Politics The EU

Izumi

Points Scorer
Last edited:

Ruslan

Points Scorer
Well, to put this in perspective, the Soviet Union always did this. They regularly pumped out their propaganda, published papers, funded communist parties (including funding Gus Hall in the U.S.), worked with labor unions, tried to find political allies among socialists and other leftists, etc. So this does have the feeling of being more of the same. For example, in Europe in the 1980s they were heavily involved in advocating for the non-deployment of ground-based U.S. cruise missiles in Italy and elsewhere.

It is a throwback to another era, where we had the Soviet Union advocating world revolution....to now...where Russia is doing propaganda that I gather is oriented towards undermining democracy and the stability in democratic countries. But, I gather the real impetus of this is they want to undermine U.S. and European resolve to support and protect Ukraine and other countries of the former Soviet Union.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
 

Izumi

Points Scorer
Well, to put this in perspective, the Soviet Union always did this. They regularly pumped out their propaganda, published papers, funded communist parties (including funding Gus Hall in the U.S.), worked with labor unions, tried to find political allies among socialists and other leftists, etc. So this does have the feeling of being more of the same. For example, in Europe in the 1980s they were heavily involved in advocating for the non-deployment of ground-based U.S. cruise missiles in Italy and elsewhere.

It is a throwback to another era, where we had the Soviet Union advocating world revolution....to now...where Russia is doing propaganda that I gather is oriented towards undermining democracy and the stability in democratic countries. But, I gather the real impetus of this is they want to undermine U.S. and European resolve to support and protect Ukraine and other countries of the former Soviet Union.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Problem is compound and complicated for the truth is these days, what people in power say it is, rather than compliance with accepted norms. Was this always like that, and only in digital age we came to know about it? You have Russian mix with Brexit, all interpreted by media which are having their own agendas, thus not very helpful in clearing this up. It is hard to tell whether one should lough or cry. One leader of Brexit party is contemplating to emigrate to Belgium right after Brexit is through (hard to say where is humor in that), and the other one on Twitter just recently stated that: "Brexit was never going to solve ANY of our domestic problems". So, there you go.

From life long habit I also follow US news, and it is not getting any better, I must say (sorry).
 
Last edited:

Greenlantern101

Super Hero And All Round Good Guy
Contributor
Question.

IF the public get another referendum on the final deal what is the other option going to be?

Yes - will be to go for the proposed deal what ever it is.

But what is the No vote? Is it to leave with no deal? Or is it to cancel Brexit altogether?
 

Izumi

Points Scorer
Despite that I am considering myself a political/business/F1 junkie, I am however at the same time total dilettante regarding British politics. It's probably due to my assumption as long as I know what US wants, UK simply will fall in-line as a good boy (or girl).
Regarding Brexit, I am today, more than ever, totally confused what are Labor and Conservatives up to? No wonder that some UK sources predicting rise of Brexit party in form of heavy representation in Brussels under Farage's leadership (whatever that is next to ideological perspective) in forthcoming EU elections. It is bad news for us on the continent. We had enough of Mongols in 12th century, and no one should take offense at this, but we do no need another prophet with conquistador like attitude spreading "democracy", Farage-style, beyond UK borders.
 
Last edited:

cider_and_toast

Exulted Lord High Moderator of the Apex
Staff member
Premium Contributor
Greenlantern101 Dunno mate but that's the big problem with another referendum.

There can't be three questions as there will be no majority for a single outcome. For example if we had deal exit, no deal exit, remain then remainers would claim victory if the remain outcome polled the highest percentage but leavers would point to the fact that leave either by deal or no deal actually got more votes combined.

So that has to leave us with a binary choice but then the second question would need to be a remain one otherwise it would never get out of the blocks.

As has been repeatedly discussed with those who wish to remain, had the vote gone the other way would remain have allowed leave a second chance? When does it end? Best of 3? 5?

Anna Soubry was comical on Question Time last Thursday when trying to answer why pushing for a second referendum because people were allowed to change their minds and that the circumstances were now different, was the right thing to do. She then went on to deny that her constituency did not need a bi-election to contest her seat after the circumstances in which she was elected to represent her constituents.
 

Angel

Happy to help.
Contributor
Anna Soubry has some nerve doesn't she? I never did like the woman, I like her even less now.

