Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 05:56 PM

From: Jim Carroll
12 Nov 18 - 12:32 PM
"Of course, it's easy just to read the headline, "
Go read the other headlines instead of quoting a lone voice.
I was only quoting that 'lone voice' because it was the basis of the article that YOU linked to.

Hate crimes have escalated beyond belief - they have brought the Klan out on the streer=ts of Northern Ireland and ex-army Nazis are being jailed for their hate crimes in Britain
Surely 'ex-army Nazis being jailed' shows that Britain is not accepting of racism, and prepared to use the rule of law to prevent it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 05:59 PM

If Britain was truly not accepting of racism, Nigel Farage would be in jail for promoting that horrid racist poster in the referendum campaign.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 06:11 PM

Let's not forget what the lie was. Steve Shaw said that to calculate a majority you must include all those who didn't vote. Who thinks that that is true?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 06:41 PM

If Britain was truly not accepting of racism, Nigel Farage would be in jail for promoting that horrid racist poster in the referendum campaign.
If you could show that that poster (I'm guessing which one you mean) was an 'incitement to racial hatred' then I'm sure you could get someone to start a prosecution. Even then Nigel Farage would only be in jail if the prosecution was successful.
If not, then freedom of speech (or of other forms of expression) trumps your feelings of taking offence on behalf of others.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 06:58 PM

On alleged use of statistics to 'tell lies'. I can find no example in the accused post. Steve Shaw has never, as far as I can make out, argued that to calculate a majority you must include all those who didn't vote. He pointed out that a minority of the electorate voted for 'Brexit', which is true. Nor has he ever asserted that to calculate a 'majority' you must include all those who didn't vote, though of course to calculate whether a majority of the electorate voted for Brexit one would indeed have to include those members of it who did not vote as 'the electorate'. And his point was, in effect, that it is not the case that a majority of 'the electorate' voted for Brexit. This is correct, and even if it were not, it would not necessarily be a 'lie'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 07:32 PM

"Let's not forget what the lie was. Steve Shaw said that to calculate a majority you must include all those who didn't vote.Who thinks that that is true?"

I said no such thing. Read my two posts germane to this spat and you will see that I made plain, straightforward, unspun, factual statements. Othung like the quote in bold. You're compounding your own twisting dishonesty via the highlighted remark. Shame on you. Cease and desist.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 07:34 PM

Thanks, Karen. Truth will out.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 07:42 PM

The alleged "freedom of speech" you're defending in that poster, Nigel, was deliberately predicated on a lie. The people depicted in the photo used for that poster were in no way linked to the brexit argument for "getting back control of our borders," though that's how we were supposed to interpret the thing. And you know it. And the fact that the people depicted had dark skins seals the racist, demonising nature of the poster. You really do need to be very careful as to what you choose to defend, Nigel. Well, unless, of course, you subscribe to the Trumpist school of untrammelled "free speech..."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Nov 18 - 08:59 PM

Dammit. Don't ask me what "othung" means. It's nothing like wot I intended. Nothing, I tell you. Absolutely othung at all...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 01:45 AM

What I find interesting is how when everyone from Rees-Mogg and the ERG group through to the most staunch remainers insist what is on offer bears no relation to what was promised, some in this thread insist we must do it anyway.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 02:04 AM

It's simple, DMcG - it's all about 'we won, get over it' as far as they're concerned. I wonder if many of them have ever heard of, let alone understand the significance of a 'Pyrrhic Victory'?

The way things are going, they'll find out all about it soon enough. And it won't be pretty.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 02:55 AM

"was an 'incitement to racial hatred' then I'm sure you could get someone to start a prosecution."
It should be, but in the world we live in such behaviour has become acceptable - if the Foreign secretary and the President of the United States cand get away with it....

We really don't need written laws to tell us what we can see - we are learning only to well that the wealthy and powerful can circumvent laws with ease, should it be convenient to do so.
Confirmation of the hate inspiring nature of the 'Leave' campaign can be found in the immediate aftermath - the rise in hate incidents (which you, to your shame, have tried to minimise and the open presence of fascists on the British streets in the form of Robinson and his scum

When Enoch Powell mounted exactly the same campaign back in the day, his behaviour was unacceptable, even to his own party - the only way he could remain in politics was to cross the Irish Sea and throw in his lot with a sectarian party
It would not surprise me to read that Brave New Brexit Britain, will erect a statue in his honour

"Surely 'ex-army Nazis being jailed' shows that Britain is not accepting of racism,"
On the contrary, taking just the most extreme and ignoring the mainstream Neos plays into the hands of the rabid right - Nick Griffin realised this when he attempted to respect realise the British National Party
It was internal squabbles and incompetence that destroyed the BNP, not British laws
The same goes for Ukip which virtually laughing-stocked itself out of existence
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 03:50 AM

"If Britain was truly not accepting of racism, Nigel Farage would be in jail for promoting that horrid racist poster in the referendum campaign."
What complete and utter nonsense!
Do you really believe that the DPP would overlook such public criminality if your asinine statement had any validity? Several staunch labourites reported the poster but as you carefully sidestep the outcome,I will point out, no action was taken.Perhaps you would like to make a freedom of information request to the DPP as to why such a supposed heinous crime was overlooked?
The poster was actually a photograph of migrants crossing the Croatia-Slovenia border in 2015.
Just like your playing with words on the Brexit vote you try to mask the reality. The poster actually showed a preponderance of young single males.

The true figures for brexit.
The total number of the electorate 46,501,241
Leave 17,410,742
Remain 16,141,241
Valid votes 33,551,983
Turnout Turnout 72.2%
Under UK electoral law the simple majority wins. Nothing else has any importance or impact. Some here seem unable to comprehend such a simple concept. It is rather like those that refuse to accept that Trump won the Presidency(and did rather well in the mid terms)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 04:18 AM

The european public view on immigration:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/why-do-politicians-refuse-to-tell-it-how-it-is-on-immigration/

The relationship between immigration and crime is a taboo subject and little work has been done to study it. Is it, in fact, a perceived or actual problem. Existing research gives conflicting views.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 04:48 AM

The whole point is that actions such as the promotion of that horrid poster are not prosecuted because there IS tolerance of a degree of racism in this country. Do read what I said, properly this time.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 04:53 AM

"Under UK electoral law the simple majority wins. Nothing else has any importance or impact. Some here seem unable to comprehend such a simple concept."

Perhaps you'd care to strive for a minute or two to comprehend the simple concept that the referendum was NOT an election and that it would have been perfectly possible to apply rules apropos of the outcome other than "a simple majority wins."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 05:03 AM

Something for those who don't understand the difference between an election and a referendum to ponder (if their indoctrination allows Them to ponder and understand)...

Election/Referendum - Different Voting Threshholds

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 05:29 AM

An excellent read, John.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 05:40 AM

We could try an experiment here. Let's take a vote for whether we think I should go out for a pint of Black Sheep on Friday or stay in. If more people vote for one it must be adhered to as it will be 'the will of the people'.

The polls are open between 10:40 and 14:40 GMT and I will cast the first vote.

Pint.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 05:58 AM

Hold the vote in the actual pub, Dave. That should rig the outcome in your favour.

The Spectator article is a mishmash of confusion between immigrants/refugees, legal/illegal and temporary/permanent, and the survey appears to have been conducted largely by leading questions.

A nice piece of nonsense from this Tory rag's article:

"Fully 81 per cent of the European public agree that immigrants should be helped in their own countries"

Just 1000 people in each country were asked, therefore the assertion "fully 81 per cent" (of almost half a billion people!) is invalid. We're not told how that tiny sample was selected for a start. And someone really should appprise the writer of the simple fact that if you're still in your own country you're not an immigrant. :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 06:03 AM

It would appear that Ians may have shifted his ground, though his 'argument' is, I think, simplistic and fallacious.

I am not aware of anybody who does not 'comprehend' that the voting system here in the UK is a first past the post one in which a 'simple majority' wins that particular election/referendum. I doubt that Ians knows any such person. To the best of my knowledge, no post on this thread has suggested lack of comprehension of that issue.

Where Ians' argument becomes fallacious is when he goes on to assert that 'nothing else has any importance or impact'. This may be because he did not spell out sufficiently clearly what he meant. Importance in terms of what? Impact upon what? Here is where the argument appears fudged.

