RugbyRebels

Mellsblue wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: There is only the name of the candidate and their party on the ballot of a GE but I assume everyone knows the platform behind the name and party. No different with the referendum. You can't accept that Leave campaigned on those three planks and in the next sentence then claim it's not clear what platform they campained on.
If you honestly think this is solely May and the govts fault then you don't understand how our parliament works. If you think it's solely Lib Dem MPs who have refused to accept the result then you can call me whatever you like but you are refusing to acknowledge that all the SNP, Plaid and Green MPs haven't accepted the result, and that's as obvious as is possible. To them you can add the numerous Labour and Conservative MPs who, from day 1, have refused to accept the result - have a look at the origins of the People's Vote movement and the Independent Group/Change UK and tell me it was just the Lib Dems.

The GE was largely fought on issues other than Brexit, it was also fought at a time when most remainers had accepted the result of the referendum, and thus were voting on other issues.
The referendum didn't include candidate or party names at all, and was a single-issue vote.
Show members I haven't accepted that leave campaigned for a hard Brexit? Now show me where they didn't also campaign on a soft Brexit. Leave were absolutely trying to be all things to all people whom were disaffected with the EU, and picked up votes across the whole range of people, from those who were registering a protest about being asked the question, through those who wanted a Norway-style departure, to those who wanted to crash and burn.
What you're doing is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place. "You lost get over it" or hell, even "you won, now you have to kowtow to my demands because I'm more extreme that you".
Quite frankly, you can fuck off with that attitude. That unwillingness to see other people's opinions as even being genuinely held, let alone valid, or as valid as your own.

Like May you are refusing to discuss this in good faith. Consequently you have lost any faith I had in discussing this with you, but feel free to have the last word anyway.

On the political party thing - I was talking about parties represented across Britain, not the nationalists; and no-one gives a damn about the Greens. Remain Tories and labour, and now-TIG were okay accepting the result of the referendum. They're not now because of the attitudes you're parroting, and because of 3 years of bad governing.
Please note, there's a difference between "accepting the result" and "full-heartedly embracing the result" not that you'll see it.

Farewell.

My point about the GE is that the ballot paper doesn’t set out a party or candidates position, as with the referendum, but people going into that booth know what they are voting for based on the campaign. The same is true for the ref.

I’m not doing anything. I don’t agree with the ERG and voted Remain, I’m just pointing out that your attempt to solely blame May and her govt shows a lack of understanding of how our political system works.

I'll happily accept that I think the winning side shouldn’t have to compromise, mainly because they won. Again, I don’t back the ERG and they don’t represent Brexiteers at large. What they do represent is how those on both fringes have become more entrenched as we’ve gone along.

I am discussing on good faith, I’m just using both eyes when discussing.

The nationalists are MPs in our parliament, you can’t just not include them. If you’ve decided not to, it’s best to make that clear.

Which Tyler wrote:Thinking a little more about it - yes, I can prove that "not that many" remain MPs accepted the result of the referrendum (though I grant, I should have included the nationalist parties as well as the lib dems stuck to their line, albeit possibly for differing reasons)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38833883
So that's 1 out of 317 tories, and 47 out of 262 labour MPs who refused to accept the results.

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:The GE was largely fought on issues other than Brexit, it was also fought at a time when most remainers had accepted the result of the referendum, and thus were voting on other issues.
The referendum didn't include candidate or party names at all, and was a single-issue vote.
Show members I haven't accepted that leave campaigned for a hard Brexit? Now show me where they didn't also campaign on a soft Brexit. Leave were absolutely trying to be all things to all people whom were disaffected with the EU, and picked up votes across the whole range of people, from those who were registering a protest about being asked the question, through those who wanted a Norway-style departure, to those who wanted to crash and burn.
What you're doing is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place. "You lost get over it" or hell, even "you won, now you have to kowtow to my demands because I'm more extreme that you".
Quite frankly, you can fuck off with that attitude. That unwillingness to see other people's opinions as even being genuinely held, let alone valid, or as valid as your own.

Like May you are refusing to discuss this in good faith. Consequently you have lost any faith I had in discussing this with you, but feel free to have the last word anyway.

