Hard Brexit

[shaun.lawson]

With regard to what I wrote above, here's something I think Francis should read. It sets out the monumental bind which the UK government has been in ever since the referendum, and discusses details the public are entirely oblivious about:

 

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/12/15/if-liam-fox-messes-up-we-re-all-in-deep-trouble

Edited May 18, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[Francis Albert]

Shaun I'll come back on some of this stuff later but Lionel Shriver is a woman, an American author and journalist. She wrote among other novels "We need to talk about Kevin" for which she won the Orange Prize for Fiction. She was one of the first serious American journalists to predict that Trump might beat Clinton. Now resident in the UK she has written regularly for the Guardian for a number of years. Probably not educated enough in your view however to have a view.

[shaun.lawson]

10 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Shaun I'll come back on some of this stuff later but Lionel Shriver is a woman, an American author and journalist. She wrote among other novels "We need to talk about Kevin" for which she won the Orange Prize for Fiction. She was one of the first serious American journalists to predict that Trump might beat Clinton. Now resident in the UK she has written regularly for the Guardian for a number of years. Probably not educated enough in your view however to have a view.

 

Apologies for that embarrassing oversight! It's not about her "not being educated enough"; it's about her not being remotely informed on what she's written about here. But she's in very good company on that front. 

[jake]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

The EU-phemisms cartoon  in this weeks Private perhaps answers this. "The Irish border issue is delicate and could cause untold strife". accompanied by one eurocrat in a Brussels office to another: "So we're definitely going to exploit it".

I suppose that's politics.

What I don't get is the argument that because Some marginal groups threaten violence that the democratic will should be ignored.

 

 

[jake]

26 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Apologies for that embarrassing oversight! It's not about her "not being educated enough"; it's about her not being remotely informed on what she's written about here. But she's in very good company on that front. 

? 

 

Yeah she must be thick she doesn't agree with you.

 

 

[shaun.lawson]

You need to stop obsessing, Jake.

 

 

[Boris]

26 minutes ago, jake said:

I suppose that's politics.

What I don't get is the argument that because Some marginal groups threaten violence that the democratic will should be ignored.

 

 

 

What is the democratic will?  To leave the EU?  Ok, how?  That was never decided by the "will of the people".

[jake]

1 hour ago, Boris said:

 

What is the democratic will?  To leave the EU?  Ok, how?  That was never decided by the "will of the people".

There was a vote Boris.

Stay or Leave.

Democracy isn't perfect but would people rather we didn't have it?

[jake]

1 hour ago, shaun.lawson said:

You need to stop obsessing, Jake.

 

 

Not sure what your little in joke with Uly is supposed to achieve.

But I'd say with your posting style and content it's a bit rich.

Bash on though Shaun as much as I disagree with you there's the odd nugget.

 

Won't ask you again your academic achievements.

?

[Boris]

23 minutes ago, jake said:

There was a vote Boris.

Stay or Leave.

Democracy isn't perfect but would people rather we didn't have it?

 

I'm not really sure what your point about democracy is, all I was saying is that the route this government is going down, or perhaps being forced down by the likes of Rees-Mogg etc, are subverting democracy.

 

No one is saying we aren't leaving, but what needs to be decided is how we leave.  Criticising the Rees-Moggs and Goves and Johnsons of this world over their prefered exit route isn't going against the "will of the people" because the people were never ever asked to endorse that view!

[Francis Albert]

4 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

I've just read the Shriver article. It's monumental garbage. "We should've walked out immediately and adopted WTO rules", says man who has zero conception of what this would've meant. Adopting WTO rules is impossible when we'd have about a million and one tariffs to calculate yesterday. Unbelievably, he also effectively calls for the entire Good Friday Agreement to be redrafted - when Ireland is an EU member and Northern Ireland voted to do so as well! Astonishing arrogance.

 

 

Paying it is a sign of good faith and meeting our obligations. Not paying it is an invitation for the EU to do whatever the heck it likes with us. Out of interest, did you support the Yes campaign when it said it wouldn't meet Scotland's obligations to the rest of the UK in the event of no currency union being granted? Or view it as the pathetic, petty threat it always was?

 

 

It lacked conviction because it was a barefaced lie. A bad deal is much, much better than no deal at all.

 

 

In other words, you advocate this:

 

 

 

Wakey wakey. Those other states are not members of the EU and therefore, none of them receive all the benefits which go with EU membership. 

 

 

I'm not quite sure how many times you're going to repeat this gibberish. It's especially ironic coming from someone who always demands facts (then ignores any that don't suit him in true filibustering style).

 

'Soft Brexit' is a consequence of an entire campaign in which the detail of leaving was never discussed. "No-one is talking about leaving the single market", insisted Brexiter-in-Chief, Daniel Hannan. "We can have our cake and eat it", was the general message of Vote Leave: without which, it wouldn't have had a cat in hell's chance of winning.

