advertisement


Brexit: give me a positive effect... VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
At least we know why the Tories were so keen not to join the EU procurement programme for PPE.....from the Times

"Political ‘cronies’ given fast track to PPE contracts worth billions"

This is exactly the kind of thing that gets complacent governments defenestrated at General Elections, as the current one almost certainly will be.

Josep Borrell, a 'Champagne' member of the Spanish Socialist Workers Party (he has considerable personal assets), longtime lurker in the corridors and restaurants of Brussels, and current VP of the European Commission, was fined €30,000 for insider trading whilst he was Spain's Foreign Minister, which makes him, if I am not mistaken, a criminal. He thought it below himself to resign his position, and went on to apply for the post in Von de Leyen's Commission, which adds brass neck to his CV, and given that he was accepted, to that of Von der Leyen, herself no stranger to questions of dodgy financial conduct. There are also questions of conflict of interest due to his shareholdings in a number of global corporations, which include Bayer, and further fraud allegations over the alleged disappearance of a not so trifling €2.7bn of Spanish government public funds.

As an appointed member of the EU executive, the EU electorates cannot touch him. Unless he really gets too hot to handle, he will serve his extremely well-remunerated term, and leave the Commission with a nice, fat pension, which, if I'm correct, the UK taxpayer will continue to be obliged to contribute to.
 
Calling for the outcome of a democratic referendum to be ignored is not fine.

No one is calling for the result of the Referendum to be ignored.

But

a) there are several different types of BrExit with as many different economic outcomes,
b) we now have a lot more data/facts which prove that "project fear" is in fact the outcome,
c) there should have been a confirmatory Referendum after public discussion on the options and outcomes even before the triggering of A50.

I can even concede that we accept a stupidly though-out referendum which allowed win with a simple majority on such a divisive and crucial matter.


Leading the Union to a disastrous outcome just because some foolish and/or misled voters "won" is not fine either, nor is it democratic when only 38% of the electorate actually voted leave.


You complain about having the Tories lead the country and yet seem perfectly happy letting the (ill-informed, inexpert, unfit) populace decide on a matter that will have a massive (negative) impact for at least a generation or two.
And you seem to gloss over the fact that BrExit is a Tory idea with far far worse implications and outcome than them having to abide to more social and environmentally friendly EU rules.
Just 'cause some blokes "won".
And the irony is that those blokes "won" the vote but will be the losers once their "instruction" has been made effective...
 
It appears to be something you've dreamt up to label people who disagree with you. A more accurate term would be "people who are capable of critical thinking and calling out lies and bullshit". If it's shorthand for that, then great, we can all agree on that definition and move on.
And in the same spirit as "Hard Remainer", may I offer "Hard-of-thinking Brexshiteer", self defining and with numerous brainy examples to be seen on this thread.
 
This is exactly the kind of thing that gets complacent governments defenestrated at General Elections, as the current one almost certainly will be.

Josep Borrell, a 'Champagne' member of the Spanish Socialist Workers Party (he has considerable personal assets), longtime lurker in the corridors and restaurants of Brussels, and current VP of the European Commission, was fined €30,000 for insider trading whilst he was Spain's Foreign Minister, which makes him, if I am not mistaken, a criminal. He thought it below himself to resign his position, and went on to apply for the post in Von de Leyen's Commission, which adds brass neck to his CV, and given that he was accepted, to that of Von der Leyen, herself no stranger to questions of dodgy financial conduct. There are also questions of conflict of interest due to his shareholdings in a number of global corporations, which include Bayer, and further fraud allegations over the alleged disappearance of a not so trifling €2.7bn of Spanish government public funds.

As an appointed member of the EU executive, the EU electorates cannot touch him. Unless he really gets too hot to handle, he will serve his extremely well-remunerated term, and leave the Commission with a nice, fat pension, which, if I'm correct, the UK taxpayer will continue to be obliged to contribute to.

I'm sure we could find a measure of agreement, subject to proof in each case. When you say 'questions' is that proof? It sounds very "some people are saying" Trump style to me. Remember that particular fan of Brexit was going to 'drain the swamp' well he did - and replaced it with far more toxicity.

Being against individual's corruption or sytems that allow it is not my beef with you ET, you see Brexit as some form of solution and I don't agree, I see it completely in reverse. You also seem very fixated on corruption and incompetence that we can't influence, but happy to tolerate and encourage it much closer to home. We could do with sorting our own house out regarding democratic deficits and corruption before we start lecturing others.

Our sway on any of this is reduced as we become less sufficient financially and diminished in terms of political, diplomatic or cultural influence. The people behind Brexit are no strangers to corruption and your contention that they can be voted out just doesn't stand up. A good chunk of them are not even politicians.

