OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[ramAnag]

Just to be clear. Respecting a democratic decision even if you don't agree with it is a GOOD thing

And there’s the rub. Respecting a democratic decision is only as GOOD as the decision itself and respecting a democratic decision even if you don’t agree with it is not necessarily a good thing at all.
I suspect, and I don’t mean this as an insult but just as a comment on your mindset, this is why Swale sometimes suggests you’d have been a ‘good German’ in the thirties.

[Geoff Parkstone]

PS Yes

NB fox hunting question is an interesting one. I am deeply opposed to fox hunting, although not because of the "animal rights" angle, but rather because of the arrogant and selfish attitude of those who hunted when I was a kid. Willfully causing £ 100's (when £ 100 was a lot) damage to growing crops when "in pursuit" despite being banned from the land, and then offering a ticket to one of their events as compensation. So I was very happy to see them banned.

As it happens, it seems like the local hunt around my family farm basically ignore the ban anyway, so perversely if the ban was lifted by popular demand (hugely unlikely) I would be comfortable, as I no longer have self interest at heart. If on the other hand it was lifted because a minority pro hunting lobby forced it as part of a political deal I'd be outraged.

Foxes do have to be controlled, they are one of the few creatures (apart from humans) that kill for fun. I saw many a henhouse full of dead birds after being visited by Brer Fox, not a single one taken for food. But this does not provide an excuse for a load of hooray henries to dress up in silly red coats and chase foxes down before having them torn apart by a pack of dogs (and then smearing themselves in the blood). We are, I thought, better than that. By all means kill to control, but at least be humane

[ramAnag]

PS Yes

NB fox hunting question is an interesting one. I am deeply opposed to fox hunting, although not because of the "animal rights" angle, but rather because of the arrogant and selfish attitude of those who hunted when I was a kid. Willfully causing £ 100's (when £ 100 was a lot) damage to growing crops when "in pursuit" despite being banned from the land, and then offering a ticket to one of their events as compensation. So I was very happy to see them banned.

As it happens, it seems like the local hunt around my family farm basically ignore the ban anyway, so perversely if the ban was lifted by popular demand (hugely unlikely) I would be comfortable, as I no longer have self interest at heart. If on the other hand it was lifted because a minority pro hunting lobby forced it as part of a political deal I'd be outraged.

Foxes do have to be controlled, they are one of the few creatures (apart from humans) that kill for fun. I saw many a henhouse full of dead birds after being visited by Brer Fox, not a single one taken for food. But this does not provide an excuse for a load of hooray henries to dress up in silly red coats and chase foxes down before having them torn apart by a pack of dogs (and then smearing themselves in the blood). We are, I thought, better than that. By all means kill to control, but at least be humane

I entirely agree with your final paragraph and I’ll give way to your greater knowledge as far as the family farm is concerned, however I think it was Jeremy Hunt who, astonishingly foolishly imo, made the reintroduction of fox hunting a central plank of his campaign to be PM.

Then you’d have had an undemocratically elected PM, leading a democratically elected government in adopting an almost certainly undemocratic policy. Bit complex this democracy mullarky.

[Geoff Parkstone]

"Then you’d have had an undemocratically elected PM, leading a democratically elected government in adopting an almost certainly undemocratic policy. Bit complex this democracy mullarky. " That is a tad complex and I would assert that the reintroduction of hunting in such circumstances would not be democratically arrived at since that policy would be a tiny part of a bigger manifesto of farm more important things that drove its adoption. We are a country very much influenced by "small issues" I think, if not "minority issues".

But dont you think that Hunt supporting the reintroduction of the Hunt was simply name dropping!


"Let’s compare it with other hypothetical decisions. If you lived in a country that supported a philosophy of apartheid which had somehow been arrived at by ‘democratic decision’ would you support it and make the most of it?"

This one takes more thought. In effect what you are asking is that if I were an Afrikaaner in 1970's would I collude with apartheid. At that point the system had been democratically adopted (albeit due to the disenfranchisement of huge swathes of the population) and it would be a system where I guess I would be the beneficiary rather than the victim.

So would I (a) opt for the simple life, go with the flow and sit back an absorb the benefits of privilege or (b) react against the status quo at this risk of imprisonment, expulsion and a more difficult life style because of the courage of my convictions.

I have in the past met and discussed these very issues with people who have chosen both options - the latter of whom was expelled from his country for around 20 years. If I'm honest my heart would say (b) and my mind (a), I probably lack the bravery to adopt option (b) so probably would have been Swale's good German: I'm too self centred!

