Jump to content RIP Sheffield Admin Mort

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

Groose

Mod Note: As we are getting rather tired of seeing reports about this. The use of the word Remoaners  is to cease. Either posts like adults, or don't post at all. The mod warnings have been clear.

Message added by Groose

mort

In addition to remoaner we are also not going to allow the use of libdums or liebore - if you cannot behave like adults and post without recourse to these childish insults then please refrain from posting. If you have a problem with this then you all know where the helpdesk is. 

Message added by mort

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Lockdoctor said:

I don't need a crystal ball to make a statement that if Remain had won the democratic 2016 EU referendum the result would have been instantly implemented.  The reason for the huge division in our country is that those who don't respect democracy still don't want the referendum result implemented over three years after the result.

So, yet more unevidenced rantings. Thanks.

2 hours ago, Robin-H said:

But you're not taking that decision away from the people. You are just minimising the number of people who's views are represented. We live in a democracy, and therefore politicians are elected based on our views. If, as in my example, a party gained a majority in parliament based on promising to do something people agreed with, they would be in the position to do that thing.

 

The point I was making was that you need a much smaller proportion of the vote to win an election and gain a majority than you do to gain a majority in a referendum (which has to be over 50% of the votes). 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Litotes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.