Why are people being so utterly vile?

[WrongKindOfFace]

Not on here, but online in general. I know tensions are running high, and people have very polarised viewpoints, but the level of vitriol and blatant racism is shocking. I’ve come to accept it as normal from the likes of the daily mail comments, but it’s even on Facebook - with their photo, name and place of work attached.

(And yes, before anyone says it, remainers can be pretty unpleasant calling leavers thick etc.)

Boris,

Your points regarding the risk of Italian debt are not accurate

Which ones please?

In fact your point regarding the credit agencies ratings is also backed up by the fact that historic credit ratings of Italy's debt are about the same level that they have always been ( they got better on entrance to the Euro) and that the Debt to GDP is of a similar figure as it has been for decades

Not quite true, it is in about the worst position it has been for decades, and that is not allowing for the political skewing of the ratings' agencies (2008 rating of super senior tranches anyone?!). Anyway, I am not sure of the relevance of this. Italy's debt to GDP ratio is similar to its worst level in a century and the line is only pointing one way...

BTW, the EU the risk of Italy leaving the Euro and defaulting on its debt is not mitigated by leaving the EU

I am not entirely sure what the above means but, again, that is your opinion and is highly debatable.

Cameron also said he'd stay on in Parliament and implement the result. He didn't and packed up being an MP as soon as he could. If his word wasn't taken as gospel about that, then why were his words about the referendum?

He could equally have pushed for an EEA/EFTA agreement, as supported (once) by Farage and Hannan, and it would still have meant that we had left the EU so the spirit of leaving would have been kept.

"I don't really understand this argument. The referendum was advisory"

ten minutes later

"I don't really understand this argument. The referendum was advisory"

Another ten minutes later

"I don't really understand this argument. The referendum was advisory"

Then 12 minutes later

"I don't really understand this argument. The referendum was advisory"

Rinse. Recycle. Repeat.

How will it all end?

I couldn't give a shit tbh but I think my brain will implode at some point if I inadvertently read much more of these Brexity or anti Brexity slogans.

Almost 3 YEARS of this.

Death will be a blessed relief.

I don't really understand this argument. The referendum was advisory. I knew that. Other people knew that. The fact that some people didn't know that, or are saying now they were promised otherwise, is actually an excellent example of the fact that this referendum was mismanaged to the point (literally) of criminality, and in no sense justifies its bizarre reclassification as binding when in fact it was not

But do you see there is a difference between legally binding and politically binding? The government on the leaflet that it sent to every household did say "This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide". It is hard to make the argument that it was an advisory referendum.

Added to that, as far as I'm aware, there has only been one national referendum (the 1979 Scottish Devolution referendum) where the vote wasn't carried through (because of a turnout threshold).

Italian debt to GDP has been above 12005 for about 40 years.

It was also over 120% of GDP for much of the 90s.

It is worse than it has been, but not significantly, and the debt ratings are similar to the way they were in the 90s.

My point previously should have been that the risks of Italy's default to the UK are not mitigated by leaving the EU.

*It was also over 120% of GDP for much of the 90s.

It is worse than it has been, but not significantly, and the debt ratings are similar to the way they were in the 90s*

In the 90s, it was denominated in Lire, so that they could devalue and inflate in order to manage it (and they did). Now it is denominated in Euros.

As I said, the line is pointing upwards and, with their proposed budget, quite steeply upwards. At some point there will be a crisis.

The ratings, again as I said, are political. Despite the assumed support of the EC nations and the ECB, it is the worst it has been for many years.

The UK owns a relatively small amount of Italian debt. The main risk is to the French banks, and of course a knock on banking crisis, and the death of the Euro....

"The main risk is to the French banks, and of course a knock on banking crisis, and the death of the Euro...."

And this isn't a risk to the UK?

If the Euro collapses the economic shock will make the 2008 crash look like a walk in the park.

The UK with the EU as its biggest export market will be worse effected than any other non EU country.

But do you see there is a difference between legally binding and politically binding? The government on the leaflet that it sent to every household did say "This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide". It is hard to make the argument that it was an advisory referendum.

To me, this is yet another example of the way this referendum was conducted improperly. The government shouldn't have said the result would be binding, because legally speaking it wasn't. If the result was to be binding, then there are ways of doing that, but it involves following procedures that weren't followed in this case - for example, there would have been a definitive margin required. It would also probably have been harder to get through parliament, and it would also have been declared null in the event that the 'winning' side breached electoral law, which of course we now know did happen.

There is a distinction to be made between legal facts and political expedience, but that doesn't change the legal facts, no matter how many leaflets you post through doors.

If what you are saying is that a general consensus about the meaning of a situation is more important than the facts, then yes, I agree that seems increasingly to be the zeitgeist. I think it's a very dangerous path to tread though, as who is interpreting and re-presenting the facts for you, and telling you what the consensus is, may not be to your liking at some other point in history.

To me, this is yet another example of the way this referendum was conducted improperly.

