UK MP's overwhelmingly back article 50 bill

[Noradin]

It was more the 'as usual' element of the comment. Its just that I rarely see it mentioned when the likes of Germany is flouting rules and nobody ever questions the French and the CAP and how this has a much greater effect on net contributions than the UK rebate.

So you are arguing that special exceptions in EU treaties for the UK are rare and unusal?
And when you rarely see mention of those other things you speak about (how do you know about them btw. if they are so seldom mentioned?), then maybe that is because of the kind of media selection you consume?
I certainly have heard about them and would have mentioned them if someone gave me reason to do so.

I was just trying to clear up the misconception that the UK had been forced into giving up the Pound in the near future by pointing out that if something seems to be against UK national pride then usually they have negotiated an exception. Which is simply a fact and not an accusation and only becomes an accusation when said exception goes unmentioned for the sake of an argument how the evil EU is constantly out to get the better of poor defensless UK who are too honourable to look after their own interest.

[Pua]

Im terrified of the concept of another referendum without proper rules being set this time round. It was such a clusterfuck that I actually lost faith in my whole country (UK / Scotland).

We need proper discussions with the EU and the UK and I dare say some form of media control. Our media is so bad it would make Kim Jong Un blush, we need an independent source to relay the pure, raw facts from each side of the debate and nothing more.

The stranglehold it has on our country is so great it has tipped 2 major votes, ours, and the brexit one. No idea how we fix this, but I can guarentee without some kind of measures it wont be civil or fair.

To be honest, it still worries me to this day; the reality is that it won't be any different during Yes2, and even the United States ended up getting caught in the madness where a President can say something that's instantly disproven via reality, and he can bluster through it without a dip in opinion. It's extraordinary. The BBC has a proven institutional bias against Scotland because, like much of the UK, Scots pay more than they get back out of it - but it's even more insidious when the Political Editor, Laura Kuenssberg, can deliberately edit the leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition into something the opposite of what he said... And keep her job.

Ultimately, if you want to be properly informed, then purchasing things like iScot and following the likes of Derek Bateman or Wings Over Scotland will get you there (though I'd avoid the comments sections, they're either echo-chamber circlejerks or cesspits of embittered trolling). Unfortunately, mainstream media still dominates the over-60's and they're being told, in many cases, flat lies. The Scottish Budget is another example, where people are being told of "tax hikes" or how "Scotland is the highest taxed part of the UK", both statements that are completely false.

It's a worry.

so no Scotland is not some unique special snow flake in the UK, it's the northern tip, not some super unique culture, it's a group of people that have mixed with everyone else on this and the other islands in the British Isles and Glasgow is no more different to Newcastle than Newcastle is to Liverpool.

Completely, incredibly, and flatly untrue.

But actually...

It is no coincidence that northern England tends to view the political divide quite similarly to Scotland. The reason it's no coincidence is because Thatcherism had (by far) its bigger and more horrific impact the further north in Britain you go. It's an amusing aside to tell you that, during the initial Scottish independence referendum, there was a north-English petition to join Scotland if it voted Yes.

And almost as many voted one way as the other.

That's a mandate to do jack shit.

For what it's worth, I agree with your assessment and I agreed with your earlier point about referenda being skewed heavily in terms of their wording and what, specifically, they choose to ask.

But the reality is simple:

The British government asked the people whether or not they wanted to stay in the European Union, and pitched the argument as "Economics Versus Immigration".

We all know how it turned out.

[Rockyreg]

So you are arguing that special exceptions in EU treaties for the UK are rare and unusal?
And when you rarely see mention of those other things you speak about (how do you know about them btw. if they are so seldom mentioned?), then maybe that is because of the kind of media selection you consume?
I certainly have heard about them and would have mentioned them if someone gave me reason to do so.

I was just trying to clear up the misconception that the UK had been forced into giving up the Pound in the near future by pointing out that if something seems to be against UK national pride then usually they have negotiated an exception. Which is simply a fact and not an accusation and only becomes an accusation when said exception goes unmentioned for the sake of an argument how the evil EU is constantly out to get the better of poor defensless UK who are too honourable to look after their own interest.

No of course not, just that its also not rare and unusual for other EU member states than rarely get a mention.

And what media would you presume that I consume? I could easily level the same unfounded accusation at you. When I said I rarely see mention of these things I mean on here amongst you and the other EU partisans. Listening to you guys anybody would think the EU is some kind of magical utopian society.

[Allatar]

But that's the thing, Wales has for a long time been a part of England. Scotland and (Northern) Ireland have never been. It's the historic background for Wales being given less autonomy from England than the rest.

