Brexit

Moggy wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:

Moggy wrote:It's a shitty situation when an unelected group protect people more than the elected mob.

It'll be interesting how the government handles this.

From the BBC,

The vote, by 358 to 256, is the first Parliamentary defeat for the government's Brexit bill.
However, MPs will be able to remove their changes when the bill returns to the House of Commons.

I'm gonna guess that's how.

As Staydead says that will just push it back to the Lords (and that's if MPs decide to remove it). The Lords can't delay it forever, but it could end up throwing May's timetable out the window.

It could also in theory, give some of the MPs that voted along with it before some bollocks to say wait this is wrong and say no and not vote to push through such a gooseberry fool bill.

Errkal wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:

Moggy wrote:It's a shitty situation when an unelected group protect people more than the elected mob.

It'll be interesting how the government handles this.

From the BBC,

The vote, by 358 to 256, is the first Parliamentary defeat for the government's Brexit bill.
However, MPs will be able to remove their changes when the bill returns to the House of Commons.

I'm gonna guess that's how.

As Staydead says that will just push it back to the Lords (and that's if MPs decide to remove it). The Lords can't delay it forever, but it could end up throwing May's timetable out the window.

It could also in theory, give some of the MPs that voted along with it before some bollocks to say wait this is wrong and say no and not vote to push through such a gooseberry fool bill.

It could, but based on the previous votes I can't see that there will be enough rebel Tory and Labour MPs to be able to scupper May's plans.

I guess it depends if Corbyn has had a root around in the loft and found his backbone since the last vote.

If he has any sense he will have seen that everyone thought he was a split for just backing up may and change his mind this time round.

Rex Kramer wrote:I guess it depends if Corbyn has had a root around in the loft and found his backbone since the last vote.

Errkal wrote:If he has any sense he will have seen that everyone thought he was a split for just backing up may and change his mind this time round.

So yeah it is going back to the Lords.

Knoyleo wrote:
You call it infantilising, but political engagement, and understanding, in this country is terrible. You are well informed, and can't understand why someone would buy the leave campaign lies. Plenty of people chose not to be well informed , and have voted on empty promises eveny cursory research could see through, or gut feelings, or prevailing local opinion, or whatever else inspired them to do so. It's this right, or ideal? Of course not, but it was a referendum, and it was allowed.

Where has anyone said it wasn't allowed?

No one's said that (bonus points for again missing the point and arguing something different) - but they made a choice. T

he referendum was one of the most public and covered information campaigns in history,

The "truth" wasn't denied or hidden from these people - it was aggressivelyh thrust in their faces and they chose to reject it - through stupidity, insecurity or hatred.

Lack of desire to engage the electorate is a failure of the political class, that suited them for so long, but had led to situations like Brexit, because it allowed snake oil salesmen like Farage to come in and dupe people so easily. People who do not understand politics can easily be mislead into voting against their best interests, and turning around to laugh at them because they got what they deserved doesn't actually fix the situation.

Complete absolution of personal responsibility then? Christ. It's not the leave voters fault it's the establishment and/or the remain voters for not reaching them

If we want to see positive political change any time in the near future, then we'll need to win over the kind of people who voted to leave..

Again "We need to win them". Ignoring that fact they've already rejected attempts to help them (and screwed themselves and the people trying to help them over)- it's all on other people to fix.

So they're not to blame and people hurt by them (but it's not their fault remember) should try to repeat a tactic already shown to not work..

Oddly enough, even taking you a face value, that statement would work the other way - if THEY want to see positive poltical change in the near future - they need "us". But of course you don't put it that way...can't expect them to be responsibie for themsevles.

Them being strawberry floating screwed over by their poor choices might help them see that - but nahhhhhh it's on us to protect them from the consequences of their actions and beg them not to hurt themselves and us in the future? Give me a strawberry floating break.

Let them strawberry floating suffer - even ignoring the fact they chose it for them and for others - it's more likely to work to change mindsets that something that's already failed.

You're treating them like children and the idea of them have any personal accountability or responsibilty seeems like a foreign concept.

You'll never get them to change their minds by pandering to their bad choices at every opperunity.

We're never going to agree.