On the political party thing - I was talking about parties represented across Britain, not the nationalists; and no-one gives a damn about the Greens. Remain Tories and labour, and now-TIG were okay accepting the result of the referendum. They're not now because of the attitudes you're parroting, and because of 3 years of bad governing.
Please note, there's a difference between "accepting the result" and "full-heartedly embracing the result" not that you'll see it.

Farewell.

My point about the GE is that the ballot paper doesn’t set out a party or candidates position, as with the referendum, but people going into that booth know what they are voting for based on the campaign. The same is true for the ref.

I’m not doing anything. I don’t agree with the ERG and voted Remain, I’m just pointing out that your attempt to solely blame May and her govt shows a lack of understanding of how our political system works.

I'll happily accept that I think the winning side shouldn’t have to compromise, mainly because they won. Again, I don’t back the ERG and they don’t represent Brexiteers at large. What they do represent is how those on both fringes have become more entrenched as we’ve gone along.

I am discussing on good faith, I’m just using both eyes when discussing.

The nationalists are MPs in our parliament, you can’t just not include them. If you’ve decided not to, it’s best to make that clear.

But you cannot see the result of an advisory referendum as a "win" or "lose", and if you do, you simply play into the narrative of the people who want a hard Brexit for their own gains.

First, it was advisory.
Second, no one interpreted it, so how can you know what anyone voted for?

Mellsblue wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Thinking a little more about it - yes, I can prove that "not that many" remain MPs accepted the result of the referrendum (though I grant, I should have included the nationalist parties as well as the lib dems stuck to their line, albeit possibly for differing reasons)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38833883
So that's 1 out of 317 tories, and 47 out of 262 labour MPs who refused to accept the results.

This again shows a lack of nuance. People vote for all sorts of reasons other than just that they believe in what’s in front of them. Look at Lab not voting for the WA when decoupled even though it’s virtually what they want from Brexit. As Banquo has pointed out, Starmer has admitted its party politics. Voting one way and politicking begins the scenes to achieve the exact opppsite is common place.

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: My point about the GE is that the ballot paper doesn’t set out a party or candidates position, as with the referendum, but people going into that booth know what they are voting for based on the campaign. The same is true for the ref.

I’m not doing anything. I don’t agree with the ERG and voted Remain, I’m just pointing out that your attempt to solely blame May and her govt shows a lack of understanding of how our political system works.

I'll happily accept that I think the winning side shouldn’t have to compromise, mainly because they won. Again, I don’t back the ERG and they don’t represent Brexiteers at large. What they do represent is how those on both fringes have become more entrenched as we’ve gone along.

I am discussing on good faith, I’m just using both eyes when discussing.

The nationalists are MPs in our parliament, you can’t just not include them. If you’ve decided not to, it’s best to make that clear.

But you cannot see the result of an advisory referendum as a "win" or "lose", and if you do, you simply play into the narrative of the people who want a hard Brexit for their own gains.

First, it was advisory.
Second, no one interpreted it, so how can you know what anyone voted for?

Love the advisory line. Why have it if you aren’t to do as instructed?

Because I followed the campaign closely. I’ve already stated the three central planks of the campaign and what that means.

Mellsblue wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Thinking a little more about it - yes, I can prove that "not that many" remain MPs accepted the result of the referrendum (though I grant, I should have included the nationalist parties as well as the lib dems stuck to their line, albeit possibly for differing reasons)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38833883
So that's 1 out of 317 tories, and 47 out of 262 labour MPs who refused to accept the results.

This again shows a lack of nuance. People vote for all sorts of reasons other than just that they believe in what’s in front of them. Look at Lab not voting for the WA when decoupled even though it’s virtually what they want from Brexit. As Banquo has pointed out, Starmer has admitted its party politics. Voting one way and politicking behind the scenes to achieve the exact opppsite is common place.

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Thinking a little more about it - yes, I can prove that "not that many" remain MPs accepted the result of the referrendum (though I grant, I should have included the nationalist parties as well as the lib dems stuck to their line, albeit possibly for differing reasons)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38833883
So that's 1 out of 317 tories, and 47 out of 262 labour MPs who refused to accept the results.

This again shows a lack of nuance. People vote for all sorts of reasons other than just that they believe in what’s in front of them. Look at Lab not voting for the WA when decoupled even though it’s virtually what they want from Brexit. As Banquo has pointed out, Starmer has admitted its party politics. Voting one way and politicking begins the scenes to achieve the exact opppsite is common place.