The biggest question now is, when will the Tories oust Theresa May and will anything really change when it has?

As for a second vote, you're right cider_and_toast it can't a straight yes or no vote anymore but you can't spilt either part of the vote. Again, another big mess. Besides, there isn't time to have another referendum now before the leave date in October is there? Of course this is the third leave date we've date, will it be third time lucky? Who the hell knows? I'm sure I don't anymore.
 

Greenlantern101

Super Hero And All Round Good Guy
Contributor
I agreed 3 options isn't viable. You could argue that the leave decision has been made in 2016.
So we would just be voting on 'how' we leave. But it's never that straight forward, as the leave option was at best unclear in 2016.
 

Angel

Happy to help.
Contributor
Greenlantern101 The thing is you can't even have a vote just on which leave option people want, as you say. Those on the remain side would be furious to be cut out of the chance to have their say, and rightly so.

The whole thing is one huge mess and we can all thank David Cameron for putting us in this position in the first place.
 

cider_and_toast

Exulted Lord High Moderator of the Apex
Staff member
Premium Contributor
The Maybot has set a new standard for disastrous premierships.

I guarantee she'll step down from parliament almost as soon as she quits number 10.

By new year she'll be donning an ermine gown and spending an hour a month in "the other place"
 

Bill Boddy

Professional layabout
Premium Contributor
Question.

IF the public get another referendum on the final deal what is the other option going to be?

Yes - will be to go for the proposed deal what ever it is.

But what is the No vote? Is it to leave with no deal? Or is it to cancel Brexit altogether?
You can have as many choices as you like, you just need to use the Single Preferred Vote. It is probably the method which is fairest in this sort of case as has been showed in Scotland and Ireland.

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/single-transferable-vote/
 

Angel

Happy to help.
Contributor
But Cameron had to act to fight the UKIP threat as UKIP had secured 1 seat vs the Conservatives 331 in the 2015 general election.

It's obvious, the conservatives had to offer a referendum to ward off this huge UKIP threat.
Cameron had to give us the vote after he promised to do so in order to get elected. He wanted to be in power on his own without the Lib. Dems. and that was his only way of getting it, or at least he seemed to think so.

He then gambled on the fact that he and his mates would scare the living daylights out of the general public and make them too afraid to vote leave. Trouble is the people didn't listen to him or believe him enough to buy his doom and gloom stories and he lost, he really never expected that. He assumed he'd give us the vote, remain would win and he could say that he gave us the 'once in a lifetime' chance to vote and the subject is closed forever. He assumed wrong.

He did the same thing in Scotland with the vote you all had there and he got his own way that time didn't he? When you look back at it, he used the exact same tactics to scare enough people into voting against Scotland breaking away and it worked for him. Then he felt even more confident, so he tried it a second time over Brexit and look what happened.

The second he lost (as I've said before) he picked up his ball and slithered off home, he didn't even have the guts to stay and try and make the best of it. No, he pulled the pin, threw the grenade and left all the others to clear up the mess he made.

As you can tell, I have zero respect for the guy.
 

cider_and_toast

Exulted Lord High Moderator of the Apex
Staff member
Premium Contributor
Cameron had to give us the vote after he promised to do so in order to get elected
Not really. Politicians break their manifesto promises all the time. No one would have batted an eyelid if he had changed his mind.
 

Titch

Champion Elect
Premium Contributor
Why. Just why. Someone tell me what the f..k happened.
 
Last edited:

Dartman

Points Scorer
When you have a referendum and you want the result to go your way you fix the rules to ensure you win, Cameron didn't, that makes him politically extremely naive, Scotland was a close run and he should have learnt from that.
 

Greenlantern101

Super Hero And All Round Good Guy
Contributor
When you have a referendum and you want the result to go your way you fix the rules to ensure you win, Cameron didn't, that makes him politically extremely naive, Scotland was a close run and he should have learnt from that.
That is effectively what Westminster did in the very first Scottish devolution referendum in 1979. Scotland voted Yes by 52% to 48% but because the Yes vote was under 40% of the eligible electorate the act was repealed. It was basically set so the vote needed at least an 80% turn out. So if you stayed home you were contributing to the no vote.
 
Top Bottom