Treating them like adults and letting them learn from consequences
vs
Treating them like children. shielded from consquences and hoping they'll change the pattern of behavoir for some reason, who "we" have to protect.

It's too fundmental a difference in how you view people

One thing I'm wondering. The Lords amendment is not in itself a protection for the rights of EU citizens, it just requires the government to create/introduce such protection within 3 months of triggering Article 50. Could the commons just accept the amendment, then spend the three months trying to overturn it before the deadline requires they introduce it?

Meep wrote:Excellent post Knoyleo. I admit was initially very angry with leave voters but I have now moved through the stages of grief, as you might call it, to 'acceptance'. Brexit is going to happen so, that being the case, it is the responsibility of all of us who claim to care about the common good to engage with getting the best outcome possible. Will that outcome be better than remaining? Probably not, otherwise I would not have voted remain, but option is not on the table any more.

The referendum is an old battle. The battle currently being thought is against an incompetent government that is driving towards completely dropping out of the single market and customs union and threatening the stability of our economy and livelihoods in the process. We should not revel in any of the fallout this has for others.

The trouble with your approach of sucking it up and making the best of things is that I see it leading to more and more extreme politics. The referendum might be old news (it really isn’t though, it’s still absolutely current) but the results of it are not and the implications for the future are completely relevant to how we go forwards.

At the moment the fuckwits and bigots of this country are getting everything their own way (small Lords victory aside). They have won the referendum, May flip flopped from a quiet Remain to the Queen of Hard Brexit and it looks like the UK might just stick two fingers up at the whole of Europe unless they do absolutely everything that our right wing want.

What exactly do you think is the best case scenario for those of us that don’t hate Johnny Foreigner?

Let’s say hard Brexit is a massive success, Britain ends up richer and more powerful. Will the more extreme sides of the right wing be satisfied with that, or will they be pushing for even more extreme policies? Will the right wing in Europe not be pushing for their own exits?
The UKIP types are already creaming their pants over the idea that the EU might collapse, if they are right then we could easily see a situation where there are 28 “independent” countries in Europe all competing with each other, with right wing and extreme right wing governments in power. A disunited Europe with the like of Le Pen, Wilders, May all in charge…

To my mind, it is better that Brexit is an absolute strawberry floating disaster and leads to the rest of Europe coming together and realising that we are monumental fuckwits that it would be madness to follow the example of. It would hopefully also lead to people in the UK realising that they had been lied to, that a massive mistake had been made and that we actually do need other countries and we are not a special country that can go it alone and strawberry float everyone else.

People become more politically moderate in times of relative prosperity. Making the best of leaving the EU and minimising the worst effects of it will reduce political polarisation and therefore reduce the influence of the far right, not increase it.

Hoping that a large negative change in living standards will teach leave voters a lesson and result in them learning from the consequences is flawed. There exist numerous common mental fallacies that people will employ rather than admit to being wrong, especially when they feel as if their beliefs are being attacked and their actions criticised. People have previously mentioned repeatedly how they think if anything is seen to be going badly it will be blamed on remain voters "sabotaging" brexit - and we already see evidence of this, especially in the rhetoric and reactions from the anti-EU press. Hoping for a successful as possible result from brexit is not a "complete absolution of personal responsibility" of those who voted leave, it's a pragmatic approach to bettering the situation through positive action and education that will result in /less/ polarisation and more moderation, political engagement and understanding in the future.

If I thought that terrible consequences from brexit would result in people moving away from the far right and reevaluating their beliefs I would see value in it, despite the obvious unwanted consequence of people's lives being worse. But it won't, it'll just make things worse.

OrangeRakoon wrote:Hoping that a large negative change in living standards will teach leave voters a lesson and result in them learning from the consequences is flawed. There exist numerous common mental fallacies that people will employ rather than admit to being wrong, especially when they feel as if their beliefs are being attacked and their actions criticised. People have previously mentioned repeatedly how they think if anything is seen to be going badly it will be blamed on remain voters "sabotaging" brexit - and we already see evidence of this, especially in the rhetoric and reactions from the anti-EU press. Hoping for a successful as possible result from brexit is not a "complete absolution of personal responsibility" of those who voted leave, it's a pragmatic approach to bettering the situation through positive action and education that will result in /less/ polarisation and more moderation, political engagement and understanding in the future.

