British Politics

[DieselDaisy]

Referenda delivered under an ''once in a lifetime'' message does not permit rerunning. 

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Referenda delivered under an ''once in a lifetime'' message does not permit rerunning. 

Highly undemocratic to not let people change their mind.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

Highly undemocratic to not let people change their mind.

Highly undemocratic to invalidate an earlier referendum enacted under the pretext of ''once in a lifetime'' just because the politicians don't like the particular result.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

Highly undemocratic to invalidate an earlier referendum enacted under the pretext of ''once in a lifetime'' just because the politicians don't like the particular result.

Enacting a "once in a lifetime" referendum is a violation of democratic principles. People always have the right to change their minds. You don't seem to like democracy.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

Enacting a "once in a lifetime" referendum is a violation of democratic principles. People always have the right to change their minds. You don't seem to like democracy.

I'd argue the same about you seeing as you are willing to invalidate a 51.81% mandate.

[MillionsOfSpiders]

Aren’t the EU going to just kick us out anyway in a few days?

I thought they’d said we can’t delay any more.

[Dazey]

1 minute ago, MillionsOfSpiders said:

Aren’t the EU going to just kick us out anyway in a few days?

I thought they’d said we can’t delay any more.

What’s probably going to happen is that the deal will be defeated again and May will go back to request another longer extension. 

The EU will say okay but probably attach conditions such as a second referendum for granting an extension. 

[SoulMonster]

2 hours ago, lukepowell1988 said:

Surely you could just use this excuse for every vote ever 

Yes? 

[Dazey]

9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Yes? 

Hartlepool voted to leave. Hartlepool is a horrible place. People there are generally stupid and poor. I hate Hartlepool and hope that it burns. 

[SoulMonster]

10 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Hartlepool voted to leave. Hartlepool is a horrible place. People there are generally stupid and poor. I hate Hartlepool and hope that it burns. 

Never heard of the place before.... Now I HATE IT!!!! 

[Dazey]

6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Never heard of the place before.... Now I HATE IT!!!! 

Your ancestors wouldn’t even have bothered to pillage the place. 😂

 

Edited March 21, 2019 by Dazey

[downzy]

5 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Highly undemocratic to invalidate an earlier referendum enacted under the pretext of ''once in a lifetime'' just because the politicians don't like the particular result.

So if the UK does leave, can it have another referendum to rejoin?  Or is it ever bound to the referendum held in 2016?  

Does everyone who voted either way have to die before another can be held, since it was once in a lifetime?

And can you tell me what law states that a referendum is binding solely because it was deemed "once in a lifetime?"  Can't find that in any British law book.  

[downzy]

Deadline pushed back to April 12th (I know what I'll be watching on my birthday ).

Basically they're going to ram through May's deal one more time.  I suspect she'll likely get enough support if it's allowed for a third vote.  If not, either a no-deal exit or they pull Article 50.  

Political theatre at its finest.  

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, downzy said:

So if the UK does leave, can it have another referendum to rejoin?  Or is it ever bound to the referendum held in 2016?  

Does everyone who voted either way have to die before another can be held, since it was once in a lifetime?

And can you tell me what law states that a referendum is binding solely because it was deemed "once in a lifetime?"  Can't find that in any British law book.  

We are not Athenians.

But as we had a referendum in 1975, and a referendum in 2016, you'd expect a referendum to rejoin.

1 hour ago, downzy said:

Deadline pushed back to April 12th (I know what I'll be watching on my birthday ).

Basically they're going to ram through May's deal one more time.  I suspect she'll likely get enough support if it's allowed for a third vote.  If not, either a no-deal exit or they pull Article 50.  

Political theatre at its finest.  

Strange fella you are. I find it all extremely tedious. 

[SoulMonster]

6 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I'd argue the same about you seeing as you are willing to invalidate a 51.81% mandate.

Again, if a new referendum is held and the result is not 51.81 % then surely one should go with what the people want now and not what the people wanted before. You don't just ask the people and when you have the answer you want you stick to that regardless of whether the people's opinion has shifted. That is undemocratic. People always have the right to change their opinion and politics aren't fixed but subject to change as opinions and the political landscape and circumstances in general shift. 

Additionally, that some politicians claimed this was a final referendum doesn't make that binding. They are not allowed to make such a promise in the first place. They basically tricked people. If the people don't want it to be final and instead wants to have another go, then that is what should be done. Again, democracy. Basically what you are arguing is that the will of some politicians who claimed this was a "once in a lifetime" referendum, despite such a claim being utterly undemocratic, is more valuable than the will of the people, which is also undemocratic. That is rule by the elite, and not rule by the people.

[DieselDaisy]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Again, if a new referendum is held and the result is not 51.81 % then surely one should go with what the people want now and not what the people wanted before. You don't just ask the people and when you have the answer you want you stick to that regardless of whether the people's opinion has shifted. That is undemocratic. People always have the right to change their opinion and politics aren't fixed but subject to change as opinions and the political landscape and circumstances in general shift. 