 

It's also a consequence of a 52-48 majority for a Brexit, the nature of which most of that 52% completely disagree on. It's so nice to know that had it been 52-48 Remain, you'd have demanded we join the euro, sign up to Schengen, join a European Army and maybe even join a superstate called Europe - except you wouldn't have, would you?

 

Soft Brexit is about us emerging from this fiasco with some sort of future. A fiasco in which the Leave campaign and the UK government has lied, lied and lied some more. We can't have a "points based immigration system" while maintaining tariff-free trade with the EU. We can't leave the customs union without there being a hard border in Ireland. We can't leave the single market and customs union without creating a hard border in the Irish Sea. You can keep deluding yourself all you want; but them's the apples.

 

 

Indeed it will. A consequence of us having had no plan for Brexit; the worst government in modern Britain's history; us having wasted 2 years advocating pie-in-the-sky nonsense; and the small matter of an utterly overwhelmed government and civil service. "Vote Brexit for smaller government and less bureaucracy", cried a bunch of goons who guaranteed much larger, more incompetent, much more bureaucratic government when Brexit won. 

 

In the days after the vote, some of us were warning this thing would take a decade. And so it's proving. 

When she talked about adopting WTO rules immediately I interpreted that as meaning after the two years notice to leave. To say that was our position at the start of negotiation would not have been  a bad move IMO. We would not have had to calculate a million and one tariffs overnight. In fact since tariffs are set by sector and must be non-discriminatory there would never be a need to set anything like a million and one of them.

 

We didn't threated not to pay the divorce bill. Again it would not have been a bad start to do so. The EU was not averse to playing hardball after all - the only major agreements so far - on the divorce bill and the Irish border were not really the result of "good faith" negotiations but of an EU ultimatum that if they would not negotiate on anything else until they were agreed ... a sort of "cherry picking" that I rarely saw in thirty years of negotiation.

 

Whether a bad deal is better than no deal depends on the deal. But to go into a negotiation saying you HAVE to have a deal is certainly a bad way to start.

 

Your cartoon of the cliff edge is a good representation of how we have set out our negotiating position - I agree it is not a wise way to start.

 

Wakey wakey we are leaving the EU so like those other states we will not belong to the EU.

 

Neither my view nor yours of the nature of and motivation for  "Soft Brexit" is a "fact" and "them apples" are either a matter of opinion or simple restatements of the EU negotiating position which our "negotiating strategy (if it can be called that) has played into the hands of.

 

Your final quote has missed the words "on say the Swiss model", but applying something like that to the UK is of course "magical thinking" so yes if the EU adopts that attitude it will not happen even in a decade.

 

 

 

.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Governor Tarkin]

16 hours ago, Cade said:

I believe that is called "monarchy"

 

[scott herbertson]

6 hours ago, Doogz said:

 

..... and those managing the exit process so disastrously mainly have Uni degrees  - I just don't see much of a difference in the levels of intelligence between the voters and the MPs in this example. FWIW - I'm totally against Brexit but it was the lack of any reasoned intelligent debate in the Brexit/Remain campaigns that led us to this and again it's the educated "intelligent" politicians that should take the blame for that.

 

 

Agree with this.

 

 

A comparison with the Independence debate is embarrassing.

 

I think Cameron was hugely at fault with that, and topped it off by getting out pronto when his arrogant 'assumptions' proved wrong.

[jake]

1 hour ago, Boris said:

 

I'm not really sure what your point about democracy is, all I was saying is that the route this government is going down, or perhaps being forced down by the likes of Rees-Mogg etc, are subverting democracy.

 

No one is saying we aren't leaving, but what needs to be decided is how we leave.  Criticising the Rees-Moggs and Goves and Johnsons of this world over their prefered exit route isn't going against the "will of the people" because the people were never ever asked to endorse that view!

Sorry I mis interpreted your post.

 

 

[Boris]

7 minutes ago, jake said:

Sorry I mis interpreted your post.

 

 

 

No worries man! 

[Cade]

We're supposed to be leaving next year and NONE of the major parts of the deal have been agreed so far, not even within our own government cabinet, never mind the house of Commons or Parliament as a whole!

 

It's hilarious!

 

 

 

 

[Cade]

The "will of the people" either means mob rule or Proportional Representation.

 

Everybody seems to have forgotten that we had a referendum on changing the voting method for Westminster elections, and it was soundly defeated. 

This was only in 2011.

 

So, the "will of the people" was to carry on as normal, with elected representatives acting on their behalf using the First Past The Post system.

People are now moaning about it only 7 years later.

 

 

[shaun.lawson]

3 hours ago, Boris said:

 

I'm not really sure what your point about democracy is, all I was saying is that the route this government is going down, or perhaps being forced down by the likes of Rees-Mogg etc, are subverting democracy.

 

No one is saying we aren't leaving, but what needs to be decided is how we leave.  Criticising the Rees-Moggs and Goves and Johnsons of this world over their prefered exit route isn't going against the "will of the people" because the people were never ever asked to endorse that view!

 

We don't actually know what the will of the people even is. I'm absolutely serious in that.