It is perfectly feasible and legal within our system, that system that he suggests some people fail to 'comprehend', for a topic to be voted upon more than once, for example. So, if public opinion were strong enough, then there would be nothing within our system to prevent a second referendum relating to membership of the EU.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 06:08 AM

Not bad for double standards, with only ten minutes between.
At 7:32 Steve Shaw is arguing against anything being read into his posts which is not explicit in the original text. (fair enough)
At 7:42 He is saying that Nigel Farage should have been prosecuted for what he (Steve Shaw) and others have read into a poster although it was not explicitly stated, and may never have been intended to be read into it. That is an action which he himself describes as "twisting dishonesty".

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 06:11 AM

The 'savage hordes invading Britain' poster was racist by its very nature no matter how the authorities chose to deal with it(or not to
It was reported as such throughout the world - not just by 'staunch labourites' our own press described it for what it was
Why am I not surprised at racists who depict the Irish (and non-Irish living ing Ireland) as 'bog-trotters' and claim Brits living abroad have no right to comment on British politics, standing up for racists ?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 06:22 AM

"STAUNCH LABOURITES"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 06:22 AM

"STAUNCH LABOURITES"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 06:55 AM

A very good article from the Irish Times yet again

Historians will not believe sheer ignorance of Brexit supporters

It is in the main opinion but does highlight some interesting points such as, refering to Theresa May on the border issue,

So she knew full well that a Brexit that involved leaving the customs union would create a hard border. And then, as prime minister, she insisted on the opposite: that a hard Brexit was perfectly compatible with no return of a hard border. She unknew what she had known.

That is what I would call dishonesty.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 07:05 AM

"At 7:42 He is saying that Nigel Farage should have been prosecuted for what he (Steve Shaw) and others have read into a poster although it was not explicitly stated..."

I said no such thing, nor anything remotely like it.

On the separate matter of that poster's content (separate, that is, from the third person in a couple of days to completely misrepresent what I've said in really simple words in my posts), anyone who can't see the devious, dishonest and downright wicked intent of that poster was clearly born yesterday.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 07:07 AM

"That is what I would call dishonesty."

Agreed, Dave. Plus the near-criminal dishonesty of a Tory government prepared to plunge the country into division on a scale unseen previously, the likelihood of serious social unrest, the possible return to sectarian violence in Northern Ireland, and the probable black-hole of the as-yet-unknown consequences of a no-deal Brexit, for no other reason than to preserve the tax-evasion/avoidance activities of a small cadre of immensely rich individuals (including some of their own members and MPs) to whom they are in deep hock.

There must be a special place in Hell for this bunch of lying, deceitful, self-serving scrotes.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 09:46 AM

OK. The polls are closed. I can do better than the EU referendum. Not only have I achieved a majority, it was unanimous! The votes are in and counted and everyone who voted said I should go for a pint.

Following the logic of the brexiteers, it is the will of the people in Mudcat that I get to that pub!

:D

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 10:27 AM

Pint !!!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 10:53 AM

Too late, Raggy. Polls are closed!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 11:28 AM

Polls are closed or pubs are open?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 11:40 AM

OK. The polls are closed. I can do better than the EU referendum. Not only have I achieved a majority, it was unanimous! The votes are in and counted and everyone who voted said I should go for a pint.
Following the logic of the brexiteers, it is the will of the people in Mudcat that I get to that pub!
:D

An incomplete analogy. No-one else was either eligible to vote, or even advised of the vote.
The referendum was well advertised, and members of the electorate could either vote, or choose not to vote. Those who chose not to vote were leaving the decision to the voters who could be bothered to turn out and vote.
Of those who chose to vote 52% (a majority) decided that we should leave the EU.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 12:21 PM

I'm not on British time, I demand a recount !!!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 12:52 PM

So, you believe my stay at home or leave for the pub referendum was basically flawed then Nigel. Do you think I should rerun it with better information?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 01:00 PM

"...who could be bothered to turn out and vote."

