I find it best to treat posters' views on Politicians on this BB like...

William the Conqueror was a great believer in State control....admittedly he owned the state, but you see the difficulty in your argument.

 

I couldn’t agree more. Some of the ‘we know better’ foot stamping arrogance on here is abhorrent, particularly those with, what I might refer to as, extreme tendencies on both sides. I’ve seen comments from staunch Corbyn followers proclaiming that people in Barnsley were clearly misguided and ‘uneducated’. Oh the irony! What ever happens - I’m also a glass half full on this!

 

Well said! Absolutely sickens me!

 

Whilst I wouldn’t class myself as a Tory and am proud of my own mining heritage here in Barnsley- u need to get your facts straight:Between 1963 and 1979, Labour governments closed a total of 303 collieries. Successive Conservative governments shut 162 mines. Even the left-of-centre Energy Minister, Tony Benn, recognised the economic argument and closed more coal mines than Margaret Thatcher and Michael Heseltine put together.

 

The difference being the Tories and Thatcher closed down mines without any regard to the local communities and the men working in the pits. How many lost their jobs in the era you've brought up compared to when Thatcher went to topple the industry?

The pits weren't exhausted or on the decline like they were in the 60-70s when they were shutting down smaller pits. Thatcher was shutting these down as a political stance against the unions.

These pits were closed with nothing to replace them with, so families who relied on the wages coming from the pits were left with nothing. No jobs, no money, no hope, Nothing.

 

No I’m one of those people who hates racists.
You’re clearly one of those racist arse wipes who think they’re smart enough to get away with it by being funny LOL.

 

There is absolutely no doubt that Boris Johnson is an intelligent man, steeped in the classics, with a Latin bon mot for every occasion. He has, however, proven to be utterly ignorant of real world issues and the problems facing people who don’t move in the same, elevated circles as him. As I said the other day, I don’t think he’d be troubling the scorers on Tipping Point.
Throw in the fact that he is a proven bully, racist, misogynist and a serial liar and he simply cannot be trusted under any circumstances. Listen to the testimony of people he ‘worked’ with at the FO or as London mayor. Ill-disciplined, lazy, unprepared, unable to concentrate or listen to advice. His track record is consistently appalling in every position he’s held.
These are not opinions, these are irrefutable facts. There is one thing he cares about - himself, and if he sees any personal gain from calling a 2nd referendum or even revoking A50, rest assured he would do it.

I would not piss on him if he were on fire.

 

The question for the Remainers is how they should respond in a democracy like ours when they not only disagree with the result but believe that as a consequence of that result the country will suffer greatly if the will of the people is carried out - i.e. to leave the Union.
My feeling is that the result has to be honoured even if the result could be catastrophic. Because if not it challenges the whole concept of democracy.

There are people appalled at the prospect of Corbyn being PM - there are others just as horrified at the thought of Johnson winning an election. That isn't because they're not liked personally but because people fear it will be catastrophic for them or for some/all sections of the community. But there wouldn't be a call for a re-run of the election.

Do you Mr O support the Democratic process?

 

I do indeed, Mr Red-Taff. I think the only way the choice the people made can be countermanded is if the people are invited to confirm their view. If they are not, then I think the result has to be honoured. I would personally favour a second referendum on the true choice - 'no deal' Brexit v remain. But I know that a second referendum would be deeply unpopular, and I don't currently see a majority in Parliament for it. My argument would be that when the original referendum was called (i.e. 2016 - not 1975!) people were told by the Vote Leave campaign that we would enjoy "the exact same benefits" on leaving the EU. So in my opinion the 2016 result is not a legitimate mandate for 'no deal'. I think such an outcome requires further confirmation. Regarding elections, there is of course a re-run every five years!

 

It's one of Eco's tenets of fascism. The enemy should be painted as simultaneously too strong and too weak. The EU is at once trying to become a federated superstate, while crumbling and falling apart at the same time.

 

Try the Henley Regatta Forum (If there is one) you may find that the opinions on there suit you better.
And for the record I'm proud to say Barnsley is a Labour stronghold so I would suggest the views on a Barnsley FC fans forum will reflect that!

 

There is plenty of evidence now that shows our problems now are a result of the mid 80's - you can't just RIP the heart out of something then expect it to get up and carry on

 

This isn't aimed at you, it's more a general point. I don't see why its undemocratic to ask a question on the biggest decision in modern UK history to ascertain the views of an electorate when more information is present, and when the outcome seems to be much more radical than what was described in the glib and vacuous notions offered by vote leave in 2016.

I'm in business and a decision can be overturned at any time. Boards can change their mind, shareholders can. Employees can.

If a government, a party, the public, have to honour a result (which would have been declared illegal if it had been binding) which was extremely thin, knowing, or at least strongly perceiving it to be in your own words, catastrophic... isn't that just beyond ridiculous? No?

If that notion were offered in business, well... we decided at the last Board to make everyone redundant... we've just won a huge contract since, but well... we've voted so we just have to do that. It's just a ridiculous notion.

Since when was it illegal to have the right to change your mind? We'll likely have had 3 general elections in 4 years soon. Well, we voted in 2015 and we have a fixed term parliament act for 5 years. So why have another?

And , if the result had been the other way by an equally tight margin, no, I wouldn't expect us to join the Euro, Schengen, admit Turkey and increase our funding formula immediately either.

The scale of victory margin should guide how harsh the exit is. 51.9 to 48.1% is not a landslide at all. No deal absolutely should not be the end outcome.

 

I'd say George Spicer would probably know?

 

You sound like one of those in the majority in our fine Dearne Valley then - a proud Labour Brexiteer!

 

You either believe in democracy or you don't. Simple as.

Fair enough if you don't.

 

If a democracy is one vote then why have we potentially had three general elections in three years .
Surely the first vote should last five years in the democracy your describing .
If a transaction or policy is voted then it’s democracy choose how many times it’s voted , in fact imo the more it’s put to the people and argued and lies and misconceptions are found out before the actual act is triggered then that’s more of a democracy than the one currently being implemented .
Just a thought but imo it’s not undemocratic to make sure . The same people will get to make the decision .

 

Try again, the EU referendum was a far more complex thing than which political party you or I may or may not believe in. For example Tony Benn a fine example of a true socialist was always anti EU, Ted Heath on the other hand was very much pro EU, so somewhere in there lies the complex nature of the subject.

 

Not withstanding anyone's views on Johnson's persona and his being fit to serve as PM, there is no doubt that he has been a contributor to the rapid decline in the 'quality' of the political debate. It began with Trump's election and the Referendum when he along with Trump, Farage, Alexander Nix, Dominic Cummins and others took politics down a path where, mendacity, vitriolic fulmination and personal discredit replaced debate on policy and issues. The result being far greater polarisation, deeper entrenched dogma, increased popularism and a steep decline into general nastiness of the whole business of politics. Even if Trump is denied another term and Brexit is achieved this year I do not see the quality and decency of politics improving or the de-polarisation of society ending in the next 10 years. And on that I am being optimistic.

 

One easy question was asked on referendum day. It got answered.

I don't mind people arguing about the rights or wrongs of the outcome.

The democratic will was to leave.

I would not be in favour of opening up a similar barrel of saltfish by saying to the Scots "have another go" either. Presumably you would.