Featured Replies

You didn't specify a time limit.

 

Besides, to 'oldies' like me, late 20th C events are still very relavent.

 

and to people who were around in the 30's (of which there are still many) so is that still relevant. And to anyone with any sense.

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Views 61.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

So that would be a 'no' then.

Find me a meaningful example of a far left publication inciting hatred with the same effects that the right wing press did in the final days of the referendum campaign and you may have a point. Otherwise it's irrelevant, and a way to let some increasingly extremist newspapers off the hook.

Find me a meaningful example of a far left publication inciting hatred with the same effects that the right wing press did in the final days of the referendum campaign and you may have a point. Otherwise it's irrelevant, and a way to let some increasingly extremist newspapers off the hook.

 

I don't agree they've become more extremist, only that societies idea of what is 'extremist' has changed over time.

 

Perhaps that seems like a pedantic point, but to me it is an important one.

 

So do you still believe Farage when he and the rwight wing press lir and try to pass him off as anything other than part and parcel of the elite?
I don't agree they've become more extremist, only that societies idea of what is 'extremist' has changed over time.

 

Perhaps that seems like a pedantic point, but to me it is an important one.

Sure jan.

 

Society pointing out extremist views doesn’t mean the idea of what is extremist has changed, just our willingness to stand up and speak out when something is wrong

I don't agree they've become more extremist, only that societies idea of what is 'extremist' has changed over time.

 

Perhaps that seems like a pedantic point, but to me it is an important one.

I find it highly unlikely that even the Mail would have printed a front cover featuring three appointed judges and branded them "ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE" even ten years ago. The toxic atmosphere around the immigration debate and Brexit has emboldened them.

 

Of course if you can find a front cover from ten years ago that was just as extremist, feel free.

Sure jan.

 

Who is Jan? :unsure:

 

Society pointing out extremist views doesn’t mean the idea of what is extremist has changed, just our willingness to stand up and speak out when something is wrong

Fair point.

 

I find it highly unlikely that even the Mail would have printed a front cover featuring three appointed judges and branded them "ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE" even ten years ago. The toxic atmosphere around the immigration debate and Brexit has emboldened them.

 

Ten years ago, would judges have been as willing to urinate all over the electorate's decision?

 

 

Ten years ago, would judges have been as willing to urinate all over the electorate's decision?

 

They didn't. They pointed out that the TORIES grab for power was unconstitutional, and they needed Parliament's assent, which they duly received as per the referendum.

 

If you can't tell tell the difference between democracy and attempts at imposing ideological dictatorship using a referendum as cover (as incidentally Jeremy Corbyn can't either) then I suggest a quick visit to a dictionary.

 

Their entire job is to rule on points of law, and that's what they did. They are not traitors or enemies of the people, they are guardians of democracy. people desperate to get their own way seem very keen to ignore due process piss-scared that they won't get their way because they are that fanatical. The Mail being case in point. Fanatical foreign-living tax-dodging far-right supporters.

I don't agree they've become more extremist, only that societies idea of what is 'extremist' has changed over time.

 

Perhaps that seems like a pedantic point, but to me it is an important one.

 

how about just being repulsive human beings...

 

There has been unverified tweets that the family of the 18-year-old who died of flu are being plagued by journalists, and that they specifically name the Mail as being particularly insistent and obnoxious for an interview because it sells newspapers. I like to think it's true because it sounds true and isn't inconsistent with the behaviour in recent years of the gutter press. Anyone remember hacking the phone of a teenage murder victim? That not extreme enough causing misery to the family?

Who is Jan? :unsure:

 

Fair point.

Ten years ago, would judges have been as willing to urinate all over the electorate's decision?

 

Told you.

 

You are not inured to the propaganda of the Daily Mail, and now you see the judges protecting UK democracy as somehow 'urinating' on it..., using aggressive, inflammatory language yourself after THAT headline, and it is like 48%, or 55% today, or half the nations plus Gibraltar have just disappeared overnight...

Told you.

