The "will of the people"

The Britain of 2019 is unrecognisable from the country of four years ago. A Brexit that in 2015 meant a Norway-style single market has come to entail our total rupture with every EU instrument, body and law, at any political, economic and human cost. Since the referendum, the Brexiters have refused all compromise. The hardline fringes have hijacked a slim mandate and reinterpreted it in the most extreme way available to them. No deal is the all-or-nothing corruption of a democratic vote, and revocation is its democratic answer. Like every other outcome, it will provoke a sustained political crisis. But in the end it may be the only way to save the economy – and people’s lives.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/07/stop-catastrophe-no-deal-brexit-revoke-article-50

The internet genie is well and truly out of the bottle.

Every political party uses the internet for its own advancement as do large corporations, unfortunately that is how they operate in the 21st Century!!

I agree that all parties do this to some extent but there are two issues, quite apart from the content of these messages. One is the covert nature of this propaganda and the other is the sheer scale of the right wing messages and inbalance between parties, reflecting the power of money, including finance fron very dubious sources.

Varian

"This is the way the "will of the people" is being steered, predominently by the right. How can we control it? Or if we can't control it how can we educate young people to be aware of covert malign influences?"
--

It is a fact that ALL parties are ' harvesting ' Information. If you think the party you support is not targeting you if you are a member, on twitter/Facebook etc. you are simply shutting off from reality.

An example :-

Emma's Diary gathered data on more than a million people, according to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), which issued the fine.

Labour used the information in the run up to the 2017 General Election.'
-
Happy to be corrected if that is misinformation.

As for young people I hope they are more astute than our generation as to misinformation/political persuasion being directed at them, from' whichever ' party. I say whichever party because ALL parties are using social media as the tool of choice.

If you think it is as simple as accusing only one party then think again it has been common knowledge sections of the population are targeted including the' youth vote '.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40244905

Political parties are showing partisan, highly charged adverts to teenagers on Facebook and Instagram, Sky News can reveal.

The Children's Commissioner has described the practice of targeting young people as "irresponsible".

Sky News has seen 208 political ads shown to 13 to 17-year-olds on Facebook and Facebook-owned Instagram, where advertisers can target campaigns according to age.

The majority of the ads came from the Conservatives, which showed 102 ads to teenagers, mostly featuring Boris Johnson.

news.sky.com/story/teens-exposed-to-highly-charged-political-ads-on-facebook-and-instagram-11786042

This is the way the "will of the people" is being steered, predominently by the right. How can we control it? Or if we can't control it how can we educate young people to be aware of covert malign influences?

Monica

'Boris, the bully he is, doesn't give a toss for anyone and is happy to trample nearly half the electorate into the ground just to have everything his way.'
--
Can I ask politely.

Why do you think Boris Johnson voted for the EU/UK Withdrawal Agreement which would have hopefully lead to there being' A DEAL '.

Parliament voted against the EU/UK Withdrawal Agreement putting the UK into a position of there being ' NO DEAL '.

Indeed, crystaltipps, and the cultural chasm which has opened up will take decades to heal.

I think that sums it up nicely

I’m not holding my breath waiting for the benefits of Brexit to appear in my lap - maybe someone could tell me what these are? ( answer: no you can’t) Basically if we have no deal on October 31 it will be only the beginning of years of negotiations to leave us in a worse position than we are now.

Smileless2012: Only time will tell.

We have alreay been told. We do not need to wait for Time. Some people are experiencing hardship and difficulties now because of the Brexit fiasco. Your lackadaisical attitude tells me you are not one of those. But let's see if Time can make it even more difficult for even more of us.

It’s very difficult to argue for the status quo and several have tried to get a remain campaign started but failed. My own view is that we should stay in the E.U. and fight for change within, there are plenty of others also want the E.U. to have a less federal agenda.

As I see it the only prospect of remain is by default, maybe no deal actually happens, more likely we will end up with a Norway type deal. The disadvantage with that is we still have to live with E.U. regulations without any say in formulating them, even with no deal E.U. regulations would restrict any changes.

Leavers just don’t appear to realize if we leave without agreement there has to be agreement or everything stops, to avoid that I’m sure there will be a transition of some kind for a short period, if we go to WTO rules on day one not much is going to move through the ports.

Only time will tell.

Surely no-one who has been paying any attention to the overwhelming evidence over the last three years still seriously believes we could possobly benefit in any way from leaving the EU???

And when we do benefit from leaving David will you then thank your leaving friends for voting to leave?

