The Consequences of Brexit (part 3)

[unbeliever 10]

I never did say I was indifferent to the debate, I said I was indifferent about those 'left behind' by Brexit.

 

Perhaps read my post #1811 and #1813 again, and this time have a stab at understanding them. And maybe even consider the question I put to you at the time (and again in #1822).

 

I'm not emotional in the least: I just called you out, like Obelix and Hairyloon -and so many others before them- have.

 

And you've fudged it steadfastly.

 

Off to the ignore list with you, I'm wholly uninterested in justifying myself further and seeing any more of your 'debating' (debate-shutting, really) barbs.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, no loathing whatsoever in this post, just disappointment, and now complete indifference about whatever else you may post next. Maybe you'll get the distinction between both concepts.

 

Not sure what good this does you. I can still counter your posts but you can't counter mine.

 

I have got a bit tired tolerating the rage of the remainers on here. I do sympathise with those who suffered personal losses on account of Brexit, and those who have suffered abuse from Brexit-supporting thugs.

Find a post from me along the lines of "Oh look at the suffering of the people of the EU and rejoice". Or "Look at this isolated anecdote of a thing that may happen and may be good, Brexit is the cause".

 

---------- Post added 20-04-2017 at 14:44 ----------

 

When people stop building a constructive relationship and reciprocating goodwill with you, do you still engage with and rely on them?

 

There's no loathing. Just complete and utter indifference.

 

The UK does want a constructive relationship. Just not a political union.

 

I've answered this about a thousand times already.

[Obelix 11]

I have got a bit tired tolerating the rage of the remainers on here. I do sympathise with those who suffered personal losses on account of Brexit, and those who have suffered abuse from Brexit-supporting thugs.

Find a post from me along the lines of "Oh look at the suffering of the people of the EU and rejoice". Or "Look at this isolated anecdote of a thing that may happen and may be good, Brexit is the cause".

 

My heart bleeds... I notice the hastily tagged part to deflect my obvious response.

 

If you are getting a bit tired after getting what you want try to consider how those who lost people, have lost jobs, rights to abode, movement, citizenship et al are feeling hmm?

 

You get to sit pretty and feel a bit despondant about people complaining. Oh the horror! I've been forced to move countries, I have an uncertain future if I cannot establish right of abode, it has cost me personally a great deal and you are bleating about feeling a bit tired?

 

Words fail me.

[unbeliever 10]

My heart bleeds... I notice the hastily tagged part to deflect my obvious response.

 

If you are getting a bit tired after getting what you want try to consider how those who lost people, have lost jobs, rights to abode, movement, citizenship et al are feeling hmm?

 

You get to sit pretty and feel a bit despondant about people complaining. Oh the horror! I've been forced to move countries, I have an uncertain future if I cannot establish right of abode, it has cost me personally a great deal and you are bleating about feeling a bit tired?

 

Words fail me.

 

Which is why I make allowances. But there are limits.

[Obelix 11]

Like I said words fail me.

[Flexo 10]

It'll be interesting to see whether the public notice the clever shift in what Teresa May will claim as her "mandate"....

 

The Conservative manifesto will say that they want to make Britain a tax haven for the rich, stripped down of protections for workers and the environment; free movement taken away; the ability to take the government to the European courts removed.

 

It won't say £350m/week for the NHS - one of the lies that won the referendum.

 

But the winner of "first past the post" general elections typically has less than a third of the total vote.

 

So if the Tories win the election, they will try to claim they have a mandate for this hard Brexit, but a majority of voters would not have voted for them.

[MamboNo5 10]

It'll be interesting to see whether the public notice the clever shift in what Teresa May will claim as her "mandate"....

 

The Conservative manifesto will say that they want to make Britain a tax haven for the rich, stripped down of protections for workers and the environment; free movement taken away; the ability to take the government to the European courts removed.

 

It won't say £350m/week for the NHS - one of the lies that won the referendum.

 

But the winner of "first past the post" general elections typically has less than a third of the total vote.

