The Brexit Thread (topical thread)

[OakTree500]

This sums up leavers for me:

Leaver interviewed post ruling on the prorogation.

The place where he is from is down the road from me. Like 15 mins away. I have family from there. Shocking.

[Edited: removed offensive line]

[Aractus]

And people like this are aloud to vote? Shocking.

Oh my fucking god. Your post is offensive on so many levels.

With voter engagement currently so shithouse you say "people like this are aloud to vote"? REALLY?

Democracy works because people vote, and everyone's vote is equal. Everyone. Doesn't matter their education, disability, sexual preference, or political affiliation. Rule by the elite is what you have in China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, UAE...

[Dānu]

Stick. Butt. Do we have a match? Survey says..... YES!

[Aractus]

As a Brit, I can only really say take everything Farage says with a HUGE lump of salt.

And as I said the interview I linked to was quite good.

For me personally, and only really in the case of Brexit, I think most people with 2 brain cells to rub together are angry because the vote was ADVISORY as in "lets get a general idea of what the public want, and work off of that". If it was a legally binding vote, you would need a majority of ALL voters in the country, not just those that did vote, which if not met would mean it doesnt happen - IE in this case, Brexit would not have begun. 

Being Advisory, the idea was this would loosly inform the government what the public want so we can discuss with Europe the ramifications of coming out of Europe, if it works out for us/for them and what the overall plausibility of that would be. I voted remain, but had no problem with the overall idea of coming out IF it was done right/could be done at all. The Government instead decided "Fuck it, we're doing it" and triggered article 50, with no clue as to what the fuck was going on, and now here we are 3 years later in a right shit hole of a mess.

Again, so many problems here. I've consistently referred to the 2016 vote as a plebiscite not a referendum for the very fact that it was advisory. Advisory or not however there's been a vocal minority who refuse looser's conceit.

THAT is why people are "moaning" about it. Not because "wE wAnT aNotHeR VoTe BeCaUse We DidNt Win" - (which by that logic, is also bollocks because if its the popular choice......it would win again, surely? Leavers peddle this shit because they KNOW that more people are going to vote and this time vote in full knowledge of the issues at hand, 200,000 people have registered to vote SINCE this happened because the public WANT to stop it.). We are moaning because if you're going to do it, do it properly and not destroy the fucking country. It it was looked into and it couldn't be done WITHOUT a huge amount of damage to the country/economy/the union itself, then as our elected officials they should have said "We've looked into it, but the ramifications are too much to bear.". THAT is why we vote for these assholes, to do WHAT IS BEST for the country and it's people, not to feed their own vanity bullshit that they keep on doing.

Again, so many problems. Why weren't everyone legally obliged to vote in the first place? If they were problem solved - no one could claim the result was not valid. But also, governments change over the space of a 3 or 4 year election cycle - with the exact same people voting. So of course people can change their minds and you get a different result every 3 or 4 years.

The main problem that leavers REFUSE to see is "Oh a deal can be knocked out in a few months", which 1) might not be true AT ALL (could be YEARS) and 2) during that time food/medicine will see short supplies, ports will be BACKED UP for DAYS. I mean even if it's like "oh it really will be only 2 months" THAT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH. They've had 3 years to potentially sort this shit out, so any amount of time with no food / medicine coming in or OUT of the country will have HUGE ramifications.

So just produce your own medicine and food?

[Mathilda]

The main problem that leavers REFUSE to see is "Oh a deal can be knocked out in a few months", which 1) might not be true AT ALL (could be YEARS) and 2) during that time food/medicine will see short supplies, ports will be BACKED UP for DAYS. I mean even if it's like "oh it really will be only 2 months" THAT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH. They've had 3 years to potentially sort this shit out, so any amount of time with no food / medicine coming in or OUT of the country will have HUGE ramifications.

So just produce your own medicine and food?

What? From the magic medicine and food tree?

Even if we had enough land, farms rely on European immigrants to pick the food. Or maybe we should all give up our jobs to start working on farms? Goodbye economy.

And you can't just start producing your own medicine at short notice. Not least because pharmaceutical companies own the intellectual property and decide where to manufacture the medicine they sell.

[pocaracas]

The main problem that leavers REFUSE to see is "Oh a deal can be knocked out in a few months", which 1) might not be true AT ALL (could be YEARS) and 2) during that time food/medicine will see short supplies, ports will be BACKED UP for DAYS. I mean even if it's like "oh it really will be only 2 months" THAT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH. They've had 3 years to potentially sort this shit out, so any amount of time with no food / medicine coming in or OUT of the country will have HUGE ramifications.

