Jump to content

Referendum  

50 members have voted

This poll is closed to new votes
  1. 1. In or out?

    • Stay in
      26
    • Leave
      24


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Matt said:

What’s going on? British parliamentary democracy actually doing what it’s supposed to for a change!

precisely  we are suffering with the abject mockery of our parliament  in order to destroy our democracy.

questions for you to ponder on   to yourselves:

1.  Why did we have a referendum in the first place ?

2.Why did we have a leave vote when we did?

3. What is the point of having a result if politicians who disagree with the result can  countermand  the result by saying things like "The people who voted to leave didn't understand what they were voting for."

4.  I was thinking that if the vote had gone the or=ther way  would you honestly have been prepared to argue for a seond referendum or a posting of arguments against the vote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You’re complaining that now British democracy is “functioning” as it should that it’s destroying democracy, ie destroying itself? We can only hope!

1. The legally non-binding opinion poll that was the referendum was a power play from Cameron that back fired. A purely internal political strategy. The people were just supposed to be the alibi for his next step. 

2. See point 1  basically because it suited the Tory/Cameron agenda and timeline  

3. The result, which excluded millions of people from voting and split not only the population but also the “United” Kingdom (with 2 countries voting overwhelmingly to remain, but tough shit, they have to do what Brussels.... I mean London says - see hypocrisy), can be challenged by people not knowing what they were voting for because there was and is still no plan. If there’d been a clear plan, who knows how much better this would’ve gone. If people voted leave and fuck the plan, then fine! But people all had different interpretations which of course they did because it’s monumentally complicated topic that even the specialists are struggling, let alone Bob down the pub

4. If the result was that close but the other way around, and Leavers started arguing for a 2nd, my only argument would be “show and explain me your plan”.  I’d still be against it because I need my EU citizenship to live and work in Europe, but at least there’d be some sense of logic other than “I want out but don’t know how” 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, rubecula said:

precisely  we are suffering with the abject mockery of our parliament  in order to destroy our democracy.

questions for you to ponder on   to yourselves:

1.  Why did we have a referendum in the first place ?

2.Why did we have a leave vote when we did?

3. What is the point of having a result if politicians who disagree with the result can  countermand  the result by saying things like "The people who voted to leave didn't understand what they were voting for."

4.  I was thinking that if the vote had gone the or=ther way  would you honestly have been prepared to argue for a seond referendum or a posting of arguments against the vote

Absolutely correct.

We knew exactly what we were voting for. Cameron explained it time and time again.

It was not advisory at all (as falsely alleged elsewhere)  as the government gave a solemn undertaking to action the result of the referendum.

All that has happened now is that the actions of the Remain element in Parliament have finally broken the last vestiges of trust that existed between Parliament and the People.

The next General Election will give a lot of politicians a bloody nose I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, rubecula said:

I do not think so as remainers have voted the general election down.  My own opinion is tht the whole thing could have been avoided years ago if the polititions involved were not so scared of doing the job they were elected to do, instead of hanging on the coat tails of euro polititions who are doing the best they can for Europe.

Only until if/when Hillary Benn's bill has passed and then the GE is on, only voted down until no deal is off the table.

In a GE (someone correct me if I'm wrong) Labour's position will be a second referendum

What will the Tories position be? No deal and a deeply unholy alliance with the Brexit party seems to be their own chance and ipso facto a referendum on those two positions.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RPG said:

We knew exactly what we were voting for. Cameron explained it time and time again.

Not sure if you remember but Cameron was a remainer, he wasn't the one saying we will leave the EU and have all the same trade benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RPG said:

Absolutely correct.

We knew exactly what we were voting for. Cameron explained it time and time again.

It was not advisory at all (as falsely alleged elsewhere)  as the government gave a solemn undertaking to action the result of the referendum.

All that has happened now is that the actions of the Remain element in Parliament have finally broken the last vestiges of trust that existed between Parliament and the People.

The next General Election will give a lot of politicians a bloody nose I think.

It was advisory, and a non-legally binding referendum 

https://fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Matt said:

You’re complaining that now British democracy is “functioning” as it should that it’s destroying democracy, ie destroying itself? We can only hope!

1. The legally non-binding opinion poll that was the referendum was a power play from Cameron that back fired. A purely internal political strategy. The people were just supposed to be the alibi for his next step. 