Historically, you are correct Wales was part of England. Currently however, you are wrong as Wales is legally defined by the UK Government as a country in it's own right, regardless of the degree of autonomy granted to it by the Government of Wales Act. Even the smallest amount of research on your part would have shown you this.

[Rockyreg]

On matters such as brexit, I'd rather have an MP who stood-up for what they believe in rather than pandering to a slim majority in order to save their own career.

The trouble is its all a bit disingenuous now for them to vote in what they feel is in the best interests of the country. They had a chance back when they voted 6:1 in favour of even holding the referendum. Had they really not wanted the UK to leave they should have nipped it in the bud back then.

[Austilias]

Good. Now we can finally begin to leave this sinking ship (The EU).

[Zelk]

Good. Now we can finally begin to leave this sinking ship (The EU).

Off the sinking ship and straight into the water with May and the rest of the Tories...

[Austilias]

Off the sinking ship and straight into the water with May and he rest of the Tories...

Britain's quite at home in the water, having once ruled the waves and all that.

[dribbles]

Britain's quite at home in the water, having once ruled the waves and all that.

And all the fish, think of the fish. The only sinking ships will be european fishing boats should they stray into UK territorial waters.

[Noradin]

No of course not, just that its also not rare and unusual for other EU member states than rarely get a mention.

And what media would you presume that I consume? I could easily level the same unfounded accusation at you. When I said I rarely see mention of these things I mean on here amongst you and the other EU partisans. Listening to you guys anybody would think the EU is some kind of magical utopian society.

@ §1: How is that relevant to the topic at hand? I was replying to someone and even gave an example of another country with the exact same exception. That is the literal (yes, literal in the original sense) opposite of singleling out the UK. So I really do not see why you feel the need to attack me over it.

@ §2: Thank you for clarifying your post. If you want to discuss exceptions and rule breaking by other EU member states, why not open a thread for that pupose instead of trying to play the blame game about unrelated things in a thread about a vote of the UK MPs? All you achieve currently is making yourself look insecure and defensive.

[Rockyreg]

@ §1: How is that relevant to the topic at hand? I was replying to someone and even gave an example of another country with the exact same exception. That is the literal (yes, literal in the original sense) opposite of singleling out the UK. So I really do not see why you feel the need to attack me over it.

The quote below is what I originally responded to. Had you you just made that statement as a matter of fact (i.e. not included the 'as usual' nonsense I would have not felt the need to reply. I just felt it was unnecessary, but deliberate.

The UK has an exception as usual, as does Denmark.

[Austilias]

Your funny.

How's the NI assembly getting along? Oh wait, there isn't one, that particular ship sank a while back.

It's always been terrible. We're having snap elections in March.

The thing is I don't particularly like the NI Assembly anyway, so don't expect me to defend it. I'd rather we end that farce and go back to direct rule.

[Deleted]

It's always been terrible. We're having snap elections in March.

The thing is I don't particularly like the NI Assembly anyway, so don't expect me to defend it. I'd rather we end that farce and go back to direct rule.

It's almost like you forget about this three letter acronym and their peaceful campaign over decades to end English rule.

[Mormolyce]

For what it's worth, I agree with your assessment and I agreed with your earlier point about referenda being skewed heavily in terms of their wording and what, specifically, they choose to ask.

But the reality is simple:

The British government asked the people whether or not they wanted to stay in the European Union, and pitched the argument as "Economics Versus Immigration".

We all know how it turned out.

How it turned out was, people voted both ways in almost equal numbers.

The referendum asked the people what they wanted, and the only coherent answer you could draw from those results is: we don't fucking know.

[Pua]

How it turned out was, people voted both ways in almost equal numbers.

The referendum asked the people what they wanted, and the only coherent answer you could draw from those results is: we don't fucking know.

That's not how it works. /shrug

You and I know, full well, that the overwhelming majority of people had no idea about what they were voting for; the media in Britain ensured that people were as poorly informed as possible, the unfortunate result of decades reporting in the propaganda model (Chomsky). But a majority, any majority, is considered enough for the British people because of its anti-democratic electoral system; the Conservative party can do and enact whatever they like, despite less than 35% of people voting for them.

It's just the way it works here.

[Deleted]

That's not how it works. /shrug

You and I know, full well, that the overwhelming majority of people had no idea about what they were voting for; the media in Britain ensured that people were as poorly informed as possible,

they should have added a question if people wanted to stay in the common market to the poll, that would undoubtedly have carried the day then.
and forced the brexiteers to stop lying.

[Pua]

they should have added a question if people wanted to stay in the common market to the poll, that would undoubtedly have carried the day then.
and forced the brexiteers to stop lying.

I disagree.