 

1. The referendum result was based on many people voting for a fantasy, sold to them by liars. That fantasy could never have been brought about.

 

2. The "will of the people" on 23 June 2016 will inevitably not be the same will of the people now. Partly because some have changed their minds; partly because some have come of voting age; partly because others have died. Even last year's election campaign demonstrated how quickly the "will of the people" can change given Labour entered it trailing by 20 points.

 

I'm very struck by this idea that "the will of the people" is somehow set in stone. It's not. It never is. And that's what makes democracy: because democracy doesn't begin or end on a certain date. It's an ever-evolving organism.

 

Does this mean we'll have a second referendum? Clearly not. In the circumstances however, should we? Absolutely yes. And frankly, that Brexiteers are so scared of the idea tells us all we need to know.

[shaun.lawson]

50 minutes ago, Cade said:

Everybody seems to have forgotten that we had a referendum on changing the voting method for Westminster elections, and it was soundly defeated. 

This was only in 2011

 

 

A referendum which offered a choice between the appalling current system, and the even more appalling Alternative Vote. Which is not proportional in any way.

 

PR has never been offered to the British people at any point.

[shaun.lawson]

1 hour ago, Lord BJ said:

 

I agree they’re making a James hunt of this though!!! It was always going to be difficult but jeez politics aside this is pish poor management!!!

 

It is precisely because the referendum campaign was based on a pile of nonsense that the British government have been unable to implement that nonsense ever since. Any government in such circumstances would've had exactly the same problem - because the public flat out does not understand any of the detail. And worse: much of it doesn't want to understand it either.

 

We had a whole campaign - in fact, we had 43 years! - to educate the public about the EU. We failed totally, and just lapsed into tropes and cliches about it instead. That's on us; all of us. It is not the behaviour of a grown-up, mature democracy. Decades upon decades of neglect, complacency and horrendous policy have led to this situation, which is rightly seeing us ridiculed across Europe. 

 

Two other things. 1) We didn't elect a Tory government last June. We elected a hung Parliament. 2) On the "thick, racist" thing - hmm.

 

 

The idea that the people in this video are the only Britons anywhere with these views is hilarious. The idea that people with such views didn't play a vital role in the outcome of a 52-48 referendum is, quite simply, nonsense. 

 

Q: "What do you think should happen to the EU nationals in this country? Do you think they should be sent back to their countries?"

 

A: "Yeah, I do. Not in a bad way..."      

 

So good to see that "decent, compassionate" British humanity in evidence again.

Edited May 18, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[shaun.lawson]

Very quickly @Francis Albert - how should we have handled the negotiations instead? In my view:

 

1. We needed a serious campaign about the actual issues, not fantasy island and dog whistling from Leave plus relentless negativity and scaremongering from Remain. That campaign should've discussed, in detail, the single market, the customs union, the Irish border, and the reality of what global trade deals with large powers actually involve.

 

2. The moment the result was announced, we needed a cross-party team of Leavers and Remainers - with party politics set aside in the cause of national unity. Such a team would've reflected the narrow outcome. Instead, we just had the Tories fighting each other. 

 

3. The most serious blunder. Announcing that we were invoking Article 50 and would be leaving on a certain date before negotiating a deal. Utter lunacy. That very decision is what's left us on the cliff edge, and time is running out. The EU don't have to do anything. We do. 

 

What we should've done is i) negotiate a deal; ii) put this deal to the public; and iii) following public approval, then invoked Article 50. No uncertainty, no democratic deficit, much less divisiveness, with the national interest at the heart of everything. 

 

What we've had instead has been a joke. With May compounding her Article 50 blunder by calling an election not before, but immediately after her announcement. The result then threw everything into chaos. 

[shaun.lawson]

From Survation. I have every confidence in the British people on this evidence. Yay democracy.

 

[Cade]

More Brexiters jammed into the House of Lords today, so that the extremist cabal at the heart of Brexit can stop losing every single vote in that house (or so they hope).

 

And the very same Brexit fanatics were the ones banging on about how undemocratic the EU was.  

[Francis Albert]

2 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

From Survation. I have every confidence in the British people on this evidence. Yay democracy.

 

Both the first answer and third answers are "correct". It depends whether the question is referring to "current account" deficit (the difference between what you spend and receive) or "debt deficit" (the difference between what you owe and what you are owed). So 71% got it right and only 14% got it wrong and perhaps some of the 14% don't knows quite rightly thought the question was unclear.  Perhaps the British people are not as thick as you think. As usual, your agenda is showing.

[Francis Albert]

2 hours ago, Cade said:

More Brexiters jammed into the House of Lords today, so that the extremist cabal at the heart of Brexit can stop losing every single vote in that house (or so they hope).

 

And the very same Brexit fanatics were the ones banging on about how undemocratic the EU was.  

Ah that 52% extremist "cabal".

[Francis Albert]

3 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

Very quickly @Francis Albert - how should we have handled the negotiations instead? In my view:

 

1. We needed a serious campaign about the actual issues, not fantasy island and dog whistling from Leave plus relentless negativity and scaremongering from Remain. That campaign should've discussed, in detail, the single market, the customs union, the Irish border, and the reality of what global trade deals with large powers actually involve.

 

2. The moment the result was announced, we needed a cross-party team of Leavers and Remainers - with party politics set aside in the cause of national unity. Such a team would've reflected the narrow outcome. Instead, we just had the Tories fighting each other. 

 

3. The most serious blunder. Announcing that we were invoking Article 50 and would be leaving on a certain date before negotiating a deal. Utter lunacy. That very decision is what's left us on the cliff edge, and time is running out. The EU don't have to do anything. We do. 

 

What we should've done is i) negotiate a deal; ii) put this deal to the public; and iii) following public approval, then invoked Article 50. No uncertainty, no democratic deficit, much less divisiveness, with the national interest at the heart of everything. 

 

What we've had instead has been a joke. With May compounding her Article 50 blunder by calling an election not before, but immediately after her announcement. The result then threw everything into chaos. 

What makes you think the EU would have negotiated a deal before we invoked Article 50?

[Ulysses]

22 hours ago, jake said:

Shaun and Uly seem to think that the wise and wonderful should over ride the wishes of the plebs.

Because the wise and wonderful have done a fekin great job so far.

 

 

jake, you need to stop obsessing about me.  I've no idea what repressed psychosexual fantasies you are trying to process every single time you mention my name without reason, but you either need to stop or else you need to consult a professional and ask why you do it all the time. 

 

Now read the next bit slowly and carefully.

 

Shaun might think that the vote in favour of Brexit should be overturned, but I don't.

 

You voted to leave.  So leave.  I have said exactly that on this thread more than once.

 

 

 

tl;dr version follows:

 

 

If u try to  , , and , I'm gonna

 

 

 

U voted, now time to

 

 

[Ulysses]

16 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

What makes you think the EU would have negotiated a deal before we invoked Article 50?

 

I dunno what makes him think that.  We wouldn't.  In fact, as I recall we said we wouldn't.

[Ulysses]

By the way @Francis Albert I saw your post about the 36th amendment referendum.

 

First of all, it was typical of a very nasty streak you display from time to time on the board.  You would think you'd know better, but you don't.  You hide it better than some, but it's easy to scratch the surface and see that unpleasant and bigoted side of you seep out.  It's a pity, but I've seen it more than once now so it's evidently not an anomaly.

 

Secondly, even though Shaun's point about differing systems isn't really relevant to the debate - much as I respect that Shaun thinks it is - he is right in one key respect.  You have a winner takes all voting system.  The only way a system like that can work is when the winners realise that they have to govern for everyone, not just those who voted for them.  In a parliamentary election, that has some hope of being achieved even if it is often quite imperfect.  In a referendum that boils complicated and messy issues down to simple YES or NO questions, it is impossible to work with a result in any meaningful, intelligent or discerning way.  It is also impossible to meet the expectations of voters unless there is a huge YES or NO majority.  PR systems for electing parliaments are better at achieving that, and better at creating a political culture that is responsive to the needs of different groups and strands in the electorate.

 

Thirdly, you are so busy trying to have a dig at the Paddies that you've missed the point - you've actually given evidence that the Brexit vote was a bad idea and should be vetoed, ignored or overturned.  Why?  Because the reason Ireland has the mess caused by the 8th amendment in 1983 is because a bunch of political extremists caught the political system at a time of weakness and persuaded it to allow a constitutional referendum to be held.  They then managed to boil down a complicated issue into a simple YES or NO proposition and persuade a majority of people to accept their simplistic view of the issue.  Years later, we're trying to clean up the mess caused by that excessively simplistic and narrow-minded view of this complex and difficult issue - and we face the appalling vista that we won't succeed.  That is exactly what happened with your Brexit referendum.  If your logic about the Micks should be followed, then it would logically follow that the Brexit referendum should be ignored as well.  That might be your logic, but at least rather than making bigoted digs at the British I am saying that the result should be respected - even if it was overly simplistic and the result of a dumbed down question and a dumbed down campaign.

[King Of The Cat Cafe]

I will admit to being pretty naiive about these things, and there is a question I hope someone can answer:

 

The Tories say they do not want to be part of a Customs Union with the rest of the EU, and that they want to negotiate trade deals with various countries.  Can they not negotiate a deal with the EU on the basis "we won't charge import duties on your goods if you do not charge them on ours"?  

[jake]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

jake, you need to stop obsessing about me.  I've no idea what repressed psychosexual fantasies you are trying to process every single time you mention my name without reason, but you either need to stop or else you need to consult a professional and ask why you do it all the time. 

 

Now read the next bit slowly and carefully.

 

Shaun might think that the vote in favour of Brexit should be overturned, but I don't.

 

You voted to leave.  So leave.  I have said exactly that on this thread more than once.