2. See point 1  basically because it suited the Tory/Cameron agenda and timeline  

3. The result, which excluded millions of people from voting and split not only the population but also the “United” Kingdom (with 2 countries voting overwhelmingly to remain, but tough shit, they have to do what Brussels.... I mean London says - see hypocrisy), can be challenged by people not knowing what they were voting for because there was and is still no plan. If there’d been a clear plan, who knows how much better this would’ve gone. If people voted leave and fuck the plan, then fine! But people all had different interpretations which of course they did because it’s monumentally complicated topic that even the specialists are struggling, let alone Bob down the pub

4. If the result was that close but the other way around, and Leavers started arguing for a 2nd, my only argument would be “show and explain me your plan”.  I’d still be against it because I need my EU citizenship to live and work in Europe, but at least there’d be some sense of logic other than “I want out but don’t know how” 

1. I'm unsure of your reasoning here. Cameron wanted, and voted, to Remain. He had already got a deal that secured some concessions from the EU that gave us special status among the bloc. I think he was happy with that. What do you think was 'his' next step? Or did you mean the Tories' next step? Many Labour MPs wanted a referendum, too. What was their agenda?

2. Again, what was Cameron's personal agenda?

3. I agree there should have been a plan. That was, indeed, a monumental error, but to say a referendum shouldn't have been offered because it's complicated is elitist and patronising. You're saying (I guess) that more people fell for lies and spin on the Leave side than the Remain side, and that is why we ended up voting to Leave. That's your take, I guess, but somewhat undermined by your comment in (4), that you were against it because you need your EU citizenship and want to live and work in Europe. That is a personal reason for wanting to Remain. It is not a considered judgement of the issues (though you may have weighed these up, too). It's a gut reflection of how a Leave vote may affect you. Many people on both sides took a similar view - how it affects them personally. As you rightly say, very few of us, if any, understand the implications fully. But, to say, that only those fully qualified to understand Brexit (maybe 10? 100?) should have the right to vote on this, is real effrontery  to (any form of) democracy. At the very least, the referendum showed that a broad church of voters, for many different reasons, some more partisan than others, wanted to leave the EU. That is a sounding of popular opinion that any government should be aware of.

4. I think that if the vote had been to Remain, everyone would have moved on by now. Remain MPs and Remain popular vote. Job done.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Formby said:

1. I'm unsure of your reasoning here. Cameron wanted, and voted, to Remain. He had already got a deal that secured some concessions from the EU that gave us special status among the bloc. I think he was happy with that. What do you think was 'his' next step? Or did you mean the Tories' next step? Many Labour MPs wanted a referendum, too. What was their agenda? - Usual agenda, try and consolidate more power for the party. If he gets the people on his side, as well as continuing to work on and with the EU, he cements his position and his partys position for a decade. Unless he failed like, which is what I assume labour was banking on... 

2. Again, what was Cameron's personal agenda? Again, see above.

3. I agree there should have been a plan. That was, indeed, a monumental error, but to say a referendum shouldn't have been offered because it's complicated is elitist and patronising. Not at all, it's how the Parliamentary democracy has worked for god knows how long. If you disagree, then I also assume you think we should have a referendum on any matter, complicated or not? Personally I think that'd be great, because it moves to Direct democracy which does actually allow the people to make their decisions.  You're saying (I guess) that more people fell for lies and spin on the Leave side than the Remain side, and that is why we ended up voting to Leave. I'm saying that no one was informed, no one had any guidance other than misdirection and lies, predominantly on the Leave side. Remain had the easier option but got complacent. That's your take, I guess, but somewhat undermined by your comment in (4), that you were against it because you need your EU citizenship and want to live and work in Europe. That is a personal reason for wanting to Remain. Pretty much everyone voted for a personal reason, not sure I get your point? It is not a considered judgement of the issues (though you may have weighed these up, too) I went for freedom of movement (I don't even agree with Schengen, we should be in it - at least then the lie about control over our borders would have some weight behind it), collaboration with neighbouring countries, knowing that strength in numbers is better than going it alone, learning from an international live. It's a gut reflection of how a Leave vote may affect you. Many people on both sides took a similar view - how it affects them personally. As you rightly say, very few of us, if any, understand the implications fully. But, to say, that only those fully qualified to understand Brexit (maybe 10? 100?) should have the right to vote on this, is real effrontery  to (any form of) democracy NO IT isn't!!! IT'S HOW REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY WORKS!!! At the very least, the referendum showed that a broad church of voters, for many different reasons, some more partisan than others, wanted to leave the EU. That is a sounding of popular opinion that any government should be aware of. Fine, be aware of it, then proceed with caution and as has already been pointed out, ignore them if it's not in the best interests of the country. Don't just say "oh, ok, we'll abandon our biggest trading partner etc. and make a fucking mess of it to the extent the country becomes a global laughing stock!

