Can people/Remainers explain what they are tying to achieve with Revoke?

[EggAndButter]

I initially wanted to post on AIBU but I didn’t have the guts and thought it wouod just be moved anyway...

I’m getting tired of Brexit.
Tired of the lies and dreams of the Leave side.
But just as tired of the dreams and wishful thinking of the Remain side.

So I am asking Remainers on here

What do you expect to achieve with Revoke?

How are you planning to deal with the Leave side being left down?
How will you deal with the inevitable instability coming with Revoke? There will a lot of very angry People around.... people who will be feeling left down. People in the north who have always being feeling that the South and London never listens to them and that this is another proof they don’t. And being sure that you have the ‘right’ solution isn’t going to be enough.

I have the same questions for Leavers btw. It’s just that the answer seems to always be ‘that’s the will of the people. Just suck it up’ :(

As we are going deeper and deeper into this brexit mess, it’s clear that there is one way to go back to what the U.K. has. That ship has well and truly sailed.
It’s also clear that No Deal will be a nightmare.

So the only way out I can see is a deal. A deal that will worse for the U.K. than being in the EU. A deal that both sides ‘will just have to suck it up’.
A deal where no one will be truly happy because the other solutions (No Deal or Revoke) just aren’t possible. But the only way out until the U.K. can sort itself out, its political system that has more or less collapsed, its priorities in the middle of a climate crisis, social issues, poverty and economic downturn, its press. (Whilst crossing fingers that whilst it’s doing that, no one will use that opportunity to take power -Trump style for example)

Not feeling very positive about it all. But even less so when I see both sides just sticking to their mantra and refusing to accept that, basically, they have both lost the game.

DGR and Lisbon (for reposting the same slur!) your comments describing England in the way you have just done are appalling and I'm politely asking you to consider what you have written, perhaps you'd withdraw that slur, please?

Describing any whole nation as "uncivilised", I'm sure I don't need to tell you what kind of sentiment that is.

Tory first; woman second ?

Absolutely.

didn't Scotland not enact that measure ? Which is why I was careful to say "England".

Welfare isn't fully devolved but I believe some kind of mitigating fund was put in place to avoid hardship without forcing disclosure and details of rape.

LouiseCollins28 kindly point out exactly where I've said England is uncivilised? You can't, because I haven't.

You, on the other hand, are happy to ignore Scotland as a nation and dismiss Ireland's long, bloody and damaging civil war (caused by the British government) as a minor irritation.

So if we're talking offensive, have a look at your own posts first!

Oh, and forcing women to disclose details of rape to avoid hardship is about as uncivilised as it gets.

Describing any whole nation as "uncivilised", I'm sure I don't need to tell you what kind of sentiment that is.

Tell you what ... you tell me how requiring a woman (none of this "trans" nonsense) to prove they were raped in order to claim a state benefit is civilised, and I'll happily take back my assertion. Because I assert it is uncivilised which can only be the product of an uncivilised society. If it makes you feel any better, I'm pretty sure I could describe a lot of countries as uncivilised based on their actions, so England isn't being singled out. The ongoing unspeakable situation in the US for example. But I'd rather we rose above it, than sank to it.

If you don't like being called out on uncivilised policies then don't enact them or support them.

Oh aye, and assuming that the UK should fall in line because England said so.

Grossly fucking offensive and a huge part of why this union is the most unstable its ever been!

Indy 2 for Scotland is coming, and the GFA has a caveat on a referendum to reunite Ireland if there is enough public appetite for it. Which judging by polls there is.

So be very careful taking that tone, or attitude while you're on top. Because nothing lasts forever.

Sorry, I'm not going to quote your own posts back at you. DGR you posted it, Lisbon, you reposted it.

I'm not arguing the point with either of you, I don't even disagree with you on the substance.

Either or both of you could, however, have made the point without reference to England and the word "uncivilised", you chose not to do that.

It's the law in England. It's uncivilised.

Not sure why you have an issue with that?

If we'd described English people as uncivilised, you'd have a point. But we didn't, because they're not.

The laws of the nation on the other hand, are. Therefore, uncivilised.

Befuddled indeed.

the phrasing I object to starts in DGRs post at "precludes..." I am not going to quote it in full, for reasons I'm sure are crystal clear.

LouiseCollins28 kindly point out exactly where I've said England is uncivilised? You can't, because I haven't

I think there was the old trick of accusing someone who agrees with something of having said it - great way to shut down debate.

I'll step up to the plate and own that remark. And here re-own it. I admit my view of "civilised" might be at odds with someone elses, so there's a degree of subjectivity in making such a statement. However I felt by stating the specific policy I did, I was making the point as specifically as I could. It wasn't some wild assertion intended to generate clickbait. It was a statement on an abhorrent, repulsive policy that makes me ashamed to claim the nationality of it's author country while it stands. It's barbaric and distressing beyond belief. and if I'm not careful, I might go on to say that I would have grave concerns that it could lead to even more cases of rape going unreported, undetected and unprosecuted.

LouiseCollins28 I've just read back over the posts in question.

You are the first person to use the word "uncivilised".

Oh dear 😂

DGRossetti your post was perfectly clear, and wasn't a statement about English people in any way. It was a statement about the government in England, which is Westminster.

You also never used the word uncivilised.

I am not going to quote it in full, for reasons I'm sure are crystal clear.

Don't worry, I will. As many times as it takes. If only it were as easy as upsetting a few folk to overturn a medieval clause such as that.

Your comments tell me a lot about both of you.

The meaning of "precludes anyone from... describing (Nation) as a civilised" is clear, as far as I'm concerned.

