Sure, but what was written on the bus wasn't one of them. I pointed out the violation of the rules seemed to deal with spending more than the cap permitted based upon what might be a mischaracterization by Leave regarding how money was spent. — Hanover

Ok, but in terms of the overall question of whether a rerun of the referendum is justified, it doesn't matter where the violation was. They cheated and that undermines the legitimacy of the result.

But if they had a redo, would that undermine confidence in voting? — frank

That is a fair point. It might to an extent. It then depends on much weight to give to that. In any case, it's the only sensible objection I've seen here so far.

. It looks like really it's unilaterally beneficial and others might be benefited from leaving, especially those poorer nations that would benefit from having their old weaker and more easily controlled currencies still in place. — Hanover

So now you've gone from saying Germany would benefit from leaving because poorer countries were taking advantage of it to Germany is taking advantage of poorer countries and they should leave. When you've finished debating yourself, let me know, and also please tell me why it's relevant to the UK as it's not one of these poorer countries.

No, I don't think that it's in the least bit odd to be charged of inconsistency in any debate on this forum. And the relevance is that if you're found to be guilty of inconsistency, then that calls into question why anyone should accept your argument here when you yourself don't even accept it when it's reasonably applied in other contexts. — S

This is silly. Quote me where I was inconsistent or stop wasting my time.

A lie, assuming it was one, isn't a campaign violation — Hanover

I explained several times already they were officially found in violation of campaign rules.

It seems like something more sophisticated and manipulative is at play. — Hanover

Fascinating.

That is, even if it could be shown unequivocally that the UK will suffer economically from leaving, that's likely not going to matter to the Leave movement because their decision was not driven by economic pragmatics. — Hanover

Odd then that the Leave campaign focused so much—in what turned out to be a very effective lie—on the money that was spent on the EU and how that could be saved and given to the health service.

Leave isn't basing their decision on the economy alone, which shouldn't be surprising. — Hanover

No-one said they were. My point on the economy would be that Leave seriously misled people about the negative ramifications of leaving. And this does matter to a significant number of Leave voters, which is illustrated by the poll numbers (see my post above) which show millions of them now changing their minds (potentially enough to reverse the referendum result if it's rerun) and utter panic among politicians as Britain faces economic chaos in a no-deal scenario (which is now the most likely Brexit outcome with May's deal having been rejected and the EU refusing further negotiations).

So obviously, some Leave voters based their decision more on economic issues and others more on issues of immigration and others on some fuzzy notion of not wanting to be run by EU bureaucrats. I'm not disputing there's a mix.

I also think that those who wish to stay will portray Leave's desire to protect the special substance that is Britain... — Hanover

Britain has been in the European club since the 1970s; it didn't suddenly become less special on joining and it won't suddenly become more special on leaving. What it will become, according to every analysis, is weaker politically and economically. But then I suppose it depends what you mean by "special". If "special" means less engaged with its neighbours, more insular, and less diverse then yes, it will be that, and to some people that will be a positive that outweighs other considerations. And if enough of them take that view then a re-run of the referendum will deliver the same result. But I suspect they won't and that's where the objections to re-running the referendum lie, not in any ethical or democratic basis, but in the hope that the British have been irreversibly duped into a self-destructive decision.

And I say it's unethical to demand a new vote because you lost pretty much fair and square — Hanover

Except it wasn't fair and square. Leave criminally cheated. I think I mentioned that several times.

Which brings up the point of why the Irish were allowed to Irisexit from the UK when it's fairly obvious that it cost them economically — Hanover

Wtf?

This is sort of the karmic theory of economics where when you help out your neighbors, fairness rains from the heavens and everyone does well. — Hanover

Wtf?

That's what I have gleaned from my good 20 minute Google investment into European economic theory at least. — Hanover

At least you're no longer claiming Germany would benefit from leaving the EU, which is progress I suppose. Maybe next try Googling "Ireland" +"History" + "Colonisation" + "For dummies" or some variation thereof.

(If all this is not sufficiently patronising btw, please let me know. I'm only in first gear here.)

None of this has to be litigated in a courtroom any more than it has been. Leave has been found guilty of cheating and the government doesn't have to ask a court's permission for a new referendum. What we're arguing over is whether a new referendum would be ethical given the circumstances of the last. (As for the bitching/gym workout/sore loser part, I've had that from Sap already and it still doesn't an argument make. Whether I'm a disgruntled remain voter (which I'm not, I'm not even British) or an objective outside observer or whatever in-between makes no difference here).