4. I think that if the vote had been to Remain, everyone would have moved on by now. Remain MPs and Remain popular vote. Job done.    Yup, but here's where remain really missed out. Instead of just saying "lets stay", they could've said "lets stay, but take your concerns to the EU and work with them". It would've made us much more influential in the bloc and would've been a much more positive approach.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Matt said:

It was advisory, and a non-legally binding referendum 

https://fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/

You're doing what he does and selectively responding to the part of the argument that helps your position. The second part "as the government gave a solemn undertaking to action the result of the referendum" is the critical part of his argument. 

Can you provide anything where the government or opposition stated in parliament that the referendum was advisory only, with any caveats on when it would be ignored?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Chach said:

You're doing what he does and selectively responding to the part of the argument that helps your position. The second part "as the government gave a solemn undertaking to action the result of the referendum" is the critical part of his argument. 

Can you provide anything where the government or opposition stated in parliament that the referendum was advisory only, with any caveats on when it would be ignored?

Read the link. It even has a highlighted picture from the official briefing document;
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-7212.pdf

 

Quote

Types of referendum This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions. The referendums held in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1997 and 1998 are examples of this type, where opinion was tested before legislation was introduced. The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented, unlike, for example, the Republic of Ireland, where the circumstances in which a binding referendum should be held are set out in its constitution.

Whilst that not explicitly used the word "advisory" (although it might as well have done), the paper from the high court doesn't leave any wiggle room for argument (I'll type out the important parts since it's a scanned document in the PDF:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-eu-amended-20161122.pdf#page=32
 

Quote

 

Page 32, para106

“a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament unless very clear language to the contrary is used in the referendum legislation in question. No such language is used in the 2015 Referendum Act”

para 107

"Further, the 2015 Referendum Act was passed against a background including a clear briefing paper to parliamentarians explaining that the referendum would have advisory effect only. Moreover, Parliament must have appreciated that the referendum was intended only to en advisory as as the result of a vote in the referendum in favour of leaving the EU would inevitably leave for future decision many important questions relating to the legal implementation of withdrawal from the EU"

 

Anyway, that's my lunchtime wasted, back to work :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Matt said:

 

1. Labour MPs who wanted a referendum voted for one in the hope that Cameron (and they) would lose the vote? Not that they thought the question should go to the people?  

2. Cameron wanted to cement his legacy by calling a referendum that would maintain the status quo, at best, and destroy his legacy at worst?

3. I disagree with your understanding of parliamentary democracy / representative democracy. I agree with your desire for more direct democracy.

4. You seemed to imply in your post that people just fell for a whole load of lies by the Leave campaign (such as Bob down the pub) and that's what swayed them to vote Leave. You then said you voted to Remain for purely personal reasons, unaffected by the lies and spin, I presume. My point was that Leave voters also voted for personal reasons unaffected by lies and spin. Not all, but then that also applies to Remain.

5. I agree totally with your final point about Remain missing the opportunity to go back to the EU with their concerns. I think that would have swayed the vote their way. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Formby said:

1. Labour MPs who wanted a referendum voted for one in the hope that Cameron (and they) would lose the vote? Not that they thought the question should go to the people?  

2. Cameron wanted to cement his legacy by calling a referendum that would maintain the status quo, at best, and destroy his legacy at worst?

3. I disagree with your understanding of parliamentary democracy / representative democracy. I agree with your desire for more direct democracy.

4. You seemed to imply in your post that people just fell for a whole load of lies by the Leave campaign (such as Bob down the pub) and that's what swayed them to vote Leave. You then said you voted to Remain for purely personal reasons, unaffected by the lies and spin, I presume. My point was that Leave voters also voted for personal reasons unaffected by lies and spin. Not all, but then that also applies to Remain.