 

 

 

tl;dr version follows:

 

 

If u try to  , , and , I'm gonna

 

 

 

U voted, now time to

 

 

Awww ?

 

Saying as you both seem to tag team my posts I thought it rude to not involve you.

 

Trying to deflect by basically calling me a sexual deviant is more a reflection of your desire to control .

 

How's that for psycho babble.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sraman]

12 minutes ago, jake said:

Awww ?

 

Saying as you both seem to tag team my posts I thought it rude to not involve you.

 

Trying to deflect by basically calling me a sexual deviant is more a reflection of your desire to control .

 

How's that for psycho babble.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know much about that but somebody definitely wants to do their mum.

[Ulysses]

9 minutes ago, Sraman said:

 

I don't know much about that but somebody definitely wants to do their mum.

 

[Sraman]

6 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

 

[shaun.lawson]

2 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Both the first answer and third answers are "correct". It depends whether the question is referring to "current account" deficit (the difference between what you spend and receive) or "debt deficit" (the difference between what you owe and what you are owed). So 71% got it right and only 14% got it wrong and perhaps some of the 14% don't knows quite rightly thought the question was unclear.  Perhaps the British people are not as thick as you think. As usual, your agenda is showing.

 

 

OMG. 

 

You should filibuster for a living. You're astonishingly good at it. But no Francis: the difference between deficit on the one hand, and debt on the other, is very clear. Much of the public doesn't understand that difference, however.

[shaun.lawson]

2 hours ago, Ulysses said:

By the way @Francis Albert I saw your post about the 36th amendment referendum.

 

First of all, it was typical of a very nasty streak you display from time to time on the board.  You would think you'd know better, but you don't.  You hide it better than some, but it's easy to scratch the surface and see that unpleasant and bigoted side of you seep out.  It's a pity, but I've seen it more than once now so it's evidently not an anomaly.

 

This is ridiculously unfair and unreasonable. If you're going to throw out accusations of bigotry, can you at least back them up with actual evidence, rather than insinuations that "he hides it better than some"? He "hides it" so brilliantly that, in 18 years on Kickback on and off, I've never seen what you describe one single time.

 

Quote

 

Secondly, even though Shaun's point about differing systems isn't really relevant to the debate - much as I respect that Shaun thinks it is - he is right in one key respect.  You have a winner takes all voting system.  The only way a system like that can work is when the winners realise that they have to govern for everyone, not just those who voted for them.  In a parliamentary election, that has some hope of being achieved even if it is often quite imperfect.  In a referendum that boils complicated and messy issues down to simple YES or NO questions, it is impossible to work with a result in any meaningful, intelligent or discerning way.  It is also impossible to meet the expectations of voters unless there is a huge YES or NO majority.  PR systems for electing parliaments are better at achieving that, and better at creating a political culture that is responsive to the needs of different groups and strands in the electorate.

 

In other words, it is relevant to the debate.  Very relevant: for all the reasons you provide.

 

Quote

 

Thirdly, you are so busy trying to have a dig at the Paddies that you've missed the point - you've actually given evidence that the Brexit vote was a bad idea and should be vetoed, ignored or overturned.  Why?  Because the reason Ireland has the mess caused by the 8th amendment in 1983 is because a bunch of political extremists caught the political system at a time of weakness and persuaded it to allow a constitutional referendum to be held.  They then managed to boil down a complicated issue into a simple YES or NO proposition and persuade a majority of people to accept their simplistic view of the issue.  Years later, we're trying to clean up the mess caused by that excessively simplistic and narrow-minded view of this complex and difficult issue - and we face the appalling vista that we won't succeed.  That is exactly what happened with your Brexit referendum.  If your logic about the Micks should be followed, then it would logically follow that the Brexit referendum should be ignored as well.  That might be your logic, but at least rather than making bigoted digs at the British I am saying that the result should be respected - even if it was overly simplistic and the result of a dumbed down question and a dumbed down campaign.

 

I've read the wording to the 8th Amendment. Holy moly.  The very wording to that Amendment guaranteed future challenges, and the mess you describe.

 

On the subject of bigoted digs, if you were to say to me during the World Cup, "England expects, what what", that would not be bigoted and I would smile. It's you who keeps referring to "the Paddys" or "the Micks" - no-one else is, or even implying it either.

Edited May 19, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[shaun.lawson]

3 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

What makes you think the EU would have negotiated a deal before we invoked Article 50?

 

But that takes us back even further. We should've agreed a broad timetable with the EU before even holding the referendum. It's what serious countries and serious governments do. As opposed to having no plan whatever and making it all up on the hoof. 

Edited May 19, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[Francis Albert]

10 hours ago, Ulysses said:

By the way @Francis Albert I saw your post about the 36th amendment referendum.

 

First of all, it was typical of a very nasty streak you display from time to time on the board.  You would think you'd know better, but you don't.  You hide it better than some, but it's easy to scratch the surface and see that unpleasant and bigoted side of you seep out.  It's a pity, but I've seen it more than once now so it's evidently not an anomaly.

