BS: Brexit again

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Howard Jones
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 04:36 AM

Keith, you are mixing up politics and law. Whilst the referendum result was a political decision which Cameron, May and Corbyn all feel politically obliged to accept, in legal terms it was not a decision made in accordance with the country's constitution, which is required for Article 80 to be triggered. We are awaiting clarification of whether the constitutional decision can be made by the government alone or by Parliament. That clarification is essential if Article 50 is to be correctly and successfully invoked.

Whatever was said by politicians during the campaign, or afterwards, about accepting the result or immediately implementing Article 50 were simply politicians' promises and we all know what those are worth. They were not the only misleading statements and promises made. But in any event, even where politicians intend to keep their promises they can only act within the law, as the courts frequently have to remind them.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 04:40 AM

Once again, Howard, thank you for a clear explanation.

Some good points made by A C Grayling, here.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 06:04 AM

Thanks for that, Dave. Read and digest these remarks of Tony Grayling from that piece, Keith et al.:

First, earlier in your letter you say, 'The Government's position is clear that invoking Article 50 is a prerogative power…' We have seen that the Chief Justice and his colleagues in the Divisional Court do not agree with the Government on this, and we await the Supreme Court's view too. Should the justices of the Supreme Court concur, you have the delicate irony of a possibility: that of making a further appeal to the European Court of Justice. It will however be a matter of surprise if any panel of justices were to think that the UK Government has a prerogative power which would have enabled it to take the UK out of the EU even without a referendum, and whenever it wished; which is the clear – and absurd – implication of the Government's position.

...as to the larger sense of sovereignty you wish to imply, namely the sovereignty of the UK as a state: well! we are members of NATO, the WTO, the UN, we have obligations under international law, we have duties to allies; we have constraints as a result of treaties, trade deals, and internationally-binding contracts; and we exist in a tightly globalized world economy. In light of this the concept of the 'sovereignty' of any state is an empty piece of rhetoric. So talk of 'sovereignty' in this connection it is the kind of waffling cant used by politicians in elections and referendums which signifies little.

The government's position is that it has the prerogative to invoke Article 50. As the referendum was advisory and not legally-binding, the implication is that it wasn't actually necessary to hold one at all in order to gain that prerogative. The result is simply being taken by the government as non-legal support for that already-existing prerogative. An advisory referendum can't alone accord prerogative to the government. The government's position is that it can trump constitutional requirements. Well I think we need to remind them that we are still a democracy. The second bit I quoted is a solid argument for saying that all the "taking back control" talk by the brexit side was just another pack of lies. "Sovereignty" as a concept for the nation is in disrepute as a consequence of the term's serial misuse by little Englanders. We should make sure that the Tories are not allowed to bring the word into disrepute with regard to parliament.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 07:06 AM

Grayling has his opinions.
Others including the government do not share them.

"On 23 June, the country voted to leave the European Union and it is the duty of the Government to make sure we do so. The Government's position is clear that invoking Article 50 is a prerogative power and one that can be exercised by the Government. Parliament legislated for the Referendum, which it did by large majorities in both Houses, and with cross-party support.
Although the Act itself does not include provisions that make the result of the referendum legally binding, the Government made repeated and clear statements that the outcome of the referendum would be acted upon. Indeed, the manifesto on which the Conservative Party was elected in 2015 stated "we will honour the result of the referendum, whatever the outcome." The arrangements for the referendum were also supported by Parliament."

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 07:18 AM

Howard,
Keith, you are mixing up politics and law.
No I am not.

Whilst the referendum result was a political decision which Cameron, May and Corbyn all feel politically obliged to accept, in legal terms it was not a decision made in accordance with the country's constitution, which is required for Article 80(sic) to be triggered.

That is just an assertion and it is disputed.

We are awaiting clarification of whether the constitutional decision can be made by the government alone or by Parliament. That clarification is essential if Article 50 is to be correctly and successfully invoked.

Yes. As I have said all along.

Whatever was said by politicians during the campaign, or afterwards, about accepting the result or immediately implementing Article 50 were simply politicians' promises and we all know what those are worth

It may transpire that they were right to make those promises.
The government holds that they were, as they explained to Grayling in the link.

But in any event, even where politicians intend to keep their promises they can only act within the law, as the courts frequently have to remind them.

Yes of course.