 

You are not inured to the propaganda of the Daily Mail, and now you see the judges protecting UK democracy as somehow 'urinating' on it..., using aggressive, inflammatory language yourself after THAT headline, and it is like 48%, or 55% today, or half the nations plus Gibraltar have just disappeared overnight...

 

This is not a usual situation though - IMO a referendum should take precedence over parliament (both Houses) and the courts.

No.

 

No.

 

No.

 

A referendum does NOT supersede the democratic institutions of a country, especially when it is NON-BINDING - A NON-BINDING REFERENDUM WITH NO GUARANTEES AND NO SAFEGUARDS BECAUSE IT IS NON-BINDING, no matter what the Daily Mail says!!!

This is not a usual situation though - IMO a referendum should take precedence over parliament (both Houses) and the courts.

IMO it shouldn't. That makes it a draw and over to the courts to decide.

This is not a usual situation though - IMO a referendum should take precedence over parliament (both Houses) and the courts.

So the electorate should have been able to veto measures such as votes for women, decriminalising homosexual acts between men, abolishing capital punishment? Sometimes politicians should lead, not follow.

A referendum does NOT supersede the democratic institutions of a country, especially when it is NON-BINDING - A NON-BINDING REFERENDUM WITH NO GUARANTEES AND NO SAFEGUARDS BECAUSE IT IS NON-BINDING, no matter what the Daily Mail says!!!

 

I'm not sure which you have a bigger bee in your bonnet about - the Mail or the Tories? :unsure:

 

 

So the electorate should have been able to veto measures such as votes for women, decriminalising homosexual acts between men, abolishing capital punishment? Sometimes politicians should lead, not follow.

 

Well, I was thinking in terms of a fully franchised electorate, but that is a valid point.

 

Why would a referendum include decriminalising homosexuality for *men*, not for women too?

I'm not sure which you have a bigger bee in your bonnet about - the Mail or the Tories? :unsure:

Well, I was thinking in terms of a fully franchised electorate, but that is a valid point.

 

Why would a referendum include decriminalising homosexuality for *men*, not for women too?

 

It wasn't illegal for women

But back to Brexit.

 

Sunday Express rehashing an old report from Sir Patrick Minford's propaganda rubbish about the EU losing 500 billion and the UK gaining 650 billion.

 

This report was rubbished in April, but it doesn't stop the extreme press barons desperate to avoid EU tax haven regulations from regurgitating the same old crap.

 

This piece may explain why it's bullshit:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business...f-a7691271.html

In a surprise twist, Nigel Farage has said that he is warming to the idea of a 2nd referendum on Europe.

 

The charitable interpretation is that he recognises how divisive the Referendum campaign was, and with such a narrow margin of victory, he wants a re-run in the hope that the result will be a more resounding "Leave" this time around in order to firmly put a red line under the issue.

 

The less charitable interpretation is that Nigel Farage's profile has dipped so much since the campaign that he hopes a re-run will allow him to take centre stage in the national picture again, as leader of the "Leave" side.

 

An even less charitable interpretation is that it's finally dawned on him that the gravy train he's enjoyed as an MEP is coming to a grinding halt, and would very much like to get the train back on its tracks.

 

The least charitable interpretation is that there's a major story about Farage on the verge of breaking, and he's trying to distract us from it.

 

Absolutely agree, there is no polling to support a strong call for a 2nd referendum at the present moment - the only people that have called for it so far are the Liberal Democrats - but polling suggests most people are actually against it. But even in the event of a referendum called on exactly the same question, I don't think it would necessarily lead to a more resounding 'Leave' vote, nor a victory for 'Remain': more likely is a even more divided electorate who become entrenched in their positions, feeling even more aggrieved at the opposite side whilst feeling even more that they are not listened to by politicians.

IF Labour were to call for a second referendum I can see similar vote share drops in their heartlands to the SNP in 2017, perhaps to UKIP although because of the massive majorities in the North of England they'll keep most seats but lose a lot in the Midlands and marginals. I don't think there's much appetite for a second referendum but I am open to the idea, I think a party should have to win a mandate in an election first though.

Edited by Andrew.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.