The Brexit Party

[docwra]

The Brexit thread was an enlightening one so interested to see what people say to this that Ive just posted elsehwere:

 

As you all know, I dont like to talk about Brexit ...... much
 

However, Im struggling to understand how "The Brexit Party" are leading the polls in the upcoming EU elections.

This is a party with no policies and no manifesto, all they want is for us to leave the EU (which is not a decision that they would have any influence on anyway)

If we do stay in and they get 34% of the vote or whatever then we will be represented by these people for the next 5 years. 
Thats 5 years that these guys will be our representatives and will be paid £78K and they are openly saying they wont be doing anything at all for it.

Do I know any of this 34% and if I do can someone please explain what the attraction is?

[Stutopia]

It helps to consider the no policies/manifesto approach from a non-political perspective; Nigel is preaching a message of general hope of a return to a non-specific historic state, to disciples who are unconcerned of the detail, but know they want to go there, at any cost.

 

A cursory read of that statement might lead some to suggest it’s condescending, but, however much it may appear that way, it concisely explains approximately 80% of the behaviours I’ve observed in the last few years. The other 20% have a much more specific idea of what the Brave New World looks like, but are as unlikely to be able to get what they want as the remaniacs.

 

Sadly, anyone trying to implement a belief quickly finds that the gossamer thin ideas that have been put forward, to provide the facade of intellectual rigour, are undeliverable. At this point, the only achievable course of action is the “Leave at any cost approach”, which lacks the need to have policy/manifesto detail, as the converted are unconcerned by the practical implications of their belief.

 

You may as well ask someone who is demanding to going to heaven what their flight number is.

 

There are loads of good reasons to leave, none of which are ever put forward by opportunistic outfits like this lot. 

[docwra]

The thing is .......... this has nothing to do with Brexit. The Brexit party will have no input into where we go from here, but will be our representatives in the European Parliament.

Even if youre a huge leave supporter why would you want no representation in the EU? Its like cutting off your legs because youve realised youre never going to get to the Olympics 

[TT350]

Its Brexit in a nutshell. A big F you to the establishment. 

 

People always say that brexiteers are racist inbreds who shouldn't be trusted with a decision any more far reaching than whether to wear black socks or white ones. 

 

That's been promulgated by remainers since day one. It's condescending. Just like our governments always have been. We know best, you don't. So shut up and get back to the coal pit.

 

Right or wrong, that wears thin after a while, and you get resentment. So when another option presents itself, and very clearly winds up the main, traditional parties, people go with it without too much thought. 

 

Brexit is decades of resentment and I'm afraid that shouting at the demographic that voted leave and calling them names along the lines of "racist, stupid, uninformed, xenophobic morons" just throws fuel on the fire.

 

Huge resentment and division, unfortunately. 

 

I don't trust Farage one bit. But then, I don't trust any of the others, either. 

 

It's a mess. 

 

Perhaps if it is to happen, both sides should focus more on making the best of it, rather than name calling, squabbling and wasted attempts to derail democracy. 

 

And no matter what spin you put on, it such as "yes but they were too stupid to know what they were voting for" if Brexit is cancelled, that isn't democracy. That's a dictatorship. One group telling another they can't have what they voted for (right or wrong, informed or uninformed) is a dictatorship and it'll have massive consequences for years to come. 

 

I don't want to live in a country where democracy is a "best 2 out of 3" affair.

 

I wish it all hadn't happened, not least because its all LBC talk about for the past 3 years!!!

 

And yes, I'm one of those double digit IQ, cave dwelling morons who voted leave. Please can you tie my shoe laces, or can I be trusted with that responsibility?

 

 

Edited May 14, 2019 by TT350

[MDMetal]

3 hours ago, TT350 said:

Its Brexit in a nutshell. A big F you to the establishment. 

 

People always say that brexiteers are racist inbreds who shouldn't be trusted with a decision any more far reaching than whether to wear black socks or white ones. 

 

That's been promulgated by remainers since day one. It's condescending. Just like our governments always have been. We know best, you don't. So shut up and get back to the coal pit.