Sound economics was the argument of remain, while immigration was the argument of leave; and immigration won for, I suppose, relatively obvious reasons. When push comes to shove, people don't want to vote for a status quo that they know is failing them (see: Hillary Clinton), and even something deeply flawed is viewed as a viable alternative. And immigration is almost unique, in its ability to influence the lower-middle and working classes. The things they care about are their jobs, their homes, their doctors and their schools - immigration can be deployed as a bogeyman to threaten all of those things, which would explain why the working class got behind the Brexit vote.

It's also worth remembering that press standards in the UK and US are absolutely terrible. They're allowed to say almost anything, and there's next to no effort for either an ombudsman, watchdog or press regulatory service to sort this out. This is largely because there's no political will, but also because it can be tough; many publications don't outright lie, they just outrageously fancify claims and "analysis" without ever presenting anything technically untrue.

But of course, we live in a world where people typically only read the headline. Clarifying or, in some cases, flat-out contradicting your wholly misleading headline is a common practice.

It's despicable.

More and more, sadly, the words of Mark Twain are more relevant than ever: "If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed".

[Deleted]

I disagree.

Sound economics was the argument of remain, while immigration was the argument of leave; and immigration won for, I suppose, relatively obvious reasons. When push comes to shove, people don't want to vote for a status quo that they know is failing them (see: Hillary Clinton), and even something deeply flawed is viewed as a viable alternative. And immigration is almost unique, in its ability to influence the lower-middle and working classes. The things they care about are their jobs, their homes, their doctors and their schools - immigration can be deployed as a bogeyman to threaten all of those things, which would explain why the working class got behind the Brexit vote.

It's also worth remembering that press standards in the UK and US are absolutely terrible. They're allowed to say almost anything, and there's next to no effort for either an ombudsman, watchdog or press regulatory service to sort this out. This is largely because there's no political will, but also because it can be tough; many publications don't outright lie, they just outrageously fancify claims and "analysis" without ever presenting anything technically untrue.

But of course, we live in a world where people typically only read the headline. Clarifying or, in some cases, flat-out contradicting your wholly misleading headline is a common practice.

It's despicable.

More and more, sadly, the words of Mark Twain are more relevant than ever: "If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed".

Oh my point was that, if put in two questions, the likely outcome would have been yes to leave the EU but no to leave the common market.
I can certainly see the arguments for leaving the EU in your light (although again clearly showing how badly informed the UK citizens were) - I recall one woman saying she voted leave because she didn't want more Pakis to come to the UK.
Or the Turkey issue, that one bugs me to no end.

[Mormolyce]

That's not how it works. /shrug

You and I know, full well, that the overwhelming majority of people had no idea about what they were voting for; the media in Britain ensured that people were as poorly informed as possible, the unfortunate result of decades reporting in the propaganda model (Chomsky). But a majority, any majority, is considered enough for the British people because of its anti-democratic electoral system; the Conservative party can do and enact whatever they like, despite less than 35% of people voting for them.

It's just the way it works here.

Except for the first Scottish referendum, which also won by 52% but was thrown out because the margin wasn't big enough.

[Pua]

Oh my point was that, if put in two questions, the likely outcome would have been yes to leave the EU but no to leave the common market.

Ah, okay - I understand you better now. But, actually, I still disagree, haha! The common market is tied to the free movement of people, which was what the entire Leave argument was based around. So, had that question been put, then the Leave campaign would have argued that a "hard" Brexit was the only option and the immigration-focused debate would have won there.

You might be right, I'm just saying I view things a bit differently.

Except for the first Scottish referendum, which also won by 52% but was thrown out because the margin wasn't big enough.

There was no 'first' Scottish referendum. September 2014 was the first. I assume you mean the 1979 referendum on devolution, which is a very different thing. But that also wasn't a problem with the margin; The Scotland Act 1978 was repealed because there was a minimum turnout written into the act, and that turnout didn't reach the criteria (if I recall correctly, 40% of Scots had to vote and only 32% did so).

Ultimately, that led to the Labour government shoring up its Scottish vote in the '97 landslide (which, ironically, it didn't come close to needing) by promising a second referendum on devolution in its manifesto. That time, three quarters of Scots voted for it with a turnout of over 60% - again, assuming I recall correctly. The reason that's funny is because it was less than that turnout in 1979, by around five percent, yet still made it into law.

The cynic in me tends to believe that the first devolution referendum was rigged to ensure the turnout wasn't high enough, and there's evidence to suggest that this was true. The second was to kill off the idea of independence once and for all, something Tony Blair admitted.

Now, it's really only a matter of "when" rather than "if". Most of the lies contained with Project Fear were proven to be exactly that, or threats that ended up coming true anyway (succinctly chronicled in Stuart Campbell's Wee Black Book). They can't be deployed again when the truth about just how costly Brexit is going to be starts to get into people's hands.