5. I agree totally with your final point about Remain missing the opportunity to go back to the EU with their concerns. I think that would have swayed the vote their way. 

 

1. It’s a guess. Strategic benefits make sense to me in a strange way. If they’d get Corbyn to back and lost too, they’d be rid of him

2. It would’ve given him more power to work with the EU, although it’s opinion. As you said he had made small headway. If he knew he had the nations backing he could push harder and the country would know he was doing it for them. 

3. My definition comes from Parliments website

https://www.parliament.uk/education/about-your-parliament/parliament-and-government/

4. I generalised. Of course not all but I’d put money on most, but that’s purely guessing. 

5 at leas we agree on something (direct democracy too)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Matt said:

Read the link. It even has a highlighted picture from the official briefing document;
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-7212.pdf

 

Whilst that not explicitly used the word "advisory" (although it might as well have done), the paper from the high court doesn't leave any wiggle room for argument (I'll type out the important parts since it's a scanned document in the PDF:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-eu-amended-20161122.pdf#page=32
 

Anyway, that's my lunchtime wasted, back to work :D 

Yes but that's a constitutional position precluded on the details of the exit being unknown and unknowable at that time, so can also be used to argue the other way.

Also that is a briefing paper written by a civil servant that has likely never been read by an elected member, not a Hansard record.

"Can you provide anything where the government or opposition stated in parliament that the referendum was advisory only, with any caveats on when it would be ignored?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Chach said:

Also, if you can provide a situation where an "advisory" referendum was not implemented that would also bolster your argument. 

I don’t need to bolster my argument, it’s there. If you can’t accept the document from the courts then there’s no point. 

Only other referendum in recent times was the AV, which, looking around, was also advisory. AV was not implemented because it didn’t get enough votes. Would it have been if it did? Who knows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Matt said:

I don’t need to bolster my argument, it’s there. If you can’t accept the document from the courts then there’s no point. 

Only other referendum in recent times was the AV, which, looking around, was also advisory. AV was not implemented. 

From the BN you linked, not advisory and would have been implemented without further legislation.

"In contrast, the legislation which provided for the referendum held on AV in May 2011 would have implemented the new system of voting without further legislation, provided that the boundary changes also provided for in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituency Act 2011 were also implemented. In the event, there was a substantial majority against any change."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Matt said:

If you can’t accept the document from the courts then there’s no point. 

Again, that is a legal position. Leavers would rightly insist it doesn't address the ethical situation of ignoring a popular vote.

It is entirely possible that the deal could have been negotiated beforehand and then had a binding referendum on whether to accept taken place, but lets face it that would not have worked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chach said:

Again, that is a legal position. Leavers would rightly insist it doesn't address the ethical situation of ignoring a popular vote.

It is entirely possible that the deal could have been negotiated beforehand and then had a binding referendum on whether to accept taken place, but lets face it that would not have worked.

It also wasn’t the case. I know what you’re getting at but we’re never going to agree here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Chach said:

Yes, because you have no intention of engaging in an honest dialectic as I originally pointed out. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-highest-form-of-disagreement/531597/

I’ve provided proof repeatedly. You ignore it and ask me to find proof for your argument. Not playing that game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Chach said:

Not sure if you remember but Cameron was a remainer, he wasn't the one saying we will leave the EU and have all the same trade benefits.

He made it very clear that if the vote was to leave, it would mean out of the Customs Union, out of the Common Fisheries Policy, out of the ECJ, etc etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chach said:

You're doing what he does and selectively responding to the part of the argument that helps your position. The second part "as the government gave a solemn undertaking to action the result of the referendum" is the critical part of his argument. 

Can you provide anything where the government or opposition stated in parliament that the referendum was advisory only, with any caveats on when it would be ignored?

We are still waiting, Matt, for your answer to Chach's question.

The government gave a solemn undertaking that the outcome of the referendum would be enacted.

You can't just write off the biggest democratic exercise in our history like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RPG said:

We are still waiting, Matt, for your answer to Chach's question.

The government gave a solemn undertaking that the outcome of the referendum would be enacted.

You can't just write off the biggest democratic exercise in our history like this.

Please sir, I'm still waiting too..

20 hours ago, MikeO said:

I fail to see how 21 Tories were acting in self interest when they effectively resigned because they acted (in their judgement) in their constituents best interests. What has Nicholas Soames (for example) gained from it?