So just produce your own medicine and food?

They can't.
There's no infrastructure in place for the UK to be self-sufficient in terms of food.
And many medications are produced in EU labs and shipped to the UK - the demand remains the same, but the flow of these goods will be hampered.

[OakTree500]

Oh my fucking god. Your post is offensive on so many levels.

If I offended you, or anybody else, I apologise. 

Again, so many problems here. I've consistently referred to the 2016 vote as a plebiscite not a referendum for the very fact that it was advisory. Advisory or not however there's been a vocal minority who refuse looser's conceit.

We had a referendum in 1975, do we ignore that people voted FOR us to remain members? 

Again, so many problems. Why weren't everyone legally obliged to vote in the first place? If they were problem solved - no one could claim the result was not valid. But also, governments change over the space of a 3 or 4 year election cycle - with the exact same people voting. So of course people can change their minds and you get a different result every 3 or 4 years.

In all honesty, maybe we should be all MADE to vote. The problem is you can't go around saying "The majority said we want to leave" when the actual majority of the country didn't vote. For a legally binding "you cant say anything" referendum, you need the majority of the country to say "YES". This WAS advisory, whether leavers like it or not, so to say "well there was a vote" is also not good enough, either way it isn't enough people and the government ran with this idea that "the people" want it, and just pulled the trigger. They didn't even look into if it was doable without fucking it up [or did and just ignored it]

So just produce your own medicine and food?

I mean, the fact we dont WILL cause problems though wont it? You can't just fire it out of a magic cannon and solve all problems, the back log will be huge.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So just produce your own medicine and food?

Aren't you allegedly in the medical field? How could you be unaware of the issues with such a naive question?

[LastPoet]

This will hurt Portugal in so many ways. What are we going to do with all the Porto wine?

[Minimalist]

Drink it?


Save a little for Boris.  He may need several glasses.

[LastPoet]

Drink it?


Save a little for Boris.  He may need several glasses.

Boris Yeltsin?

[Minimalist]

Johnson.

Isn't Yeltsin dead?

[abaris]

I mean, the fact we dont WILL cause problems though wont it? You can't just fire it out of a magic cannon and solve all problems, the back log will be huge.

Most of all, stuff will become much more expensive. Down to something as basic as a package of aspirin, which is produced by the German company Bayer and sold internationally.

[Mathilda]

I mean, the fact we dont WILL cause problems though wont it? You can't just fire it out of a magic cannon and solve all problems, the back log will be huge.

Most of all, stuff will become much more expensive. Down to something as basic as a package of aspirin, which is produced by the German company Bayer and sold internationally.

Maybe even as expensive as buying it in Germany where the pharmacies having a monopoly  When I lived there I'd stock pile medication every time I flew back to the UK. A packet of 16 paracetamol here costs about 75p in a supermarket.

Saying that they gave away prescription medicine for a small fee like it was going out of fashion.

[Cavebear]

I mean, the fact we dont WILL cause problems though wont it? You can't just fire it out of a magic cannon and solve all problems, the back log will be huge.

Most of all, stuff will become much more expensive. Down to something as basic as a package of aspirin, which is produced by the German company Bayer and sold internationally.

I bet if you voted again to stay, everyone would give a big sigh of relief ans all would be forgiven.

[Minimalist]

And up in Scotland.....

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-sco...s-49811669

Scotland's first minister has called on Boris Johnson to resign after the Supreme Court ruled that his decision to suspend Parliament was unlawful.
Nicola Sturgeon said the ruling was the most significant constitutional judgement in her lifetime.
And she said it would be "unthinkable" for the prime minister to remain in office under the circumstances.

I have an acquaintance in Holland who predicts that Britain will be thrown out of the EU.  Do they have to do anything?  Technically I suppose they don't even have to reply to the parliamentary demand for an extension.  Anyone know?

[Aractus]

So just produce your own medicine and food?

What? From the magic medicine and food tree?

Even if we had enough land, farms rely on European immigrants to pick the food. Or maybe we should all give up our jobs to start working on farms? Goodbye economy.

And you can't just start producing your own medicine at short notice. Not least because pharmaceutical companies own the intellectual property and decide where to manufacture the medicine they sell.

It was an intentionally sarcastic comment. BUT, more seriously:

[OakTree500]

So just produce your own medicine and food?

What? From the magic medicine and food tree?

Even if we had enough land, farms rely on European immigrants to pick the food. Or maybe we should all give up our jobs to start working on farms? Goodbye economy.