 

Right or wrong, that wears thin after a while, and you get resentment. So when another option presents itself, and very clearly winds up the main, traditional parties, people go with it without too much thought. 

 

Brexit is decades of resentment and I'm afraid that shouting at the demographic that voted leave and calling them names along the lines of "racist, stupid, uninformed, xenophobic morons" just throws fuel on the fire.

 

Huge resentment and division, unfortunately. 

 

I don't trust Farage one bit. But then, I don't trust any of the others, either. 

 

It's a mess. 

 

Perhaps if it is to happen, both sides should focus more on making the best of it, rather than name calling, squabbling and wasted attempts to derail democracy. 

 

And no matter what spin you put on, it such as "yes but they were too stupid to know what they were voting for" if Brexit is cancelled, that isn't democracy. That's a dictatorship. One group telling another they can't have what they voted for (right or wrong, informed or uninformed) is a dictatorship and it'll have massive consequences for years to come. 

 

I don't want to live in a country where democracy is a "best 2 out of 3" affair.

 

I wish it all hadn't happened, not least because its all LBC talk about for the past 3 years!!!

 

And yes, I'm one of those double digit IQ, cave dwelling morons who voted leave. Please can you tie my shoe laces, or can I be trusted with that responsibility?

 

 

And this is the route of the issue I think everyone from both sides can agree call me Dave was a plot let for setting up the vote. You can't ask a group of people what they want, tell them it will be respected and then Weasley out of it later. The same way if you voted Leave the fact Tusk stood up and said the marchers for remain had to be listened to as did the 48% who voted remain, everyone knows that had the numbers been the other way round nobody would be standing up for the leave voters.

 

Putting either side aside and ignoring the arguements and the subject matter it just doesn't seem equal. Whatever happens which ever way round it should work for whichever side won. If the process and response is different then the system isn't balanced.

[TT350]

@MDMetal that is correct.

 

Democracy is something many people have had to fight and die for. Do we ignore democracy when it's convenient for us or because it didn't go the way we wanted it to?

 

Democracy is far too precious to throw away. And by ignoring the vote, that's what we would be doing. 

 

We could call into account and contest any vote in the future or even from the past by re-examining the parameters and the results that came of it. 

 

"Well, they got a re-vote, why can't we have one for this, that and the other?" 

 

That's a very basic analogy but accurate non the less. 

 

Personally, I respect remainers wishes and I certainly don't take to name calling and insults. 

 

I do wish it could all have a happy ending. (No, not a Thai massage happy ending) and that as a nation, beyond this fiasco, we will all prosper eventually. 

 

As a nation, we've faced bigger adversaries and darker times by pulling together.

 

If anyone is to blame, it's the previous governments for manufacturing such resentment in society. The conditions were ideal, it just needed the catalyst. A divided population is far easier to control than an organised one. 

 

I'm not a conspiracy theorist but, you could surmise that the government constantly, subtle hand in social engineering, if you were one.

 

And I DO know that a lot of people voted leave due to xenophobia and racism and just sheer ignorance. 

 

There are a lot of intelligent people on this forum that can throw around statistics and fact based predictions all day and night and make someone like me seem irrational and stupid for not being in full possession of the facts and therefore having no right to cast a vote.

 

I wont resent anyone because of their opinion. 

 

Hugs.

 

 

 

 

[docwra]

So you think we would be best represented in Europe by a party with no policies that admit they will not co-operate with the EU on anything?
A party that despite naming themselves "Brexit" wont have any hand in the negotiation? This is the best chopice for the good of the country?
This is my biggest issue, the Brexit party have absolutely nothing to do with Brexit process yet this seems to be where they are putting their banner out, its disingenuous. 

And as a more extended question, I can see why people would vote to leave as a protest ........... but thats cutting off your nose to spite your face. Rather like voting for the proven liar Farage here, you can make yourself heard but at what cost?

Edited May 15, 2019 by docwra

[coldel]

Most remainers stated stats and figures as a way of trying to understand the challenge, something leavers didn't face into because it weakened the debate. Leavers coined the phrase 'remoaners' and used it repeatedly so in terms of name calling, both sides are guilty by some margin. Remainers it seemed tried to understand the economic and financial impact, leavers went from a political angle of sovereignty and as we saw politics were more important than financial stability to more of those that voted. Thats the crux of why a vote went the way it did not because leaving made more sense.

 

I actually think democracy is 100% what is playing out right now, if remain had won 52% to 48% would that be the end of it or would we still have Farage and co. looking to continue to derail the continued membership. I would have fully expected the latter, because that's the democratic right of any political group to state their will. Personally I am not up for another vote, but I do object to rolling all opposition to leaving into the 'undemocratic' argument as that is patently false and typical of the rhetoric we saw on the sides of buses and the like. 

 

Edited May 15, 2019 by coldel

[MDMetal]

10 minutes ago, coldel said:

Most remainers stated stats and figures as a way of trying to understand the challenge, something leavers didn't face into because it weakened the debate. Leavers coined the phrase 'remoaners' and used it repeatedly so in terms of name calling, both sides are guilty by some margin. Remainers it seemed tried to understand the economic and financial impact, leavers went from a political angle of sovereignty and as we saw politics were more important than financial stability to more of those that voted. Thats the crux of why a vote went the way it did not because leaving made more sense.

 

I actually think democracy is 100% what is playing out right now, if remain had won 52% to 48% would that be the end of it or would we still have Farage and co. looking to continue to derail the continued membership. I would have fully expected the latter, because that's the democratic right of any political group to state their will. Personally I am not up for another vote, but I do object to rolling all opposition to leaving into the 'undemocratic' argument as that is patently false and typical of the rhetoric we saw on the sides of buses and the like. 

 

It's not whether Farage and UKIP would be still banging a drum it's the fact nobody would listen to that drum, they'd be banging outside the window in the street. What we have now is the otherway round where the established parties and people running the company are banging the drum in the living room and dictating the policy. If Leave had lost they couldn't construct laws or situations which put that loosing argument into practise. I 100% support anyone who says their view is to remain in the EU, but it's surely a massive issue if the people in power are going to actively thwart the outcome, it shines a light that starts to show we've only every actually voted in line with what the people in power wanted. Democracy and fairness only works when the people implementing it agree with it. That's great if your view always aligns with that but one day it won't and you'll be feeling the same way, that nobody ever actually cared about your voice you just happened to be thinking along the same lines as the people in power.

 

Put it another way if we had stayed, and a million Leavers marched on Westminster, would Tusk be standing up demanding we listened to those views and bore them in mind, would he be arguing that although we voted to stay really it was a close run thing and we should be looking to leave a little bit to respect those views? Of course not so it's 100% about self interest. That's not what I want from a fair and even society. I want the same weight of opinion and the same respect of views and the same standards to be enacted on both sides by whoever was in power. 

 

If we do leave and we have a leave heavy parliment who offered a referendum on rejoining and that won 52 to 48 or according to whatever rules I would want that parliment to enact the result regardless of their own personal views even if the result was counter to mine.

[coldel]

11 minutes ago, MDMetal said:

It's not whether Farage and UKIP would be still banging a drum it's the fact nobody would listen to that drum, they'd be banging outside the window in the street. What we have now is the otherway round where the established parties and people running the company are banging the drum in the living room and dictating the policy. If Leave had lost they couldn't construct laws or situations which put that loosing argument into practise. I 100% support anyone who says their view is to remain in the EU, but it's surely a massive issue if the people in power are going to actively thwart the outcome, it shines a light that starts to show we've only every actually voted in line with what the people in power wanted. Democracy and fairness only works when the people implementing it agree with it. That's great if your view always aligns with that but one day it won't and you'll be feeling the same way, that nobody ever actually cared about your voice you just happened to be thinking along the same lines as the people in power.

 

Put it another way if we had stayed, and a million Leavers marched on Westminster, would Tusk be standing up demanding we listened to those views and bore them in mind, would he be arguing that although we voted to stay really it was a close run thing and we should be looking to leave a little bit to respect those views? Of course not so it's 100% about self interest. That's not what I want from a fair and even society. I want the same weight of opinion and the same respect of views and the same standards to be enacted on both sides by whoever was in power. 

