Should we be getting behind Brexit by boycotting German cars
Discussion
Toltec said:
jsf said:
UK never had a referendum on joining the EEC, the referendum was to remain members after the government took the UK in without a vote on the matter. We then didn't have a vote on changing the system from the EEC to the EU, we were due to have a referendum on the EU constitution but when other countries rejected that, it was abandoned before our turn to vote on it came about. We then saw that constitution rewritten as a treaty so it didn't need a referendum. Brown snuck in the back door late to sign that so he wouldn't appear in the photos, the coward that he was. But being a smart chap no doubt you know that.
There we have the reason why a number of the people I know ended up voting to leave.Now all the hysteria around the campaigning has died down, it's actually really interesting to hear the sensible, reasonable opinions on both sides. Just as many people voted leave 'to kick the immigrants out' and to 'stick one on the Germans', and many voted remain because 'voting leave is racist', a lot voted from entirely reasonable and well argued positions. It's a shame that the populist BS'tters on both sides shouted the loudest.
Limpet said:
Toltec said:
jsf said:
UK never had a referendum on joining the EEC, the referendum was to remain members after the government took the UK in without a vote on the matter. We then didn't have a vote on changing the system from the EEC to the EU, we were due to have a referendum on the EU constitution but when other countries rejected that, it was abandoned before our turn to vote on it came about. We then saw that constitution rewritten as a treaty so it didn't need a referendum. Brown snuck in the back door late to sign that so he wouldn't appear in the photos, the coward that he was. But being a smart chap no doubt you know that.
There we have the reason why a number of the people I know ended up voting to leave.Now all the hysteria around the campaigning has died down, it's actually really interesting to hear the sensible, reasonable opinions on both sides. Just as many people voted leave 'to kick the immigrants out' and to 'stick one on the Germans', and many voted remain because 'voting leave is racist', a lot voted from entirely reasonable and well argued positions. It's a shame that the populist BS'tters on both sides shouted the loudest.
Brexit is a hugely complicated issue and I just don't think a referendum was an acceptable thing to do. And all this is before you get into the blatant lies, which range from the famous £350M a week to the statements about unelected bureaucrats, states not getting a vote on other countries joining, the way legislation works, the percentage of laws gleaned from the EU etc. Who was available to argue over this? Distrusted politicians no both sides. Why not have TV debates amongst learned experts on the subject?! Also, this isn't just an issue of the public being ill-informed, it's an issue of the public being educated in entirely different matters, both in terms of raw knowledge and the skills to take on board and process the relevant information. Put simply, we are not qualified to make a decision like this, and we weren't well enough informed at even the most basic level. Lastly, it's not illegal or even discouraged in this country to tell lies. What chance did we have of making the right decision?
My other gripes are firstly the fact that this referendum wasn't advisory as originally declared. It wasn't even debated in Parliament until two citizens took the government to the high court over it, something for which one of those citizens received multiple death threats (but interestingly only one of them; read into that what you will...). When it was actually debated in Parliament, MPs were ordered not to represent their constituents or their own views and to vote for Brexit or risk losing their jobs. The subversion of democracy on both those points was completely unacceptable in a modern civilised society. Secondly, where was the need for a two thirds majority or similar?! Juries in courts of law are never asked to reach a 50.1% majority on quite trivial matters involving theft of fruit and veg and community service, so why not need a decent majority on the entire future of our country? Public opinion prior to Brexit was swinging both ways to the extent that to put a date on the vote and not build in a two thirds majority was effectively asking for a random result.
RobM77 said:
Limpet said:
Toltec said:
jsf said:
UK never had a referendum on joining the EEC, the referendum was to remain members after the government took the UK in without a vote on the matter. We then didn't have a vote on changing the system from the EEC to the EU, we were due to have a referendum on the EU constitution but when other countries rejected that, it was abandoned before our turn to vote on it came about. We then saw that constitution rewritten as a treaty so it didn't need a referendum. Brown snuck in the back door late to sign that so he wouldn't appear in the photos, the coward that he was. But being a smart chap no doubt you know that.