The only case I am making here is that it is wrong to state unequivocally that the government lawyers have all got it wrong.
I am sure you agree with me on that Howard.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 07:26 AM

Grayling has no more legal training than I have!
" His main academic interests lie in epistemology, metaphysics and philosophical logic.[1] He has described himself as "a man of the left" and is associated in Britain with the new atheism movement,[4] and is sometimes described as the 'Fifth Horseman of New Atheism'.[5] He appears in the British media discussing philosophy."

So just an opinion piece from someone with no relevant expertise at all.
Was it worth a link?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 07:35 AM

Yes, it was certainly worth a link. As a prominent academic and philosopher his arguments are always worth considering as well as being quite readable and entertaining at times. As has already been said, until the appeal is settled, all views on the subject are just opinions on the possible outcomes. I would not dream of simply deferring to authority but some opinions do carry more weight than others.

As the governments defense has already been dismissed once but an appeal has been allowed we can safely say that legal opinion about the outcome is divided.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 08:33 AM

It is quite clear from your last post here posts, Keith, that you wish to twist things to fit your own predilections. In fact, you appear to know very little about anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Howard Jones
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 09:21 AM

In reply to Keith:

"Whilst the referendum result was a political decision which Cameron, May and Corbyn all feel politically obliged to accept, in legal terms it was not a decision made in accordance with the country's constitution, which is required for Article 80(sic) to be triggered.

That is just an assertion and it is disputed."

I accept it is disputed, but you can find a lawyer to argue the opposite of every legal position. I think the majority of informed opinion is that it is not binding, but I recognise that some experts have argued otherwise. I don't claim to be an expert. The Government itself seems to think that is a political commitment rather than a legal obligation, since this was not an issue before the High Court, or the appeal to the Supreme Court.

It now falls to the Government to exercise Article 50 and the question is how to do this lawfully. I'm not saying the government is right or wrong to claim this can be done under prerogative powers. That will be decided by the Supreme Court.

What tends to be overlooked is that it is not the role of the courts to consider the will of the people. Their job is to interpret the law. In our system the will of the people is expressed through Parliament, and if Parliament doesn't like how the courts interpret law it has the power to change the law. Referenda don't sit easily in this system, which is why they are usually advisory rather than binding. The problem in this case is the referendum has raised very high expectations whilst lacking any agreement on what Brexit actually means, and with only a slim majority.

The legal question is necessary and will bring necessary certainty to the legal process, which both sides should welcome. However even if the Supreme Court decides the government can use prerogative powers it would be naive to think that the process won't be anything other than highly political. We are in for a rough ride.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 01:10 PM

Howard,
I think the majority of informed opinion is that it is not binding,

What makes you think that?
All we know for sure is that it is disputed.

The Government itself seems to think that is a political commitment rather than a legal obligation, since this was not an issue before the High Court, or the appeal to the Supreme Court.

The courts only consider legal issues, never political ones, so your statement must be untrue.

In our system the will of the people is expressed through Parliament,

No. In our system the will of the people is usually expressed through Parliament but sometimes, rarely, by referenda.
In this specific case it was expressed through a referendum.

Because the role of the court is to interpret the law, there will never be certainty.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 01:15 PM

Steve,
It is quite clear from your last post here posts, Keith, that you wish to twist things to fit your own predilections.

I do not have any predilections on this Steve, and unless you can produce a specific example, which you can't because it is a lie, this is just another baseless personal attack in lieu of actual debate.

In fact, you appear to know very little about anything.

Then give a specific example of a statement from me that is wrong.

You can't because that too is a lie and another of your baseless personal attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 01:20 PM

Can we rewind a bit. I have lost track of what the argument is about again. Is it as first stated in the opening post? If not, what have we moved on to and what is it now? It is rather difficult to hold a debate when we have lost sight of just what we are debating over.

Thanks.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 02:13 PM

If it's down to prerogative power, the government (ie the Prime Minister) has the power to ignore the result of the referendum entirely. In the light of increasing evidence of the harm that Brexit promises to cause to this country that would be perfectly correct constitutionally.

She won't of course. She lacks the courage to do so. It's not a matter of respecting the result on principle as being democratically necessary. A second referendum, a binding one this time preferably, would be perfectly consistent with democratic principles.

As has been pointed out, when you buy something, in most circumstances you have the right to take it back to the shop if it proves unsatisfactory, or if you change your mind. Any time a couple get divorced there is a decree nisi before the final decree, to give a chance for thinking twice.

And there are plenty of examples where referendum results which have been widely seen as unwise have resulted in repeat referendums which have gone the other way. It happened in Ireland in respect of the EU Treaty of Nice, which was rejected in 2001, and then carried the following year with modifications, by a larger majority on an increased turnout. Ireland has if anything a better record as being true to democratic principles than the UK.

In the same way, when Denmark voted in 1992, there was a narrow majority to reject the Treaty of Maastricht, on a large turnout, very analogous to what happened with our referendum. The following year there was a second referendum, with a few modifications to the terms, and it was accepted by a significantly larger majority, on an even larger turnout. Would anybody suggest that Denmark is not a model of democracy?

And does anybody believe that if the referendum had gone the other way the Brexiters would not have fought energetically for another referendum to reverse its results? Nigel Farage in fact promised that, on the eve of the result, when he thought the vote would go the other way.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: MikeL2
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 02:50 PM

Hi Steve

<" With the news on the economy we've just been getting I think that brexit would be national suicide ">

May I remind you that the news of which you speak are just forecasts with no real knowledge of what will actually happen. Furthermore these forecasts are largely made by the very people who are the most determined " Remoaners".

Recent forecasts show that nobody really knows what is really happening. The forecast result of the Referendum proves this.

Regards Mike

PS Just heard about Steven Gerrard's retirement from playing.

I wish him well in whatever he decides to do. As a Man United supporter I seen many great players and Steven IMHO stands at the top.
I saw him several times and each time I yearned for him to come to Old Trafford, but he is Liverpool through and through.I wish him well

Sorry for going off the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 07:16 PM

I agree with everything you say, Kevin, except for this:

"If it's down to prerogative power, the government (ie the Prime Minister) has the power to ignore the result of the referendum entirely. In the light of increasing evidence of the harm that Brexit promises to cause to this country that would be perfectly correct constitutionally."

Prerogative doesn't come into this as the referendum was advisory. If she decided not to accept the result she would merely be declining the "advice" of 37% of the electorate. There is no constitutional issue there. Prerogative, on the other hand, IS a constitutional issue, fought for in a civil war to stop ignorant kings and queens ruling by diktat and successfully defended for hundreds of years. Hence the court case. If she decided to reject the result (the right thing to do, though politically suicidal), no doubt somebody or other would pursue it in the courts but they would have their case thrown out. As the referendum was advisory, remainers would have just as strong a case as brexiteers for complaining about her decision on the advice given to her by the referendum, as they could argue that only just over one-third of the electorate advised her to leave, all of which would lead to an absurd situation. Advisory means that the government asked for advice. There is nothing in our constitution that says that advice MUST be followed, regardless of what "promises" about it were made in advance of the vote. But there are safeguards in our constitution that protect parliamentary sovereignty. It would be beyond amazing if the Supreme Court overrode the High Court - worse, it would be downright suspicious.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 07:18 PM

I meant fought over, not fought for.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 08:17 PM

Well, Mike, I know that forecasts can end up being wide of the mark, but the ones this week in the budget statement and subsequently were generally those born of independent bodies, not remoaners. Like it or not, economic forecasts have to be listened to and acted on by the government. They are ignored at our peril. The lowest-paid in this country are in for a tough time on top of the tough time they've had over the last decade, that's a certainty, and the NHS is going to struggle through lack of funding, another certainty.

Stevie is a scouser and dyed-in-the-wool Liverpool FC man to his core. I hope his move into coaching will be gradual and measured. Seen too many footballing greats fall at the first hurdle in management. Not least Bobby Charlton, eh!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 02:42 AM

"In the light of increasing evidence of the harm that Brexit promises to cause to this country" - MGOH

What evidence? So far we've had a catalogue of predictions of which none have come to pass.

Yesterday it was reported that Angela Merkel is now being told that Germany must make a deal with the UK and ignore calls from France to "make Britain pay" for having the temerity to vote to leave the EU. At the moment it is basically the German economy that is keeping the Eurozone afloat and Merkel has been warned that if Germany loses her trade with the UK then Germany will no longer be capable of keeping the Euro afloat.