 

If we do leave and we have a leave heavy parliment who offered a referendum on rejoining and that won 52 to 48 or according to whatever rules I would want that parliment to enact the result regardless of their own personal views even if the result was counter to mine.

 

You are assuming that politics are looking to thwart leaving, that is not a fact, you are guessing. What I see happening is that the inevitable large divisional splits in parliament at the moment, with parties moving further from the centre than in the last 20 years, is that concession on an agreement is almost impossible. The vote to leave won, it did not dictate though that we leave under any circumstances, that was handed to parliament/sovereignty which is what was voted for. 

 

Remainers said a lot of things in the lead up to the vote but some which were consistent were that it wouldn't be easy, that the EU would make it difficult, that parliament wouldn't be able to agree on a way out, that global economics is bigger than our island. Anyone saying that was told they were pessimistic, even told they were anti-UK. Those voting Leave were saying it would be easy (roll in DD and LF with endless quotes) - you are making a massive assumption that politics is against leaving because we were told it would be easy, but they are not, they are against each other and always have been. Politicians on the whole are not against leaving (unless you are a LibDem) but they are against each other, but Leavers voted for this process to begin in this way, so here you have it. But one thing it isn't, is undemocratic.

Edited May 15, 2019 by coldel

[docwra]

All of the above may be valid but the thing that has to be kept in mind is if remain had won, nothing would change. 
We wouldnt have long debates in parliament, contingency plans, economic changes, the workforce would remain the same ........ no upheaval. 

Thats why things are proving tricky, we are trying to redefine our entire country in a few months. 

[docwra]

Oh, and as for "democratic"

Q. Do you want a blowjob?
A. Well yes, of course I want a blowjob. 
Q. Its from a piranha.
A. Well, seeing as I said I wanted one Ill have to stick with that decision now. 

[coldel]

1 minute ago, docwra said:

Oh, and as for "democratic"

Q. Do you want a blowjob?
A. Well yes, of course I want a blowjob. 
Q. Its from a piranha.
A. Well, seeing as I said I wanted one Ill have to stick with that decision now. 

 

So are you saying that political, economic and social landscapes sometimes change which dictate that formerly agreed process becomes redundant and to stick with it would prove painful and ultimately not result in the expected explosion of satisfaction? 

[MDMetal]

2 minutes ago, coldel said:

 

You are assuming that politics are looking to thwart leaving, that is not a fact, you are guessing. What I see happening is that the inevitable large divisional splits in parliament at the moment, with parties moving further from the centre than in the last 20 years, is that concession on an agreement is almost impossible. The vote to leave won, it did not dictate though that we leave under any circumstances, that was handed to parliament/sovereignty which is what was voted for. 

 

Remainers said a lot of things in the lead up to the vote but some which were consistent were that it wouldn't be easy, that the EU would make it difficult, that parliament wouldn't be able to agree on a way out, that global economics is bigger than our island. Anyone saying that was told they were pessimistic, even told they were anti-UK. Those voting Leave were saying it would be easy (roll in DD and LF with endless quotes) - you are making a massive assumption that politics is against leaving because we were told it would be easy, but they are not, they are against each other and always have been. Politicians on the whole are not against leaving (unless you are a LibDem) but they are against each other, but Leavers voted for this process to begin in this way, so here you have it. But one thing it isn't, is undemocratic.

I disagree at the highest level, what is happening is a slow concerted effort to make sure that things are more difficult than they need to be that things are as unattractive as possible. Nobody said or thought it would be easy but it is not this hard. Most MPs are pro remain, heavily in fact. How do you balance the fact the majority voted to enact A50 with no deal being the default and yet suddenly no deal is now something impossible and terrible. If that was true then why pass A50 in the first place? Like many other roles in life it's just a job, and any chance to look like your "working hard" is great until you realise your actually going to displease people and may get voted out or have to do something you disagree with.

