|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2017 19:06:49 GMT
I think foxa hits the nail on the head above. We may vary slightly or widely in our political opinons here but as we 'know' each other from the forum across many topics the majority of us can have a discussion, and agree to disagree then go back to talking about the Wicked cast change, or Russell Tovey taking his shirt off or y'know an actual play! In the same way we might disagree about the best Elphaba (poor example? good example?) we can also go about talking about all the other weird and wonderful stuff because we can see there's more than one side to a person. But when a person is only giving us one side (I think also Foxa, you're right ldm2016 does seem to mainly be in here) then it's hard to maintain that respectful discussion everyone else manages 99% of the time, because it feels like being called names out of the blue. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2017 19:17:03 GMT
the general idea was that people who look to the past as a better time tended to vote Leave while those who look to creating a better future tended to vote Remain. How can anyone think of the past as a better time? Sure, those roughly 12 years between the end of the Cold War and 9/11 might have been better than our current situation. Basically the 90's were okay. But before that? Maybe the 20's? Let's go back to that time then. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2017 19:55:33 GMT
Gina Miller contested Theresa May's attempt to erode the right of Parliament to make laws. Miller did both Brexiters and Remainers a huge favour, and we should all be thankful to her, for preserving the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty. While it is true that many actions the Government takes stem from exercising the power of the Queen, changing the law of the land (which all sides conceded would be the result of triggering Article 50) is NOT one of the Queen's powers, and is reserved to Parliament. Thank you for standing up for this key principle, Gina Miller, in the face of tremendous personal abuse, and against an overwhelming tide of ignorance fueled by the Daily Mail! As has been pointed out, the choice to make the Referendum advisory was made by David Cameron's Government, it was a mistake, and it is his fault that public money has been wasted today, as well as Theresa May's fault for compounding his mistake, and not consulting Parliament about Article 50 in the first place. Or, alternatively, she is somebody who, as punishment to the British people and Nation for voting to Leave, has delayed the inevitable and wasted millions in the process.
She didn't stand up for any key principles but because she is bitter and can't accept the result and was trying to buy the Remain campaign some time to somehow turn the decision around. She failed.
Miller is obsessed with money, money, money and notoriety. She doesn't care about the "common man" but making money for herself and her cronies (most of whom live as tax exiles outside the UK btw), that's all.
Cameron should have made the referendum binding but he's another politician who wasn't listening to the nation. If he was, he wouldn't have been so confident in his faith that Remain would win and would have helped create a better campaign rather than attempting scaremongering....
That's the truth no matter how many of the obvious people "like" your post...
Gina Miller stood up for the key principle of our constitutional democracy - that Parliament is sovereign. It has been for hundreds of years and that's not going to change. As has already been pointed out to you, the referendum was advisory, not legally binding, therefore it is necessary under the laws of this nation (hilariously, given the Leave campaign was all about the UK being sovereign!) for Parliament to rubber stamp the act of leaving. The Supreme Court by a substantial majority decided that this principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty carries greater weight in the politics of the UK than the Royal Prerogative which allows the Prime Minister and other members of the Government to take certain decisions by executive order. If that isn't a decision about key constitutional principles then I don't know what is. And that's before you even consider that she had arguably the brightest and best legal mind in the land as her barrister (whose job it was to advise her as to the prospects of success of her case based on the law of the land). To say that Gina Miller wasn't standing up for any principles is to belittle her point of view, which means you're no better than a certain Mr Morgan and others who have been belittling those who marched at the weekend for simply standing up for what they believe in. The millions that were wasted were wasted by the Government in bringing the appeal - that was their choice to do so. And on a more general point, having read through the last few pages of this thread, your increasingly bitter, divisive tone and childish name-calling and generalisation are doing your arguments no favour as far as I'm concerned. If you can't have a civilised debate without resorting to lazy labelling like "these people" then I really don't see any point in wasting my time responding any more. |
|
|
|
Post by perfectspy on Jan 24, 2017 21:45:38 GMT
On the subject raised before, my family was split, the traditional working class labour voters of the older generation voting remain and the younger, more upwardly mobile, voting leave. I'd have thought it'd be exactly the other way round. That's what has generally been spun by the pro EU media. |
|
|
|
Post by perfectspy on Jan 24, 2017 21:49:31 GMT
Also, I thought that the younger generation is less nationalist and less protectionist. We will never truly know.......as two thirds of the lazy buggers could not be bothered to vote. |
|
950 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Jan 24, 2017 21:56:32 GMT
Also, I thought that the younger generation is less nationalist and less protectionist. We will never truly know.......as two thirds of the lazy buggers could not be bothered to vote. That number was debunked months ago. Turn out was lower among 18-24s but more like 65% than 33%. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2017 22:05:48 GMT
That's what has generally been spun by the pro EU media. We have pro EU media? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2017 22:11:05 GMT
I'd have thought it'd be exactly the other way round. That's what has generally been spun by the pro EU media. Already explained and cleared up. My 'younger' was referring to people in their 30's and 40's, not the younger group that you subsequently mischaracterise. |
|
950 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Jan 24, 2017 22:11:55 GMT
Well there's The Guardian, probably The Independent and FT as well but that's about it.