If the UK's exit from the EU turns catastrophic, they'll just reenter later. It's not like the EU nations are unforgiving. The real concern is if the UK thrives, how long will Germany hang in there and carry its poorer neighbors? No one here has actually contemplated the possibility that the good citizens of the UK might have made the right call here. — Hanover

Economically, they haven't. According to every study done. For very obvious reasons. The only practical gain here is for those who want less immigration. And the implication that Germany is carrying its poorer neighbours (in the sense of losing money due to being in a club with them) and looking to the UK's example as a possibility to follow is just ridiculous. Germany as the world's third biggest exporter needs easily-accessible markets for its goods. The Euros it pays in to develop and grow these local markets are more than paid back by the increasing purchasing power of the poorer countries it's "carrying". That's why it's been so pro-European all this time. Not because it doesn't know what it's doing, but because, unlike the UK, it does. And exit from the EU would be even more devastating for it than for Britain.

Something extraordinary needs to take place to warrant undoing that, and that could take the form of an impending and unwanted no deal scenario, which would be quite disastrous. — S

That's what I'm arguing on the basis of, the possibility of a no-deal scenario. May's deal does not have parliament's support and there is no deal B both according to her and to Europe. If May's deal had been passed, we wouldn't be having this conversation as there would be nothing left to talk about. So...

But that seems like an inconsistent and opportunistic position, as you aren't piping up about other elections or referenda which succumbed to similar faults being rendered invalid and needing to be rerun or compensated in some kind of way, are you? — S

That's an odd charge. The topic of this conversation is Brexit, which is why that's the focus of my posts. I'm not under any obligation in order to maintain consistency to research and comment on other referenda that were closely fought and narrowly won through illegal means (and I don't know of any off-hand). Which were you referring to? Name one.

To be fair, this would mean that we've had quite a few invalid general elections. What are we to do about that, then? — S

Off-topic but feel free to name them, so I at least have a chance to respond.

It is, actually. It's just phrased in a straight talking manner. For example, if you're found guilty of murder, then you're going to prison, but you don't want to go to prison, then tough luck! You should've thought about that before committing a serious crime. Agree or disagree? — S

It isn't a moral argument in the context in which you applied it, which didn't involve any crime or immoral act on the part of those who you aimed the comment at.

Yes, I know, I haven't ever disputed that. But that has been dealt with, or is being dealt with, appropriately in the usual manner in which these things are dealt. Your proposed way of dealing with it stands out as unusual, and opportunistic. It lacks precedent. With have authorities and legal system to deal with matters such as this. You're using this for a political agenda. — S

The issue is what an ethical response would be and that's what I was explicating. So again, you're filling your posts with irrelevancies. It doesn't matter what political viewpoint I take or whether it appears opportunistic to you. The argument that a referendum that may have been won by cheating should be repeated so as not to deny those cheated a chance to change their minds stands on its own merits.

Yes, it should be dealt with by the relevant authorities in accordance with the law. And it has, or is. But no judge has ruled that the referendum be declared invalid and be rerun. — S

Nor have they ruled that it can't be. Which is why we're having this discussion.

There is, and I've made the case for rejecting calls for a second referendum here in this discussion. — S

An extremely weak case from which when you extract all the irrelevancies and accusations concerning the motives of your opposition still boils down to nothing more than "tough luck".

Tell that to the vast majority* of the 17.4 million people who voted to leave, and would do so again, yet are strongly against a second referendum because it risks undoing the results of a referendum which we were told would be upheld. — S

Those who are strongly against a new referendum are strongly against it because they might lose one that's run fairly and without illegality or cheating. Again, a very weak position morally.

*Numerous polls show that most people on either side would vote the same way. — S

"Most" does not equal "The vast majority" btw. And if a significant number wouldn't vote the same way, which polls do show (see my last post), why should they be denied that opportunity? Oh I know, "tough luck" because murderers have to go to prison. You're going to have to do better than that.

You suggest rectifying lies by creating more lies? — S

No (and I have no idea where you got that from. Where did I suggest we "create" more lies?). I suggest an unfair referendum where one side conducted their campaign dishonestly and illegally (in part) be rectified with a fair referendum where both sides conduct their campaigns honestly and legally.

