Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

lisyloo

phillw wrote: »

Yes, if you come and contribute to society then of course you should have a say in how it's run. Can you give me any reason why they shouldn't?

After how long, 10 minutes, 5 years?
If they just have to come, then isn’t that open to abuse?
I.e. they can just show up to vote?

There was a time when women weren't allowed to vote and even men needed a certain level of wealth before they could vote, similar things will have been said to justify why women or poor men shouldn't tell us what to do.

Not quite the same.
People who’ve lived and probably worked here all their lives just not deemed to be good enough,
I’m not saying visitors aren’t good enough as people, just that this isn’t their mother country.

You lost me when you used the word "our", it's a classic tell.

That I don’t want people that have just turned up to tell us what to do?
Yes, fine.
Have you got enough explanation now?
you haven’t presented any arguments to change my mind.
If they were showing a committment e.g. citizenship, then that would be different, but you havent presented any argument as to why people just showing up should get a vote.

Btw - I have 2 non-EU SILs. They are going through a fairly intensive process of citizenship. That’s making a commitment to contribute to our society and different to what you are talking about where anyone that shows up for 10 minutes gets a vote.

I think you are interpreted the “tell” wrongly. I welcome those willing to make a commitment.
I just think they need to commit before they get a vote rather than just get a ferry over here to qualify.

I come from a mixed race family and have non-EU in-laws who’ve been welcome so I am therefore not xenophobic by definition, just think people need to qualify before they get a say. We may have freedom of movement but that doesn’t make EU visitors citizens of our country. Some are here to make money from us and send it all home (not all) and only stay temporarily so I think you need to be careful before you allow visitors to determine out future. That’s different to people making a commitment to our country.

Xenophobia is defined as a predujice against people from other countries which clearly does not apply to me.

I don’t need to defend myself against your slights.
You just don’t like my logic that people shouldn’t be able to get a ferry here to vote.
That’s not a predujice just logic.

SpiderLegs

phillw wrote: »

Yes, really. If someone has lived here for twenty years and has been working and paying taxes then it seems only right to let them vote. If you're scared of letting them have a vote then you literally are scared of what people who are not from here would do, which is the definition of xenophobia.

You just lack awareness of your own prejudices. No amount of you rofl or lmao is going to change that.

I disagree. Twenty years is far too long. It should be immediate. We have to treat everybody equally so it’s only fair. Anyone who says otherwise is a racist.

I disagree, these divisions are going to tear the country apart whatever happens. There are too many shy xenophobic leave voters & they aren't going to be happy with a close relationship with the EU. They've kept quiet for 40 years but now they smell their end game then it's going to be absolutely dreadful.

The only solution to this is to ban xenophobics and racists from voting. We are only in this position because we allowed them a free choice so the sooner we admit that mistake and get back to the days when all parties were basically the same the better. Then we can have functioning government that makes policy based on the opinions of normal people.

So to conclude.
1. Everyone should be allowed to vote.
2. Anyone who isn’t normal cannot vote.

lisyloo

Theophile wrote: »

A country defines its voter franchise either on nationality or on residency.

If said country decides to base it on nationality, there's absolutely nothing racist or discriminatory about it.


Where it becomes a bit of a farce is when UK citizens abroad (+15 years) are being excluded based on their residency in a referendum that defined its franchise on nationality.


Giving unconditional voting rights to commonwealth citizens should also be looked at.
You just can't exclude large swathes of UK nationals abroad, while giving voting rights to any Zambian or Pakistani that happened to be in this country at that time.

WRT brexit this is all irrelevant I think.
If people want to discuss how a future voting system then it should be on a different thread.

The fact is we had a referendum by the rules of the time.
No one (of any importance) has said it doesn’t stand over the last 3 years (Switzerland recently overturned a referendum) so the result stands and there will be millions of angry people if it is not enacted.
Arguments over the system should have been sorted beforehand not 3 years afterwards (forum moaning is an ineffective mechanism to get anything done).

I voted remain but those are the facts.
It was valid and it was promised that it would be enacted many many times and we face numerous problems even civil unrest if we don’t enact it.

btW - were there many racists/xenophobia who voted remain??

Enterprise_1701C

BobQ wrote: »

Its true that anyone who wanted to vote could do so. The problem was that there were many people who did not. Some no doubt would never have voted but others were genuinely uncertain about what they wanted, what leave meant, what was best for the nation and best for themselves, what the issues were, who to believe.

The reason for not voting is irrelevant, you accept that by not voting the decision will go with the majority, whether you like it or not.

phillw wrote: »

Yes, if you come and contribute to society then of course you should have a say in how it's run. Can you give me any reason why they shouldn't?

The alternative is xenophobia. They didn't need to become UK citizens because they had freedom of movement, we let them vote in council elections but not national ones, seems discriminatory to me.

There was a time when women weren't allowed to vote and even men needed a certain level of wealth before they could vote, similar things will have been said to justify why women or poor men shouldn't tell us what to do.

You lost me when you used the word "our", it's a classic tell.

If you are not willing to commit to being part of our society then you do not get to vote, simple.

