Farage

[Filo]

Doing a Boris

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-police-investigate-after-nigel-20321671

[SydneyRover]

Doing a Boris

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-police-investigate-after-nigel-20321671

and that will get us government by advisors who give answers that will get them the next contract.

[bobjimwilly]

Doing a Boris

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-police-investigate-after-nigel-20321671

absolutely saying that with purpose and intent. He's just trying to stay relevant

[BillyStubbsTears]

What an utter t**t.

Planned and deliberate choice of language. Just like he said on the night of the Referendum that Leave won "without a shot being fired". A few days after a prominent Remain MP had been shot dead.

So the ante gets upped again. And you can just see his mock-concern face as he says "How twisted do you have to be to think that was anything more than a euphemism?"

[wilts rover]

But it was only a joke - anyone who thinks he was talking literally must be a snowflake...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-jo-brand-joke-battery-acid-milkshake-heresy-radio-4-bbc-a8955541.html

[Glyn_Wigley]

Has anybody noticed how much worse public services have become since civil service number were slashed post-2010 due to austerity? That's what happens when you get rid of people who not only do the work but understand how the system works - and then making the public's only contact a call centre staffed by outsourced contractors who employ people who don't know have the proper knowledge and are only usually doing the job until something better comes along - and are under pressure to answer as many calls as possible regardless of the quality of service and advice they give.

[ravenrover]

Why do they give this man airtime?

[idler]

But it was only a joke - anyone who thinks he was talking literally must be a snowflake...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-jo-brand-joke-battery-acid-milkshake-heresy-radio-4-bbc-a8955541.html

Hypocrisy of the highest order but you would expect no less of him.
He seems to get worse every time that he opens his mouth.

[Glyn_Wigley]

But it was only a joke - anyone who thinks he was talking literally must be a snowflake...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-jo-brand-joke-battery-acid-milkshake-heresy-radio-4-bbc-a8955541.html

Jo Brand was joking too. Nige had a very different opinion then.

[BillyStubbsTears]

And several of us on here from the Remain side said categorically that Brand was stupid saying that.

I've not heard a word of condemnation from anyone on the Leave side for Johnson and Garage's disgraceful language this week.

[scawsby steve]

Why do they give this man airtime?

I'm surprised at you Raven. Do you realise how undemocratic that statement is? We don't agree with his views, so let them be stifled.

That's what totalitarian countries do.

[MachoMadness]

Why do they give this man airtime?

I'm surprised at you Raven. Do you realise how undemocratic that statement is? We don't agree with his views, so let them be stifled.

That's what totalitarian countries do.

Not what democracy is. Free speech doesn't mean you get to nudge-nudge-wink-wink incite violence on the biggest TV channels in the country.

[Bentley Bullet]

Farage should be axed for using the word knife when describing cuts!

[selby]

  He has gained votes without having to do a thing, he has just sat back and let the main parties self destruct.

[Ldr]

And several of us on here from the Remain side said categorically that Brand was stupid saying that.

I've not heard a word of condemnation from anyone on the Leave side for Johnson and Garage's disgraceful language this week.

100% condemn the language from both of them

[scawsby steve]

Why do they give this man airtime?

I'm surprised at you Raven. Do you realise how undemocratic that statement is? We don't agree with his views, so let them be stifled.

That's what totalitarian countries do.

Not what democracy is. Free speech doesn't mean you get to nudge-nudge-wink-wink incite violence on the biggest TV channels in the country.

A Remainer lecturing us about what democracy is. Have you any more jokes?

[SydneyRover]

Have you heard the one about the guy that took his Bentley to a car yard to trade in and the salesman said what do you want for it, and the guy said what are you offering and the reply was I'll give you a valuation but it's not a contract.

[scawsby steve]

Have you heard the one about the guy that took his Bentley to a car yard to trade in and the salesman said what do you want for it, and the guy said what are you offering and the reply was I'll give you a valuation but it's not a contract.

That's nothing whatsoever to do with democracy Sydney.

[SydneyRover]

Have you heard the one about the guy that took his Bentley to a car yard to trade in and the salesman said what do you want for it, and the guy said what are you offering and the reply was I'll give you a valuation but it's not a contract.

That's nothing whatsoever to do with democracy Sydney.

This democracy thingy that you and others keep going on about is about what? if it was about the vote the vote was advisory-non binding if the tories were half a decent political party they could have had brexit on toast so I'm not sure what your gripe is about, maybe the tories for pulling each others plonka for three years?

[bobjimwilly]

if you love democracy so much, why are you against more democracy aka a 2nd referendum?

[ravenrover]

Why do they give this man airtime?

I'm surprised at you Raven. Do you realise how undemocratic that statement is? We don't agree with his views, so let them be stifled.

That's what totalitarian countries do.

How much national airtime in recent weeks have you had to give your views SS?

[Ldr]

if you love democracy so much, why are you against more democracy aka a 2nd referendum?

Excellent idea, then we can ignore that one too

[BillyStubbsTears]

Ldr.

You're a clever bloke. Why do this?

The case for why the first Referendum was fundamentally flawed (as a binary choice on a non-binary question) has been carefully made and it's really unarguable.

Have a binary choice on a specific binary question, or a transferrable vote on a multi-choice question, in a referendum where no illegal means are used and I'd sign up to accepting the outcome without complaint.

I've never once heard anyone make a sensible case for why that is undemocratic.

[Ldr]

BST it's pretty clear to me that even if there was a 2nd referendum that no one would accept the outcome. If still leave then we still In the position we are now. If remain we in the reverse position with Leavers not accepting it so why bother?

[Bentley Bullet]

What is fundamentally flawed BST is your assumption that you are the judge on what is deemed sensible.

[IDM]

BST it's pretty clear to me that even if there was a 2nd referendum that no one would accept the outcome. If still leave then we still In the position we are now. If remain we in the reverse position with Leavers not accepting it so why bother?

I think the point was that a new leave option would have some definition of what leave means so folks know in more detail what they are voting for, or, they can vote for leave to ratify a deal which the government negotiates with the EU.

So, it would be different..

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB.

No. It's not me making that assessment. It's simple application of logic.

The 2016 vote is valid if and only if EVERYONE who voted "Leave" wold have accepted ANY form of Leave over Remain.

That is axiomatic. It's not up for debate. if you disagree with that, there is no further argument to justify the validity of the result in 2016.

Lots of Leave supporters on here are insistent that THEY, individually, knew what they were voting for when they voted Leave. But that's a different thing. It's not about what any individual recalls their understanding as being. It is about what ALL of the Leave voters actually felt. And we have no way of knowing that.

But, what we DO have is the very head of Leave.EU being on record as saying that he'd have preferred to have stayed in than accept May's deal to leave the EU, that ends the argument. There exists at least one Leave voter who was NOT prepared to accept any form of Leave over Remain. Therefore the possibility opens up that there are others. Perhaps many. Therefore the validity of the 2016 vote is immediately undermined. The point is that we do not know, because the whole concept of the 2016 vote was flawed.

If you want a truly democratic decision, you have to have either a binary vote on two specific, entirely defined outcomes. Like Remain and No Deal; or a transferable vote to find a best compromise from a list of options.[1]

I'm genuinely unable to understand what anyone finds erroneous about that logical path, or unfair about the conclusion. And I have not heard anyone, anywhere give a response to it that isn't either logically flawed or just a string of insults.

Have a go. Surprise me.


[1] The few polls we've had on that topic indicate that overwhelmingly, the most preferred outcome would be a Norway-type deal, where we stay in the SM and in the CU. But that's never been on the agenda because it was unacceptable to the Tory party, trying to fight off Farage. Which is a shame, because it might well have been the one option that could have done the least social damage.

[Bentley Bullet]

BST. Your inability to grasp the consequences of quashing a result in an attempt to get it reversed by means of a replacement vote in the name of democracy is quite astonishing. The absolute fact of the matter is that the majority of people voted to not remain. Twist and turn it any way you like but if we have another referendum and the result is overturned the consequences may well be catastrophic. Even if leave won again it would almost certainly be the end of democracy as we have known it.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Once again BB, you don't address the core point I have been trying to make for years.

Your stance is: I'll turn a blind eye to the manifest inadequacies of the 2016 vote. I won't discuss those at all. I'll continue to insist that that vote was an ideal of democratic decision making which must not be questioned. And I'll choose to be one of the ones who would pour fuel on any sparks that might crackle if that decision were revisited, by encouraging and condoning it being seen as a betrayal, rather than a better democratic process.

I understand that argument. Genuinely I do. Because it's an easy one to make. We had a choice. We made a choice. End of. But surely, after all this time, you see the shortcomings of that "decision". The fact that the "decision" wasn't a "decision" at all. It was an opening for the far right of British politics to interpret what it meant, and everyone else to be excluded?

You DO see that don't you?

Oh no. I forgot. Of course you don't. Because, despite there being zero evidence to support it, you continue to make the accusation that the delay is all the fault of evil, scheming Remainers.

By the way, I'll say again, for the umpteenth time. I'm NOT trying to get the 2016 vote decision reversed. That's not for me to do. I'm trying to get it clarified.

[IDM]

Leaving the EU involves re-arranging a vast variety of legal and political ties, many relating to business and industry.

If the underlying feeling from business and politics is that no deal is not acceptable, then the only way to leave is with a deal.

If those with the relevant expertise ie not Joe Public can’t negotiate a deal to deliver the referendum result, then is it really undemocratic to go back to the public.?