General Brexit discussion thread

[Scott777]

Get out and vote accordingly in 6 weeks time. I will be  , and every time therafter , i will be voting in my interests , not beelbeebs.

Indeed I shall, but there's still value in convincing others to change their mind, or pointing out the idiocy of their ideas.  That way you get an extra vote.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you used to argue for remain?

[Thomas]

The fundamental problem with Beelzebub's logic is that, if Hitler is resurrected and gets into power, and let's imagine Beelzebub happens to be Jewish, Hitler may argue it is in Beelzebub's interest to be killed because he is genetically inferior and has no value in society.  Surely he is better off that way.  And according to his logic, he's all for it.

Thing is though beelbeeb is just determined to stop brexit. He wants the status quo . I have no problem with that.



Meanwhile people like you or i dont agree with the status quo for many differing reasons , and are equally determined to get change.



So we argue  , debate , and in the end see who wins.



Get out and vote accordingly in 6 weeks time. I will be  , and every time therafter , i will be voting in my interests , not beelbeebs.

[Scott777]

I personally can agree that it may be argued that an mps job is to decide what is in their constituents interests.



However , when you have mps like the aformentioned philip lee , tory mp for bracknell  herts , standing on a brexit ticket to enact the brexit referendum result in 2017 , then reneging on that very promise he made to constituents to get elected , while refusing to face his constituents in a by election  , then you have to question that alleged truism.



Lying to your constituents to get elected isnt deciding in their best interests , and is one of the main reasons why westminster is regarded as a cesspit and so called uk democracy a laughing stock.



You either take a moral standpoint and tell the truth  , or you dont . Not flip flop when it suits between acting in your constituents interests one minute (allegedly) and then pursuing self interest when you have had their vote.



It was this sort of belief by labour politicians  , that saw them wiped out in scotland over the years. Treating people like voting fodder is a joke , and makes the electorate extremely angry.



So i cant agree with you beelbeeb on this.

The fundamental problem with Beelzebub's logic is that, if Hitler is resurrected and gets into power, and let's imagine Beelzebub happens to be Jewish, Hitler may argue it is in Beelzebub's interest to be killed because he is genetically inferior and has no value in society.  Surely he is better off that way.  And according to his logic, he's all for it.

[Scott777]

SMCU etc as now as the new permanent relationship.



FoM as is now.



We don't currently have FoM for criminals and aliens so that would not be a requirement of mine.



Take a look at what we *actually* have (as opposed to what Farage, the Mail or BJ claim is in place) and that's what I want maintained as promised.



Come back with a deal that provides that and I'll be very interested.



What did you vote for?

So,SMCU for a thousand years?  FOM as now, for another week?  And you have to take 10 immigrants into your home?  Okay, I' see what I can do, and I'll add the Euro, an EU army, let's have our military swear allegiance to Brussels, and I'll throw into the deal an agreement that if the EU runs out of money, we will bail them out.  That covers everything you want, I believe.  Unfortunately for you, your MP is liable to ignore all of that on grounds that it's not really in your interest, but don't worry, because you are still sovereign (according to your definition).  You can still vote again, protest, and stamp your feet, being sovereign and all that.  ::

[BeElBeeBub]

I'm afraid I can't interpret that.  SMCU & FOM for how long?  A year?  A month?  A week?  A day?  FOM for criminals?  FOM for aliens?  With so many interpretations, I can't possibly know what you want.

SMCU etc as now as the new permanent relationship.



FoM as is now.



We don't currently have FoM for criminals and aliens so that would not be a requirement of mine.



Take a look at what we *actually* have (as opposed to what Farage, the Mail or BJ claim is in place) and that's what I want maintained as promised.



Come back with a deal that provides that and I'll be very interested.



What did you vote for?

[Thomas]

I personally can agree that it may be argued that an mps job is to decide what is in their constituents interests.



However , when you have mps like the aformentioned philip lee , tory mp for bracknell  herts , standing on a brexit ticket to enact the brexit referendum result in 2017 , then reneging on that very promise he made to constituents to get elected , while refusing to face his constituents in a by election  , then you have to question that alleged truism.



Lying to your constituents to get elected isnt deciding in their best interests , and is one of the main reasons why westminster is regarded as a cesspit and so called uk democracy a laughing stock.



You either take a moral standpoint and tell the truth  , or you dont . Not flip flop when it suits between acting in your constituents interests one minute (allegedly) and then pursuing self interest when you have had their vote.



It was this sort of belief by labour politicians  , that saw them wiped out in scotland over the years. Treating people like voting fodder is a joke , and makes the electorate extremely angry.



So i cant agree with you beelbeeb on this.

[cromwell]

Somebody might want to smoke. Is that in their interests?



Somebody might want to sit on the sofa and eat chips. Is that in their interests?



Somebody might want to give their life savings to the ex king of Nigerian. Is that in their interests?



MPs job is to decide what is in the best interests of their constituents which might mean running counter to some of their constituents specific wishes.



You can't define what the will of the people is regarding brexit other than the vague instruction "leave" with no timescale attached.

