Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: Bentley Bullet on September 26, 2019, 10:18:01 am
-
I went into a car showroom this morning. I wanted to see what I'd get if I traded in my car. The salesman said, "I hope you're not just going to walk away if you don't like my offer." I promised him I wouldn't do that, and said I wasn't leaving until we struck a deal. The bas**rd then laughed and became all cocky and offered me a quid! He said, "take it or leave it. Oh you can't leave it, can you? You promised! You have to take it, here's your quid. Now f**k off!"
-
I went into a car showroom and offered 300 quid for a Bentley. The salesman looked at me bewildered. So I repeated it in a plummy Etonian accent and he suggested I wasn't being serious. So I pulled out a gun, put the muzzle to my temple and screamed "Give me the f**king Bentley for 300 quid or I'll blow my brains out."
He went back into the office and returned to his admin.
-
He probably thought you'd miss.
Just think, if you'd have had an option of walking away you could have saved a bullet.
-
So let me get this right.
In your folksy little story, walking away means that you're back to the status quo ante, right?
-
I sold it for a quid, of course. I did promise, after all. What should I have done, like?
-
You're avoiding the point once again.
You have this concept of walking away as a possibility that should have been kept open to strengthen your hand in the negotiations?
Correct? Yes or no will do.
-
Yes, silly me! I've got a quid like, but no car!
-
I see this is going down the obfuscation rabbit hole so I'll spell it out really simply.
In your little story, if you had the capability of walking away, when you walk away you have a car and no pound.
Which is PRECISELY what you had before the discussion started.
Right?
-
It's like when someone said a similar analogy on TV. When they buy a house they leave the chance of walking away on the table so they can get a good deal but the analogy would only work if walking away left you homeless.
-
I see this is going down the obfuscation rabbit hole so I'll spell it out really simply.
In your little story, if you had the capability of walking away, when you walk away you have a car and no pound.
Which is PRECISELY what you had before the discussion started.
Right?
Correct. But I'd then hold an ace card which could mean the rip off salesmen coming back with a better offer, or me f**king off somewhere else while still in possession of my car .
-
Great.
So we've got there. The "walk away" option means that you revert back to the status quo ante.
So it is totally different from the walk away option in Brexit negotiations. Because "walk away" there means that you immediately lose 3-9% of your income and chuck a hand grenade into your next door neighbour's garden on the way home.
-
If you’re looking for a brexit analogy, I think mine is simpler..
Over time I and my family get pissed off with my job and the effect on my family life..
Now, it is possible for me to quit and go freelance, on commission but delivering to my current employers. I talk with my family and we decide this is the best idea.
I go to my employer and we agree terms for working freelance - commissions and a retainer, and limitations on working for their competitors. We agree in principle that once the exact terms are ironed out, I can leave at the end of the year.
But my family thinks I should get better terms, or even stick two fingers up at my employer and walk away with nothing, as there are always “plenty of other jobs”..
My employer says take as much time as I like, and stay on my regular terms.
Do I risk having no job, or do I renegotiate terms for going freelance..? If there isn’t a resolution, do I forget it and stay put.?
If that was ever to be the case, it’s a no brainer..
-
I went into a car showroom this morning. I wanted to see what I'd get if I traded in my car. The salesman said, "I hope you're not just going to walk away if you don't like my offer." I promised him I wouldn't do that, and said I wasn't leaving until we struck a deal. The bas**rd then laughed and became all cocky and offered me a quid! He said, "take it or leave it. Oh you can't leave it, can you? You promised! You have to take it, here's your quid. Now f**k off!"
If only the real grown up world was as simplistic as you.
-
If you’re looking for a brexit analogy, I think Kobe is simpler..
Over time I and my family get pissed off with my job and the effect on my family life..
Now, it is possible for me to quit and go freelance, on commission but delivering to my current employers. I talk with my family and we decide this is the best idea.
I go to my employer and we agree terms for working freelance - commissions and a retainer, and limitations on working for their competitors. We agree in principle that once the exact terms are ironed out, I can leave at the end of the year.
But my family thinks I should get better terms, or even stick two fingers up at my employer and walk away with nothing, as there are always “plenty of other jobs”..
My employer says take as much time as I like, and stay on my regular terms.