You remoaners really ought to stop making excuses to change the past and accept the situation for what it is. — S

I suspect this continuing pattern of irrelevancy and emoting is indicative of the lack of moral substance to your position.

YouGov did an interesting poll where considering Remain, Leave (no deal) and Leave (May's deal) as options, Remain wins on any head to head, but May's deal wins on a three-way alternative vote. I suppose because most Remainers and most Leave no-dealers would favour just about anything over each other's respective positions. Something like a soft Brexit is probably the fairest option then as it allows Leavers to give their coveted up-yours to Johnny Foreigner while only shooting themselves (and everyone else) in the foot rather than in the head.

Is it not ultimately the responsibility of voters to do their own research before such an important vote, and to make up their own mind? — S

There's a dual responsibility on voters and on the campaigns providing voters with information. That is, respectively, to do a reasonably thorough job of searching for information and to do a reasonably honest job of providing information. Even if the voters carry out their responsibility fully, if the campaign is found not to have (as the Leave campaign has) and particularly if the vote was won narrowly (as it was) then the result is called into question. And if the result is called into question, the most straightforward and fair way to resolve the question is to repeat the referendum.

That's the equivalent of it being made clear to you that there are no refunds for this particular product that you've purchased, but then you go back and demand a refund anyway. Yes, at the campaign stage, both campaigns could have - and ideally should have - been clearer, more honest, more balanced, and so on... but honestly, what did we expect? We know that politicians lie and twist the truth, we know that they have an agenda to push. Are we really so naive as to believe anything different? Are we really so naive as to believe anything different? We've made our bed, now we have to lie in it. — S

Saying "Tough luck" isn't a moral argument. The public may not be entitled to expect full honesty from politicians, but they are at least entitled to expect that neither campaign break the law, which the Leave campaign did.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/news/leave-campaign-broke-law-in-brexit-vote-uk-elections-regulator-finds/

Analogously, if someone advertising a product as non-refundable breaks the law in terms of the information it provides concerning the product, that condition becomes moot and they may be forced to give a refund regardless. Similar rules apply to contract law. That a company writes in a service contract that the second you sign it there's no going back doesn't matter if there is a legally binding cooling-off period written into law. And I expect if you were duped through illegal methods into buying something that turned out to have been falsely advertised and you were no longer satisfied with it, you'd feel you had the high moral ground in demanding a refund regardless of the conditions under which you bought it. And the law would rightly back you up.

All this is to say that considering the conditions under which this particular referendum took place and the close result thereafter, there is no ethical justification for denying those who voted to leave on the basis of false information and an illegally conducted campaign the opportunity to rectify their mistake.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. — S

Yes, millions of voters were fooled once by the Leave campaign into voting for something they didn't really want, and they shouldn't now be fooled into thinking there's anything wrong with being allowed to have another say. Thankfully, polls show they're not being so fooled with a plurality now supporting a people's vote. And no-one with a democratic bone in their body should deny them one.

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/three-point-three-million-leave-voters-support-peoples-vote-says-new-poll-1-5719471
https://www.businessinsider.com/yougov-poll-peoples-vote-second-referendum-brexit-fears-grow-over-a-no-deal-brexit-2018-8?r=US&IR=T

That's fair enough. I don't devour books the way some others here do either. All I'm saying is if that's the case maybe be a bit more conservative in your involvement in these things.

@Wallows You seem to be proliferating reading groups without wanting to do much hard work on them. I'd suggest no-one propose a text for a reading group unless they're willing to lead it. That way, more of them might be more productive.

. Right now The Lounge doubles as a place for relaxed and off-topic discussion, as well as a dump for threads that don't fit moderators' standards in other forums, which makes for a weird mix. I would rather see a dedicated "dump" subsection (you could give it a more polite name, like "Not quite philosophy" or something). — SophistiCat

Yes, I for one am noticing I'm increasingly doing this and it does make the lounge messier than it ought to be.

But how do you think you can justify a second people's vote (which is what it would be)? That would undermine the first one that we had back in 2016, and betray all of those 17.4 million people who voted to leave, — S

It's pretty clear that the complexities and complications of Brexit were not foregrounded enough by the overly complacent and disparate Remain campaign. That's their fault, but added to that, the Leave campaign has been shown to have lied and cheated, and in the end only won by a slim margin. So, there's a possibility that some who voted did so on the basis of incomplete or false information, and there might be enough who realize that now and have changed their minds to call the result into question. If that is the case, a second referendum will overturn the first and reverse the decision fairly and squarely. If it's not, it won't. And far from being betrayed, those of the 17.4 million who voted to leave and now realize they made a mistake will have a chance to rectify it. Just as if you buy a product and realize it doesn't function as advertised, you generally have a right to change your mind, if you vote for a change of policy in a referendum and there's a reasonable case to be made that you voted on the basis of false or incomplete information, you should also be given a chance to change your mind. And in a free and fair referendum, which involves a chance to not change your mind too, I don't see what's unethical. So, turning the tables, what's your justification for denying those who think they have made a terrible mistake in voting for Brexit a chance to rectify it (given that those who don't think they did have every opportunity to repeat their vote)?

you can't just keep rerunning the referendum until you get the result that you want. — S

The charge that the referendum is being re-run until the result required is achieved is weak on two counts. One, if a majority continue to oppose remaining, it doesn't matter how many times the referendum is re-run, it will always fail. Two, in practice, it would be almost impossible for any government to propose a quick third referendum given both that the justifications for the second won't apply with the same force and there is no time for it. You fall (or glide if you're lucky) off the cliff at the end of next March and there can be no simple glide back on. A second referendum is justified by the stark, imminent and in many ways unexpected threat of a no-deal scenario in a way further referendums can't be. Peak information and opportunity is now.

Unless this is a lesson in how not to write an OP, please expand.

Here's the current list — Michael

Damn, Ben Carson is only about a dozen sudden deaths away from the presidency. Frightening.

Hey I'm anyone's for a pizza. Long as it's pepperoni :party:

Ah, ok. Well maybe Trump resigns and Pence's ecstatic joy turns into a cardiac arrest and Pelosi dies of boredom at the sound of her own bullshit. And then... Grassley. Nah. Hopeless.

Monkeys typing away, one day hoping to write the entirety of Hamlet could have done the same if not better. — Wallows

Could be worse for you and monkeys. You could be churning out the type of crap @Hanover does day in day out. :monkey:

Is that the way it works? I thought Mitch would be next in line?

It's still some kind of an achievement anyway @Wallows.

Maybe but the only way out I can realistically see would be making his base disappear. And that's not going to happen. The twenty percent of Americans who love the guy are the twenty percent that decide who represents the Republican party. Besides, Pence is arguably worse, so it's not like the way "out" leads anywhere positive.

Not sure what gave you that impression :razz:. Anyway, my take is we take the path of least resistance unless we have a very good reason not to. And that reason usually involves pain, physical or emotional. We'll ride all the way down that slide unless we think there's an acid bath at the end of it, in which case we might put a little effort into reversing course.

I hope I don't give the impression I know what I'm talking about with regard to therapy or anything btw. I'm just throwing this out there fwiw. Always consult a professional for your personal situation.

Towards themselves you mean? Ok. Difficult. Maybe you could put them in a situation where they are forced to show themselves they can do more than they thought. Most of us can when pushed. But something has to break the equilibrium. People don't usually just spontaneously change.

How do you overcome the perception that a person has an inadequacy or failure towards better mental health? — Wallows

Perception of who?

So, someone who really cannot do something is truly helpless with regard to that something. Learned helplessness on the other hand refers to a conditioned state that comes from over-dependence, the solution to which is independence.

You simply apply that principle to your limitations. We all have some.

My take is if the problem is not having to do things for yourself, the solution is having to do things for yourself.

Not having to do stuff for yourself.

By someone drugging you, flying you to an impoverished country and dropping you off penniless in its poorest city.

Trump is the most popular president among Republicans pretty much ever, which is why the only Republicans throwing him shade are those retiring. Unless he's unequivocally guilty of something utterly heinous that even his base would object to (=almost nothing) Republican pols will continue to kiss his ass, and trying to impeach him will be a complete waste of time.

Philosophy is serious, and one ought not have any fun while philosophising. If it is funny, it is not philosophy. — Banno

Alright then.

the philosophical point, contra Baden, being that it is a showing, not a saying, but with words. — Banno

Alright then.

Alright then.

Let's go hunt doo doo doo doo doo doo

It strikes me as casual barstool "philosophy" with no definitive answer that's likely to invite a lot of attempts at humour rather than being a serious philosophical issue that you're puzzled about.

But if I'm wrong and it develops in an unexpectedly positive direction, I'll move it back

Or as @Banno might say, silliness sillying. Unless you're a grammar nerd like me.