[swaledale]

"Then you’d have had an undemocratically elected PM, leading a democratically elected government in adopting an almost certainly undemocratic policy. Bit complex this democracy mullarky. " That is a tad complex and I would assert that the reintroduction of hunting in such circumstances would not be democratically arrived at since that policy would be a tiny part of a bigger manifesto of farm more important things that drove its adoption. We are a country very much influenced by "small issues" I think, if not "minority issues".

But dont you think that Hunt supporting the reintroduction of the Hunt was simply name dropping!


"Let’s compare it with other hypothetical decisions. If you lived in a country that supported a philosophy of apartheid which had somehow been arrived at by ‘democratic decision’ would you support it and make the most of it?"

This one takes more thought. In effect what you are asking is that if I were an Afrikaaner in 1970's would I collude with apartheid. At that point the system had been democratically adopted (albeit due to the disenfranchisement of huge swathes of the population) and it would be a system where I guess I would be the beneficiary rather than the victim.

So would I (a) opt for the simple life, go with the flow and sit back an absorb the benefits of privilege or (b) react against the status quo at this risk of imprisonment, expulsion and a more difficult life style because of the courage of my convictions.

I have in the past met and discussed these very issues with people who have chosen both options - the latter of whom was expelled from his country for around 20 years. If I'm honest my heart would say (b) and my mind (a), I probably lack the bravery to adopt option (b) so probably would have been Swale's good German: I'm too self centred!

I doubt within this Forum we have the time and space to debate a series of complex and ethical moral situations.

But if your prepared to sit back and see others suffer, simply because there may be a negative effect on your life, then your right that is the very definition of a "good german". What is forgotten in these circumstances is that one day you may very well be the one suffering (thats the self interest bit) or your not prepared to see others suffer unjustly (the conscience bit).

[swaledale]

FWIW I am not a defender of Brexit, I voted remain. I am however a defender of the country's decision to Brex, rightly or wrongly.

That may be too subtle a distinction for you to appreciate rA, even 3 years on. Our difference of opinion lies solely in your refusal to accept the decision and my willingness to try to make the best of (what may be) a bad job.

For sure Brexit may end up a disaster, and it's more likely to do so when the refuseniks continue to try to subvert the process. You regularly ask to see benefits, I regularly answer that, if there are to be any, it's too early to assess them. A process that changes so much of the economic fabric of a country and its relationships cannot be judged as instantly as you want it to be.

If you don't understand this, let's look at it another way. You invest £500 in a football season ticket, your first two matches are 3-0 home defeats. Do you judge the value for money of the season ticket as ****e at that point? In this analogy you clearly presume we will not garner any points at home in the remaining 21 matches and so it's a disaster. In mine I say we've still got 63 points to play for....whilst admitting that we may not get all of them.

Sorry but that is utter *******s - Brexit isn't going to end in disaster because of people who are saying it is one , its a disaster because its quite clear that those who promoted and indeed are supposedly in charge of implementing, actually haven't got a plan as to how to do that. Its a disaster because its a pure ideology with no substance to back up its empty slogans!

As for it being too early to assess? WTF? You mean to say you find it acceptable that a government that has been in power and implemented an ideology, (you can't call it a policy or strategy, as there clearly isn't one) is still 6 years later struggling to show any benefit? Indeed struggling to actually come to a coherent vision as to what Brexit means, beyond a few simplistic slogans and blue ****ing passports.

Lets get real here, I personally haven't done anything and I'm not sure others even politicians have either, to go against Brexit, those in charge have had an 80 seat majority for nigh on 3 years FFS! The reality is its turned into a completely foreseeable **** show. But actually its worse than predicted because its clear there was and never has been any plan. Indeed the only approach to date seems to be one where the EU is being continually portrayed as "the big satan" in some bizarre parallel with how some rogue state describes some western countries - blame everything on them and involves threatening to break international law!!

So your analogy about a football match season ticket is complete and utter piffle! For a start the parameters are known in advance, your average supporter has a reasonable idea about what's going to happen and if it does turn into a horror show then generally action is taken by the club to turn it around - viz sacking the manager, buying plyers etc. What can be gained and lost are known quantities, Brexit its clear now to the majority, but was clear in 2016 was a leap into the unknown.

