Farewell Nigel Farage

Betsy Og said:
Which is why people are pointing out here that migration was actually beneficial for Britain, that fact got a bit...well....overlooked by Nigel (I'm being kind).

How would you categorize the extra £350M per week for the NHS?, the easiest deal ever to be done? I mean fast and loose with the truth would hardly seem to cover it.

The fact that England (yes, specifically England, I've given you the numbers before) has backed Boris is not proof of anything, maybe Labour are in the worst shambles ever (not a controversial opinion), make they like the shaggy dog act, maybe there's a subservient streak as shown in their obedience to the Saxe Coburgs - their betters, who knows.

I'm glad they got the vaccine program right, God knows the poor people deserved a break after what they'd been through. The Brexit chips will fall where they may, and other that the NI sit-ye-ation, and to a lesser extend trade, it's pretty much a 'popcorn event' for Ireland. But when the key claims for Brexit are found not to have had their basis in fact then I think most worldwide observers have come to the conclusion that propaganda played a part (or do you contend that this 'set' against Brexit is specifically an Irish thing??).
Click to expand...


No-one has ever argued that immigration hasn't been beneficial to the UK and it's an enitrely fictitious claim that Brexit was anti-immigration.
It was pro-controlled immigration so that poorer areas of the country are not further swamped by immigrants because poor immigrants inevitable end up in poorer areas.
Nigel Farage didn't magically conjured up millions of disatisfied people but he recognised their frustrations and anger long before anyone else did and much too late for Labour to ever recover its traditional working class base.
There's a reason why they're 160 seats behind the Tories.
 
odyssey06 said:
Cameron missed a trick there though. He should have set the referendum up with extra criteria either 55% majority or majority of UK regions must vote in favour of it. I think something like an Scottish independence (or Irish unification) vote, or major EU treaty should have a higher bar than an internal vote which can be easily reversed (e.g. PR).
Maybe I've misread things but I think people in UK would have accepted the status quo if it was because at a region level the vote was 2-2 (without giving regions a veto).
Click to expand...

So do you think the Irish abortion referendum should have been on a regional basis ?
I thought the Brexit poll was the only obvious question - in or out.
By a majority of 1.
It's certainly was made clear on the leaflet sent to every household in the country urging a Remain vote.
It cost millions and was paid for by the taxpayer and not the Remain campaign.
How about that for a bit of Establishment jiggery-pokery ?
 
Wahaay said:
So do you think the Irish abortion referendum should have been on a regional basis ?
I thought the Brexit poll was the only obvious question - in or out.
By a majority of 1.
It's certainly was made clear on the leaflet sent to every household in the country urging a Remain vote.
It cost millions and was paid for by the taxpayer and not the Remain campaign.
How about that for a bit of Establishment jiggery-pokery ?
Click to expand...
No but Ireland doesn't have devolved regional parliaments.
Plus Ireland can reverse its decision on abortion referendum with purely an internal vote, as UK could do on a vote on PR voting.
It's not about how 'obvious' the decision is.

I think some Irish referendums should have higher bars than simple majority where it involves international treaties.
I don't think a small potentially transient majority should decide such votes.
I don't think a country should join the EU on a 51-49 decision, for example, nor leave.
 
odyssey06 said:
No but Ireland doesn't have devolved regional parliaments.
Plus Ireland can reverse its decision on abortion referendum with purely an internal vote, as UK could do on a vote on PR voting.
It's not about how 'obvious' the decision is.

I think some Irish referendums should have higher bars than simple majority where it involves international treaties.
I don't think a small potentially transient majority should decide such votes.
I don't think a country should join the EU on a 51-49 decision, for example, nor leave.
Click to expand...

Would I be correct in thinking that if the vote had gone the other way you wouldn't even be contemplating an altenative referendum ... ?
The Remain campaign in the UK - and they're successive and doomed attempts to reverse the result - just come across as sad losers these days.
 
Anyway, who wants to waste any more time fighting old battles.
Good luck to Nigel.
See you down the pub when they open.
 
Wahaay said:
Would I be correct in thinking that if the vote had gone the other way you wouldn't even be contemplating an altenative referendum ... ?
The Remain campaign in the UK - and they're successive and doomed attempts to reverse the result - just come across as sad losers these days.
Click to expand...
Nope, your thinking there is incorrect.

It's not about reversing the result, it's about setting a higher bar for such far-reaching non-urgent decisions - joining the eu, leaving the eu, scottish independence vote, irish unification vote, quebec independence etc
 
Last edited:
Wahaay said:
I suspect you're simply aggreived that Leave had better lies than Remain ...
Click to expand...