It's not really that "pragmatic" to repeat a process of trying to reach these people that's a) already failed and screwed the wider population and b) continues to fail based on your own representations in this very post.

These people haven't, and seemingly, can't be reached by logic or reason. Let's let them strawberry float themselves (by no means guaranteed) and try and deal with it. Best chance they have to learn, with least ways to blame other people (sure they'll still find away)

You think if (extreme example) Brexit's a marvelous success due to Remainers going "all in" - the leavers will appreciate the near miss they avoided and why?.

These are broken people you are dealing with. The best hope for them to "learn" is to "learn a lesson" (on their own) from the consequences of their actions- since if the last 2 years have shown anything is they won't learn from trying to educate them.

Trying to help them (i) hasn't and isn't working and (ii) will just put convenient escape goats in their orbit when things strawberry float up.

(p.s. "complete absolution of personal responsibility" didn't refers to "It's not their fault how they voted" style of thinking. They're strawberry floating adults.)

OrangeRakoon wrote:People become more politically moderate in times of relative prosperity. Making the best of leaving the EU and minimising the worst effects of it will reduce political polarisation and therefore reduce the influence of the far right, not increase it.

We are in a time of relative prosperity and yet people voted for Brexit and Trump.

What happened wasn’t that we were at the bottom of a crash and so people looked desperately for a way out, what happened was that extreme elements started targeting the more ignorant members of society and told them that foreigners were stealing their jobs, that Turkey would join and we would be flooded with Muslims, that the EU was a dictatorship that was controlling us etc etc. Facebook was awash with bullshit and we saw (for the first time really) what can be done with the internet now that everybody is connected.

There are bloody poor people in this country and the last recession didn’t help matters. But an upturn in their fortunes post Brexit is not going to result in them thinking “I see voting for Brexit was wrong and now I have more money so I will be more moderate”. What it probably will result in is them thinking “I see voting for Brexit was a great success and now I have more money. And that nice Mr Farage is telling me that shutting the doors completely and getting rid of all of the existing immigrants will make me richer. He was right before!”.

Hexx wrote:It's not really that "pragmatic" to repeat a process of trying to reach these people that's a) already failed and screwed the wider population and b) continues to fail based on your own representations in this very post.

Political education and engagement is terrible and has been terrible for my entire life as I remember. It's not repeating a process that's already failed.

People voted for the conservatives, got austerity during an economic low, and then voted for the conservatives /again/. This was not shielding people from the results of their actions, and yet they still voted for more of the same.

Hexx wrote:These people haven't, and seemingly, can't be reached by logic or reason. Let's let them strawberry float themselves (by no means guaranteed) and try and deal with it. Best chance they have to learn, with least ways to blame other people (sure they'll still find away)

If you're sure they'll still find a way then why would you believe they would ever learn a lesson. As I said, we have already seen that any negative outcomes from the brexit vote will not be judged rationally as a consequence of a bad decision. No learning will be had.

Hexx wrote:You think if (extreme example) Brexit's a marvelous success due to Remainers going "all in" - the leavers will appreciate the near miss they avoided and why?

Imagine the case of a) Remainers seen to be going "all in", reducing the negative impacts of leaving the EU due to a more cohesive and cooperative political process, but b) there are still negative effects. There will be less ability to blame those negatives on a "remain conspiracy" - instead the blame will /have/ to be placed on the decision itself. It still might not, but then that's no change - and at least people will have slightly better living conditions than otherwise.

Moggy wrote:We are in a time of relative prosperity and yet people voted for Brexit and Trump.

Completely disagree. The recession following the crash of 2008 led to a period of austerity with massive public service cuts which is ongoing. The economy has recovered but in a highly selective and disparate way - most working class people have not seen any real increase in wages and have seen a real decrease in living standards. The latest generation entering work is judged to be worse off than those that came before it. If you compare the current times against the late 90s/early 2000s it seems clear that we are not in a time of relative prosperity.

In the USA Trump won on a wave of anti-establishment resentment from a until then relatively politically dormant white working class who lack social mobility and feel forgotten. These people are not in a time of relative prosperity. They have been living through a time of increasing obscurity.