Simple fact is there are a number of "hawkish" leaders of European countries who have to face elections before Brexit happens, Merkel and Hollande are but two of them. Somehow Jean-Claude Juncker has to keep the wheels on the bus because after those national elections in Europe there might be a queue of countries triggering Article 50.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 04:13 AM

The economy is currently the best performing of all developed countries, and the predicted fall in growth is to the predicted level of Germany, and higher than France and every other EU country.

Steve, are you gong to produce examples of my ignorance or twisting of facts, or was that just a baseless smear in place of actual debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 06:01 AM

You'll have to make your own mind up. I've given up playing your stupid games.

It's true thst Merkel doesn't want us to leave, but it's equally true that the EU csn survive without us and that we will not get many favours. That stream of Article 50 triggerers you refer to will emanate from us getting an easy brexit, not the results of elections in Europe. Anyone thinking that we'll keep the single market without allowing free movement, for example, is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 06:03 AM

I really must start to type only when I'm wearing my reading glasses. 🤓

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 07:08 AM

What Merkel wants or doesn't want is irrelevant, we are leaving the EU, that is what the electorate of the UK voted for and, at the politicians peril, that is what they are going to have to deliver (Just the fact that Blair wants us to remain in the EU is a good enough reason for us to leave).

Now German finance ministers are warning Merkel of the danger to the German economy which is the powerhouse of the EU. They are stating that Germany, Note that - Germany, NOT the EU, must have deal with the UK after we leave as we are their biggest and best customer in Europe. Simply put they cannot afford to lose us without them catching a cold and at present post-Brexit vote our economy is performing better than theirs. Anybody ignoring those facts, Merkel included, proves that they are the ones living in cloud cuckoo-land.

Still no evidence, let alone increasing evidence, of the harm that Brexit promises to cause to this country.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Howard Jones
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 07:27 AM

Keith, from what I have read it is fairly settled law that referenda are not binding because this conflicts with the sovereignty of Parliament. Parliament can choose to make a particular referendum binding, but in this case it did not do so. Nevertheless some have argued that its being binding was implied because of statements made by the Government.

I am not a lawyer, so I cannot say if that claim has merit. It does seem to overturn the usual presumption, however the Government did not seek in the case before the High Court to argue that it is legally bound by the result. That suggests to me that the Government chose to accept the result of the referendum not because it believed it was legally bound to do so but because it felt it was the right thing to do. Indeed, the point of the referendum was to "let the people decide". I call that a political decision.

Let me be clear that, although I am unhappy with the result of the referendum, I agree that the Government has no real choice but to accept it. To ignore it would be unthinkable (politically, not legally). The issue now is to see that it is done properly and lawfully. This is in both sides' interest, but I keep making the point that Brexiteers should want this even more than Remainers, if they don't want the process to be disrupted by further legal challenges in both the UK and European courts.

I think it is important that in this the Government is subject to proper Parliamentary oversight, not because I think this offers a hope of overturning the result (I believe this is wishful thinking) but because the country is so divided over this and because there is still no clear idea of what success looks like.

Everyone who voted to leave seems to have their own priorities: for some it was simply to leave and damn the consequences, others want to have varying degrees of free trade with Europe, some will accept some movement of people while others won't have any. That's before you factor in the views of the only slightly smaller number who voted to remain, and those who for whatever reason didn't vote but have now woken up to the fact this affects them too. We need a clear strategy for leaving, and in a representative democracy it is the role of Parliament to help frame that.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 08:46 AM

Well I don't agree with a lot of that. There are implications to our leaving that were obviously not clear before the vote to politicians, let alone the public. There is bad news on the future of the economy, especially for the low-paid, that was not clear in June. There are very hawkish noises from the EU that want us out quickly and with very few concessions. The government had no plan for brexit and the vote took them by surprise. There is an extra £59 billion brexit black hole that has nobbled future investment in the NHS and social care that we either didn't know about in June or were lied to about. We can't stop people movement because we need the people to do our jobs. All this is before we have even the faintest clue about any deal that the government will make, a government that is fearful of letting the people know what they are negotiating. We must have a chance to change our minds when we know the full implications of leaving, BEFORE Article 50 is invoked. That would be democracy. Turkeys voting for Christmas are lied to less than we were lied to, and we are in the same boat as them.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 09:18 AM

Steve,
. I've given up playing your stupid games.

It is not a stupid game to ask you to justify your claims.
Don't make them if you can't.