 

So if the Tories win the election, they will try to claim they have a mandate for this hard Brexit, but a majority of voters would not have voted for them.

 

In the UK the winner usually has the plularity. Some people thought it odd Trump won an election but got fewer votes. It can happen here too. In fact I think it's happened the same number of times in the UK as it has the US. A quirk of both systems.

[L00b 441]

It'll be interesting to see whether the public notice the clever shift in what Teresa May will claim as her "mandate"

The biting irony is that she can't get any more or bigger of a mandate with the EU: she's the British PM already.

 

The only mandate she can improve upon, is relative to the British electorate.

 

But that counts for sod all with the EU27: they're no more obliged to give in to the UK's demands with a PM enjoying a majority of 200 in the Commons, than with a PM enjoying the current majority of 17 in the Commons.

 

On precedent alone (an enormous portion of the public lapping the £350m, halt immigration, <etc.>) I'm confident that the bulk of the UK voting public will be, and stay, completely oblivious to that nuance, and that turkeys will vote for more Xmas indeed.

[Obelix 11]

In the UK the winner usually has the plularity. Some people thought it odd Trump won an election but got fewer votes. It can happen here too. In fact I think it's happened the same number of times in the UK as it has the US. A quirk of both systems.

 

Churchill 1951 I think is one example.

[Hairyloon 10]

Churchill 1951 I think is one example.

 

Ah, but as Unbeliever is so keen to point out: Churchill didn't believe in democracy.

[unbeliever 10]

Ah, but as Unbeliever is so keen to point out: Churchill didn't believe in democracy.

 

Liar.

A quick check of the relevant posts will reveal to any interested party that you lied about what Churchill had said about democracy and then tried to weasel out of it.

[Carlinate 10]

Churchill 1951 I think is one example.

 

As you know in our system it's the number of seats a party gets not the number of votes cast.

 

In 1951 Churchill got 321 seats but only 48% of the vote.

 

Attlee got 48.8% of the votes but only 295 seats.

 

Brilliant system we have, totally undemocratic but the politicians like it so that's OK.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjJyaLEr7PTAhUsCcAKHWw3AVEQFggrMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicsresources.net%2Farea%2Fuk%2Fuktable.htm&usg=AFQjCNGNv4hf-zO5zXIArSvrf0OW06H_TA

 

Breakdown of election results from 1945 to the present. No party has formed a government in that time with even 50% of the votes cast.

[Flexo 10]

A quick check of the relevant posts will reveal to any interested party

 

There are no interested parties. No-one cares about these sideshows.

 

---------- Post added 20-04-2017 at 17:01 ----------

 

Breakdown of election results from 1945 to the present. No party has formed a government in that time with even 50% of the votes cast.

 

Really interesting to see the figures, thanks!

 

So the cons got 36% at the last two elections.

 

Teresa May is spinning this as seeking a mandate to proceed. Yet history suggests she is unlikely to achieve half the vote. So a Conservative win could be viewed as a reduced "mandate" with the support for Brexit slipping away.

 

This playing fast and loose seems like an unwise way to make major structural changes that will affect generations.

 

---------- Post added 20-04-2017 at 17:07 ----------

 

The biting irony is that she can't get any more or bigger of a mandate with the EU: she's the British PM already.

 

The only mandate she can improve upon, is relative to the British electorate.

 

But that counts for sod all with the EU27: they're no more obliged to give in to the UK's demands with a PM enjoying a majority of 200 in the Commons, than with a PM enjoying the current majority of 17 in the Commons.

 

On precedent alone (an enormous portion of the public lapping the £350m, halt immigration, <etc.>) I'm confident that the bulk of the UK voting public will be, and stay, completely oblivious to that nuance, and that turkeys will vote for more Xmas indeed.

 

It's really about taking advantage of a large Conservative lead over Labour in the polls. However the Fixed Term Parliaments Act means she's had to fabricate a special reason for calling an election.

 

All I've seen from this government since June is these political games whilst neglecting all the other things that government are meant to do.