If you say that anybody should be able to vote in any country, then maybe we should all be entitled to vote in the Scottish referendums?

There are rules applied to who is part of the electorate, whether you like the rules is irrelevant, people knew that, as for expats not being able to vote if they have not been registered to vote here for 15 years, that applies to general elections too so they should have realised that they could not vote.

And you might have had a shock if the eu citizens had been allowed to vote, a lot of them actually look around them and think the country is full, they may well have voted to leave.

lisyloo

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

And you might have had a shock if the eu citizens had been allowed to vote, a lot of them actually look around them and think the country is full, they may well have voted to leave.

That brings to mind an interesting anecdote.
I was eating an Indian meal near Paddington station and the waiter (non-EU) came to the country 40 years ago (I’d estimate his age at 70).
He definitely felt the country was full and wanted to pull the drawbridge up behind him.
Quite an interesting point of view from an immigrant who wanted to halt further immigration.

So I reckon you’re right.

BikingBud

BobQ wrote: »

That was a referendum that measured popular opinion at an instance of time.

So in future the referendum should ask what would you like to do; this morning, this afternoon, tomorrow morning, a week on Weds, the second Thurs after Christmas, any other arbitrary point in the future.:rotfl:

BobQ wrote: »

I accept that there are a large number of people who are obsessively in favour of leaving and also a large number of people who are obsessively in favour of remaining.

Yes but more people voted for leave.

BobQ wrote: »

But there are many more who are not sure one way or the other. The Leave community cannot agree on whether they want a no-deal Brexit or a May Brexit or some other form of Brexit. In short it is impossible to give those that voted leave a Brexit that they voted for. If Parliament cannot agree on something, a public vote is the sensible way forward.

And this is the major problem the inability of our elected representatives to deliver what they agreed to:mad:

BobQ wrote: »

Those that do not want this are opposing democracy while wrapping themselves in the referendum being immutable and accusing others of being anti-democratic. I cannot see any other way of uniting the nation than saying this is the best deal we can achieve, do you want this or remain.

So now we have a whole series of differing options and also a number of timelines by which they might be delivered. Do you want to put the perms on a ballot paper?

Tromking

lisyloo wrote: »

I don’t need to defend myself against your slights.
You just don’t like my logic that people shouldn’t be able to get a ferry here to vote.
That’s not a predujice just logic.

Well said.
IMO. The wanton use of the ‘R bomb’ and in this case the ‘X bomb’ by Remoaners is just displaced anger that their world view was not shared by enough of their fellow Brits back in 2016. It also doubles as a handy virtue signal that indicates that their voting habits are somehow morally superior to those Leave voters they can’t help but look down their nose at.
The collective Brexit meltdown of the entitled middle classes in this country has been of the many joys of this whole saga.
Long may it continue.

BikingBud

phillw wrote: »

Yeah, they are so riled up that they have forgotten what they thought they were voting for.

Nobody was suggesting WTO before the referendum, it's like the people who claimed to see footage of the first plane hitting the WTC tower on 9/11 even though amateur footage only became available later.

And then there is this https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-cornwall-issues-plea-for-funding-protection-after-county-overwhelmingly-votes-in-favour-of-a7101311.html

But a statement on the council website posted on Friday said prior to the referendum said the county was reassured by the Leave side that withdrawing from the EU would not affect the funding already allocated by Brussels.

Leave campaigners also promised the county would not be worse off in terms of the investment it receives. “We are seeking urgent confirmation from Ministers that this is the case,” the statement added.

High on winning by a slim majority, the leave voters have forgotten what democracy is.

I don't understand most of this ramble, perhaps you could make a coherent statement that we could asses and discuss.

Democracy, for the referendum, was those that voted to leave being greater than those that voted to stay. Try dressing it up and putting any number of differing perspectives upon it, a majority, however slim, is still a majority.

phillw

BikingBud wrote: »

I don't understand most of this ramble, perhaps you could make a coherent statement that we could asses and discuss.

Ok, I'll dumb it down for you.

BikingBud wrote: »

Democracy, for the referendum, was those that voted to leave being greater than those that voted to stay. Try dressing it up and putting any number of differing perspectives upon it, a majority, however slim, is still a majority.

I don't particularly care about three year old advisory referendums that have unachievable outcomes.

You were promised a load of lies, one of the people has even written a book about how they promised you lies. There are ongoing criminal investigations. If you cared about democracy then you wouldn't be arguing that every cast vote was an informed vote, with such a slim majority then there is too much danger that the outcome is invalid.

This is how democracies deal with misinformed referendums https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/switzerland-referendum-result-overturn-supreme-court-brexit-eu-vote-a8866131.html

Anyone who argues that the result was legitimate should be treated with contempt and never trusted.

BikingBud

kabayiri wrote: »

Maybe people should be asked a different question next time.

EU : fully IN or fully OUT?

I don't see how a quasi-committed member like the UK is becoming helps the EU.

They have big enough challenges to address, as it is.

Define fully in.

Does it includes a Federal armed forces?

Does it include taking on the €

Does it include dissolving Parliament?

Does it include removing our legal system?

Does it include ignoring our democratic history and precedents since the signing of the Magna Carta?