Howard, yes.
We never really disagreed on this.
FWIW, my opinion is that Parliament chose not to have a say as the government states.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 09:25 AM

You will not give me orders, Keith. Do be clear on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 09:35 AM

Orders Steve? Where did that come from??

You made more of your wild assertions, and as usual were unable to justify them.

I just asked you to justify them as is normal and expected in discussion.

Just days ago you even (falsely) attacked someone else for the same thing!

Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 07:47 PM

... You say stuff that you can't corroborate, then, when confronted, you just try to walk away from it.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 10:33 AM

Go away. A suggestion, not an order.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 01:23 PM

"You say stuff that you can't corroborate, then, when confronted, you just try to walk away from it. "

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 01:26 PM

Indeed you do, Professor. Thanks for admitting it.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 01:32 PM

Indeed I don't Greg.
You are just joining in the lying and smearing.

Will you produce an example of what you claim?
No. How could you?
It is just lies because you people have no reply to what I actually say.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 01:59 PM

"There are implications to our leaving that were obviously not clear before the vote to politicians, let alone the public. There is bad news on the future of the economy, especially for the low-paid, that was not clear in June. There are very hawkish noises from the EU that want us out quickly and with very few concessions. The government had no plan for brexit and the vote took them by surprise. There is an extra £59 billion brexit black hole that has nobbled future investment in the NHS and social care that we either didn't know about in June or were lied to about. We can't stop people movement because we need the people to do our jobs. All this is before we have even the faintest clue about any deal that the government will make, a government that is fearful of letting the people know what they are negotiating. We must have a chance to change our minds when we know the full implications of leaving, BEFORE Article 50 is invoked. That would be democracy. Turkeys voting for Christmas are lied to less than we were lied to, and we are in the same boat as them."

Correct on all points. IMHO.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 02:02 PM

I don't suppose there will be another referendum, but that is nothing to do with democratic principle, or "accepting the verdict of the British people" - it is because of cowardice on the part of politicians. Far more truthful to call it a retreat from democracy.

A fresh referendum could determine whether there is in fact a general wish to get out of the single marketplace, as well as the EU, and whether there is actually a majority for ending the free movement arrangements under which all of us have the right to live and work in whichever EU country suits us. The referendum we had did not soecify anything like that. And of course it could be made binding rather than advisory.

Brexiters should welcome that - but of course they are too scared of the result.

Cowards all round.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 02:05 PM

May I just point out that the last few posts seem to have been a personal argument that has no relevance whatsoever to the point in question. Not that I really know what the point in question is any more. As I said earlier, I seem to have lost the plot. Does anyone know or we now just arguing for arguments sake?

DtG

PS - Checking my post and auto correct had changed a misspelling of arguing to gunrunning. How odd!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 05:07 PM

It does seem to be turning a bit pre-school.

"You're telling lies"
"No I'm not . You're telling lies. And you stink."
"Yes you are telling lies. And no one likes you..."

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 03:45 AM

MGOH:

Such a turn in discussions would not occur if those responsible for throwing allegations and accusations about actually provided evidence to substantiate their claims.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 05:15 AM

Would it not be better though to refute those allegations once, preferably with strong evidence, and then let others decide who is right? Or even if it warrants a long argument between two or three people how about conducting it by PM so it does not derail an otherwise interesting thread?

I have been as guilty as others in dragging out personal feuds in the past but decided a few months ago that life was just to short to keep up petty squabbles. I am not trying to be holier than thou or anything and I am sure it is not for everyone but it seems far healthier for all concerned just to move on.

Hope this helps.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 06:17 AM


Would it not be better though to refute those allegations once, preferably with strong evidence, and then let others decide who is right?

The allegation was of twisting facts and ignorance.
Why put the onus on the victim to refute the allegations and prove the negative?

Why not demand that those making the allegations substantiate them, preferably with strong evidence and actual examples?

