| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit 18:56 - Oct 31 with 6553 views | ElderGrizzly |
That’s all that mattered to Cummings and the Tory power brokers
|  | | |  |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 13:58 - Nov 1 with 1351 views | DJR |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 13:30 - Nov 1 by bluelagos |
"Do you wish the country to accept the proposed deal or to remain in the EU?" |
This from the Institute of Government suggests the position was not necessarily as simple as that.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/how-would-second-ref
The following passage indicates a democratic problem with the Labour proposal, and the IOG's proposals for overcoming it make things much more complicated. Indeed, I wonder if the EU would have been prepared to play ball with regard to another deal, given all the time and effort involved in the first deal.
"Labour has said it will offer a choice between a ‘credible Leave option’, a new deal which it will negotiate, and Remain. However, Labour’s deal will likely involve a closer relationship the EU than many proponents of Brexit would like. This approach would be opposed by those who support Boris Johnson’s deal or no deal."
Anyway, my main concern is that it was really an attempt to overcome a democratic vote, which as a liberal democrat, in its ordinary meaning, I find troubling. [Post edited 1 Nov 2023 14:03]
|  | | |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 14:07 - Nov 1 with 1323 views | Herbivore |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 13:58 - Nov 1 by DJR |
This from the Institute of Government suggests the position was not necessarily as simple as that.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/how-would-second-ref
The following passage indicates a democratic problem with the Labour proposal, and the IOG's proposals for overcoming it make things much more complicated. Indeed, I wonder if the EU would have been prepared to play ball with regard to another deal, given all the time and effort involved in the first deal.
"Labour has said it will offer a choice between a ‘credible Leave option’, a new deal which it will negotiate, and Remain. However, Labour’s deal will likely involve a closer relationship the EU than many proponents of Brexit would like. This approach would be opposed by those who support Boris Johnson’s deal or no deal."
Anyway, my main concern is that it was really an attempt to overcome a democratic vote, which as a liberal democrat, in its ordinary meaning, I find troubling. [Post edited 1 Nov 2023 14:03]
|
That's quite a narrow take on democracy though. For democracy to work effectively you need a well informed public who are engaged and are cognisant of the decisions they are recommending and their ramifications. How much of that was really true in 2016 given the amount of misinformation flying around and the complete lack of certainty over what kind of Brexit was on the table? |  |
| |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 14:20 - Nov 1 with 1295 views | DJR |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 14:07 - Nov 1 by Herbivore |
That's quite a narrow take on democracy though. For democracy to work effectively you need a well informed public who are engaged and are cognisant of the decisions they are recommending and their ramifications. How much of that was really true in 2016 given the amount of misinformation flying around and the complete lack of certainty over what kind of Brexit was on the table? |
I think you have to accept liberal democracy warts and all.
What you say may indeed be true, but is it any different to the misinformation (by the Tories and the right wing press) that has led to the Tories being in power for much of the last forty years?
In a free society doing anything about misinformation is practically impossible unless you go down the rather authoritarian route of controlling information, which in my view is rather illiberal. [Post edited 1 Nov 2023 14:22]
| | | |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 14:25 - Nov 1 with 1262 views | Herbivore |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 14:20 - Nov 1 by DJR |
I think you have to accept liberal democracy warts and all.
What you say may indeed be true, but is it any different to the misinformation (by the Tories and the right wing press) that has led to the Tories being in power for much of the last forty years?
In a free society doing anything about misinformation is practically impossible unless you go down the rather authoritarian route of controlling information, which in my view is rather illiberal. [Post edited 1 Nov 2023 14:22]
|
Agree to disagree. You could get a bunch of chimps to press one of two buttons in response to a question, it wouldn't mean they've understood the question or the ramifications of their response to it. Democracy, if it is to be anything other than tokenistic, needs to involve far more than just ticking a box or pressing a button. | |
| |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 15:14 - Nov 1 with 1204 views | Chrisd |
With Cummings giving evidence, I find it really strange, he was very much part of this process and though he’s spilling his guts with what went on behind close doors with the Tories it still makes him look like a total smuck being involved and having such a heavy influence with decisions. What this does highlight is there’s not one of them that is or was any good at their jobs, the Tories really couldn’t have made more of a pig’s ear of running our country over the last few years and you’ve got berks like Nadine Dorres who still feel they are entitled. |  |
| |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 15:30 - Nov 1 with 1177 views | DJR |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 14:25 - Nov 1 by Herbivore |
Agree to disagree. You could get a bunch of chimps to press one of two buttons in response to a question, it wouldn't mean they've understood the question or the ramifications of their response to it. Democracy, if it is to be anything other than tokenistic, needs to involve far more than just ticking a box or pressing a button. |
Without wishing to prolong an interesting discussion, the danger with questioning people's understanding of issues is that it leads down the path of suggesting only some people (eg, citizens in ancient Athens but not, for example, women or slaves) should be entitled to vote.