As Bishop Tutu memorably remarked on the ANC, "they stopped the gravy train just long enough to climb on". In many cases the EU is an obstacle to these people, that's why they want us out.
 
In so far as I'm 'fixated' with corruption and incompetence, it is precisely because we (as voters) can't influence, and never could, the EU variety. I'm certainly not happy tolerate it at home, and am reassured that the ballot-box remains a sanction that we can apply. It may be imperfect, but it's certainly better than the effectively non-existent EU alternative. Actually, it is pure disingenuousness on your part to say that I am happy to tolerate it, when the entire substance of my post sets out very clearly the opposite as being the case.

The EU is not known to be an obstacle to 'these kinds of people' at all. Comfortably insulated from the onerous demands of actual democracy, it is in fact their favoured vehicle. Why do you think the establishment, the banks, the corporations and the lawyers, not to mention the Josep Borrells of the world, are so bloody keen on it?

As for this government, it is exactly the kind of headlines that we're seeing at the moment that will prove their undoing. Corruption is, by and large - and dare I say - a traditionally more European passtime than a British one, and our system, for all its undoubted faults, will ultimately not tolerate it. If the tories continue down their path of apparent corruption and clear & utter ineptitude they will be pulled up short in the first instance by the electorate, and in the second by the courts and criminal system. We might even see a credible opposition develop from it. You should be rejoicing.
 
Last edited:
Just for clarity, Brian, what do you mean when you say "accept the result of the referendum"? I think we all accept that the referendum happened, and the result is that we're leaving (have, in fact, left).

Give over. You know exactly what I mean.

Oh well, at least you now know what I mean by ‘hard remainer’ and that it’s not an insult.

OK, only I wasn't entirely sure because I don't think you've always been completely consistent, and I do think that, sometimes, the context makes your use of the term 'hard remainer' feel like an insult.

Taking your view that 'accept the result of the referendum' means acknowledging, respecting and honouring the outcome of the vote, I remain of the view that democracy doesn't require unanimity, and anything that requires or expects dissenters to roll over and shut up, isn't democracy. Being of that view, I would have to say that anybody who criticises another for continuing to dissent, and does so in the name of respect for the democratic process, perhaps doesn't have a handle on what proper democracy implies.

You may think I'm twisting your words here, and genuinely, I don't mean to, but the notion that the losing side needs to STFU and suck it up is Brexiteer 101. Democracy requires, and must enable, effective dissent, or it isn't democracy.
 
It appears to be something you've dreamt up to label people who disagree with you. A more accurate term would be "people who are capable of critical thinking and calling out lies and bullshit". If it's shorthand for that, then great, we can all agree on that definition and move on.
It’s nothing to do with disagreeing with me, as far as you know I may well share your view on leaving the EU. We had a democratic referendum, the result is what it is and I disagree with those who believe the result of the referendum should be ignored. Don’t tell me such people don’t exist.

What is it you don’t understand about that?

Edit: What you really mean is, people who agree with you speak the truth, everyone else talks shit. Now we can move on having clarified your position. Kind of ironic looking is your first sentence.
 
It’s nothing to do with disagreeing with me, as far as you know I may well share your view on leaving the EU. We had a democratic referendum, the result is what it is and I disagree with those who believe the result of the referendum should be ignored. Don’t tell me such people don’t exist.
I think any argument that the referendum result should simply be ignored was very short-lived and largely a visceral reaction to the outcome, at the time. People who said that subsequently went on to make different, more nuanced arguments and it's a bit lazy to label them on the basis of that initial reaction. But I do think a case has been made for the result to be carefully reexamined under some form of due process or other. The possibility that Brexiteers would kick off shouldn't influence any decision on that, as anybody who believes they can get their way by threats of violence isn't a democrat.
 
It’s nothing to do with disagreeing with me, as far as you know I may well share your view on leaving the EU. We had a democratic referendum, the result is what it is and I disagree with those who believe the result of the referendum should be ignored. Don’t tell me such people don’t exist.

What is it you don’t understand about that?

Why so coy then? Perhaps you think it's somehow endearing, when in practice everyone just interprets you as duplicitous, so no-one really takes your protestations seriously. That's why you have perception problem.

What don't you understand about people in a democracy not being allowed to question a referendum which clearly had severe problems with facts and truthfulness? Or do you believe we should all behave like sheep and not question? That's what you mean, isn't it, because presumably it aligns with your thinking on the matter.
 
OK, only I wasn't entirely sure because I don't think you've always been completely consistent, and I do think that, sometimes, the context makes your use of the term 'hard remainer' feel like an insult.

