A Great British mistake

What is your point in providing these links, interesting though of course they are? By they way, I attended school for around a year in one of those most "rotten" of "rotten boroughs" - that is to say one of the two electoral ones that were completely disenfranchised by the Act; by the time that I did so, however, I must confess that it didn't seem noticeably "rotten"...

Who in any case were/are the so-called "feckless and criminal poor" and how might you distinguish them (assuming that they exist) from the "feckless and criminal wealthy"?

I am uncertain as to the intended purpose of your horticultural reference. Not everyone has a garden. Very few people who live in apartments do, for starters.

First and foremost, however, why the thread title "A Great British mistake"? Whatever kind of backward third-world country might you suppose that "Britain" would have become in its absence? Not one that I'd care to inhabit, that's for sure! Being denied by law the right to vote is hardly something that I would relish or welcome!

I would certainly argue against it but there's more to it than just my personal opinion as to whether UK should or should not remain an EU member state.

Firstly, the UK Tory government's ploy to promise a referendum on that topic was both cynical and misplaced; there was no major public demand for it in the first place and, even had there been such, a referendum was quite the wrong way for so important a matter to be addressed in a country which elects and pays for MPs to represent them and the nation's interests; in throwing it over to the public to "decide", this buck-passing Parliament effectively abnegated the responsibility for which it is elected and paid. One would not expect it to do this in other legislative instances; Parliemt exists to make and repeal laws and should have done its job in this case if there was sufficient general perception that it needed to be done at all.

Secondly, the party of government of the day was the only one (besides UKIP) to include such a manifesto promise, further undermining the perception that one was needed.

Thirdly, no minimum turnout or majority was set for a result to be valid.

Fourthly, the government either accidentally or wilfully (take your pick) omitted to inform the electorate that referenda in UK are not legally binding and, had it clariufied this, I suspect that a far smaller number of people would have voted either way.

Fifthly, the government of the day allocated almost £10m of taxpayers' funds to supporting the Remain campaign when it should have stood on the sidelines and eschewed partisanship.

Sixthly, the campaign itself was distinguished by lies, deceit, misinformation and acromony on both sides, most especially the Leave side; this caused no end of confusion amongst the electorate.

Seventhly, the tiny "majority" was not an overall majority at all; only some 37% of the electorate voted for UK to leave EU.

Eighthly, most people on both sides expected a Remain result and, consequently, no one laid plans for a Leave outcome and very little has been achieved in the four months since the referendum was held that gives anyone any faith in or knowlege of what might happen.

The prospect of a 1 against 17 negotiating battle is hardly a welcome one.

There are other issues but I do not wish to take up space with them here.

EU is undoubtedly a flawed institution in dire need of reform but, should UK leave it, it will almost certainly deteriorate and might even end up collapsing altogether.

UK will continue to be affected by EU and indeed contribute to it as long as it continues to exist, even after it leaves that union should it do so.

No thought was given to Scotland and Northern Ireland's position should they each vote Remain, as they have done.

The entire business has been an omnishambles of the worst order; the pound continues to fall, businesses are contemplating relocating all of parts of their operations overseas and inflation is on the way back because of the currency issues.

I for one have no wish to have my European citizenship peremptorily removed from me without my consent by a government operating out of Westminster; should Scotland secede from UK, I will promptly apply for dual citizenship of Scotland and UK with a view to retaning that citizenship.

What a mess!

Firstly, apologies for the typos in my post - now duly corrected.

In an instance such as this, I take leave to question whether "there are bound to be some who win and some who lose"; indeed, I fear that all may ultimately lose should and ill-conceived and unnecessary Brexit proceed.

In declining to comment on any of your "mob" references beyond contradicting your unwarranted assertion that I "approve" and "consent to" "mob rule", I must correct your fals impression by pointing out that I gave no undertaking to apply to "dump" any nation and "join" another in the event that Scotland, disgusted with Brexit proceeding over its head and against its will, secedes from UK; au contraire, I stated that I would apply for "dual citizenship of Scotland and UK", as I am already a Scot. Should you be in any doubt, by the way, the seriousness of my proposal is evident from the fact that I have already made a written approach to the Scottish Parliament in advance of such a circumstance in order to enquire about this procedure.

En passant, I note that you have not answered my questions about the identity/ies of "the feckless and criminal poor" or their wealthy counterparts or your "gardens" reference; speaking personally, I'd have prefered you to enlighten members on these issues rather than jump to fallacious conclusions about my alleged approval of and consent to "mob rule" (whatever that might be) or my change of citizenship proposal in the event of a Scottish secession.

You have also omitted to answer my question as to why you regard the Reform Act passed almost a century and a half ago (and, by implication, also the Representation of the People Act as passed almost a century ago and as subsequently reformed per its declared purpose in its 1983 manifestation as "An Act to consolidate the Representation of the People Acts of 1949, 1969, 1977, 1978, and 1980, the Electoral Registers Acts of 1949 and 1953, the Elections (Welsh Forms) Act 1964, Part III of the Local Government Act 1972, sections 6 to 10 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, the Representation of the People (Armed Forces) Act 1976, the Returning Officers (Scotland) Act 1977, section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1981, section 62 of and Schedule 2 to the Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982, and connected provisions" and "to repeal as obsolete the Representation of the People Act 1979 and other enactments related to the Representation of the People Acts") as a "Great British mistake".

If indeed you regard all of those UK Parliamentarians responsible for ensuring the passing of all of that legislation over so long a period of time as flawed by reason of having done so, you (a) have much for which to answer and (b) might be thought wise to have located yourself in a country far distant from UK were it not for the fact that voting in your chosen country of residence is not merely possible (as in UK) but also compulsory for those aged 18 and over - a state of affairs that you might presumably regard as "statutorily enforced and enforceable mob rule"...

Democracy is valid as a concept if on occasion flawed in practice, as Churchill clearly recognised when famously describing it as "the worst form of government except for all the others" but then also in declaring that "the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter" (not that he sought to define who "the average voter" might be or why "five minutes" would be the recommended tmescale within which such a conversation might hope to seal such an argument); given that moves towards some form of democratic government have gradually increased and become more widespread across much of the globe over the past two centuries or so, your attempts to balk against it like some kind of latter-day Antipodean Knut by contemptuously describing it as an example of "mob rule" clearly isolates you from the majority of the world's population, including those who have democracy and those aiming to have it, which must make it very difficult for you to continue to live in a nation of which you disapprove and which, like all others, uses money of which you likewise disapprove, a difficulty for which I might pity you were I able to perceive either your point in these beliefs or what you would seek to advocate as viable and practical replacements for both democratic government and money.

Anyway, never mind all that; isn't the Great British Mistake-off moving from BBC to Channel 4 because the former couldn't afford to maintain its involvement therein? Berrily it is!

No doubt, but I suspect that the break-up of UK is only likely to happen if it persists with trying to implement some form of Brexit against the majority will of the Scots and Northern Irish; I can't see there being much appetite for it otherwise.


It is possible that the EU might fall apart altogether and such shifting alliances (if any) thereafter won't likely be worth the paper that they've not even gotten around to being written on; in the meantime, however, my point about Knut was that he couldn't stop the tides!

Who are "we" and can they do what?

Only you and I? No one else? OK, I see. Well, no, of course we can't do that - but then I never suggested that we could!

Did he - or he - do what?