[Info-vax] The changing world

[chris]

On 07/05/22 23:38, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 7/5/22 17:36, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>> In article <62c31ea6$0$702$14726298 at news.sunsite.dk>,
>> =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?= <arne at vajhoej.dk> writes:
>>
>>>> Yes, but it was announced as a non-binding referendum and it is clear
>>>> that many would have voted differently if it had been declared as
>>>> binding.
>>>
>>> I don't know how clear that is.
>>>
>>> It seems pretty weird to me to vote to leave if they wanted
>>> to stay because they assumed that the referendum result would
>>> be ignored.
>>
>> I think that it is stupid, but there is such a thing as a "protest vote"
>> where people vote other than they normally would in order to make a
>> point (which is usually not noticed).
>>
>>>> Of course, one is not forbidden to implement the result of a
>>>> non-binding referenendum,
>>>
>>> I would say that it is expected to implement the result of
>>> such a referendum.
>>>
>>> Otherwise there is no point.
>>
>> Then what is the point of explicitly declaring it non-binding?
>>
>>>> but if it is a) non-binding and b) close, as
>>>> in this case, then common sense dictates that there should have been a
>>>> binding referendum after, say, 6 months of debate.
>>>
>>> There were a referendum. People voted. The politicians followed
>>> the majority's opinion.
>>
>> See above. Why was it declared to be non-binding.
>>
>> Another things which I think is stupid: if there is a referendum, it
>> must fulfill several criteria, one of which is that it be binding. But
>> the Brexit referendum was explicitly declared to be non-binding.
>>
>>> If the politicians had ignored the result or ordered a new referendum
>>> hoping or a better result I could see a democratic problem.
>>
>> No problem if a BINDING referendum was ordered.
>>
>
> If I had to interpret this I would say that it was made non-binding
> because the pro-BREXIT people did not expect it to pass and did not
> want their hands tied. It went the other way and the rest, as they
> say, is history.
>
> bill
>

It was a pretty determined fight on both sides, splitting the country.
I remember watching the Oxford Union tv debate on Brexit between Bill
Cash on the Brexit side and Nick Clegg on the remain side. Bill Cash
emphasised  the fundamental importance of the sovereignty of our
parliament, sacrifices made by our fathers generation in two world
wars, our sense of fair play and justice. Clegg poured out fud after
fud about how we would suffer if leave were to win. All about the
money, nothing about our culture, such as it is, nor about the ever
increasing dictatorial output from the EU, which continues to this day.
Bill Cash is old school English with experience of world war and
extensive international knowledge, while Clegg is sometime leader of
the minority Liberal Democrat party, who was in coaliton with the
Conservative / Tory party in government in the past. Clegg eventually
got a well paying job at Facebook, so it really was all about money
for him. Best of luck, but his cynicism and dismissal of the UK and
it's history and culture were unconvincing to say the least. None of
the remainers ever put forward a convincing case for remain, even when
asked repeatedly. Mass psychosis, more like it and various sections
of the media as cheerleaders. Not a party thing originally either, as
the old left in England, Tony Been and others, were always skeptical
about the future direction of the common market, and were against
joining. The English are a stubborn independent lot, don't like to be
dictated to or patronised, but that was exactly what the remainers
did, time after time, a rerun of HRK deplorables attitude. The people
are far smarter than given credit for, with history and its events
deeply embedded in the psyche of all nations. Ignore it or try to
belittle it at your peril...

Chris