So, 4 days on, were Remain scaremongering or not?

quarky

octatonic said:

Why is it upside down? Did you bring it over from Australia?

octatonic

skankdelvar said:

She's a lovely dog for sure. :-)

As for the strawman thing - well,  I'm not the one suggesting that certain people are ridiculously ignorant and should not be allowed to vote. Mind you, you're not the one celebrating his prescience and quoting himself off facebook; so you've got that in your favour. 

On another matter: did anyone ever suggest if you shaved your beard off you'd look a bit like Michael Gove? That's a compliment, by the way, honest. I like the chap.

That isn't what I said.

There is a big difference between saying that the question should not have been put to the people and ' certain people are ridiculously ignorant and should not be allowed to vote.'

Stop putting words in my mouth.

My view is that almost everyone is woefully ignorant of the totality of the question.

It is like trying to understand whether you need to have an operation or not without having any accurate information as to whether you are actually ill or not.

You have one side saying yeah you have cancer, we need to operate now.

You have the other side saying 'nah, you are fine, there is absolutely nothing wrong with you'.

How can anyone be expected to make a decision like this with an almost total absence of facts?

and, no I wouldn't... unless Michael Gove gained about 80lbs, grew 10 inches and got a lot of ink.

skankdelvar

richardhomer said:

You are bang out of order.

Compared to what? Depriving people of the right to vote on issue because in your opinion (and with no supporting evidence) you think they're not competent to do so?

You may or may not have got the result you wanted. I didn't but I'm not complaining.

octatonic

quarky said:

octatonic said:

Why is it upside down? Did you bring it over from Australia?

It?

Hmmmph!

She was born in Neuchatel in Switzerland.

Here she is right way up:

richardhomer

skankdelvar;1134005" said:

richardhomer said:

You are bang out of order.





Compared to what? Depriving people of the right to vote on issue because in your opinion (and with no supporting evidence) you think they're not competent to do so?

You may or may not have got the result you wanted. I didn't but I'm not complaining.

Try rereading what I've posted - if it still confuses you - get help from a grown up....

skankdelvar

octatonic said:

skankdelvar said:

She's a lovely dog for sure. :-)

As for the strawman thing - well,  I'm not the one suggesting that certain people are ridiculously ignorant and should not be allowed to vote. Mind you, you're not the one celebrating his prescience and quoting himself off facebook; so you've got that in your favour. 

On another matter: did anyone ever suggest if you shaved your beard off you'd look a bit like Michael Gove? That's a compliment, by the way, honest. I like the chap.

That isn't what I said.

There is a big difference between saying that the question should not have been put to the people and ' certain people are ridiculously ignorant and should not be allowed to vote.'

Stop putting words in my mouth.

My view is that almost everyone is woefully ignorant of the totality of the question.

It is like trying to understand whether you need to have an operation or not without having any accurate information as to whether you are actually ill or not.

You have one side saying yeah you have cancer, we need to operate now.

You have the other side saying 'nah, you are fine, there is absolutely nothing wrong with you'.

How can anyone be expected to make a decision like this with an almost total absence of facts?

and, no I wouldn't... unless Michael Gove gained about 80lbs, grew 10 inches and got a lot of ink.

OK, you don't look like Gove. 

As I understand it you're saying it was right that the question be put to the people but certain of those people should have been excluded on the grounds of ignorance. Or do you mean it shouldn't have been put to the people at all?

Genuinely trying to clarify this :-)

octatonic

skankdelvar said:

octatonic said:

skankdelvar said:

She's a lovely dog for sure. :-)

As for the strawman thing - well,  I'm not the one suggesting that certain people are ridiculously ignorant and should not be allowed to vote. Mind you, you're not the one celebrating his prescience and quoting himself off facebook; so you've got that in your favour. 

On another matter: did anyone ever suggest if you shaved your beard off you'd look a bit like Michael Gove? That's a compliment, by the way, honest. I like the chap.

That isn't what I said.

There is a big difference between saying that the question should not have been put to the people and ' certain people are ridiculously ignorant and should not be allowed to vote.'

Stop putting words in my mouth.

My view is that almost everyone is woefully ignorant of the totality of the question.

It is like trying to understand whether you need to have an operation or not without having any accurate information as to whether you are actually ill or not.

You have one side saying yeah you have cancer, we need to operate now.

You have the other side saying 'nah, you are fine, there is absolutely nothing wrong with you'.

How can anyone be expected to make a decision like this with an almost total absence of facts?

and, no I wouldn't... unless Michael Gove gained about 80lbs, grew 10 inches and got a lot of ink.

OK, you don't look like Gove. 

As I understand it you're saying it was right that the question be put to the people but certain of those people should have been excluded on the grounds of ignorance. Or do you mean it shouldn't have been put to the people at all?

Genuinely trying to clarify this.:-)

It shouldn't have been put to the people at all.

I'm not a fascist- I believe in democracy, but the consequences are too variable and complicated for a binary question to be remotely relevant.

We employ experts to take decisions on complex issues and this is one of the most complex questions there is.

quarky

France and Germany will therefore promote a more coherent and a more assertive Europe on the world stage. To deliver better, Europe must focus on today’s main challenges – ensure the security of our citizens confronted with growing external and internal threats; establish a stable cooperative framework for dealing with migration and refugee flows; boost the European economy by promoting convergence and sustainable and job-creating growth and advancing towards the completion of the Economic and Monetary Union.

....

The European Union Global Strategy is a first step in that direction. But we need to push further: on a more contested and competitive international scene, France and Germany will promote the EU as an independent and global actor able to leverage its unique array of expertise and tools, civilian and military, in order to defend and promote the interests of its citizens. France and Germany will promote integrated EU foreign and security policy bringing together all EU policy instruments.

...

The EU should be able to plan and conduct civil and military operations more effectively, with the support of a permanent civil-military chain of command. The EU should be able to rely on employable high-readiness forces and provide common financing for its operations.

...

To this day, our common currency constitutes the most visible and ambitious undertaking of European unification. The euro has helped protect its member states from international speculation and contributed to building a common economic area. The euro reflects our commitment to the irreversibility of European integration.

...

A fiscal capacity – a common feature of any successful monetary union around the globe – remains a missing keystone in the EMU architecture. In the long run it should provide macroeconomic stabilisation at the eurozone level while avoiding permanent unidirectional transfers. Whereas these capabilities should be built up over time and in line with progress on common decision making regarding fiscal and economic policy, it should start by 2018 at the latest to support investment in the member states most severely hit by the crisis.

http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/Europa/Aktuell/160624-BM-AM-FRA_ST.html

Maybe those of concerned about more federalism were not overreacting? It isn't all bad though, to be fair they do seem to be saying that they let let the non-Euro countries join in their own time. What that means though is an interesting question... And of course this is only a French/German document..

skankdelvar

octatonic said:

OK, you don't look like Gove. 

As I understand it you're saying it was right that the question be put to the people but certain of those people should have been excluded on the grounds of ignorance. Or do you mean it shouldn't have been put to the people at all?

Genuinely trying to clarify this.:-)

It shouldn't have been put to the people at all.

I'm not a fascist- I believe in democracy, but the consequences are too variable and complicated for a binary question to be remotely relevant.

We employ experts to take decisions on complex issues and this is one of the most complex questions there is.

:-) Fair enough and my apologies if I mis-characterised your position. Please understand I'm not out for confrontation but I am an inveterate piss-taker. Please imagine that anything I ever write is being 'spoken' in a slightly sarcastic Brummie whine with the offer of a pint at the end of it.

I'd still take issue with the idea that this issue - any political issue - is completely beyond the competence of the average voter. I mean, we vote in General Elections for parties that offer a huge range of policies including defence, health, education, economy, utilities, transportation, justice, policing, media regulation and scads of other stuff.

Do any of us know the first thing about the capabilities of the F35 Lightning? Or curriculums? Or pharmaceutical costs? Let alone things like balance of trade or - God forbid - foreign policy of which the EU is technically a subset. Not a bit of it. Yet we're still content to put that choice to the people at a General Election.

In terms of complexity a general election is like the referendum cubed but we're all presumed competent to assess the issues and cast a vote. And so we do.

Unless - of course - the terrible truth is that nobody thinks about the issues because they only ever side with their political tribe. Surely not?

I love participative democracy; I think it's great we had this referendum because it's made lots of people who normally just tick a box question their own assumptions; what's bad about that?

thomasross20

octatonic said:

thomasross20 said:

Watch this, my savings will devalue and housing will go up lol!!! 

That sounds terrific.

Well, for me anyway.

Yes, it would And I wouldn't begrudge you it

thomasross20

I think people are also ignorant when it comes to general election voting. So at what level are we allowed to vote? 