Doesn't that kind of undermine your argument about the ref?

Which Tyler wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Thinking a little more about it - yes, I can prove that "not that many" remain MPs accepted the result of the referrendum (though I grant, I should have included the nationalist parties as well as the lib dems stuck to their line, albeit possibly for differing reasons)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38833883
So that's 1 out of 317 tories, and 47 out of 262 labour MPs who refused to accept the results.

This again shows a lack of nuance. People vote for all sorts of reasons other than just that they believe in what’s in front of them. Look at Lab not voting for the WA when decoupled even though it’s virtually what they want from Brexit. As Banquo has pointed out, Starmer has admitted its party politics. Voting one way and politicking behind the scenes to achieve the exact opppsite is common place.

Ahh - so this shows a lack of nuance; but there's no nuance to be had whatsoever in the referendum?

Besides which, 2 years have passed between that vote and the WA votes - or haven't you noticed that? too nuanced maybe?

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: This again shows a lack of nuance. People vote for all sorts of reasons other than just that they believe in what’s in front of them. Look at Lab not voting for the WA when decoupled even though it’s virtually what they want from Brexit. As Banquo has pointed out, Starmer has admitted its party politics. Voting one way and politicking begins the scenes to achieve the exact opppsite is common place.

Doesn't that kind of undermine your argument about the ref?

Sorry, meant politicians. I’m supposed to be working so typing quickly. There are hundreds of examples they show you when you study this stuff. Too long ago for me to remember.

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:
Doesn't that kind of undermine your argument about the ref?

Sorry, meant politicians. I’m supposed to be working so typing quickly. There are hundreds of examples they show you when you study this stuff. Too long ago for me to remember.

So politicians are allowed to have a nuanced view but voters cannot?

You can't be stiff in one thing and loose on another just because it suits your argument. I can and will blame far more than the government, but that doesn't mean I think the ref vote was remotely an endorsement of a single course of action. Just watch some of the interviews to see that...

Mellsblue wrote:This thread, and subsequent one linked, pretty much sum up what is happening today and in the short term:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Sorry, meant politicians. I’m supposed to be working so typing quickly. There are hundreds of examples they show you when you study this stuff. Too long ago for me to remember.

So politicians are allowed to have a nuanced view but voters cannot?

You can't be stiff in one thing and loose on another just because it suits your argument. I can and will blame far more than the government, but that doesn't mean I think the ref vote was remotely an endorsement of a single course of action. Just watch some of the interviews to see that...

Cool. If you don’t think the leave campaign platform was blindingly obvious then fair enough. If you don’t think most politicians are
Machiavellian at heart then that’s fair enough too. It is possible for one stage to be nuanced and another not within the same process. This is especially true when the actors in those two stages are hugely different, both in number and make up, and when one is a vote to start a process the actors can influence and the other is a single vote after which the actors are passengers.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:This thread, and subsequent one linked, pretty much sum up what is happening today and in the short term:

do they have to rework them to pass the Bercow test? I thought they were just going to vote on the top 3 from last Thursday?

The general public may find this a tad confusing. As indeed did Ian Lavery when voting for no-deal last week.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Cool. Let’s have a second ref solely on which form of Brexit the country wants......

Which would also be removing one of the popular options. There's absolutely no point in doing it if it leaves a major grouping crying that they weren't represented.

Puja

So you accept it’s an attempt to overturn the first referendum.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
Which would also be removing one of the popular options. There's absolutely no point in doing it if it leaves a major grouping crying that they weren't represented.

Puja

So you accept it’s an attempt to overturn the first referendum.

It's an attempt to work out which of the three popular options can currently command a majority with the populace at large, rather than trying to interpret whether the votes from 3 years ago meant deal or no deal.

Yes, we could have the new referendum be just between those two choices, but there's a fairly reasonable argument to be made that, given those two exitting choices, a fair few people might prefer option C of "None of the above". And there's no point going through the whole shitty process again if it's going to leave any ambiguity at all.

Puja

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:
So politicians are allowed to have a nuanced view but voters cannot?

You can't be stiff in one thing and loose on another just because it suits your argument. I can and will blame far more than the government, but that doesn't mean I think the ref vote was remotely an endorsement of a single course of action. Just watch some of the interviews to see that...

