What can we do to change the minds of decision makers and people in general to actually do something about preparing for the forthcoming economic/energy crises (the ones after this one!)?
It has recently become commonplace to argue that globalisation can leave people behind, and that this can have severe political consequences. Since 23 June, this has even become conventional wisdom. While I welcome this belated acceptance of the blindingly obvious, I can't but help feeling a little frustrated, since this has been self-evident for many years now. What we are seeing, in part, is what happens to conventional wisdom when, all of a sudden, it finds that it can no longer dismiss as irrelevant something that had been staring it in the face for a long time
.
Hidden in plain sight
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools - Douglas Adams.
Technological change has an impact on the economy and creates greater inequality. It does, however, improve on average the standard and quality of living. Hence there is a responsibility on government to try to ensure that everyone can participate in society and respond to these changes. However, blaming everything on the EU is ridiculous. It is fair to criticise the thoughtless implementation of freedom of movement from the accession countries because of its impact on the people who were competed with. However, it is a mistake to argue therefore that we should go for the Norwegian option or similar such rubbish.
Those people who believed we should remain have a right to argue about the situation, but not a right to a second referendum.
As a Leave voter I use none of the leave brands but I do use four of the Remain brands. Am I wrong or is the survey? I think that it is the survey which is up the shoot.
These have been my exact thoughts for some time now but trying to get Remainers to listen and to realise that they are being manipulated as much as they think Leavers have been is an impossibility. The degree to which left wing Remainers unashamedly agreed with Dave and Gideon staggers me!
Kevin Dowd wrote: The issues now are not whether there will be a similar referendum in another country but rather which country will be next and then how many will follow after that. Brexit was merely the first domino. The EU will not survive the process—and by that I do not mean that it will not survive in its current form, which is obvious—I mean that it will not survive at all. The EU “project”—the attempt to establish a federalist European superstate against the wishes of many of its subjects—has failed and the EU itself is unraveling. The only question now is how unpleasant the endgame will be.
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools - Douglas Adams.
Kevin Dowd wrote: The issues now are not whether there will be a similar referendum in another country but rather which country will be next and then how many will follow after that. Brexit was merely the first domino. The EU will not survive the process—and by that I do not mean that it will not survive in its current form, which is obvious—I mean that it will not survive at all. The EU “project”—the attempt to establish a federalist European superstate against the wishes of many of its subjects—has failed and the EU itself is unraveling. The only question now is how unpleasant the endgame will be.
Interesting article, but I am not sure whether or not he is right. I think it depends on what happens in France. If the EU can keep France on board then maybe it has a future; if it can't, then the EU is toast.
There is a procedure whereby if over 100,000 people sign a petition requesting a debate on a specific issue then that debate occurs. If you would rather than there was not a mechanism for the agenda in parliament to be at least a teeny weeny bit set by people outside parliament then say so.
A referendum has taken place and a decision made based on the rules available to all at the time. This is what we refer to as democracy. What is not acceptable to me is after there has been a properly conducted vote, the moaners and whingers who did not get the result they wanted start bleating and demanding the vote is run again so they hope to change the result. YOU as an MP, have to accept the result of the referendum whether you like it or not. You also have to take part in the discussions to enable the mandate of the referendum. To have a debate about the result because it isn't to some people's liking demonstrates what most of us think, that this so called democracy is a sham.
Even the person who started the petition wants nothing to do with it.
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
However, 4 million people signed the petition and there is a rule.
If the rule is wrong please argue that. If you believe in having no rules then you accept might is right.
I am not an MP. I was, but I am not.
I believe in the right of people who wished to leave the EU to campaign to leave. I also believe in the right of people who wish to remain to campaign for that.
It is sad how there seems to be a growth in people's unwillingness to tolerate disagreement with others.
woodburner wrote:A referendum has taken place and a decision made based on the rules available to all at the time. This is what we refer to as democracy. What is not acceptable to me is after there has been a properly conducted vote, the moaners and whingers who did not get the result they wanted start bleating and demanding the vote is run again so they hope to change the result.
That said, I don't see anything wrong with having another vote in a couple of years time, when we actually have a far clearer idea of what Brexit actually means. If Brexit still looks like a good idea - it'll happen and the majority will be happy. If, after a couple years of negotiations it no longer looks like a good idea the majority will vote against it. Where's the problem?
It would be pretty daft to go ahead with something in a couple of years time that the majority was clear wasn't a good idea anymore, just 'cos it had looked a good idea years earlier?
Last edited by clv101 on 05 Sep 2016, 20:24, edited 1 time in total.
What's all thes "might is right" and "having no rules"?
There was a referendum, or do the rules for that not count? Both sides decided to lie through their teeth, meanwhile the electorate had to vote based on what information was available, right or wrong.
Now 4,000,000 decide they don't like the result, so lets do it again. We could do that for every election in that case.
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