 

My big issue is many of us have to do "hard things" in our jobs. I do, I often have to do things I disagree with and know will cause me problems later. I can make my argument but I'm not the guy who casts the deciding vote. I then have to get on and do said thing, I can't then make a hash of it and claim that it's impossible or we should change our mind because I've deliberately thrown roadblocks into the process, I'd be fired for gross misconduct within a week. Why are Mp's so different?

 

 

[docwra]

You should consider going into politics Col

[coldel]

5 minutes ago, MDMetal said:

I disagree at the highest level, what is happening is a slow concerted effort to make sure that things are more difficult than they need to be that things are as unattractive as possible. Nobody said or thought it would be easy but it is not this hard. Most MPs are pro remain, heavily in fact. How do you balance the fact the majority voted to enact A50 with no deal being the default and yet suddenly no deal is now something impossible and terrible. If that was true then why pass A50 in the first place? Like many other roles in life it's just a job, and any chance to look like your "working hard" is great until you realise your actually going to displease people and may get voted out or have to do something you disagree with.

 

My big issue is many of us have to do "hard things" in our jobs. I do, I often have to do things I disagree with and know will cause me problems later. I can make my argument but I'm not the guy who casts the deciding vote. I then have to get on and do said thing, I can't then make a hash of it and claim that it's impossible or we should change our mind because I've deliberately thrown roadblocks into the process, I'd be fired for gross misconduct within a week. Why are Mp's so different?

 

 

You are entitled to disagree, but it doesn't make what you are saying true either.

 

If the Northern Ireland issue was not there, MP's would have voted through the exit deal and we would be on the way and any diversionary talk of more votes etc would be on the back burner. So that beggars the question, what is it for you about the deal offered that was not acceptable as an exit from the EU? Because I presume at that highest level you mention TM is creating a deal (excluding the Backstop) which doesn't achieve an exit?

Edited May 15, 2019 by coldel

[coldel]

5 minutes ago, docwra said:

You should consider going into politics Col

Well given I am in the middle of a mid life crisis and thinking of other roles I might just give it a go, I will of course claim rights to the Piranha analogy, it's genius 

[MDMetal]

41 minutes ago, coldel said:

You are entitled to disagree, but it doesn't make what you are saying true either.

 

If the Northern Ireland issue was not there, MP's would have voted through the exit deal and we would be on the way and any diversionary talk of more votes etc would be on the back burner. So that beggars the question, what is it for you about the deal offered that was not acceptable as an exit from the EU? Because I presume at that highest level you mention TM is creating a deal (excluding the Backstop) which doesn't achieve an exit?

Last time I checked NI was exactly where it is now at the start of the process, so what's changed? Or are you saying 80% of the HOC voted in favour of enacting a piece of legislation without understanding the issues it may cause or encounter?

[coldel]

So my question still stands, taking away the NI issue, what is it about the exit deal that you believe at the highest level is not achieving an exit from the EU? Parliament knew the issue was there, but if they hadn't activated A50 what then? What alternative course of action would you think they should have taken?

 

Edited May 15, 2019 by coldel

[MDMetal]

3 minutes ago, coldel said:

So my question still stands, taking away the NI issue, what is it about the exit deal that you believe at the highest level is not achieving an exit from the EU? Parliament knew the issue was there, but if they hadn't activated A50 what then? What alternative course of action would you think they should have taken?

 

To raise an issue and say hey look we want to get started but we really need to work this bit through. Instead they all lept on board and now a laod of them are trying to pretend they never actually voted to leave.

 

Assuming the issue of being stuck in a horrid limbo is resolved and assuming the transition is purely temporary then I guess the WA is largely acceptable although again it's trusting a bunch of people who seem untrust worthy!

[coldel]

But if they sat and focused on the backstop at the cost of progressing everything else we would have no deal at all, no progression and Leavers would be complaining that politicians are not doing their job. The limbo is there because, as was mentioned all along, leaving isn't easy. There are also various versions of leaving that even leavers cannot agree on, some want one thing other want something else. Parliament could do nothing more than activate A50 and allow process to ensue, this could take decades to unravel.