If LouiseCollins28 can renounce any and all support for the requirements of the UKs social security system to require a mother of a third child to prove that child was the result of a rape before becoming eligible for benefits as pertaining to a first and second child, then I will admit I was hyperbolic in my used of language, and amend my original post to read:

Tell you what ... you tell me how requiring a woman (none of this "trans" nonsense) to prove they were raped in order to claim a state benefit is fair, and I'll happily take back my assertion. Because I assert it is unfair which can only be the product of an unfair society.

with a caveat that someone somewhere not only thought it was a good idea, but continues to do so.

I don't support any such provision in the social security system, or anywhere else.

However, the peice of the post you've offered to revise isnt even the same post as the one i objected too! The post you are now referring to isnt the original, the language of which i found offensive

I'm confused now. And I post here ....

DGR, sorry if it wasnt clear what i am objecting to, i thought it was but if you're now confused maybe it wasnt.

please kindly re-check your post made at
Fri 10-May-19 15:42:08

Your penultimate sentence contains the phrasing I found offensive, concerning England.

Your comments tell me a lot about both of you.

Oh right back at you.

Scotland has introduced mitigating funds to combat the Westminster policy before, the bedroom tax is the most high profile.

As I said, welfare isn't devolved so it wouldn't be included in the social security policy would it?

And we're described as a union of equals

However, you are pretty stereotypical in your ignoring of points that don't suit your agenda, ignoring of 3 of the nations in the UK and don't seem to understand how politics work (given your wants for after Brexit didn't happen). So that's fair enough. I'll bow out now.

So.....after a brief interlude.....

maybe back onto the question of "let down". In a "post revoke" scenario frumpety asked:

How do we deal with those who feel let down by the political establishment if we do not leave?

I proposed that that our MPs be removed en masse at dissolution and replaced with a new Parliament, this went down like a lead balloon here I think it's fair to say.

So if we can't replace our MPs at dissolution with new candidates, how do you propose the ones we have should deal with the discontent?

With a general election.

That was proposed pages ago, by the way.

Your suggestion went down like a lead balloon because it's not feasible, practical, or indeed legal.

But just a normal GE would change the status quo in the HoC enough to move further forward than the current mob have managed.

I'd predict large increases for the Greens, Lib Dems, and (if polls are correct) an SNP landslide in Scotland.

So any new administration would likely need to be some form of coalition.

Given the state of both the Tories and Labour as things stand, I don't think that's a bad thing.

Fine, so we have a GE (I agree this is essential "post revoke") and the Greens, SNP and Lib Dems do well, I'm guessing since you didn't mention them that your view is the Brexit Party will not?

So we have a coalition government formed "post revoke" including some or all of the Lib Dems, SNP and Greens.

....and the likelihood of any such coalition of MPs meaningfully addressing the issues that caused people to vote to Leave is?

Absolutely nil, IMO.

Going back to the ID business:

At the risk of being snarky, we can all find ID if we need to, so why an extra card ?

Photo ID difficult for quite a significant minority if they don't travel, so don't have a passport and don't drive. My parents stopped driving at 75 ish, and stopped travelling, so at best could only furnish out of date ID. They didn't claim bus passes because they weren't mobile enough to use them, and there weren't all that many where they lived for the last few years anyway.

Things like a utility bill addressed to you? Maybe OK, but how many people have their utility bills addressed to one person in the household?

My DCs broke their necks to get passports as soon as they were 18 even though they weren't at that time going anywhere, just so that they could prove their ages. Why should they have to stump up the full cost of a passport to do that?

Now that the Tories are running a trial of ID-ing people at polling stations, to solve a virtually non-existent problem of personation, how many people would actually not have ID? I think it matters. A free card, like a bus pass, produced by completing a simple form and providing a photograph, and dished out by the Local Authority, not some central database, ought to be doable, for the cost of a couple of photos.

It depends if the Brexit Party fields candidates for a GE. According to the leaflet which plopped through my letter box this morning, they appear to be focusing on the European elections.

If they did field candidates for the GE I rather suspect they'd get a few MPs. What difference they'd make I don't know. They'd be much like any other small party, and shouted down by the bigger ones wouldn't they?

I don't know what caused the Leave vote and therefore I can't predict how to change the feeling.

Because in 3 years of asking, immigration and sovereignty are the only responses I've had.

So what, in your opinion, caused the Leave vote?

Because as I've said, my own country voted overwhelmingly to Remain. So I'm not surrounded by people who wanted to Leave. That's not me making a point, it's trying to explain that because I don't know why people wanted to leave I can't offer solutions.

Brexit can't be done without either ripping up the GFA (which was democratically voted for) or tanking the economy for years to come.

Isn't that the point? That it was promised and hasn't been delivered because it can't be done?

Louise - I genuinely can't understand why you're having the vapours over what Rosetti wrote. I could give other examples of where we have behaved in an uncivilised manner - eg appointing as Foreign Secretary a man who described black people as 'piccaninnies'. There is nothing wrong with occasionally being ashamed of the way one's country conducts itself. In fact, it's conceivable that the misguided belief that England is just somehow better than everywhere else is what got us into this mess and created such woeful divisions in the first place.

How do we deal with those who feel let down by the political establishment if we do not leave?

By listening them and finding out what their vote was really about. It was about things like austerity, a broken housing market, a breaking health service, a lack of decently paid work dished out by moneyed politicians who seemed self serving and didn't listen. It was something like less than 10% who cared about the EU before Cameron dreamt up his referendum to sort out his party problems, and I imagine that this is still the number that really care. Tackle the real problems and a lot of people will be contented enough.