Taking your view that 'accept the result of the referendum' means acknowledging, respecting and honouring the outcome of the vote, I remain of the view that democracy doesn't require unanimity, and anything that requires or expects dissenters to roll over and shut up, isn't democracy. Being of that view, I would have to say that anybody who criticises another for continuing to dissent, and does so in the name of respect for the democratic process, perhaps doesn't have a handle on what proper democracy implies.

You may think I'm twisting your words here, and genuinely, I don't mean to, but the notion that the losing side needs to STFU and suck it up is Brexiteer 101. Democracy requires, and must enable, effective dissent, or it isn't democracy.
Yep, twisting my words. That isn’t my position at all.
 
Why so coy then? Perhaps you think it's somehow endearing, when in practice everyone just interprets you as duplicitous, so no-one really takes your protestations seriously.

What don't you understand about people in a democracy not being allowed to question a referendum which clearly had severe problems with facts and truthfulness? Or do you believe we should all behave like sheep and not question?

I’ve never said people can’t question a referendum, I’ve even said as much a couple of times in the last few pages today. Are you speed reading, or something?

Anyway, your first paragraph was only a matter of time before you blurted it out, so I’ll leave you to it on the following point. Endearing doesn’t enter into it. I post my honest pov, no different to most other members. oh, and I’m not protesting about anything, that’s for you and others like you.
 
I’ve never said people can’t question a referendum, I’ve even said as much a couple of times in the last few pages today. Are you speed reading, or something?

Anyway, your first paragraph was only a matter of time before you blurted it out, so I’ll leave you to it on the following point. Endearing doesn’t enter into it. I post my honest pov, no different to most other members. oh, and I’m not protesting about anything, that’s for you and others like you.

Ah, the victim card. Instead of that, perhaps apply a little introspection and wonder why people interpret your posts in the way they do. It may help you to communicate your position more clearly.

You've clearly stated that people must accept the result of the "democratic" referendum. The clear implication being that people mustn't campaign for it to be reversed, even though it's their democratic right to disagree and campaign for exactly that. How else are your statements supposed to be interpreted?
 
OK, only I wasn't entirely sure because I don't think you've always been completely consistent, and I do think that, sometimes, the context makes your use of the term 'hard remainer' feel like an insult.

Taking your view that 'accept the result of the referendum' means acknowledging, respecting and honouring the outcome of the vote, I remain of the view that democracy doesn't require unanimity, and anything that requires or expects dissenters to roll over and shut up, isn't democracy. Being of that view, I would have to say that anybody who criticises another for continuing to dissent, and does so in the name of respect for the democratic process, perhaps doesn't have a handle on what proper democracy implies.

You may think I'm twisting your words here, and genuinely, I don't mean to, but the notion that the losing side needs to STFU and suck it up is Brexiteer 101. Democracy requires, and must enable, effective dissent, or it isn't democracy.
Spot on.
 
Ah, the victim card. Instead of that, perhaps apply a little introspection and wonder why people interpret your posts in the way they do. It may help you to communicate your position more clearly.

You've clearly stated that people must accept the result of the "democratic" referendum. The clear implication being that people mustn't campaign for it to be reversed, even though it's their democratic right to disagree and campaign for exactly that. How else are your statements supposed to be interpreted?
Nope, no cards of any kind being played by me.

Interpret my position in whatever way you choose.
 
I think any argument that the referendum result should simply be ignored was very short-lived and largely a visceral reaction to the outcome, at the time. People who said that subsequently went on to make different, more nuanced arguments and it's a bit lazy to label them on the basis of that initial reaction. But I do think a case has been made for the result to be carefully reexamined under some form of due process or other. The possibility that Brexiteers would kick off shouldn't influence any decision on that, as anybody who believes they can get their way by threats of violence isn't a democrat.
I disagree (with the bit in bold there). Thought I would add the clarification as I know some have difficulty with comprehension of plain English, hopefully when it suits them.
 
I disagree (with the bit in bold there). Thought I would add the clarification as I know some have difficulty with comprehension of plain English, hopefully when it suits them.
On the comprehension front, I'm going to take issue with your implication that everything you write is plain English. Sometimes, quite often, it is positively gnomic.

But to address your specific point, I take it then that those you describe as hard remainers are those who advocated ignoring the referendum outcome, and who continue to do so?
 
On the comprehension front, I'm going to take issue with your implication that everything you write is plain English. Sometimes, quite often, it is positively gnomic.

But to address your specific point, I take it then that those you describe as hard remainers are those who advocated ignoring the referendum outcome, and who continue to do so?
Oh dear...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top