Was Mr Johnson thinking of self interest when he defied the party whip? By far the more plausible example surely.

 

19 hours ago, RPG said:

Well, I guess we will never agree on that.

There are, I am told, over 90 Labour constituencies which voted Leave (many by large majorities) yet have MPs who support Remain and all that goes with it. An election is not far away. How do you think that will play out in those Labour constituencies?

Farage must be salivating at the opportunities this presents for the Brexit Party.

 

19 hours ago, MikeO said:

Interesting you quote my questions and then fail to respond to them, are you a politician?

 

19 hours ago, RPG said:

Try telling the people they don't count when it comes to an election in the 90 Labour constituencies that voted Leave but who are saddled with Remainer MPs.

The people will count (literally) then.

 

19 hours ago, MikeO said:

...and again.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Please sir, I'm still waiting too..

 

 

 

 

 

If you take the trouble to read my previous posts thoroughly you will see that I did answer you.

And Chach's question remains unanswered by you.  But if you can't or won't answer, then that is your choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, johnh said:

That's the most stupid post I've ever read.

John, tell me what you know about Leave.eu and what they did with Cambridge Analytica. Then tell me what they did was democratic. 

As a leave voter I find what they did disgusting and immoral. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, RPG said:

If you take the trouble to read my previous posts thoroughly you will see that I did answer you.

And Chach's question remains unanswered by you.  But if you can't or won't answer, then that is your choice.

Forgive me, please point me to where you answered this...

"I fail to see how 21 Tories were acting in self interest when they effectively resigned because they acted (in their judgement) in their constituents best interests. What has Nicholas Soames (for example) gained from it?

Was Mr Johnson thinking of self interest when he defied the party whip? By far the more plausible example surely."

The direct "answer" you gave was...

"Well, I guess we will never agree on that."

That's an answer?

As to Chach's question it wasn't directed at me but I'd say that in every election there is subterfuge, lying, misinformation and false promises thrown around like confetti by all parties/factions. Broken promises are routine and using hyperbole in calling this exercise in uneducated guesswork the "biggest democratic exercise in our history" doesn't alter that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RPG said:

We are still waiting, Matt, for your answer to Chach's question.

The government gave a solemn undertaking that the outcome of the referendum would be enacted.

You can't just write off the biggest democratic exercise in our history like this.

I’ve provided proof, just because it’s not liked isn’t my problem. Feel free to prove me wrong. I’ve just got back from work and looking after my daughter alone tonight, I wish I had servants to explain democracy repeated times...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally something I can get behind from Boris...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49598118

..."dead in a ditch" would work for me.

Strangely enough my dad always said that when he died just dump him in a ditch to avoid funeral costs; obviously when his time came we didn't, couldn't find a remote enough ditch or an undertaker (what a racket that is) willing to oblige.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were staying in were staying Britain’s staying in were staying in were staying Britain’s staying in. 

Sing it and weep Brexiteers were not leaving without a deal, the second referendum will happen and we will vote to remain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Matt said:

I’ve provided proof repeatedly. You ignore it and ask me to find proof for your argument. Not playing that game. 

You cherry picked a legal position from a Briefing Paper to answer half a question while ignoring the stated intent of the government who called the referendum.

Its pretty obvious to me that the government of the time strategically chose a question of such a binary nature because they thought the doubt about post Brexit relationship would encourage fence sitters to vote remain and there's a good argument it did. The fact that back fired spectacularly doesn't then mean Leavers should take the most favorable definition of that binary vote because a majority of people were happy to trade some economic prosperity for a sense of more national control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Matt said:

My bad, need this one too explaining how MPs are chosen

https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/electing-mps/

Yes, I know how MPs are chosen! I thought the discussion was about what a representative democracy was and couldn't see any definition which you were alluding to. You mention, I think, that our parliamentary democracy is not democracy (as you see it), with reference to Burke's (1774) and Churchill's (1955) definitions of the role of an MP. I do think times have changed since then (it is 64 years since Churchill wrote that) and that constituency work now takes up most of an MP's time, with promoting their interests in parliament a prevailing trend. I'm not sure you can get Question Time where you are but I would point you to Emily Thornberry's remarks last night (15:40 - 15.56). She said: 'I am a democrat and after we lost the referendum I woke up the next morning and thought, right, I'm a public servant. I've got to do as I'm told'. I think there is a recognition of that by most MPs. They may not be delegates but I do think the move is towards their constituents rather than parliament and that Brexit has absolutely demonstrated the flaws in the system. Like you, I advocate more direct democracy. I also want proportional representation. I'm unlikely to get it in my lifetime, though!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Formby said:

