Brexit (The return of....)


#2648

Mildly? Coming here to work won’t make sense on several levels, so loads of low wages jobs won’t be done. It’ll be a disaster for farmers and the food industry generally. Probably be the same for catering. I’m not sure about high skills stuff, people are more willing to deal with the visa issues there.

The main upside is that a sterling collapse inflates away the national debt. When that’s your upside you know you’re fucked.


#2649

I was being a tad sarky.


#2650

Yes but Fish.
image


#2651

Don’t forget the Blue passports. That alone is worth fucking generations over for.


#2652

French/Dutch blue passports


#2653

And now the Yank farmers are talking up the safety of their produce without mentioning their bloody awful welfare standards, or complete lack of them.

I can see Maybot and the Tory right wing bringing a trade deal with the Yanks. I hope the animal welfare issues make it political suicide for them.


#2654

I’m not sure beggars can be choosers …

VB


#2655

You worry far too much, Bob. Micky G’s on the case


#2656

@gthang
Still waiting :roll_eyes:


#2657

Haha, magic.


#2658

He is very good at this. But a brighter caller might have drawn an analogy with a general election and have said “All the people who voted Tory last time around didn’t all vote for the same thing either, but by voting Tory they committed to a Tory government whatever that ended up meaning. Are you saying that because they didn’t all vote for the same thing we have to re-run the general election ? Obviously not. If you insist that the answers to the referendum/election be simple i.e. Remain/Leave or Tory/Labour/LibDem/etc then you’re just going to have to live with the fact that not everyone’s going to get exactly what they want. What they’re going to get is what they voted for - the Tories. And leaving the EU. Suck it up.”.

The problem seems to be that no smart Brexiters ever phone him. I can think of several reasons why that might be.

VB


#2659

My reply to that would have been that in a GE the “basket” of each party’s policies is laid out in front of you via the manifesto (for the most part). You make your choice in the round and most people accept that not every policy gets their full approval but they make their choice on a broad acceptance of the policies that matter to them.

Brexit was presented exactly as O’Brien described - e.g. we’d ‘do a Norway’ and not leave the CU, we’d get 350m extra a week for the NHS etc. But the opposite has happened.

Using your analogy, that would be akin to voting for the Greens but them adopting EDL policies once in power.


#2660

If James O’Brien had been a Wammer a couple of years back, he would have been banned for bullying :laughing:


#2661

I agree, the analogy isn’t perfect, mostly because general elections are repeated and liars can therefore be punished at the ballot box the next time around. We were promised long and loud that the Brexit referendum wouldn’t be like this. It would be a once in a lifetime decision. So we would have to cast our vote taking into account the possibility that the campaigners could be lying to us or, to be more generous, making promises when they clearly had no idea whether circumstances would let them keep those promises or not. If we are going to have faith in democracy then we have to believe that the voters aren’t too stupid to be trusted. So we have to believe that they did vote on the basis that the campaigners could be talking bullshit. In which case when it turns out they were talking bullshit that still doesn’t invalidate the result.

VB


#2662

The Brexit referendum proved otherwise and reinforced why parliamentary democracy is preferable to direct democracy.


#2663

When Farage for the initial exit poll results that indicates a remain victory (I think they were by a bank or something actually), he was all “it’s not over yet, we’ll continue campaigning.” But since it was Brexit, that’s the end huh? :thinking:


#2664

All the referendum proved is that 52% of the population have below average IQ.


#2665

/pedant
I’m not sure your stats are right there @coco. Do you mean 52% of those entitled to vote, and who could be arsed to do so, have below average IQ? By definition 50% of the population have average IQ unless the population is non-Gaussian, which is unlikely with 56 million, or so, observations to go by.
/pedant


#2666

I was being lazy. :joy: Clearly of those who voted…


#2667

…again ? :wink: