Consequences Of Brexit [Part 8] Read First Post Before Posting

[DeDe Hi 10]

Just want to say I'm enjoying this thread over the past few days. The topic is being discussed with respect on all sides, something which has been sadly lacking previously.  I am interested to hear your  more balanced views and opinions, thanks in the main to Robin-H for raising the game and others for rising to the challenge and responding appropriately. More please!

[Longcol 592]

4 hours ago, Lockdoctor said:

You've just made a straw man.  

The straw man is that a no-deal brexit is the "democratic will of the people".

[andyofborg 11]

11 hours ago, Longcol said:

The straw man is that a no-deal brexit is the "democratic will of the people".

it's the democratic will of a lot of rich people who want to make themselves richer  and brexiters believe these are the only people who count. 

[RJRB 682]

We seem to have a day or two to take a breather before we have chance to witness the machinations of our political leaders.

I admire anyone who fully understands the possibilities and probabilities because it now seems that there are no certainties.

All sides seem prepared to flout rules,laws,precedents so Hansard is of no help.

It will be an interesting week or two as we witness what spin and lies will be forthcoming.

Is Boris still offering a million to one against a No Deal.

I’ll have a quid on.

[Litotes 63]

Astounding...

 

Isn't it ironic - brexit was all about taking back control of the Parliament.

 

What has Boris done (apart from lying, cheating, being a woman-basher and being a racist)?

 

Removed control of Parliament.

 

Now we have Mr Gove saying that he "won't commit to abide by law to block no deal"

 

" Tory minister Michael Gove has refused to say whether the government would abide by legislation designed to stop the UK leaving the EU without a deal. "

 

Talk about ignoring the will of the people - who do these fascists think they are?

 

Can anyone remind me of any other right wing dictators who did just this?

 

We should take to the street to take control back... oh hold on...

[Robin-H 11]

On 31/08/2019 at 18:59, DeDe Hi said:

Just want to say I'm enjoying this thread over the past few days. The topic is being discussed with respect on all sides, something which has been sadly lacking previously.  I am interested to hear your  more balanced views and opinions, thanks in the main to Robin-H for raising the game and others for rising to the challenge and responding appropriately. More please!

Why thank you very much! 

[Robin-H 11]

On 31/08/2019 at 18:35, Litotes said:

But in an election, you are allowed to change your mind (after a period, or even in between). It appears in a referendum you aren't.

And therein lies the problem, When people have been persuaded to vote one way in a referendum, and then the basis of their votes is proven to have been a pack of lies (c.f. Boris) they don't have an opportunity to change their minds.

The referendum was ill conceived and poorly delivered which is why there should be another one.

Indeed. Elections are necessarily regular in order that politicians can be removed.

 

I feel that is why referendums should only be used very sparingly, and used for decisions that have bigger consequences than can be sorted out in the normal election cycle. This only works if the understanding is that the result of the referendum isn't overturned within a few years, otherwise there is no point in holding them at all as they don't really have any legitimacy. 

[Litotes 63]

2 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

Indeed. Elections are necessarily regular in order that politicians can be removed.

 

I feel that is why referendums should only be used very sparingly, and used for decisions that have bigger consequences than can be sorted out in the normal election cycle. This only works if the understanding is that the result of the referendum isn't overturned within a few years, otherwise there is no point in holding them at all as they don't really have any legitimacy. 

Which is one of the reasons why the 2016 one doesn't have any legitimacy.

Thank you for supporting the argument.

Edited September 1, 2019 by Litotes

[Robin-H 11]

2 minutes ago, Litotes said:

Which is one of the reasons why the 2016 one doesn't have any legitimacy.

Thank you for supporting the argument.

I'm saying it wouldn't have legitimacy if we started having referendums and then overturning the results, or having another referendum on the same question within a few years. 

 

For referendums to be worth having, it has to be with the understanding that the result will be enacted. 

[tinfoilhat 11]

10 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

Indeed. Elections are necessarily regular in order that politicians can be removed.

 

I feel that is why referendums should only be used very sparingly, and used for decisions that have bigger consequences than can be sorted out in the normal election cycle. This only works if the understanding is that the result of the referendum isn't overturned within a few years, otherwise there is no point in holding them at all as they don't really have any legitimacy. 

Given all the fun we’ve had with the last one, short of independence referendums I’m struggling to see the benefits.

[Robin-H 11]

2 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

Given all the fun we’ve had with the last one, short of independence referendums I’m struggling to see the benefits.

I think they should be used for constitutional changes (which is the case now I believe).

 

Given that parties can get a majority in Parliament with a small share of the vote (Cameron got a slim majority in 2015 with 37% of the vote), making constitutional changes through referenda ensures that a larger proportion of the population has to agree for them to be enacted. 

[Longcol 592]

1 hour ago, Robin-H said:

I think they should be used for constitutional changes (which is the case now I believe).

 

Given that parties can get a majority in Parliament with a small share of the vote (Cameron got a slim majority in 2015 with 37% of the vote), making constitutional changes through referenda ensures that a larger proportion of the population has to agree for them to be enacted. 

Population or electorate?

 

And without a written constitution, how do we decide what's constitutional?

Edited September 1, 2019 by Longcol