Yes, I know how MPs are chosen! I thought the discussion was about what a representative democracy was and couldn't see any definition which you were alluding to. You mention, I think, that our parliamentary democracy is not democracy (as you see it), with reference to Burke's (1774) and Churchill's (1955) definitions of the role of an MP. I do think times have changed since then (it is 64 years since Churchill wrote that) and that constituency work now takes up most of an MP's time, with promoting their interests in parliament a prevailing trend. I'm not sure you can get Question Time where you are but I would point you to Emily Thornberry's remarks last night (15:40 - 15.56). She said: 'I am a democrat and after we lost the referendum I woke up the next morning and thought, right, I'm a public servant. I've got to do as I'm told'. I think there is a recognition of that by most MPs. They may not be delegates but I do think the move is towards their constituents rather than parliament and that Brexit has absolutely demonstrated the flaws in the system. Like you, I advocate more direct democracy. I also want proportional representation. I'm unlikely to get it in my lifetime, though!  

Yes, I think it is a representative democracy in the sense that the people elect an MP who do right for the country and by them, and sometimes that the people won’t like the decisions. The latter part being tough shit, it’s how the system works. If they are simply to be a public servant as you mentioned, then their role is pointless and might as well scrap parliament and go to a direct democracy completely. I don’t see any advantage in this unofficial middle ground

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Chach said:

This pretty much sums up the quality of the debate

 

You mean tories over shouting and belittling answers that haven't even been given yet. Sounds about right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pete0 said:

You mean tories over shouting and belittling answers that haven't even been given yet. Sounds about right. 

Yeah that would be one interpretation

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Matt said:

Yes, I think it is a representative democracy in the sense that the people elect an MP who do right for the country and by them, and sometimes that the people won’t like the decisions. The latter part being tough shit, it’s how the system works. If they are simply to be a public servant as you mentioned, then their role is pointless and might as well scrap parliament and go to a direct democracy completely. I don’t see any advantage in this unofficial middle ground

The basis of our democracy is that MP's are servants of the people, not the  people servants of MP's.  I didn't agree with Tony Benn on most things but found his five questions concerning MP's. apposite.

1. What power have you got?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            2. Where did you get it from?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              3.  In whose interests do you exercise it?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        4.  To whom are you accountable?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   5.  How can we get rid of you?                                         

The fact is, Leave won the democratic referendum vote.  At the next election, the manifesto's of both the Tory and Labour parties stated that they would honour the referendum result. That accounted for approximately 80% of the votes cast.  Parliament then voted to invoke Article 50 with an overwhelming majority.  Anything which tries to usurp that is undemocratic,  there is no logical argument against it.  And just to remind you, the referendum question was 'Leave' or 'Remain'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, johnh said:

The basis of our democracy is that MP's are servants of the people, not the  people servants of MP's.  I didn't agree with Tony Benn on most things but found his five questions concerning MP's. apposite.

1. What power have you got?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            2. Where did you get it from?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              3.  In whose interests do you exercise it?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        4.  To whom are you accountable?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   5.  How can we get rid of you?                                         

The fact is, Leave won the democratic referendum vote.  At the next election, the manifesto's of both the Tory and Labour parties stated that they would honour the referendum result. That accounted for approximately 80% of the votes cast.  Parliament then voted to invoke Article 50 with an overwhelming majority.  Anything which tries to usurp that is undemocratic,  there is no logical argument against it.  And just to remind you, the referendum question was 'Leave' or 'Remain'.

OK John but just to throw a hypothetical out there, one that's extremely unlikely to happen I know but I'd be interested to hear what you think...

General Election happens in the near future and the Liberal Democrats win an overall majority or are the largest party and form a government with the SNP, Change (or whatever they're now called), Plaid Cymru and Green, all of those parties having remain in their manifesto. 

Are they then still democratically bound to abide by the referendum result because it was the will of the people in 2016 or are they democratically bound to carry out their manifesto and revoke Article 50 because it might be that the electorate have changed their mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/09/2019 at 16:20, MikeO said:

Forgive me, please point me to where you answered this...

