Voting

I don’t know sounds like brexit is going to metaphorically and economiclly f*** them up the butt so maybe there is some commonality to wanting an actual fist up the butt....and people would still vote for the same party. Voting against your interests to get one thing, is not unheard of around the world.

Seriously though, I can see the connections in American politics why the two parties group together on opposite sides of the issues that don’t seem connected. It usually uncomfortable and sometimes unconscious connections that get people upset, but it’s a connection nonetheless.

Just like Trump said!

Brexit will only be economically bad if the political class are allowed to do what they're doing now.

Despite the scaremongering, France and Germany etc., still have workers who want trade. And they have growing anti-Brexit sentiment already. A competent UK negotiator would go public with the undemocratic actions of EU members and explain the job losses EU nations will suffer once trade stops fall 100% at the feet of their own leaders desire to punish workers for wrongvote. Suffice to say Merkel and Macron want that about as much as a mufti wants bacon wrapped pork chops.

There's lots of valid reasons to get off a sinking ship like the EU, and no meaningful reasons to say that I can see.



I'm not sure we have a choice in countries like the US, UK and Aus do we? Which major party out of the Tories (UK) Labor (UK, Aus) Liberal (Aus), GOP or DNC acts in the interest of the people?

Well, if there isn’t any type of vote before the deadline. The politicians are pretty much free to do what they are going to do. It’s just a few weeks away.

I’m not seeing where there can be an intervention, if there isn’t a vote. (Either special or regular planned on.)

Yeah, I’m sure any connection could be made with anything if you try hard enough, such as your example above. But what motivates people to make certain connections is, in my opinion, going to be based on factors that have nothing to do with any of it really, but more so based on tribalism, rearing, bias, etc. Like belief in religion.

This is also why hypocrisy runs rampant in politics.

That's true. They can crush democracy. The EU does that.

However, a no deal Brexit would be more than acceptable. Again, a competent negotiator would already have trade talks under way with individual EU members (and other countries) with a no deal Brexit as a distinct possibility.

Yes, I think we are thinking along the same lines. Feelings towards authority, tribalism, biases those and others connect seemingly unrelated issues.

Nobody here seems to be accepting the criminality aspect of Brexit.

Do we allow crime and criminals to subvert democracy to their own ends..? Do we condone unlawful activity for no other reason than it suits narrow self interest..?

If we do, then democracy is dead.

Theresa May's Lawyer Accepts That Leave Campaign Acted Unlawfully

Quote from article:

according to law lecturer and jurist Rob Palmer, first Treasury counsel Sir James Eadie QC, acting for the prime minister, admitted that May was fully aware of the unlawful aspects of the referendum campaign:

This stems from a report by the Serious Crime Agency, to the then Home Secretary Theresa May was "sat on" during the referendum campaign. The report went into detail of the facts known at that time. The Home Secretary (May) was supposed to read the report, add her comments and then pass it back to the SCA for action. However, the report stayed in her office until AFTER the referendum had taken place, only then was it released and Aaron Banks was arrested and questioned.

How can we proceed on this vote in the light of such clear criminality... that the Home Secretary, now Prime Minister should have to answer questions about collusion with..... that took place during the campaign.

It's widely accepted that the vote should be declared invalid but can't be due to a legal loophole.

And so it seems we must proceed on the basis of a criminally obtained outcome.

Who agrees that crime should pay in this way, and what is our democracy worth if we allow it to..?

A very succinct and telling post put on my Rainbow Network forum earlier this evening:




Referenda votes by gender as published by MORI

Women voted 53% to 47% in favour of Remain. Men voted to Leave (55% to 45%). Or put another way - if men weren't so f***ing stupid we wouldn’t be in this ridiculous mess.

Her words not mine.

Notwithstanding the utter incompetence of our Prime Minister, as usual, it's the women who suffer from the actions of men.

So women are to blame for May's incompetence, women are to blame for Merkel's disastrous immigration policies that have significantly increased the risk of terror and women are responsible for Pillary Clinton's lust for revenge causing the death of Gaddafi that fuelled the migrant crisis and has killed countless people in the first place?

Fair enough. I commend your consistency, but I have to disagree.

The only person responsible for their actions is the person who acts. I think I am to blame for my bad, Hillary is to blame for hers, you are to blame for yours, and so on. Why am I wrong?

Again, I don't understand how the people voting is considered the same as the political parties having free reign.



Just because it wasn't about specifically voting for a party, doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't a partisan vote. If that were the case I could claim that the US Congress only ever engages in non partisan votes.



As far as I'm aware, unless May decides to hold a second referendum, Brexit is a done deal. If a second referendum is held, AND it was to be found in support of remaining in the EU, then which referendum should be followed and why?



1) This doesn't answer my question at all. 'But what if they could get competent people that believe in the same things I do?' But what if we could just bend reality to our whims in order to get what we want instead of addressing the reality of the situation? But what if I could get my car to fly over the Pacific Ocean so I could just drive to California instead of paying for a plane ticket and an automobile transport? 'But what if' is not a good argument to support a s***ty 'what is'.

2) Negotiation with the EU has largely finished from what I've seen. They've essentially told May either pass what you could get us to agree to, hold a second referendum and vote to stay in the EU, or brace for a no deal Brexit.

3) The idea that May or anyone else in her party has not tried to get the best deal they could given the circumstances is predicated on nothing but political animosity. Brexit is looking highly likely to happen. If May or her party want to stay in power, then what better way to cement that by claiming to uphold the people's will and delivering them everything they wanted, as determined by vote? The idea that the EU has not known abundantly well that the UK might end up walking away from negotiations is laughable. The stated goals of Brexit are in direct opposition to non negotiable terms with the EU. This was never going to change hence why, when we talked about this last year, I suggested that the UK look to other countries because the EU was not going to play ball. It doesn't matter how hard you push or how you try to spin it or how much camaraderie you build up, it doesn't change the terms on the table. That reality didn't change with the 'master deal maker' Donald Trump, and it sure as hell won't with Theresa May.



The EU is making the same calculations as you. They believe that short term pain is sometimes necessary. The fact that you believe this to be a miscalculation on their part and not yours is simply a matter of opinion.

Because the parties either do what the people voted for or ignore it and do what they want (remain, in this case).



I think generally the idea of a second referendum this soon is stupid. However, if the people negotiating Brexit acted in good faith (which they are not), and were supporters of Brexit (which they're not) and wanted the best deal for the UK (which they absolutely don't), then took that to the people, that would not be entirely unreasonable - even though it would be pointless. People voting for Brexit were voting with the reasonable belief that politicians would act on it in good faith, not sabotage it then make people vote for either a sabotaged Brexit no one wants or a remain that people have already voted against.

There's really not much more to say. You can call refusing to enact the will of the people democracy if you want. We will just have to agree to disagree.



This argument amounts to, "because my unicorn does not talk Brexit should not happen." I disagree as the premise is absurd.



no. It's based on their unwillingness to follow through on what the people want. May does not support Brexit. Her party does not support it either, and they had the option of starting negotiations with Trump a long time ago when he publicly said he will assist the UK by fast tracking trade negotiations.




They are doing what they do. Subverting democracy when it doesn't fit with their agenda. Short term pain to enact the will of the people is democracy. Causing pain out of spite for wrongvote is the antithesis of democracy.