Current Affairs EU In or Out

[Tubey]

"I'm a business owner. As such, I just see no sense whatsoever in undertaking an action that would very likely damage my business, even if my employees wanted to do it. As the owner, I should take responsibility for ultimately making the calls in the best interest of the business and their jobs."

Yes, and? What's your point?

I see running the country like running a business. You do whatever you can to grow it. I can take whatever my employees tell me on board and consider it seriously when making decisions, but I am tasked with leading the business when it comes down to it.

It doesn't mean I'm against democracy, but we put these politicians in place to represent our best interests - if they're "owning" the business of the country and see that Brexit is obviously stupid, then they're tasked with making sure the "business" does what's ultimately best for business. If they shirk that duty because they're playing personal politics ahead of the interests of the country, then they are negligent in their duties.

 

[tsubaki]

Yes, and? What's your point?

I see running the country like running a business. You do whatever you can to grow it. I can take whatever my employees tell me on board and consider it seriously when making decisions, but I am tasked with leading the business when it comes down to it.

It doesn't mean I'm against democracy, but we put these politicians in place to represent our best interests - if they're "owning" the business of the country and see that Brexit is obviously stupid, then they're tasked with making sure the "business" does what's ultimately best for business. If they shirk that duty because they're playing personal politics ahead of the interests of the country, then they are negligent in the duties.

Of course it means you are against democracy; you are saying that while you acknowledge that other people might have an opinion, its yours that is the only one that matters, and you get to define whether a thing is good or bad. You are in charge, not them!

 

[Tubey]

Of course it means you are against democracy; you are saying that while you acknowledge that other people might have an opinion, its yours that is the only one that matters, and you get to define whether a thing is good or bad. You are in charge, not them!

?

What aren't you getting here? I'm not saying me, I'm saying whoever is responsible for running the country, just like I'm responsible for running a business.

If my employees suddenly wanted to stop selling stuff to a certain customer for no reason other than "we just don't want to", then I'd overrule it, because it's in the best interests of the business. It's the same thing as the referendum - it is advisory.

How is "being in charge" a bad thing and contrary to democracy ffs? Do you know what leadership means? Otherwise we may as well have a binding referendum on every bloody thing.

 

[Brennan]

Of course it means you are against democracy; you are saying that while you acknowledge that other people might have an opinion, its yours that is the only one that matters, and you get to define whether a thing is good or bad. You are in charge, not them!

I think you need to Google democracy as you seem to misunderstand what it actually is.

Not trying to be rude, btw.

 

[tsubaki]

?

What aren't you getting here? I'm not saying me, I'm saying whoever is responsible for running the country, just like I'm responsible for running a business.

If my employees suddenly wanted to stop selling stuff to a certain customer for no reason other than "we just don't want to", then I'd overrule it, because it's in the best interests of the business. It's the same thing as the referendum - it is advisory.

How is "being in charge" a bad thing and contrary to democracy ffs? Do you know what leadership means? Otherwise we may as well have a binding referendum on every bloody thing.

Tubey - what you were arguing is that the leader (in your example, you) should be able to decide what is best for the rest (in your example, your employees), even if the rest disagree with it, because it is the leader that is in charge. That is demonstrably not democracy.

Now that might work in a business (especially one's own business) - but when we are talking about a country what you invariably end up with is a leadership class that protects its own interests at the expense of the rest; as we have seen in this country over the past forty years, with widening inequality and worsening conditions for the poor and working class, especially outside the cities.

 

[tsubaki]

I think you need to Google democracy as you seem to misunderstand what it actually is.

Not trying to be rude, btw.

democracy
dɪˈmɒkrəsi/
noun
noun: democracy
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
"a system of parliamentary democracy"
synonyms: representative government, elective government, constitutional government, popular government; More
self-government, government by the people, autonomy;
republic, commonwealth
antonyms: tyranny, dictatorship

• a state governed under a system of democracy.
  plural noun: democracies
  "a multiparty democracy"
• control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.
  "the intended extension of industrial democracy"

So not "I'm a business owner. As such, I just see no sense whatsoever in undertaking an action that would very likely damage my business, even if my employees wanted to do it. As the owner, I should take responsibility for ultimately making the calls in the best interest of the business and their jobs", then.

 

[Tubey]

Tubey - what you were arguing is that the leader (in your example, you) should be able to decide what is best for the rest (in your example, your employees), even if the rest disagree with it, because it is the leader that is in charge. That is demonstrably not democracy.

Now that might work in a business (especially one's own business) - but when we are talking about a country what you invariably end up with is a leadership class that protects its own interests at the expense of the rest; as we have seen in this country over the past forty years, with widening inequality and worsening conditions for the poor and working class, especially outside the cities.

I'll just refer you to Brennans post really.

You've just defined the role of a Prime Minister by the way; the end result of our democracy. Parliament is akin to a board of directors - they make decisions as a collective, but the chief exec or owner ultimately has the final say and acts in what they feel is the best interest of the business.

Whether you like it or not, having leaders means allocating power to them.

So to simplify:

PM = Business owner
Parliament = Directors
Populace = Employees

The only difference is that in business, you generally can't get rid of the owner if he does a bad job. Other than that, the parallels are fine.