"I fail to see how 21 Tories were acting in self interest when they effectively resigned because they acted (in their judgement) in their constituents best interests. What has Nicholas Soames (for example) gained from it?

Was Mr Johnson thinking of self interest when he defied the party whip? By far the more plausible example surely."

The direct "answer" you gave was...

"Well, I guess we will never agree on that."

That's an answer?

As to Chach's question it wasn't directed at me but I'd say that in every election there is subterfuge, lying, misinformation and false promises thrown around like confetti by all parties/factions. Broken promises are routine and using hyperbole in calling this exercise in uneducated guesswork the "biggest democratic exercise in our history" doesn't alter that.

Thank you.

The answer I gave was in reference to your question re Johnson removing the whip from the rebels. I replied that my comments were not directed at them but, rather, the hard core remainers from day one who were hiding behind a no deal argument in an attempt to disguise (badly!) their efforts to defy democracy and who are really trying to stop brexit completely. I don't thnk that is what the 21 rebels were hoping to achieve (though I readily agree that it is probably what they would like) as I believe they were genuinely trying to prevent a no deal brexit but would still vote in favour of a brexit deal - albeit through gritted teeth in most cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, johnh said:

The basis of our democracy is that MP's are servants of the people, not the  people servants of MP's.  I didn't agree with Tony Benn on most things but found his five questions concerning MP's. apposite.

1. What power have you got?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            2. Where did you get it from?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              3.  In whose interests do you exercise it?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        4.  To whom are you accountable?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   5.  How can we get rid of you?                                         

The fact is, Leave won the democratic referendum vote.  At the next election, the manifesto's of both the Tory and Labour parties stated that they would honour the referendum result. That accounted for approximately 80% of the votes cast.  Parliament then voted to invoke Article 50 with an overwhelming majority.  Anything which tries to usurp that is undemocratic,  there is no logical argument against it.  And just to remind you, the referendum question was 'Leave' or 'Remain'.

Fair enough John, I’m not going to argue because we’ll go round and round. Just remember that no one “won” regardless of how many times you and others insist, and when an estimated 3 million expats were refused a vote (like myself) forgive me if I fail to see the democracy, especially as it’s against the basic grounds of British democracy. As for the stupidity of the government making it a yes no question, that in itself is reason enough to make it void, regardless of the illegality of it. 

Edit: supposed legality if I’m to be fair. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, MikeO said:

OK John but just to throw a hypothetical out there, one that's extremely unlikely to happen I know but I'd be interested to hear what you think...

General Election happens in the near future and the Liberal Democrats win an overall majority or are the largest party and form a government with the SNP, Change (or whatever they're now called), Plaid Cymru and Green, all of those parties having remain in their manifesto. 

Are they then still democratically bound to abide by the referendum result because it was the will of the people in 2016 or are they democratically bound to carry out their manifesto and revoke Article 50 because it might be that the electorate have changed their mind?

And that is why it needs to go back to the people for a once and for all referendum, to see how people feel with more facts and truths at there disposal. 

After all why should it only be MPs who are allowed to switch their beliefs and vote accordingly, it uis abundantly clear that this will not be agreed on by parliament who continually turn it into a party issue and not a country issue. 

Give it back to the people to decide with a bill attached to it stating that what ever the outcome it cannot be challenge and must be ratified no ifs no buts. 

What other way forward is there, I speak as someone who wishes to remain but expect leave to prevail after another vote, and great I would go along with that and happily leave in the knowledge that the leavers had 90% of the answers and still chose to leave, and with a bill attached to it no party or person could fight it, now wouldn’t that be blissful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Palfy said:

And that is why it needs to go back to the people for a once and for all referendum, to see how people feel with more facts and truths at there disposal. 

After all why should it only be MPs who are allowed to switch their beliefs and vote accordingly, it uis abundantly clear that this will not be agreed on by parliament who continually turn it into a party issue and not a country issue. 

Give it back to the people to decide with a bill attached to it stating that what ever the outcome it cannot be challenge and must be ratified no ifs no buts. 

What other way forward is there, I speak as someone who wishes to remain but expect leave to prevail after another vote, and great I would go along with that and happily leave in the knowledge that the leavers had 90% of the answers and still chose to leave, and with a bill attached to it no party or person could fight it, now wouldn’t that be blissful. 

Exactly. This is why I primarily want a second referendum; not just because it gives a chance to undo something stupid (in my opinion) but people are so much better informed of the consequences now, either way. Trouble is, you’d have to make it a yes no question again, in the interests of being consistent. To add several options will just create more confusion, even if I think itd give a better representation of people’s opinions. I know I’m being hypocritical in saying this, but if this is the route British democracy is going, evolving from what I believe it is from letter of the law to what it’s become, then so be it. Let’s just not have a yes no opinion poll driven by lies and deceit but then managed by politicians who cannot be trusted have such a negative effect on the country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MikeO said:

OK John but just to throw a hypothetical out there, one that's extremely unlikely to happen I know but I'd be interested to hear what you think...

General Election happens in the near future and the Liberal Democrats win an overall majority or are the largest party and form a government with the SNP, Change (or whatever they're now called), Plaid Cymru and Green, all of those parties having remain in their manifesto. 

Are they then still democratically bound to abide by the referendum result because it was the will of the people in 2016 or are they democratically bound to carry out their manifesto Mike

and revoke Article 50 because it might be that the electorate have changed their mind?

Mike

In the unlikely event of the hypothetical happening, they would have to propose a second referendum.  I am not fussed with this as Leave would walk it.  Remain are backing off a second referendum in the same way Corbyn is backing off an election. I see he is following Blair's advice! I wonder who will be pulling his strings next week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Matt said:

Exactly. This is why I primarily want a second referendum; not just because it gives a chance to undo something stupid (in my opinion) but people are so much better informed of the consequences now, either way. Trouble is, you’d have to make it a yes no question again, in the interests of being consistent. To add several options will just create more confusion, even if I think itd give a better representation of people’s opinions. I know I’m being hypocritical in saying this, but if this is the route British democracy is going, evolving from what I believe it is from letter of the law to what it’s become, then so be it. Let’s just not have a yes no opinion poll driven by lies and deceit but then managed by politicians who cannot be trusted have such a negative effect on the country. 

Yes, I agree.  A second referendum - bring it on.  Same choice as last time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Matt said:

Exactly. This is why I primarily want a second referendum; not just because it gives a chance to undo something stupid (in my opinion) but people are so much better informed of the consequences now, either way. Trouble is, you’d have to make it a yes no question again, in the interests of being consistent. To add several options will just create more confusion, even if I think itd give a better representation of people’s opinions. I know I’m being hypocritical in saying this, but if this is the route British democracy is going, evolving from what I believe it is from letter of the law to what it’s become, then so be it. Let’s just not have a yes no opinion poll driven by lies and deceit but then managed by politicians who cannot be trusted have such a negative effect on the country. 

Exactly how I see it a simple vote two options leave or remain with nothing in the middle to complicate matters. 

But definitely some bill to say final say and no going back, because the last vote created no winners just losers and if leavers think they won I’d love to know what they believe they won, because if what’s happening now is what they voted for then they are truly losers. 

So let’s go again and put this bollocks to bed once and for all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, johnh said:

Mike

In the unlikely event of the hypothetical happening, they would have to propose a second referendum.  I am not fussed with this as Leave would walk it.  Remain are backing off a second referendum in the same way Corbyn is backing off an election. I see he is following Blair's advice! I wonder who will be pulling his strings next week.

Why would they need to call another referendum if they'd been elected on a promise of remaining? And if that happened why would the leave vote suddenly "walk" a referendum when they've just elected a government pledged to remain? Makes no sense.

Good grief surely you're not falling for the "Corbyn backing off" nonsense when it's completely plain the opposition parties are waiting until no deal is off the table before agreeing to it, and rightly so. Johnson can't be trusted not to move the election back (you can always when tell he's lying because it only happens when his lips move) so they're treating him with the caution he's earned, even his family are turning on him and his demeanour is that of a little boy lost. He's a pathetic racist serial liar and it's totally shameful the Tory system has him as PM. Your friend Mrs May I was no fan of but I trusted that she was doing what she thought was right, this idiot has the country as the laughing stock of the World. Have you noticed the lack of Trump's moronic utterances being reported? That's because Johnson has "trumped" him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, johnh said:

Yes, I agree.  A second referendum - bring it on.  Same choice as last time.

Obviously polls have been wrong in recent times but appears a bit close to call at the mo.

Capture.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...