 

Secondly, even though Shaun's point about differing systems isn't really relevant to the debate - much as I respect that Shaun thinks it is - he is right in one key respect.  You have a winner takes all voting system.  The only way a system like that can work is when the winners realise that they have to govern for everyone, not just those who voted for them.  In a parliamentary election, that has some hope of being achieved even if it is often quite imperfect.  In a referendum that boils complicated and messy issues down to simple YES or NO questions, it is impossible to work with a result in any meaningful, intelligent or discerning way.  It is also impossible to meet the expectations of voters unless there is a huge YES or NO majority.  PR systems for electing parliaments are better at achieving that, and better at creating a political culture that is responsive to the needs of different groups and strands in the electorate.

 

Thirdly, you are so busy trying to have a dig at the Paddies that you've missed the point - you've actually given evidence that the Brexit vote was a bad idea and should be vetoed, ignored or overturned.  Why?  Because the reason Ireland has the mess caused by the 8th amendment in 1983 is because a bunch of political extremists caught the political system at a time of weakness and persuaded it to allow a constitutional referendum to be held.  They then managed to boil down a complicated issue into a simple YES or NO proposition and persuade a majority of people to accept their simplistic view of the issue.  Years later, we're trying to clean up the mess caused by that excessively simplistic and narrow-minded view of this complex and difficult issue - and we face the appalling vista that we won't succeed.  That is exactly what happened with your Brexit referendum.  If your logic about the Micks should be followed, then it would logically follow that the Brexit referendum should be ignored as well.  That might be your logic, but at least rather than making bigoted digs at the British I am saying that the result should be respected - even if it was overly simplistic and the result of a dumbed down question and a dumbed down campaign.

The post was a response to Shaun's assertion that divisions in the Brexit vote on the basis of young vs old, urban vs rural, poor vs rich, region vs region etc were an illustration of a divided or even fractured UK. In relation to the only referendum I am aware of taking place next week I predicted that similar if not greater divisions would be observed. I am at a loss to understand why that betrays a cleverly hidden "unpleasant and bigoted " side.

I  have noticed incidentally that people accusing others of bigotry or racism put words in their mouths that they don't and never have used. Some might see that as amounting to a smear.

 

Edited May 19, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

10 hours ago, Ulysses said:

By the way @Francis Albert I saw your post about the 36th amendment referendum.

 

First of all, it was typical of a very nasty streak you display from time to time on the board.  You would think you'd know better, but you don't.  You hide it better than some, but it's easy to scratch the surface and see that unpleasant and bigoted side of you seep out.  It's a pity, but I've seen it more than once now so it's evidently not an anomaly.

 

Secondly, even though Shaun's point about differing systems isn't really relevant to the debate - much as I respect that Shaun thinks it is - he is right in one key respect.  You have a winner takes all voting system.  The only way a system like that can work is when the winners realise that they have to govern for everyone, not just those who voted for them.  In a parliamentary election, that has some hope of being achieved even if it is often quite imperfect.  In a referendum that boils complicated and messy issues down to simple YES or NO questions, it is impossible to work with a result in any meaningful, intelligent or discerning way.  It is also impossible to meet the expectations of voters unless there is a huge YES or NO majority.  PR systems for electing parliaments are better at achieving that, and better at creating a political culture that is responsive to the needs of different groups and strands in the electorate.

 

Thirdly, you are so busy trying to have a dig at the Paddies that you've missed the point - you've actually given evidence that the Brexit vote was a bad idea and should be vetoed, ignored or overturned.  Why?  Because the reason Ireland has the mess caused by the 8th amendment in 1983 is because a bunch of political extremists caught the political system at a time of weakness and persuaded it to allow a constitutional referendum to be held.  They then managed to boil down a complicated issue into a simple YES or NO proposition and persuade a majority of people to accept their simplistic view of the issue.  Years later, we're trying to clean up the mess caused by that excessively simplistic and narrow-minded view of this complex and difficult issue - and we face the appalling vista that we won't succeed.  That is exactly what happened with your Brexit referendum.  If your logic about the Micks should be followed, then it would logically follow that the Brexit referendum should be ignored as well.  That might be your logic, but at least rather than making bigoted digs at the British I am saying that the result should be respected - even if it was overly simplistic and the result of a dumbed down question and a dumbed down campaign.

At the risk of inadvertently revealing more unpleasantness and bigotry ...

I agree with your second paragraph but depending on the political culture and the politicians involved the superiority of PR over FPTP is not I think as clear cut as you suggest.

On the third paragraph I may have missed a point but if I have as you suggest inadvertently given evidence that the Brexit referendum was a bad idea ... then fine, because I have never thought it anything other than a bad idea. Parliament having overwhelmingly agreed (Commons by 6 to 1) to hold it I however don't think ignoring it is an option.

But on the question of referenda generally, how would Scottish independence ever be achieved without a yes/no referendum?