And you can't just start producing your own medicine at short notice. Not least because pharmaceutical companies own the intellectual property and decide where to manufacture the medicine they sell.

It was an intentionally sarcastic comment. BUT, more seriously:

That also needs to be taken with huge grains of salt. The caller CLAIMS to formally worked in that port, were as the yellow hammer docs show that that port WILL be backed up. So I'd rather follow the official document on that as a "this is what is most likely" rather than random people calling in "claiming" to know whats going to happen.

[Mathilda]

Nigel Farage falls victim to the perfect prank on his LBC show

Made me chuckle.

[LastPoet]

Hit in the head by a horse? That is so britsh!

[The Kerbinator]

This may be the only sensible analyis these days...

Aw look, it’s likkle teeny-weeny cutesy-wutesy Trumpy-wumpy

[Minimalist]

Same shit - different day.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49847804

"Even if we manage to reach an agreement with [Boris] Johnson - which is an outside chance anyway," a diplomat from a southern European country told me, "do we really think that the angry, divided House of Commons will approve a Johnson-brokered Brexit deal?"

The diplomat clearly didn't. And that's important. It means the EU believes there is no point compromising right now.

[Mathilda]

Good point. The EU perspective is easily lost when all the focus is on the fighting in the commons.

I think the current situation is analogous to a large dinner party where a married couple are on the brink of an imminent divorce and are publicly fighting and airing their years of grievances while all the other guests look uncomfortable and are waiting for it to resolve it somehow.

[grympy]

And people like this are aloud to vote? Shocking.

Oh my fucking god. Your post is offensive on so many levels.

With voter engagement currently so shithouse you say "people like this are aloud to vote"? REALLY?

Democracy works because people vote, and everyone's vote is equal. Everyone. Doesn't matter their education, disability, sexual preference, or political affiliation. Rule by the elite is what you have in China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, UAE...

Everyone's vote is equal? Really. You can prove that of course? 

I'm not entirely sure it's reasonable to assume democracy  actually works as it's meant to anywhere. By that I mean in line within the basic dictionary definitions of democracy 


Merriam Webster:

"Definition of democracy

1a : government by the people especially : rule of the majority

b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections  "

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy


 Encyclopeadia Britannica:

"Democracy, literally, rule by the people. The term is derived from the Greek dēmokratiā, which was coined from dēmos (“people”) and kratos (“rule”) in the middle of the 5th century bce to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens."

https://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy

Also  worth noting that Athenian Democracy was not even close to democracy as we understand the term . Only about 1/3 of the Athenian population were eligible to vote; women and slaves could not vote. Athenian democracy was nothing like either the Parliamentary /Westminster or Republican  styles of democracy used today. It was actually rule by referendum.  All eligible voters voted on every important matter. 

In modern democracy, we get to vote for a bunch of  venal  incompetents we have not chosen . Those chosen   are meant to represent the people who voted for them.  This rarely happens  in a Parliamentary democracy. The majority of members on both sides, belong to a party.  It is the party which  (pre)selects the candidates . Once elected, every member is expected to vote on party lines unless given leave for a conscience vote.This is rare.  Members who 'cross the floor'  are often dismissed from their party. That means no preselection in the next election, which means they will probably lose their seat. 


 It  becomes even more  of a farce when over 40% of the electorate don't bother to vote. (as happened in the last US elections)  

Socrates did not approve of democracy.  He argued that leaders needed to be trained, not chosen as "the first  among equals" 

"In the dialogues of Plato, the founding father of Greek Philosophy – Socrates – is portrayed as hugely pessimistic about the whole business of democracy. In Book Six of The Republic, Plato describes Socrates falling into conversation with a character called Adeimantus and trying to get him to see the flaws of democracy by comparing a society to a ship. If you were heading out on a journey by sea, asks Socrates, who would you ideally want deciding who was in charge of the vessel? Just anyone or people educated in the rules and demands of seafaring? The latter of course, says Adeimantus, so why then, responds Socrates, do we keep thinking that any old person should be fit to judge who should be a ruler of a country?"

https://www.theschooloflife.com/thebooko...democracy/


Thought for today: "The strongest argument against democracy; spend 10 minutes talking to the average voter"  (Winston Churchill)

[Minimalist]

The latter of course, says Adeimantus, so why then, responds Socrates, do we keep thinking that any old person should be fit to judge who should be a ruler of a country?"

And who, pray tell, did Socrates think should be the person to decide?