Jump to content
Gracii Guns

British Politics

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

You happily embrace things that make no sense because you just so desperately want to get out of EU.

There is no logic behind the position that referendums and the results thereof must be permanent while accepting that when it comes to general elections these should be done frequently. But then again you have a history of discarding logic and consistency when the outcome suits you. Whereas to most others being consistent, logical and rational is in itself a virtue.

You don't seem to grasp how rare referenda are in British politics. There have been only three nationally! They are generally not things you re-run every few years, ''between world cups'', but ''once in a lifetime'' rarities.  

Share this post


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

You don't seem to grasp how rare referenda are in British politics. There have been only three nationally! They are generally not things you re-run every few years, ''between world cups'', but ''once in a lifetime'' rarities.  

Irrelevant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SoulMonster said:

Irrelevant. 

How is it irrelevant? You seem to be arguing as if our democracy is not a representative democracy but Pericles' Athens haha.

Although you are correct ultimately as,

There will be no second referendum then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DieselDaisy said:

How is it irrelevant? 

It is irrelevant because the fact that you've only had three before doesn't in any shape or form preclude you from having a fourth.

Share this post


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

You happily embrace things that make no sense because you just so desperately want to get out of EU.

There is no logic behind the position that referendums and the results thereof must be permanent while accepting that when it comes to general elections these should be done frequently. But then again you have a history of discarding logic and consistency when the outcome suits you. Whereas to most others being consistent, logical and rational is in itself a virtue.

He's got a point though, hasn't he?  I mean referendums of this sort aren't the kind of thing you have every few years, you either want out or you want in, it doesn't do you or the EU any favours for it to be this on-going thing.  It sets an alarming prescedent because where do you stop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SoulMonster said:

It is irrelevant because the fact that you've only had three before doesn't in any shape or form preclude you from having a fourth.

I could continue debating this with you but it is all completely pointless seeing as the next PM will be Boris Johnson. Even Jez cannot hide his disdain for the idea of a second referendum and can only be rallied around it at virtual gunpoint. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Len Cnut said:

He's got a point though, hasn't he?  I mean referendums of this sort aren't the kind of thing you have every few years, you either want out or you want in, it doesn't do you or the EU any favours for it to be this on-going thing.  It sets an alarming prescedent because where do you stop?

There is no historical precedence for the mess you are in now. You have never been in the situation where people where asked to give their opinion on something as important as this without people being fully informed of the consequences, and where the politicians didn't have a plan ready to act out on the people's will. In all previous referendums there has been a plan ready and the people's will has been executed promptly. Hence you can not point back in history and say we can't do this because it is unprecedented.

Secondly, this will never be an ongoing thing, leaving the EU is permanent. So when it actually happens the politicians must know they have the will of the people behind them. And pointing to a referendum 3-4 years ago, especially that referendum, doesn't really cut it.

The only thing that makes sense to me is to finish negotiations with the EU and then present the choice to the people: remain or go with the Brexit under the negotiated conditions. And then, immediately act upon the will of the people before they change their minds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

There is no historical precedence for the mess you are in now. You have never been in the situation where people where asked to give their opinion on something as important as this without people being fully informed of the consequences, and where the politicians didn't have a plan ready to act out on the people's will. In all previous referendums there has been a plan ready and the people's will has been executed promptly. Hence you can not point back in history and say we can't do this because it is unprecedented.

Secondly, this will never be an ongoing thing, leaving the EU is permanent. So when it actually happens the politicians must know they have the will of the people behind them. And pointing to a referendum 3-4 years ago, especially that referendum, doesn't really cut it.

The only thing that makes sense to me is to finish negotiations with the EU and then present the choice to the people: remain or go with the Brexit under the negotiated conditions. And then, immediately act upon the will of the people before they change their minds.

The ill-informed thing you could say about every general election that ever happened, I'd wager that the VAAAAAAAAAAAST fuckin' majority of people that lay down a vote don't have a detailed breakdown or awareness of said partys plans and intentions and methods of implementation.  Claiming ignorance regarding the consequences after the fact is a case of tough titty because, well, if no one knew and it weren't really out there didn't it occur to anyone at any point to go 'hang on, what the fuck are we voting for and how is it going to be put into action?'.  Because no one was given a clear definition in that regard. And consequences, politically speaking, aren't always so clear cut, best laid plans and all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

The ill-informed thing you could say about every general election that ever happened, I'd wager that the VAAAAAAAAAAAST fuckin' majority of people that lay down a vote don't have a detailed breakdown or awareness of said partys plans and intentions and methods of implementation.  Claiming ignorance regarding the consequences after the fact is a case of tough titty because, well, if no one knew and it weren't really out there didn't it occur to anyone at any point to go 'hang on, what the fuck are we voting for and how is it going to be put into action?'.  Because no one was given a clear definition in that regard. And consequences, politically speaking, aren't always so clear cut, best laid plans and all that.

Yes, but with every other election people can change their mind again after 4 years in the next election. And that is basically what I am arguing should be done here: Too much time has passed, a Brexit shouldn't happen without a new referendum. And thankfully through this period, and the work of May and likely Boris Johnson, when a new referendum is held people will know a lot more about the consequences of both leave and remain.

I would have had zero problems if the 2016 referendum resulted in swift Brexit. But there was no plan that allowed swift exit. Because there was no belief it would actually happen. Which led to these three years of pathetic negotiations with the EU.

Edited by SoulMonster

Share this post


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

The United Kingdom, like most countries, isn't a direct plebiscitary democracy.

Meaning that parliament is well within its rights to ignore the result of the referendum for the good of the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I don't understand this discussion at all. Just because it's not 'normal' to redo a referendum, doesn't mean you shouldn't do it if it makes sense, and SoulMonster has repeatedly given good reasons why it would make more than sense regarding this situation. If they finally make a deal, give the people in the UK the option to choose for said deal or to remain. This will be fair to everyone because they will know what they are voting for this time, unlike three years ago. If the majority still votes leave, so be it, at least this time they will know what they're getting themselves into. 

Edited by EvanG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, EvanG said:

I don't understand this discussion at all. Just because it's not 'normal' to redo a referendum, doesn't mean you shouldn't do it if it makes sense, and SoulMonster has repeatedly given good reasons why it would make more than sense regarding this situation. If they finally make a deal, give the people in the UK the option to choose for said deal or to remain. This will be fair to everyone because they will know what they are voting for this time, unlike three years ago. If the majority still votes leave, so be it, at least this time they will know what they're getting themselves into. 

Democracy is a process and I don't think its advisable to dive into doing odd things under its banner, lest you negate the thing in its entirity.  The idea is you have votes, votes have an outcome and then you have to respect and/or live with that outcome otherwise you are taking steps towards a sort of anarchy (there's a fair leap to go before anarchy but you get what I mean).  Its not normal for a reason, its not normal because its dangerous or potentially dangerous.  In a climate where the far right is kinda picking up speed you will do a great deal for their cause by corroborating their notions of a broken system by doing weird out of the way and, to a point, nonsensical and anti-democratic shit. 

The idea is simple, you have to stick with the results of such processes, if you don't then it can fall into an ad infinitum process of ANOTHER referendum...and another...and another.  All it requires is a vocal visible group with enough savvy to propagate their agenda well and you have successfully put across the idea that it is the will of the people to have x, y or z.  The truth is the people don't have a collective will, there are elections and there are results and at the end of each there will always be a certain amount of people who are disgruntled with the result but you have to live with it I'm afraid.  Either that or start lighting torches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Dazey said:

Meaning that parliament is well within its rights to ignore the result of the referendum for the good of the people.

You cannot do that as Parliament voted for the implementation of article 50 (461 to 89), and therefore leaving now is the default position, but you could revoke article 50 theoretically and there isn't a Parliamentary consensus for that either. 

Quote

 

Revoke article 50 two days before Britain would leave the EU without a deal

For: 184

Against: 293

 

 

Edited by DieselDaisy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens if a second referendum merely produces the same outcome as 2016? Are we going to see a third? A fourth? A fifth, because I cannot see these remainer shouty types retiring silently? Are the remainers going to continuously demonstrate contempt for democracy and insist on rerunning the thing until they get the result they want?

What if a second referendum produces: 48% leave 52% remain. You'd basically have replaced an earlier mandate that was incredibly close with a replacement mandate that was equally as close. British politics would be further torn apart. Farage would say, '' all you've done is re-run the thing at gunpoint''. Divisiveness between the two camps would widen further.

A second referendum is the last thing this country needs right now.

Share this post


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

Democracy is a process and I don't think its advisable to dive into doing odd things under its banner, lest you negate the thing in its entirity.  The idea is you have votes, votes have an outcome and then you have to respect and/or live with that outcome otherwise you are taking steps towards a sort of anarchy (there's a fair leap to go before anarchy but you get what I mean).  Its not normal for a reason, its not normal because its dangerous or potentially dangerous.  In a climate where the far right is kinda picking up speed you will do a great deal for their cause by corroborating their notions of a broken system by doing weird out of the way and, to a point, nonsensical and anti-democratic shit. 

The idea is simple, you have to stick with the results of such processes, if you don't then it can fall into an ad infinitum process of ANOTHER referendum...and another...and another.  All it requires is a vocal visible group with enough savvy to propagate their agenda well and you have successfully put across the idea that it is the will of the people to have x, y or z.  The truth is the people don't have a collective will, there are elections and there are results and at the end of each there will always be a certain amount of people who are disgruntled with the result but you have to live with it I'm afraid.  Either that or start lighting torches.

I agree in most situations, but not in this one. There are no rules that you can't redo a referendum. And in this situation it would make perfect sense for reasons that have been stated many times in this thread. If there will be a deal on the table finally, at least people will know what Brexit will actually stand for and let them make a rational decision based on that. 

Share this post


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

I don't understand this discussion at all. Just because it's not 'normal' to redo a referendum, doesn't mean you shouldn't do it if it makes sense, and SoulMonster has repeatedly given good reasons why it would make more than sense regarding this situation. If they finally make a deal, give the people in the UK the option to choose for said deal or to remain. This will be fair to everyone because they will know what they are voting for this time, unlike three years ago. If the majority still votes leave, so be it, at least this time they will know what they're getting themselves into. 

Yes, and even more so, a Brexit immediately following a second referendum would have electoral legitimacy. Whereas an exit now, after 3-4 years and a, too put it mildly, flawed process, would not have the same democratic legitimacy.

Just consider how divisive a Brexit 3-4 years after a referendum would be. Generations to come would complain about how people were misled and how undemocratic the departure was. It could color public discourse for decades. You want that hanging over your heads? 

But a second referendum followed by a swift exit would be accepted by (almost) all. It would have legitimacy. It would be democratic. There really is nothing to lose. Either the outcome of the first referendum is upheld and a Brexit can happen with little complaints and everybody knows that this is truly what a (more) informed people wants. Or the outcome is overturned and you can say you dodged a bullet by almost leaving the EU without having sufficient democratic support. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither what Evan and Soul are saying pays the slightest attention to the present political situation which will see an arch-Brexiteer enter Number 10, and a United Kingdom prepared to leave ''no-deal'' on 31st October! Even the opposition's leader (Jeremy Corbyn) does not have much enthusiasm for a second referendum! I can actually give you Parliamentary support for the second referendum by producing the indicative votes of March,

Quote

 

Confirmatory public vote

Require a public vote to confirm any Brexit deal passed by parliament before its ratification

268 For

295 Against


 

No Parliamentary majority there either!

So how is this second referendum supposed to occur when it isn't supported by the (future) Prime Minister, doesn't have a majority in the Commons, and isn't even supported with much enthusiasm by the opposition? How is it?

NB., confirmation of ''any Brexit deal'' does not entail that ''revoke article 50'', i.e. abolish Brexit, will be on the voting slip. 

Share this post


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

So how is this second referendum supposed to occur when it isn't supported

It probably won't. But don't you agree that a scenario where people can choose between the Brexit deal that is on the table or remain, would make the most sense? 

Share this post


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

It probably won't. But don't you agree that a scenario where people can choose between the Brexit deal that is on the table or remain, would make the most sense? 

It cannot happen though for the reasons I've outlined. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

It cannot happen though for the reasons I've outlined. 

 

Anything can happen, but you're right, it probably won't because it's such a mess, but do you agree with what I said?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, EvanG said:

Anything can happen, but you're right, it probably won't because it's such a mess, but do you agree with what I said?

No, because the withdrawal agreement is a dog's dinner and nothing a leave voter would vote for, so the leave majority (52%) would literally not be represented on the ballot paper! This all raises a further problem with the second referendum: ''what to put on the ballet paper''.

Also, the withdrawal agreement has been thrown out of Parliament three times. It is a dead deal here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

No, because the withdrawal agreement is a dog's dinner and nothing a leave voter would vote for, so the leave majority (52%) would literally not be represented on the ballot paper! This all raises a further problem with the second referendum: ''what to put on the ballet paper''.

Also, the withdrawal agreement has been thrown out of Parliament three times. It is a dead deal here.

But they were represented with lies the first time around?

Regardless of what the outcome of the deal is, humour me here... hypothetically speaking, let's say they have finally made a ''deal''... and there will be a referendum in which people can choose between that deal or remain, you are saying that wouldn't make the most sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, EvanG said:

But they were represented with lies the first time around?

Regardless of what the outcome of the deal is, humour me here... hypothetically speaking, let's say they have finally made a ''deal''... and there will be a referendum in which people can choose between that deal or remain, you are saying that wouldn't make the most sense?

According to your chums at the EU there is only one deal on offer, the withdrawal agreement, that the UK Parliament threw out three times. The EU have even disbanded their negotiation teams. 

Edited by DieselDaisy

Share this post


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

So how is this second referendum supposed to occur when it isn't supported by the (future) Prime Minister, doesn't have a majority in the Commons, and isn't even supported with much enthusiasm by the opposition? 

I don't think anyone here has said how it is supposed to happen. What I have been talking about is the whys not the hows.

3 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

 This all raises a further problem with the second referendum: ''what to put on the ballet paper''.

1) Remain.

2) Leave under the terms negotiated by Boris Johnson (or whoever).

Share this post


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

According to your chums at the EU there is only one deal on offer, the withdrawal agreement, that the UK Parliament threw out three times. The EU have even disbanded their negotiation teams. 

Then put the terms May arrived at on the ballot ;) You are making it sound a lot harder than it is, wonder why you are being so difficult :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×