There we have the reason why a number of the people I know ended up voting to leave.Now all the hysteria around the campaigning has died down, it's actually really interesting to hear the sensible, reasonable opinions on both sides. Just as many people voted leave 'to kick the immigrants out' and to 'stick one on the Germans', and many voted remain because 'voting leave is racist', a lot voted from entirely reasonable and well argued positions. It's a shame that the populist BS'tters on both sides shouted the loudest.
Brexit is a hugely complicated issue and I just don't think a referendum was an acceptable thing to do. And all this is before you get into the blatant lies, which range from the famous £350M a week to the statements about unelected bureaucrats, states not getting a vote on other countries joining, the way legislation works, the percentage of laws gleaned from the EU etc. Who was available to argue over this? Distrusted politicians no both sides. Why not have TV debates amongst learned experts on the subject?! Also, this isn't just an issue of the public being ill-informed, it's an issue of the public being educated in entirely different matters, both in terms of raw knowledge and the skills to take on board and process the relevant information. Put simply, we are not qualified to make a decision like this, and we weren't well enough informed at even the most basic level. Lastly, it's not illegal or even discouraged in this country to tell lies. What chance did we have of making the right decision?
My other gripes are firstly the fact that this referendum wasn't advisory as originally declared. It wasn't even debated in Parliament until two citizens took the government to the high court over it, something for which one of those citizens received multiple death threats (but interestingly only one of them; read into that what you will...). When it was actually debated in Parliament, MPs were ordered not to represent their constituents or their own views and to vote for Brexit or risk losing their jobs. The subversion of democracy on both those points was completely unacceptable in a modern civilised society. Secondly, where was the need for a two thirds majority or similar?! Juries in courts of law are never asked to reach a 50.1% majority on quite trivial matters involving theft of fruit and veg and community service, so why not need a decent majority on the entire future of our country? Public opinion prior to Brexit was swinging both ways to the extent that to put a date on the vote and not build in a two thirds majority was effectively asking for a random result.
We have Cameron, bullied by the unpleasant right wing of the Conservative Party to blame here. To hold a referendum that was not expressed to be binding, with its verdict to be decided by simple majority with no minimum turnout was utterly irresponsible.
RobM77 said:
I know it may be controversial, but I have always hated the idea of referenda full stop. This isn't a remain or leave argument, it's purely an argument against referenda. Yes, the issues surrounding Brexit will affect us all greatly, but so does open heart surgery and you wouldn't have a referendum on where to stick the knife would you? The ramifications of Brexit are clearly very far reaching into many areas ignored by the press (science for example), or reported and over-simplified in a biased manner by the political press. The press is most people's source of information, and that's therefore a massive problem.
Brexit is a hugely complicated issue and I just don't think a referendum was an acceptable thing to do. And all this is before you get into the blatant lies, which range from the famous £350M a week to the statements about unelected bureaucrats, states not getting a vote on other countries joining, the way legislation works, the percentage of laws gleaned from the EU etc. Who was available to argue over this? Distrusted politicians no both sides. Why not have TV debates amongst learned experts on the subject?! Also, this isn't just an issue of the public being ill-informed, it's an issue of the public being educated in entirely different matters, both in terms of raw knowledge and the skills to take on board and process the relevant information. Put simply, we are not qualified to make a decision like this, and we weren't well enough informed at even the most basic level. Lastly, it's not illegal or even discouraged in this country to tell lies. What chance did we have of making the right decision?
My other gripes are firstly the fact that this referendum wasn't advisory as originally declared. It wasn't even debated in Parliament until two citizens took the government to the high court over it, something for which one of those citizens received multiple death threats (but interestingly only one of them; read into that what you will...). When it was actually debated in Parliament, MPs were ordered not to represent their constituents or their own views and to vote for Brexit or risk losing their jobs. The subversion of democracy on both those points was completely unacceptable in a modern civilised society. Secondly, where was the need for a two thirds majority or similar?! Juries in courts of law are never asked to reach a 50.1% majority on quite trivial matters involving theft of fruit and veg and community service, so why not need a decent majority on the entire future of our country? Public opinion prior to Brexit was swinging both ways to the extent that to put a date on the vote and not build in a two thirds majority was effectively asking for a random result.