Do I risk having no job, or do I renegotiate terms for going freelance..? If there isn’t a resolution, do I forget it and stay put.?
If that was ever to be the case, it’s a no brainer..
If that is a Brexit analogy I assume you have asked your family what their opinion is with the understanding that you will go along with a majority decision. Therefore, if you can't get better terms you should stick two fingers up and walk away.
Unless you want to overrule the majority decision, of course.
-
Or the bottom line is to have security of income.!!
-
It seems to me the bottom line is getting your own way because in your opinion it is the best option, in which case it was a waste of time pretending to be democratic in the first place.
-
No, the bottom line is having some form of security rather than chaos.
Getting back to brexit which is what this is all about really, no deal = chaos, agree a deal = security..
-
No, the bottom line is having your own way and f**k democracy.
-
Democracy.?
The country voted to leave, it didn’t vote to leave with no deal..
-
People of the United Kingdom did not vote to say they wanted a deal with the EU — they voted to leave.
-
And here we go..
Didn’t the leave manifesto say “we will secure a deal” or words to that effect?
Therefore, whether meaning to or not, leave voters noted to leave with a deal and by default, not to leave with no deal..
-
They did not vote for a deal, they voted to leave.
-
So why the f**k didn't they???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
-
Because parliament didn't want to honour a democratic vote?
-
They did not vote for a deal, they voted to leave.
They did, vicariously..
It’s like if you vote Tory in the next GE because you want Johnson to be the PM, then you are voting for what they say in the manifesto..
There’s no point in repeating the same argument when you’re being contrary for the sake of it..
-
It's like voting Tories and saying you didn't vote for austerity. Yeah, you did. It was in their manifesto.
-
Because parliament didn't want to honour a democratic vote?
Your own side let you down and screwed you over and you just can't get over that fact can you?
-
They did not vote for a deal, they voted to leave.
They did, vicariously..
It’s like if you vote Tory in the next GE because you want Johnson to be the PM, then you are voting for what they say in the manifesto..
There’s no point in repeating the same argument when you’re being contrary for the sake of it..
-
People of the United Kingdom did not vote to say they wanted a deal with the EU — they voted to leave.
...After a campaign of broken promises and lies.
-
More democracy never killed a democracy - no democracy after 1 vote has killed plenty of democracies.
We need a peoples vote to sort this out once and for all. And you Brexiteers should be on board, after all, the will of the people is to leave, right?
-
Whether leave would win again is irrelevant. It has already won, the problem is it hasn't been paid out yet.
-
They did not vote for a deal, they voted to leave.
And there's the nub of the problem.
It's an undeniable fact that Leave is not a defined thing. It is an umbrella term for a group of mutually incompatible things.
The Referendum was like asking "Is your favourite colour Red or Not Red" then because Not Red won, a small group of politicians then saying "Ha! The favourite colour of the People is blue!"
There is no majority in the country for any specific form of Leave. So whichever Leave we chose would not be supported by a majority of the population. How undemocratic would that be.
And as I've said times many, we could have left by now but for the ERG voting against a specific form of Leave which they had no problems with in 2016.
-
No, they said it was not Red, so Red shouldn't be still in the equation.
-
They did not vote for a deal, they voted to leave.
They did, vicariously..
It’s like if you vote Tory in the next GE because you want Johnson to be the PM, then you are voting for what they say in the manifesto..
There’s no point in repeating the same argument when you’re being contrary for the sake of it..
Are you suggesting people voted solely on the ballot paper itself, and took no notice whatsoever of the campaigns nor the manifestos? The latter of which (for leave) said they would get a deal.
Are you saying the electorate voted blind, unaware of the issues.? But then it is undemocratic to even suggest another vote when there is actually some clarity on those issues.?
-
So 48% said Red.
When asked later, about 30% said blue and 22% said some other colour.
So it has to be blue then, yes?
-
No, they said it was not Red, so Red shouldn't be still in the equation.
But you still cant conclude the outcome was blue, either..
-
They did not vote for a deal, they voted to leave.
And there's the nub of the problem.
It's an undeniable fact that Leave is not a defined thing. It is an umbrella term for a group of mutually incompatible things.