 

[Ulysses]

10 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

This is ridiculously unfair and unreasonable. If you're going to throw out accusations of bigotry, can you at least back them up with actual evidence, rather than insinuations that "he hides it better than some"? He "hides it" so brilliantly that, in 18 years on Kickback on and off, I've never seen what you describe one single time.

 

 

In other words, it is relevant to the debate.  Very relevant: for all the reasons you provide.

 

 

I've read the wording to the 8th Amendment. Holy moly.  The very wording to that Amendment guaranteed future challenges, and the mess you describe.

 

On the subject of bigoted digs, if you were to say to me during the World Cup, "England expects, what what", that would not be bigoted and I would smile. It's you who keeps referring to "the Paddys" or "the Micks" - no-one else is, or even implying it either.

 

 

You're not the target, so don't talk to me about fair or unfair.  If FA doesn't want to be thought of as a bigot, a troll or a chancer, he needs to make his mind up not to behave like them.  He voted against Brexit, yet is its biggest cheerleader on this board.  He's a subscriber to FoH, yet has spent years attacking it.  He's not a right-winger, yet regularly attacks centrist and left policies.  If he's not a bigot or a troll then he's a messer, and in any of those roles he has little of use to say.  I've lost count of the number of times he has tied himself in knots on this forum - here and the Terrace - just to sound contrarian.  The most charitable thing I can think of to say about him when he expresses one of his "deeply-held" and "heartfelt" opinions is "yeah, right".  Maybe he's just someone who cares less about issues and more about expressing opinions on those issues on a Hearts forum so he can get into debates.  Does that sound like anyone you know?

 

As to the 8th, I campaigned against it in 1983 and lost.  I'm still doing my best, and I am worried about losing again.  I'm a decent fella, Shaun, but not when it comes to that subject - so any serial loser who winds me up about it can sod off, and I don't care how upset he gets in the process.

 

On the subject of bigoted digs, if I were to say to you during the World Cup, "England expects, what what", it would mean that someone else had hacked my account. 

 

 

[Seymour M Hersh]

50 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

You're not the target, so don't talk to me about fair or unfair.  If FA doesn't want to be thought of as a bigot, a troll or a chancer, he needs to make his mind up not to behave like them.  He voted against Brexit, yet is its biggest cheerleader on this board.  He's a subscriber to FoH, yet has spent years attacking it.  He's not a right-winger, yet regularly attacks centrist and left policies.  If he's not a bigot or a troll then he's a messer, and in any of those roles he has little of use to say.  I've lost count of the number of times he has tied himself in knots on this forum - here and the Terrace - just to sound contrarian.  The most charitable thing I can think of to say about him when he expresses one of his "deeply-held" and "heartfelt" opinions is "yeah, right".  Maybe he's just someone who cares less about issues and more about expressing opinions on those issues on a Hearts forum so he can get into debates.  Does that sound like anyone you know?

 

As to the 8th, I campaigned against it in 1983 and lost.  I'm still doing my best, and I am worried about losing again.  I'm a decent fella, Shaun, but not when it comes to that subject - so any serial loser who winds me up about it can sod off, and I don't care how upset he gets in the process.

 

On the subject of bigoted digs, if I were to say to you during the World Cup, "England expects, what what", it would mean that someone else had hacked my account. 

 

 

 

Get a life paddy ffs! 

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Get a life paddy ffs!

 

You forgot the capital P in Paddy, ya big eejit.

Edited May 19, 2018 by Ulysses

[shaun.lawson]

4 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

You're not the target, so don't talk to me about fair or unfair.  If FA doesn't want to be thought of as a bigot, a troll or a chancer, he needs to make his mind up not to behave like them.  He voted against Brexit, yet is its biggest cheerleader on this board.  He's a subscriber to FoH, yet has spent years attacking it.  He's not a right-winger, yet regularly attacks centrist and left policies.  If he's not a bigot or a troll then he's a messer, and in any of those roles he has little of use to say.  I've lost count of the number of times he has tied himself in knots on this forum - here and the Terrace - just to sound contrarian.  The most charitable thing I can think of to say about him when he expresses one of his "deeply-held" and "heartfelt" opinions is "yeah, right".  Maybe he's just someone who cares less about issues and more about expressing opinions on those issues on a Hearts forum so he can get into debates.  Does that sound like anyone you know?

 

So in sum: he's not a bigot in any way, shape or form, so you should withdraw that accusation IMO. He's merely a contrarian. The ability to understand and even express the alternative point(s) of view despite actually believing in something else is a rare one. In your view, are teachers 'bigots', given that's what they do all the time? Anything else would involve brainwashing their students, instead of allowing them to reach their own views.

 

As for myself: we've had this discussion before of course, but it's not and has never been deliberate on my part. We're all products of our environments; the peculiar circumstances of my upbringing forced me to become super-analytical simply to try and understand what was going on. And that involved me trying to understand all sides of it, without blame.

 

4 hours ago, Ulysses said:

As to the 8th, I campaigned against it in 1983 and lost.  I'm still doing my best, and I am worried about losing again.  I'm a decent fella, Shaun, but not when it comes to that subject - so any serial loser who winds me up about it can sod off, and I don't care how upset he gets in the process.