I know that's not what you are saying but it mustn't be forgotten that many people who vote aren't really that interested in politics, so it is difficult to know how to ensure they are better informed, especially when it may not be in the interests of, say, the Tories and their friends in the media to properly inform them. In other words, much better, if you want to achieve Brexit, to promote it on emotive notions of sovereignty and the like, rather than going into too much detail on what it actually means in practice.
As it is, there was much focus on the economic effect on the Remain side, but that didn't really cut through against more emotive concepts such as taking back control. Indeed, I would have preferred it if Remain had been promoted from a more emotive internationalist point of view, but I suppose those behind the No campaign had seen economic issues trump everything else when it came to the Scottish independence referendum. [Post edited 1 Nov 2023 15:35]
| | | |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 15:38 - Nov 1 with 1156 views | Herbivore |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 15:30 - Nov 1 by DJR |
Without wishing to prolong an interesting discussion, the danger with questioning people's understanding of issues is that it leads down the path of suggesting only some people (eg, citizens in ancient Athens but not, for example, women or slaves) should be entitled to vote.
I know that's not what you are saying but it mustn't be forgotten that many people who vote aren't really that interested in politics, so it is difficult to know how to ensure they are better informed, especially when it may not be in the interests of, say, the Tories and their friends in the media to properly inform them. In other words, much better, if you want to achieve Brexit, to promote it on emotive notions of sovereignty and the like, rather than going into too much detail on what it actually means in practice.
As it is, there was much focus on the economic effect on the Remain side, but that didn't really cut through against more emotive concepts such as taking back control. Indeed, I would have preferred it if Remain had been promoted from a more emotive internationalist point of view, but I suppose those behind the No campaign had seen economic issues trump everything else when it came to the Scottish independence referendum. [Post edited 1 Nov 2023 15:35]
|
You seem to largely agree that the public is too ill-informed (based partly on lack of interest, partly on agendas pushed by client journalists and those with vested interests) to be trusted with making such important decisions. I think if we acknowledge that, it's hard to make a case that, when more information has come to light, offering people the opportunity to make a better informed decision is undemocratic. For all the remainers like yourself who felt the referendum should be respected no matter what there are those who voted leave who wished to have a chance to change their mind in the face of new evidence. | |
| |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 16:14 - Nov 1 with 1123 views | DJR |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 15:38 - Nov 1 by Herbivore |
You seem to largely agree that the public is too ill-informed (based partly on lack of interest, partly on agendas pushed by client journalists and those with vested interests) to be trusted with making such important decisions. I think if we acknowledge that, it's hard to make a case that, when more information has come to light, offering people the opportunity to make a better informed decision is undemocratic. For all the remainers like yourself who felt the referendum should be respected no matter what there are those who voted leave who wished to have a chance to change their mind in the face of new evidence. |
I am not really a fan of referenda, but I suppose there may be a case for them in the case of certain issues of a constitutional nature. And if there is one, my view is that it should be respected. I suppose there might be a case for a further one if circumstances radically change, but I don't regard relatively minor changes in polling on Brexit to be such a change. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 16:17 - Nov 1 with 1114 views | Herbivore |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 16:14 - Nov 1 by DJR |
I am not really a fan of referenda, but I suppose there may be a case for them in the case of certain issues of a constitutional nature. And if there is one, my view is that it should be respected. I suppose there might be a case for a further one if circumstances radically change, but I don't regard relatively minor changes in polling on Brexit to be such a change. |
I think your final sentence rather misses the point and somewhat downplays what happened post the 2016 referendum but there we go. Agree to disagree. | |
| |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 16:25 - Nov 1 with 1089 views | Radlett_blue |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 14:20 - Nov 1 by DJR |
I think you have to accept liberal democracy warts and all.
What you say may indeed be true, but is it any different to the misinformation (by the Tories and the right wing press) that has led to the Tories being in power for much of the last forty years?
