British Politics

[Dazey]

8 minutes ago, spunko12345 said:

That goes for you too you fat cunt fairs fair 😄

Literally making a mong joke and you couldn't bring yourself to join in could you you Taff cunt?  

[DieselDaisy]

I think Brexit has sent Spunko mad.

Edited October 19, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[Dazey]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

I think Brexit has sent Spunko mad.

I think it was scrapie.  

[DieselDaisy]

He wouldn't be the first person Brexit has driven mad,

 

[spunko12345]

3 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I think Brexit has sent Spunko mad.

I think it has a bit. 

[SoulMonster]

7 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

You're a fan of opinion polling? Correct? Well we had a biggy a few days ago,

I am a fan of democracy . Leaving the EU now, three years after the referendum, would erode its democratic legitimacy and likely sour public discourse for generations. If it is true that people haven't been moved, then let's do another referendum. It will present the people with a clear choice between the latest withdrawal agreement and remaining, and not the vague "should we remain or leave?" from 2016. A desire to leave can be acted upon immediately since the agreement is there. No one can complain about the process and hopefully this will be a closure and the starting point for unification. Whereas leaving now, after this mess, will be a dividing thing and you won't get over it for generations.

[SoulMonster]

9 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

You're a fan of opinion polling? Correct? Well we had a biggy a few days ago,

The trend from opinion polling is merely that the leavers have become more entrenched, whilst the remainers have become more entrenched. There is no evidence of a swing from leave to remain. 

More on this: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/three-years-on-brexit-poll-puts-leave-ahead-by-8-points-pbwlctw7d

And regarding that poll. It is wrong to say the result was "50 % leave" and "42 % remain". In reality it was "42 % remain", "30 % leave with a deal," and "20 % leave without deal". This likely means that if it stood between "remain or leave with deal" it would be 42-50, while if it stood between "remain or leave without deal" it would be up to 72-20. What it would have been if the 2016 question was repeated (leave or remain) is impossibly to say but it certainly wouldn't be 42-50 because some of those who would only vote leave if a deal was presented would when presented with only those two choices now vote remain to avoid pushing for a no-deal, implying that the people don't want to leave on any cost.

Furthermore, looking at one poll out of 226 polls that have been conducted is a bit misleading:

"Two hundred and four out of 226 polls showed Remain in the lead, with 15 tied and just seven for Leave. Seventy four of those polls were taken in 2019, when only one poll favoured Leave.

The reality of public sentiment is in stark contrast to Boris Johnson's claims that the public just want to "get Brexit done", or indeed that we are gearing up for a 'people vs parliament' general election.

Anthony Wells, director of political research at YouGov, told the Evening Standard: "The polling evidence is concrete. The overwhelming majority of questions asking people if Brexit is right or wrong, or if they would now vote Remain or Leave, show a lead for Remain, and have done for over two years.

"The characterisation of the situation as people vs parliament doesn't really stand up when the public are split over Brexit. It is more a case of half the public vs half of parliament."

Source: https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/evening-standard-yougov-poll-of-polls-back-remain-1-6314232

[DieselDaisy]

5 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

I am a fan of democracy

Then if you're a fan of democracy you should respect the result of the 2016 ''once in a generation'' referendum.

Edited October 20, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[bucketfoot]

4 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

I am a fan of democracy . Leaving the EU now, three years after the referendum, would erode its democratic legitimacy and likely sour public discourse for generations. If it is true that people haven't been moved, then let's do another referendum. It will present the people with a clear choice between the latest withdrawal agreement and remaining, and not the vague "should we remain or leave?" from 2016. A desire to leave can be acted upon immediately since the agreement is there. No one can complain about the process and hopefully this will be a closure and the starting point for unification. Whereas leaving now, after this mess, will be a dividing thing and you won't get over it for generations.

They have failed to honour the last referendum, after being re-elected on manifestos stating they would honour it. Why should they be trusted to honour the next one if the result is the same?

Leavers shouldn't have to accept having to win twice for their victory to count, when I'm sure Remainers will only need to win once.

A second referendum should not be an option until the result of the first one has been implemented.

[DieselDaisy]

78,761 at the protest yesterday. I was therefore correct when I said that I'd would be surprised if it exceeded 100,000. Only a fool would see those crowds and deem it a million.

https://twitter.com/MarquessBraith1/status/1185841687442153474

 

[bucketfoot]

A million.

[SoulMonster]

20 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Then if you're a fan of democracy you should respect the result of the 2016 ''once in a generation'' referendum.