Why on earth should you or anyone else be resigned to leaving the EU when we all now know it would damage our country?

I too am resigned to leaving at some stage but I do enjoy blaming my “ leaving “ friends that the current mess is all their fault.
And I will continue to do that until we do benefit from leaving - I am confident that I’m going to have a good few years of doing that.

As GG, above -me too, M0nica.

I think that is a very reasoned point of view M0nica.

As a remainer, I believe sstrongly that the result of the referendum, however thin the majority should be hnoured and we should leave the EU. However I expect the Leavers to accept how thin their majority was and pay some respect to the many who opposed leaving and take that into account in conducting their negotiations.

Boris, the bully he is, doesn't give a toss for anyone and is happy to trample nearly half the electorate into the ground just to have everything his way.

I can't remember any debates here on GN on the run up to the referendum that it was only advisory, but I'm not a regular poster on the political threads which may be why.

I have no recollection in the run up to any experts saying that it was purely advisory only experts on either side saying it would be an unmitigated disaster or wonderful triumph.

Parliament triggered Article 50 on the 29th March 2017, just over 4 months after the ruling by the High Court that you referred too. Therefore upholding the result of a referendum that some are now saying was only advisory. Parliament accepted the referendum result and acted accordingly.

With regard to a crime being committed, in the example you gave I agree however, that is in relation to an act being known as a crime and then deciding whether the accused is innocent or guilty of that crime.

It seems that there are plenty of politicians who regard democracy as "a structure that will just do as they personally wish".

It is simply not true that we did not know at the time Smileless. You are trying to re-write history. I can remember long debates on here about the fact that our referendums are advisory. I can also remember that if experts were quoted they were poo-pooed. But it's by studying what the experts say that we learn and some chose to do so. Nothing changed in those 4 months it just needed to be proved in court for some to believe it.

If you committed a crime and it takes them 4 months or 4 years to bring you to court it does not change the fact the event happened previously.

On your other point, if you see that Cameron was playing a political game why keep offering it as evidence that the referendum was not advisory. You cannot change the facts but you can use the law to fight for a different outcome. To do that you do need to understand what our democracy is, not what you would like it to be which seems, according to many on here, a structure that will just do as they personally wish.

That ruling came more than 4 months after the referendum so at the time when we were told by DC that the result would be implemented, not knowing that would/could not be the case has nothing to do with growing up or the ability, or lack of it, to understand the difference between the law and politics.

I agree GG that politicians lie, exaggerate and obfuscate and did so on both sides with regard to Brexit. None more so than DC.

How sensible your last paragraph GracesGranMK3 - how come everyone can’t see it?

Talking about "the will of the people " is nonsense, but really has little to do with the whole thing.

If anyone in the UK seriously wants to remain in the EU, then they will have to find some way of making themselves clear to the politicians in Whitehall.

There doesn't seem to be any legal way of stopping Brexit, at least not if the rulings of the High Courts of Northern Ireland and of Scotland were right.

The only way to stop Brexit would be through massive civil unrest, or possibly a General Strike making it quite clear that until Brexit is cancelled life will not return to normal.

I don't see that happening, do you?

The referendum was not advisory. DC said it was a once in a life time opportunity and that regardless of the result he would ensure that it was implemented; then of course when he didn't get the result he wanted he resigned. (Fri 16-Aug-19 11:30:46)

The longer people continue not to understand the difference between the law and politics the longer they will feel upset.

Legally and democratically the referendum was advisory. When Parliament passes a bill such as the European Union Referendum Act 2015 it would have to declare, in that bill, if it was giving its executive powers (powers to make a decision) over to anyone else. In this case the voters.

On 3 November 2016, the High Court in London ruled that it is the responsibility of Parliament (and not of the Government unilaterally) to decide whether, when, and how the UK should set aside legislation (in this case, the European Communities Act 1972 that makes the UK a member of the EU). The court held that the referendum was "advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament", enabling the electorate to influence Parliament in its policy decisions. In interpreting the intent of the Act, the court considered the precedents of previous UK referendums. As a consequence, the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill 2017 was introduced into Parliament to gain Parliament's consent for the invocation of Article 50. (wikipedia.org).

Whatever anyone, including the Prime Minister, were to say about "lifetime opportunities", etc., is politics. Parliament cannot be held to that in law.

Politicians lie, exaggerate and obfuscate. None of that puts a legal obligation on parliament. Recognising that is part of growing up.