Moggy wrote:But an upturn in their fortunes post Brexit is not going to result in them thinking “I see voting for Brexit was wrong and now I have more money so I will be more moderate”. What it probably will result in is them thinking “I see voting for Brexit was a great success and now I have more money. And that nice Mr Farage is telling me that shutting the doors completely and getting rid of all of the existing immigrants will make me richer. He was right before!”.

Disagree again. Prosperous societies are more moderate, this has evidence across the world. Wealthier societies are more tolerant of other cultures. Immigration is a convenient scapegoat for economic problems rooted elsewhere - if someone is doing comfortably economically then that reduces any desire for radical change and lessens any need they feel to reduce immigration.

OrangeRakoon wrote:Completely disagree. The recession following the crash of 2008 led to a period of austerity with massive public service cuts which is ongoing. The economy has recovered but in a highly selective and disparate way - most working class people have not seen any real increase in wages and have seen a real decrease in living standards. The latest generation entering work is judged to be worse off than those that came before it. If you compare the current times against the late 90s/early 2000s it seems clear that we are not in a time of relative prosperity.

Well it all comes down to what you mean by relative and we can all pick and choose eras. The late 90s/early 00s was a 10 year period where the world built up vast amount of debt and then it came crashing down on us.

Wages and public services have been cut, but are people actually any worse off than they have been in other eras in history? Are we worse off than people living in the early 20th or in the 19th century (or earlier?). Are we worse off than those in the post war generation? Are things worse than in the 70s when we had a 3 day week? The 80s when we had several recessions or the early 90s when we continued to have financial hardships and lack of investment in the public sector?

Name me the time in Britain when people were worse off than now and voted for more extreme measures than we are currently seeing?

In the USA Trump won on a wave of anti-establishment resentment from a until then relatively politically dormant white working class who lack social mobility and feel forgotten. These people are not in a time of relative prosperity. They have been living through a time of increasing obscurity.

Those people have not been prosperous for a long time and probably never will be again. But are they worse off now than they were in 2008 or 2012 when Obama won?

OrangeRakoon wrote:It's not repeating a process that's already failed.

Trying to explain how the Brexit will result in worse outcomes has and is.
They need to experience it (and what they've fostered on others) themselves.

People voted for the conservatives, got austerity during an economic low, and then voted for the conservatives /again/. This was not shielding people from the results of their actions, and yet they still voted for more of the same.

Yep - didn't say it'll work.
And you raise a good similar problem as an example.
But it's more likely to than hoping something that's already specifically failed to solve this exact problem.

If you're sure they'll still find a way then why would you believe they would ever learn a lesson. As I said, we have already seen that any negative outcomes from the brexit vote will not be judged rationally as a consequence of a bad decision. No learning will be had.

Well we're back to I'm not convinced they are 'salvageable' (an overly emotive word to be sure)

I hope they 'salvage' themselves.

I don't think other people should waste any more effort trying to 'salvage' them given past failures.

I think they're more likely to "learn their lesson" themselves, than they are to let anyone explain the lesson to them.

Imagine the case of a) Remainers seen to be going "all in", reducing the negative impacts of leaving the EU due to a more cohesive and cooperative political process, but b) there are still negative effects. There will be less ability to blame those negatives on a "remain conspiracy" - instead the blame will /have/ to be placed on the decision itself.

Then you're incredibly naive - and ignoring all the double think that's already been shown the topic.

Only be causing the negatives/positives on their own will they stand any chance of being convinced it's their own fault. As soon as anyone else is a possible target, they'll be blamed.


We've moved way on from the original point days ago which was (paraphrasing) "Watching those idiots whinge when the chickens they were warned about come home to roost is both strawberry floating funny and satisfying"

May has said that the bill must pass unamended

Lagamorph wrote:May has said that the bill must pass unamended

Popcorn.gif

She keeps confusing tough hard line decisions with "leadership".

Has she not said anything about the situation with Cornwall?

Blue Eyes wrote:Has she not said anything about the situation with Cornwall?

Theresa May wrote:Brexit means strawberry float 'em

Nothing that I know of.

She's also said she's still committed to her end of March deadline. No idea how if she can't get the lord's onboard. As far as I know there's no Lords equivalent of the Whip that Corbyn can (try) to invoke to force Labour peers onside.