Well you quote that,and it is seen quite often with the old and/or infirm also those with a learning disability or mental health problems,what was first  started as mental capacity is now ever more often best interest.......whose though? quite often not of the person themselves but vested interest or whats best for what others want.



Still I suppose many on the remain side see those who voted leave as one or more of the above.

[Scott777]

For Leave?



I would settle for the exact same benefits as now (so SMCU membership level access, FoM, for UK citizens, a say in EU governance etc)



If we could leave with those, as promised, I'd be happy.



What do you want?

I'm afraid I can't interpret that.  SMCU & FOM for how long?  A year?  A month?  A week?  A day?  FOM for criminals?  FOM for aliens?  With so many interpretations, I can't possibly know what you want.

[BeElBeeBub]

You didn't say what you want.

For Leave?



I would settle for the exact same benefits as now (so SMCU membership level access, FoM, for UK citizens, a say in EU governance etc)



If we could leave with those, as promised, I'd be happy.



What do you want?

[BeElBeeBub]

Wrong, because you have merely looked up a definition from one source, and that's the definition of a single word, not the whole phrase "in one's interest".

"in one's interest" is even closer to definition 3.



"Hobbies" or "wants" doesn't even make sense.  How can an MP vote in accordance with his constituents hobbies?

[Scott777]

The referendum was flawed precisely because it didn't specify how.



I would be happy to leave in a manner that met the promises made by leave. Who wouldn't want all the things they promised?



Unfortunately they made promises they cannot keep.  Eg it is not possible for us to leave the single market and also have the exact same benefits as now, the UK cannot diverge from the EU without there being a border on Ireland or in the Irish sea (both of which were ruled out).



Every time you come up with an implementation of brexit it fails to get a majority.

You didn't say what you want.

[Scott777]

Ah, I see....



You're interpreting "interests" and in "things they are interested in" eg model trains, smoking, French new wave cinema, fishing etc.



There are several definitions of "interest"



1. the feeling of wanting to know or learn about something or someone.

"she looked about her with interest"

Similar:

attentiveness



2. an activity or subject which one enjoys doing or studying.

"their sole interests are soccer, drink, and cars"



3. the advantage or benefit of a person or group.

"the merger is not contrary to the public interest"



You are understanding it as 1 or 2.

Wrong, because you have merely looked up a definition from one source, and that's the definition of a single word, not the whole phrase "in one's interest".

[BeElBeeBub]

No, that's not how it works.  We weren't asked how to leave, and your logic is complete nonsense.  You could have any referendum or question at all, and I can name more than one way of doing what you decide.  Go ahead.  What would you like to happen?

The referendum was flawed precisely because it didn't specify how.



I would be happy to leave in a manner that met the promises made by leave. Who wouldn't want all the things they promised?



Unfortunately they made promises they cannot keep.  Eg it is not possible for us to leave the single market and also have the exact same benefits as now, the UK cannot diverge from the EU without there being a border on Ireland or in the Irish sea (both of which were ruled out).



Every time you come up with an implementation of brexit it fails to get a majority.

[BeElBeeBub]

Please note that you have changed "interests" into "best interests", attempting to create false arguments.  As I have said, "your interests" is ambiguous.  If I want to smoke, then I am interested in smoking, then I could argue that it is my interest.  It is irrelevant even if the leave vote is vague, because we definitely haven't left, and if time-scale is relevant, than it is relevant in all arguments.  Labour Manifesto 2017: "Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first."  Unfortunately, they don't say when they will do this, so using your logic, it might be in 1,000 years.

Ah, I see....



You're interpreting "interests" and in "things they are interested in" eg model trains, smoking, French new wave cinema, fishing etc.



There are several definitions of "interest"



1. the feeling of wanting to know or learn about something or someone.

"she looked about her with interest"

Similar:

attentiveness



2. an activity or subject which one enjoys doing or studying.

"their sole interests are soccer, drink, and cars"



3. the advantage or benefit of a person or group.

"the merger is not contrary to the public interest"



You are understanding it as 1 or 2.



That's not the meaning of "interests" in the original quote



"...using their best judgement, in the interests of their constituents."



1 or 2 make no sense at all in the context.



By substituting 3 we get.



"...using their best judgement, to the advantage or benefit of their constituents"



As you can see, someone's desires (to smoke, get fat, give money to a Nigerian King) may not be to their advantage or benefit.

[Scott777]

Somebody might want to smoke. Is that in their interests?



Somebody might want to sit on the sofa and eat chips. Is that in their interests?



Somebody might want to give their life savings to the ex king of Nigerian. Is that in their interests?



MPs job is to decide what is in the best interests of their constituents which might mean running counter to some of their constituents specific wishes.



You can't define what the will of the people is regarding brexit other than the vague instruction "leave" with no timescale attached.

Please note that you have changed "interests" into "best interests", attempting to create false arguments.  As I have said, "your interests" is ambiguous.  If I want to smoke, then I am interested in smoking, then I could argue that it is my interest.  It is irrelevant even if the leave vote is vague, because we definitely haven't left, and if time-scale is relevant, than it is relevant in all arguments.  Labour Manifesto 2017: "Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first."  Unfortunately, they don't say when they will do this, so using your logic, it might be in 1,000 years.