:D:D How we laughed. :D:D

In the spirit of "Mrs. Windsor can go wherever she likes", we're not contesting the right of the UK to make whatever decisions it wants for itself, but spare us the gaslighting over the motivations. Anyway, I'd only love to swamp a few pints with you whenever that's allowed. Be good.....
 
odyssey06 said:
Nope, your thinking there is incorrect.

It's not about reversing the result, it's about setting a higher bar for such far-reaching non-urgent decisions - joining the eu, leaving the eu, scottish independence vote, irish unification vote, quebec independence etc
Click to expand...
I don't like referendums at all. I like representative parliaments which protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. I like it when a majority of that parliament, maybe a bigger majority than 50% plus 1, being able to change the Constitution.
I don't have time to read every piece of legislation coming before the Dáil so I employ people to do it on my behalf. They are called TD's.
 
Purple said:
I don't like referendums at all. I like representative parliaments which protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. I like it when a majority of that parliament, maybe a bigger majority than 50% plus 1, being able to change the Constitution.
I don't have time to read every piece of legislation coming before the Dáil so I employ people to do it on my behalf. They are called TD's.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I agree that there needs to be a higher bar i.e. "bigger majority" for some far-reaching and difficult to reverse decisions.
I'd be more comfortable with a significant majority in parliament or referendum (which remember also requires a majority vote in parliament to initiate).
I haven't come to that determination re: referendum being oppressive. A majority in parliament could be equally as oppressive if it could make far reaching changes on a simple majority without being balanced by another house, constitution etc.
 
And in terms of Nigel Farage, setting aside whether you agree with his message or not, what strikes me is how effective the persona he created was at getting that message across.
It seemed more like a pre-spin doctor politician, speaking his own mind. A reaction to the media trained, zero personality, speaking from an autocue politicians which seemed to dominate UK frontbenches of the era.
Someone with a personality, a character that comes across.
Boris Johnson has that, Mo Mowlam had that, John Prescott too I think.
And it seemed to strike a chord.

You can even see it in the impressions done of politicians. The people above and most politicians of the past gave you something to work with.
Vast majority of current politicians... nope.

ps Anyone else hear the song Making Plans for Nigel in my head when they check out this thread?
 
odyssey06 said:
Nope, your thinking there is incorrect.

It's not about reversing the result, it's about setting a higher bar for such far-reaching non-urgent decisions - joining the eu, leaving the eu, scottish independence vote, irish unification vote, quebec independence etc
Click to expand...

Your regular reminder that there has never been a referendum in the UK on joining the EU.
I think I prefer a straightforward vote with a single vote majority on a basic yes/no question.
It gives incumbent politicians and governments less chance to fix the outcome.
 
Wahaay said:
Your regular reminder that there has never been a referendum in the UK on joining the EU.
I think I prefer a straightforward vote with a single vote majority on a basic yes/no question.
It gives incumbent politicians and governments less chance to fix the outcome.
Click to expand...
And if they had would you have been ok for UK to join EU on a single vote?
A single vote threshold makes it a lot easier to 'fix' or nudge a decision or for the decision to be that of a transient majority on the day.

Imo such far reaching decisions need a higher threshold to ensure it represents the fixed opinion of the people. More than a simple majority vote in parliament and/or a referendum.
 
The greatest decision that a country might ever make is to go to war. I am unaware of any situation where that decision was put to any sort of popular vote. As De Valera wisely observed the people have no right to be wrong. Democratic elections give a lot of legitimacy to a government. But for the most part decisions are either too technical, too divisive or too important to be left to the people.
 
Last edited:
odyssey06 said:
And if they had would you have been ok for UK to join EU on a single vote?
A single vote threshold makes it a lot easier to 'fix' or nudge a decision or for the decision to be that of a transient majority on the day.

Imo such far reaching decisions need a higher threshold to ensure it represents the fixed opinion of the people. More than a simple majority vote in parliament and/or a referendum.
Click to expand...

Brexit - the pros,cons,negative and positive effects - was discussed and analysed so much during the campaign that ultimately I thought a simple majority of one was enough.
It was certainly a fair way of deciding whether it was right to leave an organisation the electorate had no choice in joining.
And it ended the paralysis that stymied British politics for years.
The fork has been stuck in that bird and it is done.
Now Boris and Starmer have to duke it out over what really matters - the economy,social inequality,the NHS,education,housing,welfare - so it's back ot business as usual.
 
odyssey06 said:
Hmm, I agree that there needs to be a higher bar i.e. "bigger majority" for some far-reaching and difficult to reverse decisions.
Click to expand...