Agreed. Brexit is a hugely complicated issue and I just don't think a referendum was an acceptable thing to do. And all this is before you get into the blatant lies, which range from the famous £350M a week to the statements about unelected bureaucrats, states not getting a vote on other countries joining, the way legislation works, the percentage of laws gleaned from the EU etc. Who was available to argue over this? Distrusted politicians no both sides. Why not have TV debates amongst learned experts on the subject?! Also, this isn't just an issue of the public being ill-informed, it's an issue of the public being educated in entirely different matters, both in terms of raw knowledge and the skills to take on board and process the relevant information. Put simply, we are not qualified to make a decision like this, and we weren't well enough informed at even the most basic level. Lastly, it's not illegal or even discouraged in this country to tell lies. What chance did we have of making the right decision?
My other gripes are firstly the fact that this referendum wasn't advisory as originally declared. It wasn't even debated in Parliament until two citizens took the government to the high court over it, something for which one of those citizens received multiple death threats (but interestingly only one of them; read into that what you will...). When it was actually debated in Parliament, MPs were ordered not to represent their constituents or their own views and to vote for Brexit or risk losing their jobs. The subversion of democracy on both those points was completely unacceptable in a modern civilised society. Secondly, where was the need for a two thirds majority or similar?! Juries in courts of law are never asked to reach a 50.1% majority on quite trivial matters involving theft of fruit and veg and community service, so why not need a decent majority on the entire future of our country? Public opinion prior to Brexit was swinging both ways to the extent that to put a date on the vote and not build in a two thirds majority was effectively asking for a random result.
jsf said:
nickfrog said:
jsf said:
Try Spain, now jailing political prisoners in Catalonia again.
No they are protecting democracy and their constitution by not tolerating an illegal referendum that ignores the will of the majority of Catalans who want to also remain Spanish.
Edited by nickfrog on Thursday 19th October 10:45
TooMany2cvs said:
Is it inevitable?
There's already talk of a half-way house to 2021.
Yes Brexit is happening. The EU haven’t agreed to the transition yet as they are dragging their heels unnecessarily on the other issues. I’m sure they will. If we are paying in for another couple of years then we might as well use it to transition to the trade deal.There's already talk of a half-way house to 2021.
culpz said:
That's probably the bit that annoys me the most, out of all of this.
I find the most annoying bit is other people telling you why you voted the way you did! Science postgraduate. Voted Leave. Would still vote Leave. Like German cars. Like Japanese cars. Compute that you simpletons!TooMany2cvs said:
delta0 said:
Absolutely agree. We are all strapped in for the same ride. We can either resist the inevitable or make the best of it.
Is it inevitable?There's already talk of a half-way house to 2021.
economics and politics for the EU and UK.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The Irish border solution predates the EU and is already incorporated into the EU laws. It will stay open. There will be no queues as the Swiss-German border already demonstrates (the Swiss aren’t in the customs union). Ireland aren’t in Schengen so they check passports for people entering Ireland. Tourists will not require a visa for the UK. mygoldfishbowl said:
We're ALL leavers. 
Speak for yourself; I'm currently sitting in the sun on the veranda of the house we've just co-bought with the inlaws in Bulgaria. 
I actually suspect we'll stay primarily UK based for the moment but the hazy long-term plan is to live in the EU.
RobM77 said:
I know it may be controversial, but I have always hated the idea of referenda full stop. This isn't a remain or leave argument, it's purely an argument against referenda. Yes, the issues surrounding Brexit will affect us all greatly, but so does open heart surgery and you wouldn't have a referendum on where to stick the knife would you? The ramifications of Brexit are clearly very far reaching into many areas ignored by the press (science for example), or reported and over-simplified in a biased manner by the political press. The press is most people's source of information, and that's therefore a massive problem.
Brexit is a hugely complicated issue and I just don't think a referendum was an acceptable thing to do. And all this is before you get into the blatant lies, which range from the famous £350M a week to the statements about unelected bureaucrats, states not getting a vote on other countries joining, the way legislation works, the percentage of laws gleaned from the EU etc. Who was available to argue over this? Distrusted politicians no both sides. Why not have TV debates amongst learned experts on the subject?! Also, this isn't just an issue of the public being ill-informed, it's an issue of the public being educated in entirely different matters, both in terms of raw knowledge and the skills to take on board and process the relevant information. Put simply, we are not qualified to make a decision like this, and we weren't well enough informed at even the most basic level. Lastly, it's not illegal or even discouraged in this country to tell lies. What chance did we have of making the right decision?