Unless you are some kind of omniscient being, you can't know why people didn't vote. It's almost a dead cert that some people genuinely couldn't decide. It's almost a dead cert that some people felt they didn't know enough to make an informed decision. Some people oppose referendums on principle and may have refused to take part. Some people probably forgot to vote, were too sick to vote or were out of the country. Sure, some people "couldn't be bothered" but how extremely arrogant it is of you to diss all the people who didn't vote by insinuating that they "couldn't be bothered."   

One more thing, Nigel. 52% of those who voted didn't "decide to leave the EU." The poll was advisory only. Voters expressed a view, then the government decided that we should leave the EU.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 01:01 PM

Fudge it, Dave. Drink a pint of John Willie Lees instead.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 01:10 PM

Eeeeeh. Not had a pint of Moonraker for yonks. But that was not one of the options on the referendum so, sorry, no can do!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 01:42 PM

Given today's news of a deal agreed at the technical level and being discussed by ministers, the exact way the voting figures of the referendum are presented is of little significance. The decisions now being taken are entirely in the hands of a small number of ministers and, probably, some 630 Mps thereafter, which is where it should have been all along if MPs had done the job they are paid for. I hope they will do so this tome, unless the duck their responsibility again and have another referendum - which seems likely to me at the moment. But all could change ...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 02:18 PM

Who really cares about those that did not vote. They lost the chance to possibly make a difference to the outcome. Further analysis achieves zilch. To further claim the vote was advisory overlooks a fact of life Labour was all to aware of. Ignore the electorate and you may not have a seat come the next election. Seems the remainiacs are dancing on a series of pins. Would that be because they have run out of meaningful argument?
Perhaps you'd care to strive for a minute or two to comprehend the simple concept that the referendum was NOT an election and that it would have been perfectly possible to apply rules apropos of the outcome other than "a simple majority wins."

No need to strive fellah. The only rules concerning the outcome was first past the post the winner takes it all. (I find the use of apropos rather condescending. I wonder if that is why the boy keeps using it?)
Keep pin dancing! is it a square dance or a line dance. My father and grandfather used to perform a sword dance each New Years Eve. They used to lay them flat on the ground.(Health and safety issue. I suggest you take heed.)
Below a reinforcing mechanism to make my point. Enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyIOl-s7JTU

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 03:04 AM

Once again and for the last time. So, you believe my stay at home or leave for the pub referendum was basically flawed then Nigel. Do you think I should rerun it with better information?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 05:37 AM

No, Dave,
I do not believe your decision to go to the pub was flawed.
I just do not believe it is a valid analogy to the Brexit referendum, which is what you seemed to imply with the line:
Following the logic of the brexiteers, it is the will of the people in Mudcat that I get to that pub!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 05:56 AM

C'mon, Theresa, throw in the towel, say it can't be done and walk away now. You know it makes sense!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 06:11 AM

I asked was my referendum flawed, not the decision.

So, you believe my stay at home or leave for the pub referendum was basically flawed then Nigel

Do you? And if so, should I rerun the referendum giving better information?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 06:12 AM

Yep,
Accept that we are never going to reach an agreed settlement with the EU, and use the remaining 4 months to plan for leaving on WTO terms.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 06:19 AM

Better start stockpiling those fresh tomatoes and peppers and aubergines and lettuce and cheese that all come through the Channel ports...oops, maybe not...we can live on cattle fodder and vitamin pills, can't we? Pass the tin opener!

D'ye think Morrison's Nero d'Avola will go up, Dave? Jeez, better get in there NOW! Panic!!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 06:27 AM

Don't worry Steve, you will be able to live off chlorinated chicken, vegetables with rat droppings and Californian Zinfandel when we deal with Trump :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 06:32 AM

Better spare a thought for Ireland.Many of their exports end up in Belgium, Germany and Switzerland. The only direct ferries are to Cherbourg, Roscoff and Santander. The rest come through the UK. The same for imports.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 07:26 AM

"Further analysis achieves zilch". I disagree.

"Who really cares about those who did not vote". Lots of people presumably. For example, a politician who did not consider abstainers would be foolish, as these same people may elect to vote in future elections.

It takes longer than four years to negotiate with the WTO. As I understand it, those people who believe this is a quick fix appear to misunderstand how it works. Here is a link to discussion of the WTO and Brexit.




https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45112872

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 07:40 AM

1000!