In a free society doing anything about misinformation is practically impossible unless you go down the rather authoritarian route of controlling information, which in my view is rather illiberal. [Post edited 1 Nov 2023 14:22]
|
Perhaps the Tories have been in power for most of the past 40 years largely because more of the public prefer their brand of capitalism to socialism? |  |
| |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 16:27 - Nov 1 with 1081 views | Herbivore |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 16:25 - Nov 1 by Radlett_blue |
Perhaps the Tories have been in power for most of the past 40 years largely because more of the public prefer their brand of capitalism to socialism? |
Lol at the idea we've had a genuinely socialist party running for government in the last 40 years. All of our major political parties support a capitalist economic model, let's get that straight. | |
| |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 16:31 - Nov 1 with 1070 views | DJR |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 16:25 - Nov 1 by Radlett_blue |
Perhaps the Tories have been in power for most of the past 40 years largely because more of the public prefer their brand of capitalism to socialism? |
It is European social democracy (which is also pretty capitalistic) that I would have liked, but instead we have ended up with broken public services. I am not sure that is what people thought they were voting for. [Post edited 1 Nov 2023 16:34]
| | | |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 23:22 - Nov 2 with 985 views | BlueBadger |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 09:30 - Nov 1 by lowhouseblue |
parliament blocked may's deal, leaving the tory right with an opportunity to get a huge majority on a single issue get brexit done platform. in truth, people who thought they could undo the referendum gave us that pair. |
How IS the weather in Stockholm? |  |
| |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 07:13 - Nov 3 with 921 views | Churchman |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 13:58 - Nov 1 by DJR |
This from the Institute of Government suggests the position was not necessarily as simple as that.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/how-would-second-ref
The following passage indicates a democratic problem with the Labour proposal, and the IOG's proposals for overcoming it make things much more complicated. Indeed, I wonder if the EU would have been prepared to play ball with regard to another deal, given all the time and effort involved in the first deal.
"Labour has said it will offer a choice between a ‘credible Leave option’, a new deal which it will negotiate, and Remain. However, Labour’s deal will likely involve a closer relationship the EU than many proponents of Brexit would like. This approach would be opposed by those who support Boris Johnson’s deal or no deal."
Anyway, my main concern is that it was really an attempt to overcome a democratic vote, which as a liberal democrat, in its ordinary meaning, I find troubling. [Post edited 1 Nov 2023 14:03]
|
I understand the concern about overcoming a democratic vote. I share your concern. However, that democratic vote was taken on the basis of lies, personalities and rhetoric. The madness of the rolling eyes mob ruled the day. They successfully preyed on peoples fears and ignorance, the most ignorant people of all being themselves. Their inept, criminal handling of covid tells us that. The question was a simple one but the consequences couldn’t have been more complex or dire.
Nobody had a clue what the EU was or this country’s incredibly complex relationships with EU countries, how this country and the EU worked right the way down the most basic of things. This was still the case when Article 50 was invoked in March 2017. The Referendum didn’t specify timelines so they didn’t have to do it. She could and should have waited.
The trouble is, decisions were made on the basis of tory party politics not what was of benefit to the people of the U.K. but rowing back on the madness would have split the Tory party in two and they weren’t going to have that.
If they’d wanted an out, they could have done some serious work before Article 50 (little was done before March 17 beyond starting to form a few teams). After doing some of the work, they could have laid out the benefits (zero) and the downsides (too many to mention) and said they were doing more preparatory work / holding fire.
They could have used the Northern Ireland and the break up threat to the U.K. as a justifiable reason alone to rethink if they wanted to hide the disastrous economic consequences. Go for a general election on that basis. Any basis. Anything but what they did.
While what they knew or more relevant didn’t know is based on what I know. The rest is just flawed speculation on my part. What was happening 2017-2019, the only bit I can truly comment on, felt wrong at the time. It still does.
Lastly, let’s nail the lie that Boris delivered Brexit. He didn’t. 95% of the work, most of it far too boring for a forum, was done before Johnson oiled into view. The rest of it he swerved.
Johnson is an opportunist. When Mayor, like the rest of the tories he wanted nothing to do with the magnificently organised Olympics until it looked like it was going to be a success in about Feb 2012. He and the other lizards then slithered into view.
Johnson was kept as far away as possible in those last few months because even the then he was known for the useless tub of lard he is. Nothing has changed. That’s ‘charisma’ for you.
Todays rant is over. |  | | |
| Johnson was literally a gamble to protect Brexit on 07:35 - Nov 3 with 900 views | You_Bloo_Right |
Well that's another laptop that will need to be "de-coffeed":
"Senior civil servants actively played down the seriousness of Boris Johnson’s Covid illness in April 2020...
Officials gave a 'more positive impression' of the then prime minister’s health to journalists because they were concerned that terrorists or hostile states could exploit an apparent power vacuum ......"
Any power vacuum was there from 23 July 2019 surely. Why wait the best part of a year? |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