My other gripes are firstly the fact that this referendum wasn't advisory as originally declared. It wasn't even debated in Parliament until two citizens took the government to the high court over it, something for which one of those citizens received multiple death threats (but interestingly only one of them; read into that what you will...). When it was actually debated in Parliament, MPs were ordered not to represent their constituents or their own views and to vote for Brexit or risk losing their jobs. The subversion of democracy on both those points was completely unacceptable in a modern civilised society. Secondly, where was the need for a two thirds majority or similar?! Juries in courts of law are never asked to reach a 50.1% majority on quite trivial matters involving theft of fruit and veg and community service, so why not need a decent majority on the entire future of our country? Public opinion prior to Brexit was swinging both ways to the extent that to put a date on the vote and not build in a two thirds majority was effectively asking for a random result.
I agree with much of that, particularly the last paragraph, even as a leave voter. I think the only reason the result was not ignored like other similar referenda in other EU countries is down to political manoeuvring not a belief that it was valid.Brexit is a hugely complicated issue and I just don't think a referendum was an acceptable thing to do. And all this is before you get into the blatant lies, which range from the famous £350M a week to the statements about unelected bureaucrats, states not getting a vote on other countries joining, the way legislation works, the percentage of laws gleaned from the EU etc. Who was available to argue over this? Distrusted politicians no both sides. Why not have TV debates amongst learned experts on the subject?! Also, this isn't just an issue of the public being ill-informed, it's an issue of the public being educated in entirely different matters, both in terms of raw knowledge and the skills to take on board and process the relevant information. Put simply, we are not qualified to make a decision like this, and we weren't well enough informed at even the most basic level. Lastly, it's not illegal or even discouraged in this country to tell lies. What chance did we have of making the right decision?
My other gripes are firstly the fact that this referendum wasn't advisory as originally declared. It wasn't even debated in Parliament until two citizens took the government to the high court over it, something for which one of those citizens received multiple death threats (but interestingly only one of them; read into that what you will...). When it was actually debated in Parliament, MPs were ordered not to represent their constituents or their own views and to vote for Brexit or risk losing their jobs. The subversion of democracy on both those points was completely unacceptable in a modern civilised society. Secondly, where was the need for a two thirds majority or similar?! Juries in courts of law are never asked to reach a 50.1% majority on quite trivial matters involving theft of fruit and veg and community service, so why not need a decent majority on the entire future of our country? Public opinion prior to Brexit was swinging both ways to the extent that to put a date on the vote and not build in a two thirds majority was effectively asking for a random result.
As regards open heart surgery, I would hope that the patient gets a say about having it or is it just decided for them?
Toltec said:
RobM77 said:
I know it may be controversial, but I have always hated the idea of referenda full stop. This isn't a remain or leave argument, it's purely an argument against referenda. Yes, the issues surrounding Brexit will affect us all greatly, but so does open heart surgery and you wouldn't have a referendum on where to stick the knife would you? The ramifications of Brexit are clearly very far reaching into many areas ignored by the press (science for example), or reported and over-simplified in a biased manner by the political press. The press is most people's source of information, and that's therefore a massive problem.
Brexit is a hugely complicated issue and I just don't think a referendum was an acceptable thing to do. And all this is before you get into the blatant lies, which range from the famous £350M a week to the statements about unelected bureaucrats, states not getting a vote on other countries joining, the way legislation works, the percentage of laws gleaned from the EU etc. Who was available to argue over this? Distrusted politicians no both sides. Why not have TV debates amongst learned experts on the subject?! Also, this isn't just an issue of the public being ill-informed, it's an issue of the public being educated in entirely different matters, both in terms of raw knowledge and the skills to take on board and process the relevant information. Put simply, we are not qualified to make a decision like this, and we weren't well enough informed at even the most basic level. Lastly, it's not illegal or even discouraged in this country to tell lies. What chance did we have of making the right decision?
