Current Affairs EU In or Out

[Mr. White]

You are very selective with the arguments you make. You mention the 'promises' made by leave campaigners and conveniently ignore the deafening campaign of 'Project Fear'.

And actually, the government did say "The government will implement what you decide" after telling us to vote remain. There was no mention of clauses or conditions that would warrant a second referendum, just a difficult decision to be made that would be implemented.

So yes, I do believe that we should leave no matter what. Anything less and democracy in this country is over.

There is a big wide world out there that exists outside of the European Union. It's going to be ok!!

 

[Fedlingen]

You are very selective with the arguments you make. You mention the 'promises' made by leave campaigners and conveniently ignore the deafening campaign of 'Project Fear'.

And actually, the government did say "The government will implement what you decide" after telling us to vote remain. There was no mention of clauses or conditions that would warrant a second referendum, just a difficult decision to be made that would be implemented.

So yes, I do believe that we should leave no matter what. Anything less and democracy in this country is over.

There is a big wide world out there that exists outside of the European Union. It's going to be ok!!

Que?

What's undemocratic about another vote?

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

Que?

What's undemocratic about another vote?

Oh I don't know. Maybe the part were we'd basically just be ignoring the first one simply because it wasn't the result you and other remainers wanted?

 

[Chewbacca]

Oh I don't know. Maybe the part were we'd basically just be ignoring the first one simply because it wasn't the result you and other remainers wanted?

Like the Leavers did with the referendum before that?

A vote doesn’t constitute the end of history

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

Like the Leavers did with the referendum before that?

A vote doesn’t constitute the end of history

Ah so you remember the first Referndum in 75? (two years after we'd been taken in without the consent of the electorate). Then you'll know that we had to wait fourty-one years for a second referndum in the matter and no amount on debate on the subject changed that. I suppose If remainers are prepared to wait that long then I'm sure even the most ardent leave voter would be happy to have another referndum in 2057.

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

A vote doesn’t constitute the end of history

Of course it doesn't but to just ignore a vote (The largest democratic decision ever taken in this country) would constitute the end of this country being a democratic nation.

 

[Tubey]

Of course it doesn't but to just ignore a vote (The largest democratic decision ever taken in this country) would constitute the end of this country being a democratic nation.

It's not ignoring it; it's doing what a non-binary referendum is meant to do - take the feedback and act on the circumstances.

Non-binary means not legally binding - it's as simple as that. It was advisory, not conclusive. A General Election, where people elect MPs to act in the best interests of their constituents, is a lot more conclusive. If the MPs do their jobs and determine that, practically, Brexit would make the country worse off, then they are obligated to act in the best interests of their constituents and not do it.

Because that's why we have parliament and don't have referendums about every issue. Politically, the referendum carries a lot of weight and should be implemented if it can reasonably be done and not cause hardship for the country. If they have no evidence that it won't, it shouldn't go ahead.

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

It's not ignoring it; it's doing what a non-binary referendum is meant to do - take the feedback and act on the circumstances.

Non-binary means not legally binding - it's as simple as that. It was advisory, not conclusive. A General Election, where people elect MPs to act in the best interests of their constituents, is a lot more conclusive. If the MPs do their jobs and determine that, practically, Brexit would make the country worse off, then they are obligated to act in the best interests of their constituents and not do it.

Because that's why we have parliament and don't have referendums about every issue. Politically, the referendum carries a lot of weight and should be implemented if it can reasonably be done and not cause hardship for the country. If they have no evidence that it won't, it shouldn't go ahead.

I'd feel better about things if the first referndum was just ignored rather then going through the farce of a second. I wasn't disputing the legality of the referendum, I'm perfectly awere that it was and remains non-binary. The discussion was about a second referendum, which imo would not only a waste of time but completly disrespectful to the electorate. If the first was non-binary then a second would be to. It must be said however that pretty much everyone involved in the referendum agreed that they would respect and uphold the decision.

If our elected officials want to say that they've decided that we the majority got it wrong and therefore they are going to ignore the referendum results I'd not like it but I'd except it. But to pretend that a second referndum would be anything other then a cowards way of ignoring the first is nonsense.

 

[Tubey]

I'd feel better about things if the first referndum was just ignored rather then going through the farce of a second. I wasn't disputing the legality of the referendum, I'm perfectly awere that it was and remains non-binary. The discussion was about a second referendum, which imo would not only a waste of time but completly disrespectful to the electorate. If the first was non-binary then a second would be to. It must be said however that pretty much everyone involved in the referendum agreed that they would respect and uphold the decision.