The Referendum was like asking "Is your favourite colour Red or Not Red" then because Not Red won, a small group of politicians then saying "Ha! The favourite colour of the People is blue!"
There is no majority in the country for any specific form of Leave. So whichever Leave we chose would not be supported by a majority of the population. How undemocratic would that be.
And as I've said times many, we could have left by now but for the ERG voting against a specific form of Leave which they had no problems with in 2016.
Well if that is the case it should have been a two stage referendum.
Stage one leave or remain. Remain win and it's game over. Leave win then move on to stage two. Leave with whatever deal can be agreed on or leave with no deal. Either way the winner and loser should have no complaints because the initial result would be honoured. Sounds fair to me.
-
So 48% said Red.
When asked later, about 30% said blue and 22% said some other colour.
So it has to be blue then, yes?
Yes. The majority still want out. A mixture of the Government's incompetence and parliament's desire to remain has resulted in the split between the Blues and the other colour, but Red is in the minority and should clearly have been eliminated from the contest.
-
They did not vote for a deal, they voted to leave.
And there's the nub of the problem.
It's an undeniable fact that Leave is not a defined thing. It is an umbrella term for a group of mutually incompatible things.
The Referendum was like asking "Is your favourite colour Red or Not Red" then because Not Red won, a small group of politicians then saying "Ha! The favourite colour of the People is blue!"
There is no majority in the country for any specific form of Leave. So whichever Leave we chose would not be supported by a majority of the population. How undemocratic would that be.
And as I've said times many, we could have left by now but for the ERG voting against a specific form of Leave which they had no problems with in 2016.
Well if that is the case it should have been a two stage referendum.
Stage one leave or remain. Remain win and it's game over. Leave win then move on to stage two. Leave with whatever deal can be agreed on or leave with no deal. Either way the winner and loser should have no complaints because the initial result would be honoured. Sounds fair to me.
Gentlemen, I think we have a breakthrough. :)
-
They did not vote for a deal, they voted to leave.
And there's the nub of the problem.
It's an undeniable fact that Leave is not a defined thing. It is an umbrella term for a group of mutually incompatible things.
The Referendum was like asking "Is your favourite colour Red or Not Red" then because Not Red won, a small group of politicians then saying "Ha! The favourite colour of the People is blue!"
There is no majority in the country for any specific form of Leave. So whichever Leave we chose would not be supported by a majority of the population. How undemocratic would that be.
And as I've said times many, we could have left by now but for the ERG voting against a specific form of Leave which they had no problems with in 2016.
Well if that is the case it should have been a two stage referendum.
Stage one leave or remain. Remain win and it's game over. Leave win then move on to stage two. Leave with whatever deal can be agreed on or leave with no deal. Either way the winner and loser should have no complaints because the initial result would be honoured. Sounds fair to me.
Gentlemen, I think we have a breakthrough. :)
ARRGGGHHHH!!!!! :)
-
Why not just have a general election as soon as Jezza plucks up the courage?
-
Why not just have a general election as soon as Jezza plucks up the courage?
You've not watched nor read any news in the last few days then.?
The groundswell of political opinion is avoid no deal first, period.
Then have a vote of no confidence or a GE..
-
Why not just have a general election as soon as Jezza plucks up the courage?
One thing at a time.
-
We ought to build a computer to make the decisions to run the country properly, then we could bin off all the self serving fiddlers in the big house. Think of all the coin we could save on admin, expenses, peerages etc. :lol:
-
the (criminally run ) referendum was only advisory
-
We ought to build a computer to make the decisions to run the country properly, then we could bin off all the self serving fiddlers in the big house. Think of all the coin we could save on admin, expenses, peerages etc. :lol:
What's wrong with Corbyn's old and trusted abacus that Michael Foot gave him?
-
the (criminally run ) referendum was only advisory
A once in a generation decision
The referendum on Thursday, 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union.
The Government believes it is in the best interests of the UK to remain in the EU.
This is the way to protect jobs, provide security, and strengthen the UK’s economy for every family in this country – a clear path into the future, in contrast to the uncertainty of leaving.
This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.
If you’re aged 18 or over by 23rd June and are entitled
to vote, this is your chance
to decide.
Registration ends on 7th June. Find out how to register at Aboutmyvote.co.uk
and register online at
Gov.uk/register-to-vote
If you would like to know
more about any of the information in this leaflet,
go to: EUReferendum.gov.uk
Not what it says on here?
-
the (criminally run ) referendum was only advisory
A once in a generation decision
The referendum on Thursday, 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union.
The Government believes it is in the best interests of the UK to remain in the EU.
This is the way to protect jobs, provide security, and strengthen the UK’s economy for every family in this country – a clear path into the future, in contrast to the uncertainty of leaving.
This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.
If you’re aged 18 or over by 23rd June and are entitled
to vote, this is your chance
to decide.
Registration ends on 7th June. Find out how to register at Aboutmyvote.co.uk
and register online at
Gov.uk/register-to-vote
If you would like to know
more about any of the information in this leaflet,
go to: EUReferendum.gov.uk
Not what it says on here?
The Government making those promises is long gone. Take your complaints to them.
-
AL
That text shows just how slipshod Cameron was.
It's a tenet of our system that no Govt can bind the hands of a future Govt. Once Cameron resigned, that promise was legally worthless.
-
If 11 players in a football team take a vote on the two players who want to be captain and Johnny Jones gets 6 votes and Billy Brown gets 5 votes, Johnny Jones is elected as the captain, democracy.
-
I know that one the answer is green :)
-
I know that one the answer is green :)
Yes, you are Syderney. Very.
-
If 11 players in a football team take a vote on the two players who want to be captain and Johnny Jones gets 6 votes and Billy Brown gets 5 votes, Johnny Jones is elected as the captain, democracy.
And if he proves to be crap, they can vote again .
Thats democratic too..
-
It's not easy being green
-
If 11 players in a football team take a vote on the two players who want to be captain and Johnny Jones gets 6 votes and Billy Brown gets 5 votes, Johnny Jones is elected as the captain, democracy.
And if he proves to be crap, they can vote again .
Thats democratic too..
But if he's not even given the chance to prove himself, that is undemocratic.
-
Why not just have a general election as soon as Jezza plucks up the courage?
You've not watched nor read any news in the last few days then.?
The groundswell of political opinion is avoid no deal first, period.
Then have a vote of no confidence or a GE..
Or in the last month. They've always said they'll give him a GE as soon as no deals off the table. I guess some people are too simple to understand that and just think he's too scared.
-
It's not only Corbyn that's scared of an election, but the Labour party is also scared with him in charge!
-
It's not only Corbyn that's scared of an election, but the Labour party is also scared with him in charge!
Like I said... Simple.
-
I wouldn't go as far as that, but he's no party leader.
-
So 48% said Red.
When asked later, about 30% said blue and 22% said some other colour.
So it has to be blue then, yes?
Yes. The majority still want out. A mixture of the Government's incompetence and parliament's desire to remain has resulted in the split between the Blues and the other colour, but Red is in the minority and should clearly have been eliminated from the contest.
So you KNOW then that of the 52% who said that Red wasn't their favourite colour, none of them would prefer Red to Blue given a binary choice?
And how do you know that?
-
Corbyn is just not as stupid as johnson and has painted him into a corner and will agree to an election when it is to labours and therefore the advantage of the many. Whereas johnson has suffered the resignation of his brother and thrown his majority down the toilet, his reputation however hasn't suffered much because most sane people agree he's a tw@t especially those closest to him.
-
So 48% said Red.
When asked later, about 30% said blue and 22% said some other colour.
So it has to be blue then, yes?
Yes. The majority still want out. A mixture of the Government's incompetence and parliament's desire to remain has resulted in the split between the Blues and the other colour, but Red is in the minority and should clearly have been eliminated from the contest.
So you KNOW then that of the 52% who said that Red wasn't their favourite colour, none of them would prefer Red to Blue given a binary choice?
And how do you know that?
I know that 52% wanted to leave in a leave/remain vote. That is a fact. Any other statistic other than that is pure conjecture.
-
And around we go again.
Do you agree that May's deal would have been Brexit? Would we have left the EU under that deal?
-
And do you agree it was your own team that f#cked you over?
-
And around we go again.
Do you agree that May's deal would have been Brexit? Would we have left the EU under that deal?
Not the way the public voted, no.
-
And do you agree it was your own team that f#cked you over?
No. I haven't got a team.
-
So a deal that would have left us further removed from the EU than Norway, who are not in the EU, and Turkey, who are not in the EU wasn't leaving the EU?
Interesting logic, but we'll let that pass.
Because...how do you know how the rest of the public saw it?
-
And around we go again.
Do you agree that May's deal would have been Brexit? Would we have left the EU under that deal?
Not the way the public voted, no.
What do you mean.?
Your consistent argument is that the public voted to leave, and if MPs had approved May’s deal, we would have left..
How else should we have left to be leaving as the public voted.?
Where does it say on that ballot paper you posted earlier that leave refined what deal woulld mean Brexit, and what wouldn’t.?
-
I don't! I was leaving that for you to tell me!
Do you think it was Brexit? Did Jezza think it was Brexit?
-
But you just gave your opinion on how the public voted. So presumably you either have an opinion (which I was asking you to discuss) our you're just playing silly f**kers and looking for a row.
-
And around we go again.
Do you agree that May's deal would have been Brexit? Would we have left the EU under that deal?
Not the way the public voted, no.
What do you mean.?
Your consistent argument is that the public voted to leave, and if MPs had approved May’s deal, we would have left..
How else should we have left to be leaving as the public voted.?
Where does it say on that ballot paper you posted earlier that leave refined what deal woulld mean Brexit, and what wouldn’t.?
Of course we'd have left if Mays deal had been voted in. The public had no say in the matter of how we would leave by then. The public voted to leave. They didn't vote to leave with a deal.
-
Ok. We progress. Eventually.
So we agree that May's deal would have been a form of Leave.
Good.
Err...except...Nigel Farage is in record saying he'd rather remain in than accept May's deal.
So there's one voter who wasn't prepared to accept any form of Leave.
Which rather undermines your argument that the 51.8% were, to a man and woman, prepared to accept ANY Leave over Remain.
Which is the one and only point I've been making on this issue for three years now.
-
And around we go again.
Do you agree that May's deal would have been Brexit? Would we have left the EU under that deal?
Not the way the public voted, no.
What do you mean.?
Your consistent argument is that the public voted to leave, and if MPs had approved May’s deal, we would have left..
How else should we have left to be leaving as the public voted.?
Where does it say on that ballot paper you posted earlier that leave refined what deal woulld mean Brexit, and what wouldn’t.?
Of course we'd have left if Mays deal had been voted in. The public had no say in the matter of how we would leave by then. The public voted to leave. They didn't vote to leave with a deal.
AND THEY DIDN’T VOTE TO LEAVE WITH NO DEAL EITHER.!!
Actually, as I have said already, if they voted leave then they were by default accepting the leave manifesto which said there would be a deal..
Didn’t define the deal - which in retrospect it should have done - but was for a deal nonetheless.
-
the (criminally run ) referendum was only advisory
A once in a generation decision
The referendum on Thursday, 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union.
The Government believes it is in the best interests of the UK to remain in the EU.
This is the way to protect jobs, provide security, and strengthen the UK’s economy for every family in this country – a clear path into the future, in contrast to the uncertainty of leaving.
This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.
If you’re aged 18 or over by 23rd June and are entitled
to vote, this is your chance
to decide.
Registration ends on 7th June. Find out how to register at Aboutmyvote.co.uk
and register online at
Gov.uk/register-to-vote
If you would like to know
more about any of the information in this leaflet,
go to: EUReferendum.gov.uk
Not what it says on here?
The Government making those promises is long gone. Take your complaints to them.
I don't see reference to any promises here.
I see a line that 'The Government will implement what you decide' which is about as vague as 'leave' in the context of the whole statement generally. Particularly, when you consider that neither 'leave' or 'remain' were ever spelt out in any great detail in the run up to the referendum (as a 599 page Withdrawal Agreement testifies). In fact, the more I read that passage the more ridiculous and vacuous it sounds. 'A once in a generation decision...'. I mean, who writes this stuff?
It's a bit like saying you'll leave your family. What does that mean? You walk out the door never to come back? Or you'll never speak to any family member ever again? Whatever you do, you'll always be a parent, son/daughter, sibling or cousin - a member of the family whether you like it or not. In other words, one of those things that sounds straightforward enough but as soon as you examine it it doesn't make sense.