I'd be more in favour of a best out of three.
It tends to happen in this country when the result goes against the political establishment - Eg Nice, Lisbon.

Credit to the British, the political establishment wasn't for turning for a re-run, but for a period it was certainly being touted in a number of quarters.
That is not to say it can't happen in a future referendum.
So my view is to have all referenda as best out of three. If after two votes, the score is 1-1, then the people will have had their opportunity to kick the government in the teeth (those inclined to do it) but now they can cast their final vote in what they consider their best interests.
All the arguments for and against will have been trashed out and we won't have to listen to patronising political and media hacks telling us "the people didn't understand" (Lisbon, Nice).

Well done Farage, his ambition came to fruition. I wish Britain well and to be honest I do question more the way the EU operates now myself. I'm certainly becoming more sceptical. Particularly the way our political class have used and hidden behind the EU for their own manipulation.

My only real gripe against Brexit is that Ireland never featured once in the campaign. Ireland only became an issue after the vote. This is typical of Irelands history with Britain. It is why I am a fervent United Irelander.

Ironically it is Brexit that has given the matter of a UI a new lease of life. I do consider that the seeds of Exiteers across EU have been sown. If EU states fail to manage a recovery across the 27 states then a push for more exits will emerge. If that happens in Ireland, and I think it could, then a United Ireland in a federal union of Britain and Ireland will be on the cards.
 
I am in two minds re Brexit and the Union.

On the one hand it seemed to have perspective of an English rather than British vote.

On the other hand N Ireland or Scotland leaving the Union now would involve much larger disruption to connections with rest of UK. Leaving when all parts in EU would involve much less disruption.
So maybe it binds the Union together albeit with some even more resentful minorities.

Come back to me in 10 years on this topic!
 
odyssey06 said:
Ireland or Scotland leaving the Union now would involve much larger disruption to connections with rest of UK. Leaving when all parts in EU would involve much less disruption.
So maybe it binds the Union together albeit with some even more resentful minorities.
Click to expand...

The very latest opinion poll on Jockxit yesterday was the sixth consecutive one where No has been in the majority.



And this is even before the SNP has provided an adequate explanation on future currency ( it vaguely talks about using Sterling but without BOE security ) and membership of the EU ( Scotland will win the 6 Nations before it will ever reach minimum economic requirements ) besides demonstrating it can actually do its job of running the country properly.


Last time Alex Salmond based its fiscal calculations on oil remaining at more than 100 bucks a barrel.Yeah,right.
I'm sure Scotland could survive economically but at what cost and would the Scots be prepared to pay that price ?
In its favour the SNP has Sturgeon, a charismatic and adroit politician, but she is fighting for her political life at the moment.
I suspect Scottish independence will continue along the same lines as a united Ireland - an aspiration that serves certain politicians well but when it actually comes to pressing the big red button the electorate would prefer to put on the long finger and continue to gripe at England.
Which is a shame because I suspect most English people would be quite happy if the Celts left the Union.
I know I would.
 
Last edited:
There was a poll last year (not sure if it was UK wide or specifically English) but more people were willing to jettison Scotland than NI if it meant getting Brexit - I found that very eyebrow raising, whatever your view on the plusses or minuses of Scottish independence.

I take it there must be dismay with Johson so, that he's not affording the Scottish people the chance to cut their own throats?, would solve a problem for the rest of the UK and the Scots would only have themselves to blame, job done.

The is certainly some disillusionment with SNP at the moment, some feeling they are not committed enough to push for the referendum, the Salmond shenannigans (true patriot that lad.....not), and the curious case of trans rights, of all things, flaring up. It probably boils down to whether those short term things trump the chance to choose your own government, or whether you'd hold your nose, vote SNP, vote Independence and then set about putting the (Scottish) world to rights when it is entirely within your power.

In governmental terms, it has to be borne in mind that some matters are "reserved matters" - i.e. under total control of WM - but that doesn't stop some from slating the SNP/Scottish Parliament over stuff not under their control.

Given the moves to strips away the power from devolved assemblies, the Scots would be wise to act quickly while they still can (& I'd go with an advisory referendum if Johnson won't oblige, sure its only advisory, what could go wrong). I find it amusing that the Scots are deemed unique, among small nations, in being incapable of managing their own affairs. Benevolent WM takes their tax revenue, gives a portion of it back, and calls it a subsidy..... some lads.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top