If our elected officials want to say that they've decided that we the majority got it wrong and therefore they are going to ignore the referendum results I'd not like it but I'd except it. But to pretend that a second referndum would be anything other then a cowards way of ignoring the first is nonsense.

Well it depends.

If you see the first referendum as "hey, do you want to leave the EU?" then you could view the second as "OK sound, but this is how we're going to do it - we didn't tell you how the first time - is that still OK?"

So it's not saying the majority got it 'wrong'; it's asking about a more complete issue.

 

[roydo]

Well it depends.

If you see the first referendum as "hey, do you want to leave the EU?" then you could view the second as "OK sound, but this is how we're going to do it - we didn't tell you how the first time - is that still OK?"

So it's not saying the majority got it 'wrong'; it's asking about a more complete issue.

Dont Parliament have a vote on the final deal anyrate?

 

[Tubey]

Dont Parliament have a vote on the final deal anyrate?

Yep but the problem is, due to the narrative of "Brexit means Brexit" and everyone who believes in parliamentary sovereignty being classed as traitors and splashed over newspaper front pages... well, that isn't a free vote so much as a heavily whipped exercise in tickboxed legitimacy.

I find the whole situation incredible. I've yet to hear one substantiated argument for why we'd be better off with Brexit as a country, yet we're hurtling towards it with no counter-argument being considered, no matter what the logic or common sense, because of the power of a combination of Tory backbenchers, the fear of UKIP and, to be frank, racists, who have scared the rational minds in politics into relative silence.

 

[Mr. White]

Perhaps technically it was an advisory referendum. But the government voted overwhelmingly to hold the referendum. They told us that it was our decision to make and it would be implemented. So effectively, responsibility was passed from the government to the voters. To go back on this because they didn't like the result would have been against the spirit of the referendum and against democracy.

To be honest, I was surprised when Leave won. As per previous EU related referendums, I fully expected the result to be ignored / a re-vote ordered etc. So to see the result being respected and implemented should make us proud of our democracy.

And since when has representative democracy been so perfect? Why can we rely on MP's to always make the correct decisions? They take us into illegal wars, destroy other countries, sex scandals, expenses scandals, run up horrific national deficits... I could go on all night. MP's are far from perfect and have their own vested interests. For example, Dianne Abbot has publicly demonstrated how incompetent she is. How can we rely on people like her to do the right thing? There is nothing wrong with occasional direct democracy to make the the big decisions.

 

[Chewbacca]

Ah so you remember the first Referndum in 75? (two years after we'd been taken in without the consent of the electorate). Then you'll know that we had to wait fourty-one years for a second referndum in the matter and no amount on debate on the subject changed that. I suppose If remainers are prepared to wait that long then I'm sure even the most ardent leave voter would be happy to have another referndum in 2057.

2020 will do. Most of the leavers will have popped their clogs by then

 

[Tubey]

Perhaps technically it was an advisory referendum. But the government voted overwhelmingly to hold the referendum. They told us that it was our decision to make and it would be implemented. So effectively, responsibility was passed from the government to the voters. To go back on this because they didn't like the result would have been against the spirit of the referendum and against democracy.

To be honest, I was surprised when Leave won. As per previous EU related referendums, I fully expected the result to be ignored / a re-vote ordered etc. So to see the result being respected and implemented should make us proud of our democracy.

And since when has representative democracy been so perfect? Why can we rely on MP's to always make the correct decisions? They take us into illegal wars, destroy other countries, sex scandals, expenses scandals, run up horrific national deficits... I could go on all night. MP's are far from perfect and have their own vested interests. For example, Dianne Abbot has publicly demonstrated how incompetent she is. How can we rely on people like her to do the right thing? There is nothing wrong with occasional direct democracy to make the the big decisions.

Regarding the bolded bit... well, it's their job - that's quite literally the sole reason we elect them. Sure, they will make mistakes, but we effectively hire them to not deliberately make those mistakes and act in good faith.

Now here's the problem - the vast majority of MPs privately believe Brexit is utter madness. If they had a free vote now on it and it was secret and anonymous, they'd vote against Brexit everytime.

As for "responsibility was passed from the government to the voters", that is simply not true. Here's the actual black and white:

It was always meant to be advisory. Yes, it can be a strong influence, but under no circumstances can a non-binary referendum be used by politicians to excuse them from doing their job.

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

2020 will do. Most of the leavers will have popped their clogs by then

Yet more lazy generalisations about 17.5million people. Plentey of the older generation that I'm acquainted with voted remain and not all younger voters were so pig ignorant that they didn't bother to vote at all. In fact more younger people voted leave then some would like to think.