We've been through this numerous times. Opinions come with expiry dates. It is as simple as that. A second referendum with swift follow-through (leave based on existing deal or remain), would be much more democratically rigorous than leaving based on what people said three years ago.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

We've been through this numerous times. Opinions come with expiry dates. It is as simple as that. A second referendum with swift follow-through (leave based on existing deal or remain), would be much more democratically rigorous than leaving based on what people said three years ago.

I do not agree in the slightest. We've been through this before though; no point in going in circles again.

 

[SoulMonster]

17 minutes ago, bucketfoot said:

They have failed to honour the last referendum, after being re-elected on manifestos stating they would honour it. Why should they be trusted to honour the next one if the result is the same?

The first referendum didn't say anything upon which conditions the UK was to leave the EU, hence it was up to politicians to vote over withdrawal agreements based on their understanding of whether it was good or not.

A second referendum should be less vague and ask about accepting the latest withdrawal agreement or remain. If the majority voted to accept that agreement, Brexit should follow immediately.

That's the difference. Basically, you would take the decision out of the politicians' hands,

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

I do not agree in the slightest. We've been through this before though; no point in going in circles again.

You don't think there is any chance you will at some point realize that democracy is a good thing?

[Dazey]

I’ve got to say that a bit of me was kinda hoping that they’d just get it over and done with yesterday.  

[bucketfoot]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

The first referendum didn't say anything upon which conditions the UK was to leave the EU, hence it was up to politicians to vote over withdrawal agreements based on their understanding of whether it was good or not.

A second referendum should be less vague and ask about accepting the latest withdrawal agreement or remain. If the majority voted to accept that agreement, Brexit should follow immediately.

That's the difference. Basically, you would take the decision out of the politicians' hands,

Article 50 states that a member state will leave with or without an agreement, MPs voted to trigger it.

There is an agreed deal awaiting ratification. If it is not ratified, we leave without a deal.

Politicians already decided to hand the decision over to the people.

There is no reason whatsoever to put it back to the people once the decision to leave has been made.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, bucketfoot said:

Article 50 states that a member state will leave with or without an agreement, MPs voted to trigger it.

There is an agreed deal awaiting ratification. If it is not ratified, we leave without a deal.

Politicians already decided to hand the decision over to the people.

There is no reason whatsoever to put it back to the people once the decision to leave has been made.

The referendum was, "should we stay or should we go", which leaves a lot of wiggle-room for politicians to not leave until they feel it is anchored through a good agreement...for better and for worse. 

[soon]

Democracy is the will of the people. Implicit in that truth is the will of as many people as possible. There is nothing about the lofty ambitions of democracy that says that votes need to be down to 50% +1 for democratic decision making. This system is about expediency and not the goal of representing the will of as many people as possible. 

Does a 51.9% vote really meet the threshold in cases so monumental as Brexit? Canada didnt think so when it held a Quebec sovereignty vote around 1995. Canada's government said that 50% + 1 would be insufficient to fracture the Country based on.

Whereas there is nothing in democratic theory that says 'a slogan calling a referendum "once in a life time" negates the rest of democratic theory.' Far from that, there is an important field of study within democracy about the tyranny of the masses. 50 + 1 models dilute the tyranny of the masses down to that little 1%!!!! In the Brexit vote 1.9% of the people brokered the power - this is anything but the stated goals of democracy.

Edited October 20, 2019 by soon

[DieselDaisy]

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

You don't think there is any chance you will at some point realize that democracy is a good thing?

What you propose is the very antithesis of democracy, i.e., re-running a democratic vote because you/they (remainers) don't like the original result. 

[SoulMonster]

34 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

What you propose is the very antithesis of democracy, i.e., re-running a democratic vote because you/they (remainers) don't like the original result. 

Asking the people for direction is as democratic as it gets. 

And it wouldn't be a re-run of the botched first referendum, but asking the people to choose between the recent withdrawal agreement and to remain. Not a silly "remain or leave."

Refusing to ask the people for direction, is the opposite of democracy. 

There are only two outcomes: yes to leave and this can be effectuated immediately since the agreement exists and is already approved by the EU, or remain. In either case it would be contemporarily anchored among the populous and thus not a decision likely to foster resentment for generations. It would be the first step towards unifying the two groups. Whatever the outcome, it would have full democratic legitimacy. 

The only reason for objecting to something this reasonable is because you fear the outcome, which means you are willing to reject the principles of democracy when it suits you. In the words of a famous philosopher: Sad! 

[bucketfoot]

11 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Asking the people for direction is as democratic as it gets. 

And it wouldn't be a re-run of the botched first referendum, but asking the people to choose between the recent withdrawal agreement and to remain. Not a silly "remain or leave."

Refusing to ask the people for direction, is the opposite of democracy. 

There are only two outcomes: yes to leave and this can be effectuated immediately since the agreement exists and is already approved by the EU, or remain. In either case it would be contemporarily anchored among the populous and thus not a decision likely to foster resentment for generations. It would be the first step towards unifying the two groups. Whatever the outcome, it would have full democratic legitimacy. 

The only reason for objecting to something this reasonable is because you fear the outcome, which means you are willing to reject the principles of democracy when it suits you. In the words of a famous philosopher: Sad! 

Again, what you are advocating by moving the goalposts in that way, ultimately renders a leave vote to be worth half of that of a remain vote. That is not democratic.

The people have already been asked for direction, they gave it and it has not been respected and is openly being thwarted by those who choose not to accept it.

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, bucketfoot said:

Again, what you are advocating by moving the goalposts in that way, ultimately renders a leave vote to be worth half of that of a remain vote. That is not democratic.

The people have already been asked for direction, they gave it and it has not been respected and is openly being thwarted by those who choose not to accept it.

There is two possible outcomes of a second referendum, and both of them would be good:

1. The majority still wants to leave under  the pre-negotiated deal. The outcome would be a swift Brexit based on already negotiated terms, so people would know what they would be getting. There would be no room for politicians to avoid it. It would have full democratic legitimacy since it would undeniably be based on the democratic will of the people.

2. The majority wants to stay. Phew! A bullet was dodged, more precisely the outcome that a big decision like leaving or staying in the EU was done contrary to the people's desire. The alternative, leaving without it being anchored in the people's will is the worst case scenario because, unlike referendums, leaving the EU is a once-in-a-lifetime thing. That would have been a democratic failure beyond comparison.

So this is a democratic win-win situation regardless of whether you are for or against leaving the EU. And it is the quickest way forward to start unifying the nation again, because no one could claim that the outcome wasn't aligned with the democratic will of the people. 

[DieselDaisy]

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Asking the people for direction is as democratic as it gets. 

And it wouldn't be a re-run of the botched first referendum, but asking the people to choose between the recent withdrawal agreement and to remain. Not a silly "remain or leave."

Refusing to ask the people for direction, is the opposite of democracy. 

There are only two outcomes: yes to leave and this can be effectuated immediately since the agreement exists and is already approved by the EU, or remain. In either case it would be contemporarily anchored among the populous and thus not a decision likely to foster resentment for generations. It would be the first step towards unifying the two groups. Whatever the outcome, it would have full democratic legitimacy. 

The only reason for objecting to something this reasonable is because you fear the outcome, which means you are willing to reject the principles of democracy when it suits you. In the words of a famous philosopher: Sad! 

I would object to a second referendum if remain had won the first one. 

Edited October 20, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[bucketfoot]

18 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

There is two possible outcomes of a second referendum, and both of them would be good:

1. The majority still wants to leave under  the pre-negotiated deal. The outcome would be a swift Brexit based on already negotiated terms, so people would know what they would be getting. There would be no room for politicians to avoid it. It would have full democratic legitimacy since it would undeniably be based on the democratic will of the people.

2. The majority wants to stay. Phew! A bullet was dodged, more precisely the outcome that a big decision like leaving or staying in the EU was done contrary to the people's desire. The alternative, leaving without it being anchored in the people's will is the worst case scenario because, unlike referendums, leaving the EU is a once-in-a-lifetime thing. That would have been a democratic failure beyond comparison.

So this is a democratic win-win situation regardless of whether you are for or against leaving the EU. And it is the quickest way forward to start unifying the nation again, because no one could claim that the outcome wasn't aligned with the democratic will of the people. 

Force another referendum before implementing the first and you will lose millions of leave voters who will not view it as legitimate. There will be a ridiculously small turnout and remain will likely win 90%-10% or something similar. It will make a mockery of the whole thing. People will see democracy as pointless and not bother voting again.

[DieselDaisy]

5 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

78,761 at the protest yesterday. I was therefore correct when I said that I'd would be surprised if it exceeded 100,000. Only a fool would see those crowds and deem it a million.

https://twitter.com/MarquessBraith1/status/1185841687442153474

 

Odd how Soon, Soul and Spunko have suddenly lost interested in this discussion, upon which they were so keen yesterday? Strange that!

3 minutes ago, bucketfoot said:

Force another referendum before implementing the first and you will lose millions of leave voters who will not view it as legitimate. There will be a ridiculously small turnout and remain will likely win 90%-10% or something similar. It will make a mockery of the whole thing. People will see democracy as pointless and not bother voting again.

It will do nothing less than destroy parliamentary democracy in this country. Nobody will bother to vote for elections any longer in protest.