My other gripes are firstly the fact that this referendum wasn't advisory as originally declared. It wasn't even debated in Parliament until two citizens took the government to the high court over it, something for which one of those citizens received multiple death threats (but interestingly only one of them; read into that what you will...). When it was actually debated in Parliament, MPs were ordered not to represent their constituents or their own views and to vote for Brexit or risk losing their jobs. The subversion of democracy on both those points was completely unacceptable in a modern civilised society. Secondly, where was the need for a two thirds majority or similar?! Juries in courts of law are never asked to reach a 50.1% majority on quite trivial matters involving theft of fruit and veg and community service, so why not need a decent majority on the entire future of our country? Public opinion prior to Brexit was swinging both ways to the extent that to put a date on the vote and not build in a two thirds majority was effectively asking for a random result.
I agree with much of that, particularly the last paragraph, even as a leave voter. I think the only reason the result was not ignored like other similar referenda in other EU countries is down to political manoeuvring not a belief that it was valid.Brexit is a hugely complicated issue and I just don't think a referendum was an acceptable thing to do. And all this is before you get into the blatant lies, which range from the famous £350M a week to the statements about unelected bureaucrats, states not getting a vote on other countries joining, the way legislation works, the percentage of laws gleaned from the EU etc. Who was available to argue over this? Distrusted politicians no both sides. Why not have TV debates amongst learned experts on the subject?! Also, this isn't just an issue of the public being ill-informed, it's an issue of the public being educated in entirely different matters, both in terms of raw knowledge and the skills to take on board and process the relevant information. Put simply, we are not qualified to make a decision like this, and we weren't well enough informed at even the most basic level. Lastly, it's not illegal or even discouraged in this country to tell lies. What chance did we have of making the right decision?
My other gripes are firstly the fact that this referendum wasn't advisory as originally declared. It wasn't even debated in Parliament until two citizens took the government to the high court over it, something for which one of those citizens received multiple death threats (but interestingly only one of them; read into that what you will...). When it was actually debated in Parliament, MPs were ordered not to represent their constituents or their own views and to vote for Brexit or risk losing their jobs. The subversion of democracy on both those points was completely unacceptable in a modern civilised society. Secondly, where was the need for a two thirds majority or similar?! Juries in courts of law are never asked to reach a 50.1% majority on quite trivial matters involving theft of fruit and veg and community service, so why not need a decent majority on the entire future of our country? Public opinion prior to Brexit was swinging both ways to the extent that to put a date on the vote and not build in a two thirds majority was effectively asking for a random result.
As regards open heart surgery, I would hope that the patient gets a say about having it or is it just decided for them?
With regard to my analogy, yes, patients do get to decide for themselves what happens to them, if they are of sane enough mind. However, misleading or lying even at a fraction of the magnitude Farage et al did is illegal. It's the same with PPI (as we all know!), so I've no idea how it's ok for Farage to lie like that with an issue of such importance. You may have voted for genuine reasons, but what percentage of leave voters did do you think, and what percentage were swayed by the constant lies? If that gullible group is only 1% of leave voters, then we're leaving the EU on the basis of lies, and I think that is unacceptable.
To return that analogy again, patients alone have the ability to decide their future, if they are capable. In the referendum though, you decided my future and my family's future, not just your own. If such decisions have to be made for us, then I'd rather they were made through intelligent debate by experts, rather than the general public. What right does a bricklayer, lawyer or dentist have to decide whether I have to pay higher taxes, lose my job working for an EU company, or the ability to freely work, live and study all over Europe? How about the people of Cornwall, who receive £60m a year in funding to combat the London centric UK politic? Or all the people on help to buy schemes that are funded by EU banks? The classic problem with democracy has always been how to deal with the interests of minority groups against the will of the majority. To use another analogy, imagine if we had a referendum to decide whether people under 5'5" get a pension or not - being over that height, how would you vote? To stop the selfish majority getting carried away, we have a clearly defined set of checks and measures and a system of representative democracy founded on debate, which was all silenced in this instance to allow Brexit through (as described above). The fact that the government ended up in the high court in their attempts tells us all we need to know!
Edited by RobM77 on Thursday 19th October 14:15
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff