Bruno Sardine

At the risk of being presumptuous (since I have few posts and rep points) I would suggest that rep points earned in the Cloak Room should be weighted less than rep points earned in other areas of the site. Make them like Schrute Bucks. One Cloak Room rep point = .0001 regular rep points.

I know it's wikipedia, but: "In May 2015, in accordance with a Conservative Party manifesto commitment following their victory at the 2015 UK general election, the legal basis for a referendum on EU membership was established by the UK Parliament through the European Union Referendum Act 2015." So I think for there to be another referendum, Parliament must take action. And the only way Parliament will take action is if Labour and its anti-Brexit allies form a new government. I could certainly be mistaken. Thanks to Lurch and LL for providing additional insight. I had just assumed that an election would be seen, at the present moment, as essentially a second referendum. But I defer to more knowledgeable posters.

For the record (not that it matters) I have no problem with a second referendum. Given the current cluster@#&*, it seems like a reasonable option - perhaps the best option for the long-term stability of the UK. But the only way to make that happen is to hold another election. Thus my post.

Got it. That makes sense now. So the call for the election is a cynical ploy. I am willing to buy that. At the same time, I must question the idea that the election would merely reflect people's party choices. Wouldn't this be a truly special sort of election? As in, unprecedented and history-making? Wouldn't everyone see it as a second referendum? I mean, if they wouldn't see it that way, then I concede the argument. I honestly don't know.

I quote people with no disrespect intended. I personally think Brexit amounts to an unforced error, by the way. Also, the process was insanely flawed, mainly by not giving the population a choice or clear picture on how the Brexit would go. Yep. It's moronic to argue that, because a small majority voted for Brexit, they voted for it to happen no matter the terms. But, that's where we seem to be. Ironically, Brexit presents a pretty strong argument against direct democracy referendums to make enormously consequential decisions that an ill-informed voting public are not fully educated to make. Well, it’s the moronity of treating a Letter of Intent as a binding and inviolable contract. They approved the concept of Brexit. That’s an LOI. Once they did their due diligence and drafted actual contract terms, the deal is pretty shitty. They shouldn’t go forward with it. Is it not fair to say, at this point, that the British people do have a clear picture of the consequences of Brexit? Why would anyone who opposes Brexit oppose a new election? Voters know exactly what the stakes are. If non-Brexit forces prevail, it is the end of Brexit. They can point to the election and claim it as a second referendum. If this makes them uncomfortable, a Labour-led government can make a second referendum actually happen. The fact that Labour and anti-Brexit forces generally oppose such an election, indicates that they believe the overall electorate of the UK still supports Brexit. Whatever the reasons for their decision (white nationalism, xenophobia, genuine concerns over national sovereignty) it is hard to argue in late 2019 that pro-Brexit voters remain ignorant of the potential political and economic consequences of Brexit. If I’m missing something, please explain it to me. Is now not the chance to drive a stake through the heart of Brexit? To reverse the results of the referendum? If you oppose Brexit, shouldn’t you support a new election? Happy to be educated.

Based on recent conversations I’ve had with several U.K. citizens (a total of 4 people, so a very limited sample), who don’t necessarily support Brexit, the economic implications of which horrify them, but who reject the assumption that Brexit is driven by white nationalism, I would say that at least some of the motivation behind Brexit is a fear of white nationalism. Which is to say, they see what is happening with the AfD in Germany and are concerned, generally, about the rise of far-right parties throughout Europe. They do not believe that what is happening in the UK is comparable to what is happening on the continent, pointing to history to make their argument (UK vs Germany in WWII, for example). Is there really a good reason to feel confident that the EU is going to be able to manage the spread of ethnic nationalism on the continent? Is it really beyond the scope of possibility that someday the AfD might ascend to power in Germany? Look at what has happened in Austria, Italy, and Hungary (though the Austrian Freedom Party has collapsed for the time being). If in fact history is repeating itself, wouldn’t it better to withdraw from the integration experiment than entwine themselves further with future Neo-fascist adversaries? Not saying I buy this argument, but it doesn’t strike me as a far-fetched, irrational perspective. The stuff about the flag does seem bad. I do not mean to give the impression that I reject the fact many Brexit supporters are indeed motivated by white nationalism.

Who said his life was bulldozed? What’s the point in deliberately misinterpreting a fairly straightforward sentence?

Maybe the point of the story (since some seem confused) is that the person who leveled the false accusation is an elected official. Maybe a minor official, but an elected representative nonetheless. You know, like when a policeman does something bad, and it’s worse because he’s a policeman? And maybe the point, too, is that everyone, including many in the national media as well as a number of national politicians, were only too happy to bulldoze the life of the falsely accused person, besmirching and smearing his reputation without even bothering to seriously consider whether the accusation was true. But you have to break some eggs to make an omelet, right?

Yeah, agree with all that.

There is nothing new about any of this. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/08/russia-confirms-deployment-of-nuclear-capable-missiles-to-kaliningrad Russia can also launch nukes from planes and submarines. They don't need land-based missiles to nuke Europe. But the UK and France can. Now that's a good question. And doubtless the EU's recent calls for an EU army are related to this concern. Seriously though, does anyone actually think the US or Russia would deliberately start a nuclear war? The real concern has always been that someone along the chain of command, wittingly or unwittingly, in conjunction with some kind of procedural or technological failure, could trigger a nuclear conflict accidentally.

Why would he pull out of the INF if that was not our intention? If I'm wrong, I'll be happy to own it. But it seems to me this is a prelude to a new arms race. And you are correct, it does not benefit Putin. Nobody wins with this decision. Except maybe the defense contractors. So maybe it does all make sense. You serious Clark? Yes, with Russia's vibrant technological, financial and manufacturing sectors, the only thing holding them back from world economic dominance is the United States. Aside from the nukes, Russia is a joke of a country.

Long-time lurker, etc. The Obama administration accused Russia of violating the INF Treaty a number of years ago. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/world/europe/us-says-russia-tested-cruise-missile-in-violation-of-treaty.html If you want to argue that it’s a bad idea to pull out of the INF for some of the reasons stated in this thread – even though Russia has already effectively pulled out of the INF – then fine by me. But the lack of context provided is either willful obfuscation or ignorance. All of this started when the US made the decision to deploy missile defense systems in Eastern Europe under the Bush administration, undermining, in the eyes of the Russians, the doctrine of M.A.D. as it applies to the European theater. The Russian response was to violate the INF. The argument that withdrawing from the INF benefits Russia because they can now aim additional missiles at Europe, intimidating our allies, would hold true if we invoke ceteris paribus. A likelier assumption is we will not stand pat but will place new missiles ourselves in Eastern Europe (Poland, Hungary) aimed at Russia. That said, none of this is good.