 

[Tubey]

So not "I'm a business owner. As such, I just see no sense whatsoever in undertaking an action that would very likely damage my business, even if my employees wanted to do it. As the owner, I should take responsibility for ultimately making the calls in the best interest of the business and their jobs", then.

Look at this paragraph then.

"I'm a Prime Minister. As such, I just see no sense whatsoever in undertaking an action that would very likely damage my country, even if the populace advised me to do it in an advisory referendum. As Prime Minister, I should take responsibility for making the calls in the best interest of the country to safeguard the economy, wealth, jobs and well-being of the nation."

 

[Joey66]

Oh dear.

You don't realise he's proven you wrong

not if you count the whole of the lake district 5 OUT to one remain so he ignores his district very democratic to tell the whole of Cumbria they are wrong some leader so democratic - its like one area in Liverpool voting out and the majority voting Remain- would you class that as an out vote???????????? - that's what LBC was talking about so if the blues get beat 5-1 next game we have won hey ho!

 

[Joey66]

In the meantime the OBR are forecasting over £100bn shortfall in expected Government receipts to 2020 as a result of the Brexit uncertainties.

That's a huge cost for no definable benefit.

yet unemployment is up ? Brexit has not happened yet maybe its because we cannot set up WTO trade deals hey!

 

[Tubey]

yet unemployment is up ? Brexit has not happened yet maybe its because we cannot set up WTO trade deals hey!

Because none of the adverse effects have occurred yet except for initial uncertainty in the markets. We've already had to bend over for Nissan to keep them here though.

When Article 50 is triggered, there will be concessions all over the shop and increased borrowing to keep us from total disaster, but that borrowing can't be limitless, and when we have a ridiculous deficit then the bite will set in. Even before then, many big businesses will look to relocate to Germany and so on simply to keep their business within the single market - loads have already indicated this will inevitably happen.

But at this point I really have no clue why I'm bothering to continue discussing this! You obviously don't care about the repercussions at this point and simply want us out no matter what, regardless of reason or logic. So be it really.

 

[tsubaki]

Look at this paragraph then.

"I'm a Prime Minister. As such, I just see no sense whatsoever in undertaking an action that would very likely damage my country, even if the populace advised me to do it in an advisory referendum. As Prime Minister, I should take responsibility for making the calls in the best interest of the country to safeguard the economy, wealth, jobs and well-being of the nation."

"I am a Prime Minister. I promised in my successful election campaign that I would hold a referendum on a specific issue. Although I lost that referendum, me and my cohorts all make money from the status quo and so I am afraid I will have to ignore the result. Obviously this is in the national interest. Toodle-oo".

 

[tsubaki]

I'll just refer you to Brennans post really.

You've just defined the role of a Prime Minister by the way; the end result of our democracy. Parliament is akin to a board of directors - they make decisions as a collective, but the chief exec or owner ultimately has the final say and acts in what they feel is the best interest of the business.

Whether you like it or not, having leaders means allocating power to them.

So to simplify:

PM = Business owner
Parliament = Directors
Populace = Employees

The only difference is that in business, you generally can't get rid of the owner if he does a bad job. Other than that, the parallels are fine.

That was not what you were saying, though. You were saying that the employees, or "the populace" in your latest analogy, have no voice when the leader thinks it is not in what they define as the national interest.

Or to put it another way, in 2005 the party that won an election promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty (edit: sorry, the Constitution that was its immediate forebear). In 2010, the party that in effect won an election promised no further transfer of powers without the people having a say (which was to suggest a referendum without actually promising one). In 2015, the party that won promised an in-out referendum. In 2016, the country voted to leave.

What you think is that all that should be ignored just because you think it might be a bad thing. That is not leadership.

 

[Tubey]

"I am a Prime Minister. I promised in my successful election campaign that I would hold a referendum on a specific issue. Although I lost that referendum, me and my cohorts all make money from the status quo and so I am afraid I will have to ignore the result. Obviously this is in the national interest. Toodle-oo".

Yes, because the "proles" will be far better off after Brexit... The loss of national money won't result in swinging cuts to benefits and the lower classes, honest.

Just irrational anarchy. That's the irony of this whole thing - the belief this is a vote against the elite. You've voted alongside the very definition of elite spongers such as Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Daniel Hannan and Nigel Farage. It's the most right wing of causes imaginable in UK politics and has nothing to do with the interests of the less well off.

 

[Joey66]

Because none of the adverse effects have occurred yet except for initial uncertainty in the markets. We've already had to bend over for Nissan to keep them here though.

When Article 50 is triggered, there will be concessions all over the shop and increased borrowing to keep us from total disaster, but that borrowing can't be limitless, and when we have a ridiculous deficit then the bite will set in. Even before then, many big businesses will look to relocate to Germany and so on simply to keep their business within the single market - loads have already indicated this will inevitably happen.

But at this point I really have no clue why I'm bothering to continue discussing this! You obviously don't care about the repercussions at this point and simply want us out no matter what, regardless of reason or logic. So be it really.

Labour want to borrow 100 billion besides Brexit so no worries there its people who are money men who bought dollars before brexit that annoy me!
James O'brian on LBC a big remainer a true liberal admitted this - principles out of the window imo! GREED is why I want the EU to be ditched and trade in the free world Europe will trade with us forget the myths and the scare stories as they would be hurt more than us!