Cool. If you don’t think the leave campaign platform was blindingly obvious then fair enough. If you don’t think most politicians are
Machiavellian at heart then that’s fair enough too. It is possible for one stage to be nuanced and another not within the same process. This is especially true when the actors in those two stages are hugely different, both in number and make up, and when one is a vote to start a process the actors can influence and the other is a single vote after which the actors are passengers.

Let's do it this way, then...

A gym runs a special for new customers. They offer 20% OFF the first 3 months of a 6 month contract. They get 100 sign ups. Of those 100 sign ups, 40 are men and 60 are women. 35% are under 30, 25% are 30-40, 20% 40-50, and 20% are 50+.

Glen, a 52 year old man has suffered with some heart issues caused by poor lifestyle choices. His doctor told him to workout or risk a heart attack, so he joined a gym.
Karen, 38, doesn't like the way her tummy looks in a bikini and now there are no more children on the way, she wants to join a gym and flatten it out.
Mike, 25, has got a job and can suddenly afford to work out at a gym with real weights rather than at home with milk jugs.
Julie, 44, has used 4 gyms in the area, and always signs up to new gyms based on special offers. She likes to shop around for the best deals.

All of these people join the gym for different reasons, the fact they joined the gym is important, but there is a host of information behind that.

To suggest that everyone who voted leave wanted the same kind of Brexit, in the same way, is insane. Because every person has different problems that require different solutions.

The government - and the opposition - have completely failed to address this fact. But it doesn't stop it from being true.

That gym said "Get fit and lose your excess fat for less". Yet 50% of the examples did not join to get fit or lose weight.

Just because a bus said £350m for the NHS, doesn't mean that's why Bob, or Carol voted for it.

So stop treating people as morons.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
Which would also be removing one of the popular options. There's absolutely no point in doing it if it leaves a major grouping crying that they weren't represented.

Puja

So you accept it’s an attempt to overturn the first referendum.

It's an attempt to work out which of the three popular options can currently command a majority with the populace at large, rather than trying to interpret whether the votes from 3 years ago meant deal or no deal.

Yes, we could have the new referendum be just between those two choices, but there's a fairly reasonable argument to be made that, given those two exitting choices, a fair few people might prefer option C of "None of the above". And there's no point going through the whole shitty process again if it's going to leave any ambiguity at all.

Puja

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:This thread, and subsequent one linked, pretty much sum up what is happening today and in the short term:

do they have to rework them to pass the Bercow test? I thought they were just going to vote on the top 3 from last Thursday?

The general public may find this a tad confusing. As indeed did Ian Lavery when voting for no-deal last week.

As I understand it, no, because they were included in the business motion. If the same business motion were to be re-proposed, Bercow *should* reject it...

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote: do they have to rework them to pass the Bercow test? I thought they were just going to vote on the top 3 from last Thursday?

The general public may find this a tad confusing. As indeed did Ian Lavery when voting for no-deal last week.

As I understand it, no, because they were included in the business motion. If the same business motion were to be re-proposed, Bercow *should* reject it...

They’ve also all been amended, save Clarke’s CU motion; which was so close to passing last time that you can see why you’d allow it another go. Really, it depends on whether Bercow decides to rely on precedent or not, which is dependent on how much attention it will garner him/whether it suits his own ends.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: So you accept it’s an attempt to overturn the first referendum.

It's an attempt to work out which of the three popular options can currently command a majority with the populace at large, rather than trying to interpret whether the votes from 3 years ago meant deal or no deal.

Yes, we could have the new referendum be just between those two choices, but there's a fairly reasonable argument to be made that, given those two exitting choices, a fair few people might prefer option C of "None of the above". And there's no point going through the whole shitty process again if it's going to leave any ambiguity at all.

Puja

Going round in circles! I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I don’t want to piss off the mod. Even if he has mellowed since his dictatorial early years.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:
As I understand it, no, because they were included in the business motion. If the same business motion were to be re-proposed, Bercow *should* reject it...

They’ve also all been amended, save Clarke’s CU motion; which was so close to passing last time that you can see why you’d allow it another go. Really, it depends on whether Bercow decides to rely on precedent or not, which is dependent on how much attention it will garner him/whether it suits his own ends.

apparently they have to get 320 votes to be even noticed