Crikey

skankdelvar

thomasross20 said:

I think people are also ignorant when it comes to general election voting. <snip>

Thank you for saying exactly what I was trying to say above, except you did it in one sentence and I took 19 feckin' paragraphs.

thomasross20

Short and sharp, diving in and out... trying not to comment on political threads too much

Clarky

I think the problem with the referendum was that the simplicity of the question given to us fell far short of the complexity regarding all of the issues and variables involved be they economic, social, and so on..

us lot were expected to be able to make an informed decision based on what ever info was available be it good, bad, truth or lie..

especially when you consider that there are a pile of folk that dedicate entire careers and lifetimes trying to understand and work with these topics.. and they still get it wrong..

what chance did any of us have to make a good decision? I reckon poor to none..

so it just ends up being [irrespective of the which way someone voted] some sort of gut instinct for some, or a hope they got their research right for others…

add to that the style of campaigning on both sides, plus the mass media bullshit.. 

and with a healthy portion of people in this country that have good reason to be very pissed off with the UK gov and maybe the EU too…

this referendum was never going to be a good idea no matter what the outcome…

because it is a question that involves far too many topics that very few of us are qualified to answer

me included - which is why I had such a tough time making up my mind, so in the end it was simply gut instinct..

so there… I admit it… I just guessed, hoped I understood it as best I could and hoped I'd be doing the right thing..

but it was still a guess none the less...

RaymondLin

Here is a constitutional law expert Professor Dougan explaining some of lies from the Leave campaign.  It makes you angry how this is even legal.

ICBM

thomasross20 said:

I think people are also ignorant when it comes to general election voting. So at what level are we allowed to vote?

There's a big difference... at a general election (or a by-election), you delegate your responsibility to the MP - the candidate you think best represents your interests. Your MP is supposed to make informed decisions on your behalf, on a wide range of subjects - with guidance from their party, researchers, and their own professional knowledge as a politician.

This is completely different to trying to take those decisions directly yourself with limited knowledge of all the different questions and complications, which is basically the same as if you try to represent yourself in court with only the most simplistic knowledge of the law.

Clarky

ICBM said:

thomasross20 said:

I think people are also ignorant when it comes to general election voting. So at what level are we allowed to vote?

There's a big difference... at a general election (or a by-election), you delegate your responsibility to the MP - the candidate you think best represents your interests. Your MP is supposed to make informed decisions on your behalf, on a wide range of subjects - with guidance from their party, researchers, and their own professional knowledge as a politician.

This is completely different to trying to take those decisions directly yourself with limited knowledge of all the different questions and complications, which is basically the same as if you try to represent yourself in court with only the most simplistic knowledge of the law.

worse actually.. most people think they know the law, but when you actually learn about it and how it actually works it turns out be be surprisingly different to what you'd thought and expected..

and the same goes for all of the many topics that would be impacted by and in or out vote..

there are just so many.. and the knock-on effects of voting one way or the other into other areas bring other things into play that you'd never think of..

I expected to be able to get my head around this, but the more I looked at it the worse it got..

turn over a stone to find many more underneath.. layer after layer of stones…

the permutations of outcomes is mental…

so the campaigners try to reduce it all down into simple bullet points and headlines to make something I doubt they fully understood either, easier for the masses to digest…

so it's no wonder that the facts got distorted.. and that's without including the "let's dress it all up a bit to help us win" factor..

I think it was someone in here a while back that said trying to predict the outcome of an out vote is like trying to predict the weather next year.. 

a part of me took that on board [given that I was struggling to decide either way] considering that it may be easier and less dangerous to work with what you have and know..

Chalky

thomasross20;1134065" said:

I think people are also ignorant when it comes to general election voting. So at what level are we allowed to vote? Crikey

Such wisdom. Too many anti-democracy types on here. Their rule appears to be 'If I think its a complex topic then it MUST be even MORE complex for the average voter'.

They don't think they're being anti-democratic of course because they wrap it in 'reasoning'. Rather like some people you meet who say "I'm not a racist but I do think that..." and then spout thinly-veiled racist drivel.

ICBM

On the other hand you seem to think that a result dictated by the minority who shouts the loudest is democracy.

Chalky

ICBM;1134222" said:

On the other hand you seem to think that a result dictated by the minority who shouts the loudest is democracy.

I just follows the rules of the voting, Sir. (Doffs imaginary cap)