Agree completely.

If what you are saying is that a general consensus about the meaning of a situation is more important than the facts, then yes, I agree that seems increasingly to be the zeitgeist.

Are you a lawyer? Your article reminds me of an article I read in the Guardian last week. It's not so much that it's facts versus non-facts, but a distinction between a way of seeing the world, and a valuing of different facts - legal facts versus political facts. If the Government says explicitly it's a binding referendum, then that has some weight and value. It's not for me to say it trumps the legal fact, but it's a fact none the less.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/01/politicians-lawyers-brexit-crisis-politics-westminster

Because they have always been racist and sexist but they think because they won the majority vote that everyone else is too so they can say it.

Why would you ever have an advisory referendum? Has there ever been one? It would just be a government run opinion poll.

Legally the queen can dismiss the government on a whim. It can’t happen, though.

No, I'm not a lawyer. But I do value precision, and I would argue that the phrase 'political facts' is an oxymoron in itself, since politics encompasses a vast spectrum of opinion, even within the Government (any given government but particularly this one, imo).

This Government, for instance, has also said that 'Brexit means Brexit'. Is that a political fact? Does it have weight and value because it was the Government who said it? If not why not? The Government is also now saying that they intend to keep us out of the customs union and single market, because that is what people voted for and is the only way to deliver on the result of the referendum. So has that become a fact now too? Because demonstrably it isn't true.

I would also argue that political facts, if that's a phrase you're comfortable with, occupy contested territory that is open to interpretation, whereas legal facts don't (not if we're talking about legal instruments rather than case law and precedent, anyway). That's not to say the law is always 'right' and we can always challenge ideas about what it should be and can change it if necessary, but that's a different thing.

I also value probity and, in a situation such as this, I do think the law should be where the buck stops and the decision is made. It's not as though the Cameron government didn't know the difference in law between a binding and an advisory referendum. The mere fact that they misrepresented the position in their leaflet is a solid legal argument imo (but of course IANAL!) for setting aside the referendum result as tainted. If the result had gone the other way, I am sure that's what Farage would have demanded (forgetting, of course, the leaflets he was putting through doors 'informing' us all about Turkey's impending entry into the EU).

There is so much more about how the referendum was conducted that has also passed from the status of legal fact to politically contested opinion, seemingly in the blinking of an eye, that I wonder how we can rely on anything if this is to be the new way of conducting national affairs - and that seems to me to undermine democracy rather than the reverse.

It's nice to have an intelligent conversation about this stuff. Thank you, Innocence.

"Has there ever been one? "

All referendums are advisory.

This one was too.

The act which brought it into being stipulates it.

Doesn't matter who said what.

Brexit was all about immigration.

Nope. My BIL voted leave because he is a lawyer and hates the ECJ. My father voted leave because he thinks we pay in too much.

Why would you ever have an advisory referendum?

Perhaps because it covered a complex area of policy, and even though you wanted to know what the national opinion was, you weren't sure both outcomes could or should be implemented? Just a random example. There may be others.

Has there ever been one?

Yes, quite recently actually, I'm surprised you haven't heard about it.

It would just be a government run opinion poll.

Yes.

Matt,

I was talking about in reality, not the legal framework around it.

Has there ever been a referendum where the result has been ignored, assuming it passed all the conditions announced. In the referendum (turnout, threshold etc)??

I think this has been the only referendum where the result was so tight.

The fact that it is advisory of course was the reason why the conditions were not made more stringent, there was no need for conditions as its was only advisory.

Doubt the referendum would have been seen as a ‘glorified opinion poll’ if remain had won.

Honestly, 2.5 years on & it’s still just a load of sour grapes from remainers.

"still just a load of sour grapes from remainers"

Except for the fact that Farage said it would be unfinished business at 48/52 the other way.

Mogg suggested two referendums.

Eurosceptics have been complaining since 1975.

Not just mild hypocrisy there Surfer.

What's good for the goose...

& since when did you take notice of Nigel Farage? 😂

Since when did leavers take notice of David Cameron? Except for when he said he would put the decision to the nation (which wasn't legally binding).

Doubt the referendum would have been seen as a ‘glorified opinion poll’ if remain had won

Sure it would. You lot would hardly have accepted it as meaning it was time to stop banging on about leaving the EU, would you? That Farage toad even said if remain won 52/48 that meant unfinished business. But when leave won 52/48, oh then it meant something else entirely.

I think this has been the only referendum where the result was so tight

Scotland Indy ref was also 52/48 i believe

just a load of sour grapes

Surfer do you genuinely think that the reason people are still discussing/protesting/worrying about Brexit is because they are just peevish bad losers?

Really?

The Government is stockpiling critical supplies. Is that not a wee indication that maybe this stuff is serious?

And if you agree that Brexit is a serious, difficult, complicated change for our Nation why would you find it so irritating that people are discussing it?

In a democracy people should be discussing this stuff.

I think the indy ref was 55/45.