Using your analogy, the logical thing to do, given we have bought tickets to this game , is do the equivalent of sacking the manager or getting some new in, which would be to re-join the customs union/single market. That is make sensible changes to make the situation better!

But more to the point, there is a chance of the teams form improving, there are points to be won. With Brexit, its absolutely clear, and was prior to the referendum, that what was being promised (trading with the EU on exactly the same terms as when we were members for one) never was achievable and so these 63 pts don't exist!!.

I mean the very notion that because we arrived at this decision democratically - that's despite the extensive caveats of - the slogan on the side of the bus was false - most referendums that could lead to significant change require a set majority to win - the referendum itself was advisory - the funding of the leave campaign was distinctly dodgy - the options set out and the implications were not explained- promises were made, specifically about enjoying the same benefits as members when we leave that were clearly not true.

I have yet to meet anyone who can give a reason for voting leave which actually had either a basis in fact or reality.

I still keep asking for someone to give me a tangible benefit of Brexit, again one that is factual or real, rather than some abstract *******s that in effect means nothing.

Starmer is talking about making Brexit work - code for we will see if we can actually reach a reasonable deal with the EU on the things that matter, like trade, scientific cooperation, crime fighting etc. BUT in the end we will re-join the single market and /or the customs union.

[swaledale]

Thank God you never marked any of my exam submissions. I have never defended ‘Brexit’. I’ve a)defended the right of the people to have their democratic decision respected and b) repeatedly committed to and encouraged others to ‘get on with it’, such as it is. In that respect, using a footballing analogy, you are still in preseason and I amongst others have got our shoulders to the wheel trying to avoid relegation

Aye lets get on with a disaster its the British stiff upper lip, when actually taking steps to avoid it would perhaps be the wiser approach!!

[ramAnag]

"Then you’d have had an undemocratically elected PM, leading a democratically elected government in adopting an almost certainly undemocratic policy. Bit complex this democracy mullarky. " That is a tad complex and I would assert that the reintroduction of hunting in such circumstances would not be democratically arrived at since that policy would be a tiny part of a bigger manifesto of farm more important things that drove its adoption. We are a country very much influenced by "small issues" I think, if not "minority issues".

But dont you think that Hunt supporting the reintroduction of the Hunt was simply name dropping!


"Let’s compare it with other hypothetical decisions. If you lived in a country that supported a philosophy of apartheid which had somehow been arrived at by ‘democratic decision’ would you support it and make the most of it?"

This one takes more thought. In effect what you are asking is that if I were an Afrikaaner in 1970's would I collude with apartheid. At that point the system had been democratically adopted (albeit due to the disenfranchisement of huge swathes of the population) and it would be a system where I guess I would be the beneficiary rather than the victim.

So would I (a) opt for the simple life, go with the flow and sit back an absorb the benefits of privilege or (b) react against the status quo at this risk of imprisonment, expulsion and a more difficult life style because of the courage of my convictions.

I have in the past met and discussed these very issues with people who have chosen both options - the latter of whom was expelled from his country for around 20 years. If I'm honest my heart would say (b) and my mind (a), I probably lack the bravery to adopt option (b) so probably would have been Swale's good German: I'm too self centred!

Well you said it. But the simple point in all this, and the major flaw with democracy, is that the majority are not always right and some (many) decisions are just too complex (eg both joining the EEC and leaving the EU) to just be handed over for a simple majority decision made by uninformed people on the basis of information provided by people who are very economical with the truth.

[Geoff Parkstone]

I doubt within this Forum we have the time and space to debate a series of complex and ethical moral situations.

But if your prepared to sit back and see others suffer, simply because there may be a negative effect on your life, then your right that is the very definition of a "good german". What is forgotten in these circumstances is that one day you may very well be the one suffering (thats the self interest bit) or your not prepared to see others suffer unjustly (the conscience bit).

I agree, I'm just being honest about how I think I would react in those circumstances. I'm not saying I would be morally right, but I don't see myself as a freedom fighter if push came to shove

[ramAnag]

I agree, I'm just being honest about how I think I would react in those circumstances. I'm not saying I would be morally right, but I don't see myself as a freedom fighter if push came to shove

But whether you’d have the balls to be a ‘freedom fighter’ isn’t the question, GP...it’s whether when someone’s in the minority they have the right to question the majority decision...be that over apartheid, fox hunting or Brexit.
That after all is why you and AF seem to keep accusing any one who challenges Brexit of disrespecting democracy and being negative or even subversive.