'Leave the EU' is just as much an oxymoron as 'military intelligence' or 'jumbo shrimp'.
-
AL
That text shows just how slipshod Cameron was.
It's a tenet of our system that no Govt can bind the hands of a future Govt. Once Cameron resigned, that promise was legally worthless.
Point taken. But that is what we were told at the time. The government should have negotiated a potential deal before leaving and then put it in the second stage of a referendum as I suggested earlier.
-
Or even before the referendum itself, so people would have known the finer details of leaving..
-
AL.
What you are proposing is EXACTLY what Corbyn is saying he would do if elected.
-
AL.
What you are proposing is EXACTLY what Corbyn is saying he would do if elected.
Does that include a remain option too.?
-
Of course it does. for the reason I've been trying to make for the past three years. That Remain is a specific, definable thing, which lost out by a fag paper to Leave, which was a basket of mutually incompatible things.
If you want a truly fair democratic decision, we really should have a STV vote with a multiple selection of defined Leave options and a Remain option.
But since that seems to be too complex for people (despite working in most of the developed world) then the next best is a run-off between the most popular current single defined thing (Remain) and the best defined version of Leave that emerges.
-
Thanks BST, was just clarifying - my gut feeling is that leave with a defined deal would win..
-
AL.
What you are proposing is EXACTLY what Corbyn is saying he would do if elected.
The problem is though its already gone. You must see the harm that would be caused by rerunning the referendum from scratch now. Looking back we can see what they SHOULD have done but now that has gone. As a leaver I would have been happy to have leave or remain on the ballot paper, and then the choice of a specific pre negotiated deal or a no deal on the second part of the ballot. The only way forward now I can see that would satisfy as many people on both sides maybe would be for a referendum on a pre negotiated deal or no deal. Many on here will obviously disagree with me but I see it as a way of trying to bring both sides together and at least give everyone something of what they want. I'm trying hard here to be flexible. :)
-
AL.
"Looking back we can see what they SHOULD have done but now that has gone. As a leaver I would have been happy to have leave or remain on the ballot paper, and then the choice of a specific pre negotiated deal or a no deal on the second part of the ballot."
But no.
That's utterly undemocratic for the reasons that I've been explaining to BB.
I'll say it again.
That approach is IDENTICAL to having a first vote that asks the question:
Is your favourite colour Red or Something Else.
Something Else wins 52:48.
Then you say. Ok, to find out what the real favourite is, let's have a second vote on Blue or Green.
That way, if Red has 48% Blue has 30% and Green has 22%, the vote will choose Blue and people will be told Blue is the country's favourite colour.
You see how bad that is?
The truly fair way to do it is to have a multiple stage vote.
Round 1: Red, Blue and Green on the ballot. Everyone votes, Green comes last and is eliminated.
Round 2. You vote again on a straight run off between Red and Blue.
That's the ONLY fair way to find out what is the overall favourite outcome in a multi-option situation..
The utter stupidity of 2016 was to have a single stage vote on a question that didn't have a straight Red/Blue question. It is precisely THAT mistake that has put us in this shocking situation. Because no-one actually knows what outcome would be acceptable to a majority of the population. All we know is that a large minority wants Remain, a smaller minority wants No Deal and a smaller still minority wants Leave with a deal.
-
AL.
"Looking back we can see what they SHOULD have done but now that has gone. As a leaver I would have been happy to have leave or remain on the ballot paper, and then the choice of a specific pre negotiated deal or a no deal on the second part of the ballot."
But no.
That's utterly undemocratic for the reasons that I've been explaining to BB.
I'll say it again.
That approach is IDENTICAL to having a first vote that asks the question:
Is your favourite colour Red or Something Else.
Something Else wins 52:48.
Then you say. Ok, to find out what the real favourite is, let's have a second vote on Blue or Green.
That way, if Red has 48% Blue has 30% and Green has 22%, the vote will choose Blue and people will be told Blue is the country's favourite colour.
You see how bad that is?
The truly fair way to do it is to have a multiple stage vote.
Round 1: Red, Blue and Green on the ballot. Everyone votes, Green comes last and is eliminated.
Round 2. You vote again on a straight run off between Red and Blue.
That's the ONLY fair way to find out what is the overall favourite outcome in a multi-option situation..
The utter stupidity of 2016 was to have a single stage vote on a question that didn't have a straight Red/Blue question. It is precisely THAT mistake that has put us in this shocking situation. Because no-one actually knows what outcome would be acceptable to a majority of the population. All we know is that a large minority wants Remain, a smaller minority wants No Deal and a smaller still minority wants Leave with a deal.
Maybe I haven't put it very well, but what you are saying is what I meant. It would clearly have to be two stages. Totally agree. Shock horror!!!
-
Well that's a good end to a febrile week!
Let's all try to have more respectful exchange of views, eh?
-
If only the HoC would do the same eh.?
Will be the last thing on my mind come 3pm tomorrow at St. Andrews..
-
Going back to my analogy, what's actually happened over the past three years is this:
1) We had a vote on Red or Something Else. Everyone on the Something Else side said that any suggestion that Something Else meant Blue was just engaging in Project Fear.
2) Something Else won 52:48.
3) There was then a civil war among the people who ran the campaign for Something Else, to determine what Something Else meant.
4) Nigel Farage who had said it would be great if we got Green, during the campaign, then flipped and said Green was effectively Red, and only Blue was actually far enough away from Red to be what The People voted for in 2016.
5) Theresa May said she wanted Green but Blue would be better than a Bad Green.
6) She refused to speak with anyone who had voted Red and negotiated a shade of Green.
7) The Non-Red people who had said in 2016 that Blue was a non-starter then turned on her for choosing Green. They insisted The Will of the People in 2016 was Blue.
8) Boris Johnson voted against the Shade of Green Deal twice. Then voted for it. Then got May booted out and replaced her and said any Shade of Green but the very bluest would be a Betrayal of the Will of The People.
9) And, obviously, the whole mess is the fault of the people who voted for Red.
-
My version in Black and White.
1) We had a vote on whether to stay or leave the EU.
2) We voted to leave the EU.
3) Three years later, we still haven't left the EU.
4) Boris Johnson tries to force the issue of our democratic vote by what are described as unprecedeted means.
5) Parliament tries to prevent Boris from doing this in any way possible in the name of democracy!
-
Boris Johnson tries to subvert parliamentary procedures, acts unlawfully, and gives the appearance of blustering towards no deal.
Parliament tried to stop him forcing a no deal - bearing in mind the democratic vote to leave followed the leave manifesto saying they would get a deal..
No deal wasn’t what was voted for. Parliament is therefore acting on the democratic wishes of the electorate.
-
In judging any situation, I always think it's as well to look at the reliability of the people involved.
On the Govt side, there have been several very high profile and unarguably flat lies.
The biggest one of course was the reason for prorogation. Then there's also the Operation Yellowhammer documentation.
There's also been a series of less clear-cut claims which are dubious to say the least. The most obvious one being the repeated assertion by the Govt that the negotiations over a new deal are progressing well, but without explaining what they have put on the table, whilst the EU negotiators repeatedly pointed out that nothing substantive had been put on the table.
In light of that, I'm instinctively against giving Johnson's Govt the benefit of the doubt when it comes to interpreting motives and claims. There's a lot of evidence of them being untruthful, deceptive and unreliable. So I'd like to see clear evidence of WHY I should believe them in future. I accept that other people may have other intepretations
-
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html (http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html)
You find a slide saying this..
"We love Europe – the problem is the EU
• There is a free trade zone stretching all the way from
Iceland to the Russian border. We will still be part of it
after we Vote Leave
• We don’t need to accept the control of the EU Court to
trade with Europe
• Countries around the world trade with the EU without
accepting the ultimate control of the EU court
• Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden
step – we will negotiate the terms of a new deal before
we start any legal process to leave"
I've highlighted the important bit, just in case it wasn't obvious..
-
Well that's a good end to a febrile week!
Let's all try to have more respectful exchange of views, eh?
Sounds good to me.
-
If only the HoC would do the same eh.?
Will be the last thing on my mind come 3pm tomorrow at St. Andrews..
And me. Off to Huddersfield to probably see another defeat.