Utterly dwarfed by the other side though obviously.
|
|
|
|
Post by perfectspy on Jan 24, 2017 22:46:11 GMT
That's what has generally been spun by the pro EU media. We have pro EU media? Sky, BBC |
|
1,503 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jan 24, 2017 22:57:14 GMT
The BBC has a rule of impartiality where they give weight to other points of view www.quora.com/Why-does-the-BBC-give-so-much-coverage-of-Nigel-Farage-and-his-UKIP-partyMany feel that UKIP, for example, has a disproportionate amount of time on Question Time because they only have 1 MP, but it is justified apparently by their share of the vote. (Considering Farage was only an MEP think about how much airtime he receives.) If you are interested you can trawl through the lists of Question Time shows and I think you'd find it would be really hard to argue that the panels were pro-EU. I don't watch Sky so can't really comment on it. |
|
|
|
Post by perfectspy on Jan 24, 2017 23:10:00 GMT
We will never truly know.......as two thirds of the lazy buggers could not be bothered to vote. That number was debunked months ago. Turn out was lower among 18-24s but more like 65% than 33%. From my understanding the problem lies in what percentage are not registered to vote. It may well be 65% of those who voted, but could also be only 33% of the total 18 to 24 age that actually voted. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2017 23:24:09 GMT
The BBC has a rule of impartiality where they give weight to other points of view www.quora.com/Why-does-the-BBC-give-so-much-coverage-of-Nigel-Farage-and-his-UKIP-partyMany feel that UKIP, for example, has a disproportionate amount of time on Question Time because they only have 1 MP, but it is justified apparently by their share of the vote. (Considering Farage was only an MEP think about how much airtime he receives.) If you are interested you can trawl through the lists of Question Time shows and I think you'd find it would be really hard to argue that the panels were pro-EU. I don't watch Sky so can't really comment on it. The BBC has a rule of impartiality but I don't remember the last time I watched them report on something political and thought "man, I'm so happy they're impartial". I think they've fallen for the idea that being impartial means giving equal weight to both sides of an argument, even if the argument is something as bizarre as "all children need an education" vs "80% of children should be drowned at birth" which shouldn't even be an argument, let alone one where the latter side deserves as much consideration as the former. And Sky has Kay Burley, so I don't watch Sky either. |
|
1,503 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jan 24, 2017 23:28:30 GMT
Yeah. I also think there is the entertainment factor. They don't want to have a bunch of people being well-informed and reasonable on a show, they want a bust up.
|
|
|
|
Post by perfectspy on Jan 24, 2017 23:29:06 GMT
That's what has generally been spun by the pro EU media. Already explained and cleared up. My 'younger' was referring to people in their 30's and 40's, not the younger group that you subsequently mischaracterise. Yes, though I didn't read your previous point only the one I quoted you on, so my error. Thank you for placing me in the younger bracket. I don't think I have acted in a misleading manner, only reporting what I've heard as a low turnout in the % that voted. If the figures are wrong then it is they who have mislead me and not vice versa. Various sources have given different figures of % of the turnout, the confusion may lie in how many of that age group were registered to vote. |
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Jan 25, 2017 1:27:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2017 6:38:34 GMT
Speaking of media. I find it disgusting that so called newspapers actively tried to influence voters. Just inform people of their options and make sure they know what the consequences of their vote will be, whichever way they may vote. Just report the damn news instead of telling them which way to vote. British media, just like American ones are incredibly biased, which basically makes them nothing more than tabloids.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2017 11:27:39 GMT
Alas, writers and opinion formers - or whatever you want to call them - have had agendas for centuries; it's not just a modern thing. If anything, I'd say we're actually better off these days with our ability to read, for free, a variety of opinions and then make a fair judgement of the situation ourselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2017 14:49:03 GMT
Alas, writers and opinion formers - or whatever you want to call them - have had agendas for centuries; it's not just a modern thing. If anything, I'd say we're actually better off these days with our ability to read, for free, a variety of opinions and then make a fair judgement of the situation ourselves. Good point. I definitely support the right to share your opinion. But I think newspapers have a duty to at least give both sides of the argument. They can have a huge impact and there are still many people out there who don't think for themselves and just believe anything the media tells them. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2017 15:47:41 GMT
Indeed. Perhaps Trump's team are now trying to outfox the media by seeding those obviously fake interpretations of the facts (or are they...?) ;-)
Oops sorry, that was a response to pointone's post - Monkey nipped in ahead of me. :-)
|
|
4,369 posts
|
Post by Michael on Jan 25, 2017 20:23:20 GMT
The Netherlands welcome Trump in his own words (starts at 35s): I couldn't stop laughing. This is freaking awesome  |
|
5,059 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jan 25, 2017 20:49:00 GMT
The world is grown so bad, that wrens make prey where eagles dare not perch.
When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea. Eric Cantona would and will never usurp Shakespeare's Richard III |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2017 20:49:23 GMT
The Netherlands welcome Trump That was brilliant. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2017 9:41:08 GMT
So Theresa May is to meet with Donald Trump. Given that she's a woman and has a foreign accent I wouldn't be at all surprised if his first words to her are "About time. There's dust everywhere. And hurry it up: in a few minutes I have to tell reassuring lies to some tinpot country's idiot leader."
|
|
1,013 posts
|
Post by talkstageytome on Jan 26, 2017 19:00:02 GMT
Trump just spoke about 'ending job killing restrictions on shale, oil, natural gas & clean beautiful coal'. Eugh. What a total disaster for the planet. Good grief!
|
|
