Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

Herzlos

cogito wrote: »

I'm not at all scared of democracy. It's just that you and I have different views of what it is.

Indeed. I think democracy allows the people and Parliament to decide and change their mind. You seem to think it means Brexit at all costs because a 51.9% majority said so 3 years ago.

I'm perfectly happy for the likes of Gina Miller to take legal action to ensure parliamentary democracy it backfired on her somewhat though, didn’t it and her pretension that it was nothing to do with stopping Brexit turned out to be a lie.

It worked out pretty well for her beyond the death threats - Parliament maintained sovereignty. That she wants to stop Brexit is irrelevant - the law was on her side.

And Johnson hasn’t threatened to prorogue Parliament. Can you show that he did?

His team has and he's refusing to rule it out:
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/boris-johnson/news/105364/boris-johnsons-team


Parliament seems to be getting pretty worked up trying to find a way to stop him doing it though, so he must have hinted at it somewhere.

And why should we have a second referendum when the first one hasn’t been implemented?

Why do we need to do a think before re-assessing if it seems the public has changed it's mind?

If you had one and leave won again, would you accept it or would you still want another and another until you got the result you wanted? Is that your definition of democracy?

"If a democracy cannot change it's mind, it ceases to be a democracy" - David Davis.


If there was a material change in circumstances, or it seemed the public had changed it's mind, then I'd support another referendum. Both of those have happened. If Leave won again, then that'd be it - we leave. Maybe we'd even know what kind of leave to go for.


There's literally no downside to a 2nd referendum if you believe in democracy.

Herzlos

cogito wrote: »

How very selective. What about the hundreds of other MPs who promised to respect the result of the referendum and have still spent the last three years doing the opposite? Soubry, Grieve and Cooper just for starters.

Parliament has spent 3 years and millions of pounds trying to find a way to make it work, failing miserably because the promises are contradictory. I'd say that's respecting the referendum, but it's not respecting the people. Respecting the people would mean owning up to it and saying "Hey, we've tried and here are the only options we have, they are all pretty bad. If you proceed, which option do you want?"


Just think what we could have been focusing on instead of Brexit. We could potentially have solved some of our actual problems.

phillw

Herzlos wrote: »

His team has and he's refusing to rule it out:
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/boris-johnson/news/105364/boris-johnsons-team

I'm not sure, but it seems the loony leavers are just trolling us now

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/14/uk-could-unilaterally-exit-eu-in-next-10-days-senior-tory-mp-says

BTW, you should all watch the great hack on netflix. I'm sure it won't be of interest to those high on winning, but it does a really good job of showing the propaganda and manipulation that managed to get the leave campaign ever so slightly over the line.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/cambridge-analytica-dcms-evidence-brexit-leave-eu/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica#United_Kingdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_campaigning_in_the_2016_EU_referendum

It's an outrage against democracy.

Anyone even thinking of saying "well remain lied too" is out of touch with reality.

cogito

Herzlos wrote: »

His team has and he's refusing to rule it out:
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/boris-johnson/news/105364/boris-johnsons-team

So you were wrong when you said that Boris threatened to prorogue Parliament and you are also wrong when you said his team had. The link you posted does not support what you said.

Refusing to rule something out is not the same as threatening to do it.

Malthusian

cogito wrote: »

Refusing to rule something out is not the same as threatening to do it.

Yes it is. Like how saying "We aren't above leading people up the garden path" is the same as admitting that you only won the referendum because you lied. Or "Let's fund the NHS instead" is the same as "Let's redirect the entire £350 million EU subs to the NHS". Or how Arron Banks just said that he was personally going to drive a speedboat up to Greta Thunberg's yacht and blow it up with a bazooka.

Nobody actually pays attention to what anyone says anymore. This is politics. Reading what someone actually said, even for the purpose of disagreeing with it, is far too close to fraternising with the enemy. It damages intellectual purity.

mayonnaise

Malthusian wrote: »

Or "Let's fund the NHS instead" is the same as "Let's redirect the entire £350 million EU subs to the NHS".

The below looks very much like "Let's redirect the entire £350 million EU subs to the NHS"

Herzlos

cogito wrote: »

So you were wrong when you said that Boris threatened to prorogue Parliament and you are also wrong when you said his team had. The link you posted does not support what you said.

Refusing to rule something out is not the same as threatening to do it.

This seems to be a key point where we differ. I'm happy to admit I was wrong, such as in this case.


Though whilst I can't find a quote from him explicitly threatening to do it, he did make it clear he'd be leaving by the 31st October whatever happened, and the suspending of parliament has been mentioned all over the place as one option available to him. It's obviously a serious enough threat that lots of people are trying to figure out if he can and are trying to find a way to stop him. A motion was even passed in order to prevent proroguing Parliament;
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/18/could-parliaments-latest-amendment-stop-no-deal-brexit



Johnson is certainly pretty good at not outright saying something so that he can deny it later.

Sailtheworld

cogito wrote: »

Refusing to rule something out is not the same as threatening to do it.

He's refused to rule it out because if we're leaving 'do or die' at the end of October it may well be a tool he requires. Not that Boris worries too much about aligning words with actions.

But, yes, refusing to rule something out is not the same as threatening to do it.

Sailtheworld

Malthusian wrote: »

Nobody actually pays attention to what anyone says anymore. This is politics. Reading what someone actually said, even for the purpose of disagreeing with it, is far too close to fraternising with the enemy. It damages intellectual purity.

Boris actually said "once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350m per week. It would be a fine thing, as many of us have pointed out, if a lot of that money went on the NHS"

Most people would see the clear implication. The cheerleaders would pull out a dictionary and start arguing about the difference between implicit and explicit.

Zero_Gravitas

Sailtheworld wrote: »

Boris actually said "once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350m per week. It would be a fine thing, as many of us have pointed out, if a lot of that money went on the NHS"

Most people would see the clear implication. The cheerleaders would pull out a dictionary and start arguing about the difference between implicit and explicit.

Or you could just at the picture that Mayonnaise posted at 4:29pm today. That looks like a pretty clear implication to me...