Brexit...

[Formby]

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. 

 

[Matt]

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)

[Chach]

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  

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?"

[Chach]

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

[Chach]

 

[Matt]

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

[Chach]

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."

[StevO]

18 hours ago, johnh said:

So the people don't count.  The remainers in Parliament are destroying democracy in this country. End of.

Leave.eu destroyed democracy 

[Chach]

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.

[Matt]

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. 

[Chach]

6 minutes ago, Matt said:

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

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/

[Chach]

 

[Matt]

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. 

[johnh]

1 hour ago, StevO said:

Leave.eu destroyed democracy 

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

[MikeO]

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.

 

[StevO]

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. 

[MikeO]

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.

[Matt]

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...

[MikeO]

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.

[Palfy]

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. 

[Formby]

10 hours ago, Matt said:

3. My definition comes from Parliments website

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

Sorry, which definition are you alluding to? The bit in Further Information?

[Chach]

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.

[Chach]

2 hours ago, Formby said:

Sorry, which definition are you alluding to? The bit in Further Information?

he's referring to "Types of Referendum" in section 5 of this document which is a Briefing Paper for the Referendum Bill

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-7212.pdf

[Matt]

7 hours ago, Formby said:

Sorry, which definition are you alluding to? The bit in Further Information?

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

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

[Formby]

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!  

[Matt]

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

[Chach]

This pretty much sums up the quality of the debate

 

[pete0]

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. 

[MikeO]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-49601232/boris-johnson-heckled-you-should-be-in-brussels-you-re-in-morley

[Chach]

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