 

As for trusting some untrustworthy's, that was what was voted for, that we would bring sovereignty back to the UK via autonomous decision making parliament, so here we are, this is what was voted for.

[MDMetal]

2 minutes ago, coldel said:

But if they sat and focused on the backstop at the cost of progressing everything else we would have no deal at all, no progression and Leavers would be complaining that politicians are not doing their job. The limbo is there because, as was mentioned all along, leaving isn't easy. There are also various versions of leaving that even leavers cannot agree on, some want one thing other want something else. Parliament could do nothing more than activate A50 and allow process to ensue, this could take decades to unravel.

 

As for trusting some untrustworthy's, that was what was voted for, that we would bring sovereignty back to the UK via autonomous decision making parliament, so here we are, this is what was voted for.

Sort of... The fact certain MPs stood on a party manifesto and are now backing away for it and arguing that we should have a "peoples" vote (which they can't actually spell out what the question would be) whilst simultaneously saying they don't need to stand at a by-election despite radically changing their views somewhat complicates things.

[coldel]

Exactly what Docwra is saying though via Piranhas, the landscape changes, therefore political policy changes and each taken on each of its merits. The country put a vote out there to leave the EU, not to leave under no deal, not to leave with a deal, not to leave as a customs union - just to leave. 

 

Ultimately the outcome of the vote has been actioned and we have signalled intention to leave, the process is in play, it could take decades as many on remain side predicted. But to go to the original point, is the current squabbling and political positioning undemocratic, not in the slightest. It is in fact the process we are seeing that was the underlying reason Leave won which was to give sovereignty to our parliament, that doesn't guarantee they will do what you want though and we all have to live with this now.

[MDMetal]

2 minutes ago, coldel said:

Exactly what Docwra is saying though via Piranhas, the landscape changes, therefore political policy changes and each taken on each of its merits. The country put a vote out there to leave the EU, not to leave under no deal, not to leave with a deal, not to leave as a customs union - just to leave. 

 

Ultimately the outcome of the vote has been actioned and we have signalled intention to leave, the process is in play, it could take decades as many on remain side predicted. But to go to the original point, is the current squabbling and political positioning undemocratic, not in the slightest. It is in fact the process we are seeing that was the underlying reason Leave won which was to give sovereignty to our parliament, that doesn't guarantee they will do what you want though and we all have to live with this now.

I think you miss judging my point somewhat I have no issue with debates taking place and indeed whatever my personal view is winning or losing (to put it in those terms) However what I do have an issue with (and you seem to be saying is just how the system works) my local MP Heidi Allen standing for election last time round as a conservative alongside the party manifesto to enact brexit. She's now decided she didn't really mean that and is busy pretending she never said any of the things she's said on camera and in print. Further more she's decided what she really meant was that we should a vote with express outcome of choosing to Remain. That's not debate or adjusting to a change in landscape that's an about face. While she's arguing this is only fair and the people should decide she hasn't actually checked whether that's what the people she represents at a local level actually want. So she's all for votes if she things she can get the outcome she now believes in but presumably against votes where she won't agree with the outcome (ie a local election) So how is that democracy? How can we have a system where every 4 years we get 1 go to pick who nest expresses our viewpoint if they can then the next day change their mind and stand for something different. 

 

Both main parties have done similar and this is why the brexit party is gaining traction as it seems somewhat unlikely they'll come to an arrangement that involves not leaving.

[coldel]

That is sovereignty and democracy in play. Democracy dictates that people vote for an MP who then acts as a representative, not a delegate(and the distinction is important), in the house of commons. They typically have three mandates which are to represent all the people of the constituency, the party and the country. They do not have equal weighting. 

 

Democracy does not dictate that this MP cannot change their opinion, nor does democracy dictate they cannot go against the party/constituency if they feel the need of the country is greater as they serve all three mandates. Of course the constituency can vote them out, but that is the risk the MP plays. 

 

This is often not clearly understood by voters who think MP's only have one mandate - they have three and often the weighting changes, the direction changes so on and so forth. Ordering or expecting MP's to do something that is against their freedom to express what they represent, is in effect what you would see in a Putin style 'democracy'