Additionally, that some politicians claimed this was a final referendum doesn't make that binding. They are not allowed to make such a promise in the first place. They basically tricked people. If the people don't want it to be final and instead wants to have another go, then that is what should be done. Again, democracy. Basically what you are arguing is that the will of some politicians who claimed this was a "once in a lifetime" referendum, despite such a claim being utterly undemocratic, is more valuable than the will of the people, which is also undemocratic. That is rule by the elite, and not rule by the people.

I thoroughly disagree, and I repeat: we are not Athenians. Referenda inherently, pertaining to the constitution of the United Kingdom, are somewhat unprecedented. There has been only three of them, and two of them relate to the European Union. 

[SoulMonster]

Besides, what they meant with that "once in a lifetime" statement was that a Brexit process is so costly and the separation from the EU so complex than when it has happened, one cannot easily join again. You can't leave one year, join the next, then leave again the year after, and so on. That's farcical and detrimental. But Brexit hasn't happened yet. It is not too late to change ones minds. 

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

I thoroughly disagree, and I repeat: we are not Athenians. Referenda inherently, pertaining to the constitution of the United Kingdom, are somewhat unprecedented. There has been only three of them, and two of them relate to the European Union. 

So you disagree with something that makes sense because you are "not Athenians". Oooookay.

And are you seriously arguing that you can't have a new referendum now because you are only entitled to, what, one per decade? What are you afraid of, that you are going to run out of referenda? That you only have 5 of them and you have to use them sparingly? Where do you keep them? Could it be possible to recycle one so you get a few more? What if we just say that it isn't a new referendum but a reuse of the old one? So you get two for one? How does that sound?

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

So you disagree with something that makes sense because you are "not Athenians". Oooookay.

And are you seriously arguing that you can't have a new referendum now because you are only entitled to, what, one per decade? What are you afraid of, that you are going to run out of referenda? That you only have 5 of them and you have to use them sparingly? Where do you keep them? Could it be possible to recycle one so you get a few more? What if we just say that it isn't a new referendum but a reuse of the old one? So you get two for one? How does that sound?

This is idiotic even for your standards. 

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

This is idiotic even for your standards. 

You were the one arguing that you can't have a new referendum because you have only held three of them in the past, like they are some pristine thing that you have to save for more important issues in the future.  

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Well, it doesn't matter because they won't leave lol. Are there seriously people thinking any day now they're gonna leave...any day now!

Of course they won't leave. The question is more: how much money will they throw out of the window and how much of European laughingstocks are they willing to become before they come to their senses and cancel Brexit. 

[DieselDaisy]

I must praise Soul. He has a subject that he knows even less on than the Michael Jackson allegations. He has widely demonstrated his extreme ignorance on Michael Jackson (and cannot even be arsed to watch the documentary in question which would eradicate the idiocy and straw men). Now he feels the need to demonstrate his intellect on the British constitution. There is just no end to this man's knowledge. A true polymath for the ages. 

[SoulMonster]

12 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I must praise Soul. 

Thank you. I appreciate that.

But it really is obvious. You cannot have a flawed referendum where people vote over something they don't understand, and where the options aren't fleshed out, claim it is a final thing and hold the people's decision hostage because of this, especially when the result of that referendum isn't realized over years and people's opinion shift. You might not be Athenians, but you are supposedly democratic.

Let's say we had a referendum in Norway over cutting down all our trees. For various reasons people were made to think this was a good idea and you had a marginal decision to do it. Basically they were told that it would be good for the economy, that we could plant sweet corn instead or something. Then, for various reasons, this isn't realized for a few years, it is a highly complicated thing after all, and people come to their senses and realize how stupid it would be if they went through with the process. Maybe they realize it would be an ecological catastrophe. Maybe they realize that sweet corn don't grow this far north? Should some politicians then refuse the people to change their mind because they said it was a "once in a lifetime" referendum? Of course not, it is not too late to change opinion. It is only too late when all the trees are cut down.

Edited March 22, 2019 by SoulMonster

[Dazey]

9 hours ago, downzy said:

So if the UK does leave, can it have another referendum to rejoin?  Or is it ever bound to the referendum held in 2016?  

Does everyone who voted either way have to die before another can be held, since it was once in a lifetime?

And can you tell me what law states that a referendum is binding solely because it was deemed "once in a lifetime?"  Can't find that in any British law book.  

The crazy thing is that the 2016 referendum wasn’t legally binding. There’s no reason in law that we have to leave at all other than the act of parliament passed in the aftermath of the vote which we can unilaterally revoke anyway.  

[DieselDaisy]

22 minutes ago, Dazey said:

The crazy thing is that the 2016 referendum wasn’t legally binding. There’s no reason in law that we have to leave at all other than the act of parliament passed in the aftermath of the vote which we can unilaterally revoke anyway.  

Nor would a second referendum (be legally binding) as plebiscites are not statues in the British constitution. We thus can just re-run this thing in perpetua...