Even better, let them leave the thread to reasoned discussion and put all their personal attacks and name calling in a PM.
I would promise to read every word, before laughing at their pathetic inadequacy and deleting it all.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 07:02 AM

Utterly laughable.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 07:04 AM

" have been as guilty as others in dragging out personal feuds in the past "
Having been a long term victim of Keith's in this predilection for turning these discussions into exercises in 'personal best' competitiveness, I sincerely suggest that you do not allow yourself to be dragged into his whirlpool
You are a respected member of this forum - he is not - don't get your hands dirty with his particular brand of trollism.
From one of the walking wounded.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 07:43 AM

Amen.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 12:39 PM

"Steve, are you gong to produce examples of my ignorance or twisting of facts, or was that just a baseless smear in place of actual debate. "

Just a baseless smear in place of actual debate then.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 01:16 PM

Your twisting of fact professor has become legendary. With the exception of Teri and occasionally Akenaton everybody on this site treats your posts with derision. Basically you provide nothing of any worth, apart from a few giggles now and again.

To the vast majority you are a joke, but please don't stop posting, we all need a laugh.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 01:42 PM

But you can not actually produce a single example either.

Just a baseless smear in place of actual debate then.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 02:23 PM

To the vast majority you are a joke, but please don't stop posting, we all need a laugh.

The Professor may at one time been mildly amusing/entertaiing but repetition ad nauseum has made him simply boring, if not disgusting.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 03:28 PM

I have made no suggestion that the onus is anyone to do anything. I simply said that if someone makes allegations, refute them and leave it at that. Surely that is better than either letting the allegations stand without denying them or going into a protracted war of words. It is wrong to make untrue or unjust allegations but, sadly, people do it it. It is what happens after that I am talking about. The choices, as far as I can see, are: Let it stand; Refute it; Provide evidence to the contrary; Make a counter allegation or start a war of attrition. I am not saying which is best. It is entirely up to the person who is having the allegation made against them but I think if a strong case is made against the allegation then others can make up their own minds.

Seemples.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 07:01 PM

Or you could just move on and talk to sensible, non-obsessed people.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 07:13 PM

Such a turn in discussions would not occur if those responsible for throwing allegations and accusations about actually provided evidence to substantiate their claims.

I'm afraid it would. Some people seem to respond to irritations that way. Fortunately most peple don't, but it only takes a few to wreck a thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 16 - 03:01 AM

Dave the Gnome - 27 Nov 16 - 03:28 PM

"It is wrong to make untrue or unjust allegations but, sadly, people do it. It is what happens after that I am talking about. The choices, as far as I can see, are: Let it stand; Refute it; Provide evidence to the contrary; Make a counter allegation or start a war of attrition."

If it is wrong to make untrue or unjust allegations DtG then criticise those who make those allegations and challenge them as accusers to provide evidence - if they cannot, or if they won't - then they can be reasonably judged by their omission and the allegations made will have been proved false and unjust and the poster rightly condemned for making them.

On another thread you quoted the recent words of a Professor Timothy Snyder. I draw your attention to these in particular:

"7. Stand out. Someone has to. It is easy, in words and deeds, to follow along. It can feel strange to do or say something different. But without that unease, there is no freedom. And the moment you set an example, the spell of the status quo is broken, and others will follow.

8. Believe in truth. To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle. The biggest wallet pays for the most blinding lights.

9. Investigate. Figure things out for yourself. Spend more time with long articles. Subsidize investigative journalism by subscribing to print media. Realize that some of what is on your screen is there to harm you. Bookmark PropOrNot or other sites that investigate foreign propaganda pushes."

I am fully aware of those on this forum who "stand-out", who believe in presenting the truth and base their arguments on fact instead of emotion or ideology and those who when confronted with disingenuous, biased and untrue claims do investigate and confront those who would present a lie as the truth.

At the same time I am also aware of those on this forum who do just "follow along", who deliberately misrepresent and abandon facts. And those who, by their own admission, are prepared to argue at length from a position of lack of knowledge and what at times seems like total ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 16 - 03:45 AM

I agree absolutely, Teribus, and I have made just such a a criticism in the very statement you have quoted, IE "It is wrong to make untrue or unjust allegations but, sadly, people do it." That is a criticism.

What I will not do is get embroiled in taking sides where the parties concerned are perfectly capable of handling the situation themselves. If it is an allegation against someone who cannot defend themselves or, worse still, an allegation against a whole group of people then, yes, I will criticise that action and have done so on another thread. On the same thread I have also robustly defended myself against scurrilous accusations against me and would not thank anyone for getting involved in my own affairs.

But we are now taking too much of other peoples time in discussing the discussion itself where this should be a thread about the latest developments about the EU controversy. Feel free to PM me if you want to take it any further as I would prefer to detract too much from the main show!

Cheers

DtG