 

I do understand that totally. And while I can't share your pain to the same extent, because I'm not Irish, I do share it. The opinion polls still look promising, at least.

 

4 hours ago, Ulysses said:

On the subject of bigoted digs, if I were to say to you during the World Cup, "England expects, what what", it would mean that someone else had hacked my account. 

 

 

 

This is quite funny, because you actually said that to me, word for word, over PM many years ago. And it made me smile.  

[Seymour M Hersh]

6 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

You forgot the capital P in Paddy, ya big eejit.

 

Did I? 

[Francis Albert]

16 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

 

As for myself: we've had this discussion before of course, but it's not and has never been deliberate on my part. We're all products of our environments; the peculiar circumstances of my upbringing forced me to become super-analytical simply to try and understand what was going on. And that involved me trying to understand all sides of it, without blame.

 

 

 

I thought Uly's ""remind you of someone?" comment was about himself and a rare outbreak of self-deprecation.

As for an apology, the day I care what other posters think of me is the day I stop posting ...  I especially don't care on the perhaps infrequent occasions when they are patently wrong!

Edited May 20, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

On ‎19‎/‎05‎/‎2018 at 01:43, shaun.lawson said:

 

 

OMG. 

 

You should filibuster for a living. You're astonishingly good at it. But no Francis: the difference between deficit on the one hand, and debt on the other, is very clear. Much of the public doesn't understand that difference, however.

You would be a very harsh examiner. Maybe not if this question was directed at economics students but I assume it was directed to the general public. Deficits (in your terms) year to year increase the borrowing requirement and hence the national debt ("borrowing deficit in my terms) So 71% were on the right lines and only 14% not.

 

I think any ire should be directed at the well educated Chancellors and Economic Ministers who believe an appropriate response to "deficits" however defined is to impose "austerity" thus reducing tax receipts, slowing the economy, increasing unemployment and  increasing unemployment benefits and other  benefits and so being counterproductive.... .  

[shaun.lawson]

2 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I think any ire should be directed at the well educated Chancellors and Economic Ministers who believe an appropriate response to "deficits" however defined is to impose "austerity" thus reducing tax receipts, slowing the economy, increasing unemployment and  increasing unemployment benefits and other  benefits and so being counterproductive.... .  

 

 

 

And on that, we are certainly in full accordance. But then, these well educated Chancellors and Economic Ministers have only got away with it because they successfully claimed that:

 

1. A political party in the UK caused the entire global financial crash

 

2. "Running a country is like running a household budget"

 

3. "If we hadn't cut, we'd have become Greece"

 

Exactly the same people who say "we'd have become Greece" (and by the way, we have: the UK is joint bottom with Greece for wage rises or falls between 2007 and 2015) then claim, with a straight face, that anyone questioning Brexit is "talking the country down", because "we have sovereignty". Anyone noticed the problem here yet?

 

But here's the thing. Does the country want serious, detailed, nuanced economic policy - or does it want easy to remember one sentence soundbites? I think someone has to be incredibly thick to swallow the three assertions above - but there's a reason economics isn't a compulsory subject in schools, and there's a reason lots of people still vote Tory and still read the Mail and the Sun. 

 

In other words: sad though it is to say, we get the politicians and the media we deserve.

[Francis Albert]

25 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

 

 

And on that, we are certainly in full accordance. But then, these well educated Chancellors and Economic Ministers have only got away with it because they successfully claimed that:

 

1. A political party in the UK caused the entire global financial crash

 

2. "Running a country is like running a household budget"

 

3. "If we hadn't cut, we'd have become Greece"

 

Exactly the same people who say "we'd have become Greece" (and by the way, we have: the UK is joint bottom with Greece for wage rises or falls between 2007 and 2015) then claim, with a straight face, that anyone questioning Brexit is "talking the country down", because "we have sovereignty". Anyone noticed the problem he

But here's the thing. Does the country want serious, detailed, nuanced economic policy - or does it want easy to remember one sentence soundbites? I think someone has to be incredibly thick to swallow the three assertions above - but there's a reason economics isn't a compulsory subject in schools, and there's a reason lots of people still vote Tory and still read the Mail and the Sun. 

 

In other words: sad though it is to say, we get the politicians and the media we deserve.

Oh come on we haven't "become Greece".

[shaun.lawson]

5 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Oh come on we haven't "become Greece".

 

 

They have the excuse of being an EU protectorate treated despicably, trapped in a burning building with no exits.

 

What's our excuse?

 

(And no, I wasn't saying "we have become them". I was highlighting what I've now detailed. Wages).

[Francis Albert]

58 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

 

They have the excuse of being an EU protectorate treated despicably, trapped in a burning building with no exits.

 

What's our excuse?

 

(And no, I wasn't saying "we have become them". I was highlighting what I've now detailed. Wages).

That I must admit is a surprising indeed shocking statistic,