Quizzes & Puzzles43 mins ago
Straight Question For Zacs And The Other Remainiacs...
74 Answers
Ignoring all the dilly dallying since June 23rd. Do you personally think that ultimately the result of the referendum should be implemented?
Answers
This pre Vote article tipifies the simplistic cobblers which was peddled:
'This is a legal mechanism by which Britain withdraws from the EU. Mr Cameron could do this at any time, but it is perhaps most likely to happen at a meeting of EU heads of state on 27 June.'
http://
'This is a legal mechanism by which Britain withdraws from the EU. Mr Cameron could do this at any time, but it is perhaps most likely to happen at a meeting of EU heads of state on 27 June.'
http://
For goodness sack stop bickering about legalities.
Nothing was illegal about the vote to leave or remain in the eu it was whether parliament should be consulted on triggering a50 or not. At this stage that has been decided by law that they should. If that changes, it changes if not then it doesn't.
I do think the original op question is easy to answer yes or no whether a remainer or bretixer.
Democracy is either yes or no. Representation of the majority of people's views is either encacted or not. If not how can that be democracy?
Perhaps the older people that swayed the vote to leave have enough life experience to know what is better? Perhaps the youner people think all older people are stupid or senile? Perhaps and this is a big perhaps, the majority of older people haven't been indoctrinated into believing anything they are told and that they think for themselves?
Nothing was illegal about the vote to leave or remain in the eu it was whether parliament should be consulted on triggering a50 or not. At this stage that has been decided by law that they should. If that changes, it changes if not then it doesn't.
I do think the original op question is easy to answer yes or no whether a remainer or bretixer.
Democracy is either yes or no. Representation of the majority of people's views is either encacted or not. If not how can that be democracy?
Perhaps the older people that swayed the vote to leave have enough life experience to know what is better? Perhaps the youner people think all older people are stupid or senile? Perhaps and this is a big perhaps, the majority of older people haven't been indoctrinated into believing anything they are told and that they think for themselves?
“If parliament always implemented what the majority want, we would have capital punishment, no income tax, and a speed limit of 90mph. “
The thing is, jayne, that the UK has not had a national referendum (with a 72% turnout) on any of those topics, so the situation is slightly different. Furthermore, the question of EU membership involved a fundamental issue of national sovereignty. Argue how you like, but by stealth the UK has lost its primacy to make laws which contravene EU law. It is a fundamental tenet of the Lisbon Treaty that where a conflict exists between EU law and national law, EU law prevails and not only that, the final arbiter of any disputes arising from that is a foreign court. Deciding whether you agree with this is somewhat different to deciding what the speed limit should be. (And bear in mind that should the EU decide to implement a speed limit across the 28 nations not only would the public not have a say, but Westminster MPs would have no say either).
You can hypothesise all you like about the demographics of the vote (and it is only hypothesis because no such record was kept and the estimates you cite are about as good as opinion polls) but the plain fact is that more people voted to leave than to remain. Whether that would be the case in 10 years’ time (if the EU in its current form is still around, which is doubtful) is immaterial.
Leaving aside the legalities (which 3T’s asked us to do in his question) the government stated, both when the referendum bill was being debated in Parliament (which the Commons voted through by six to one) and in their pamphlet to the electorate, that it was the electorate’s choice and that their choice would be enacted. There were no ifs, no buts, no maybes. It was simply “Remain” or “Leave”. The current mess is the result of ineptitude on the part of the previous administration. But, in the light of the overwhelming vote to provide a referendum and the government’s pledge to see the result enacted it would be an outrage if that pledge was not maintained. To suggest that the referendum was a “glorified opinion poll” is about as sensible as saying a General Election is a glorified version of Strictly Come Dancing.
The thing is, jayne, that the UK has not had a national referendum (with a 72% turnout) on any of those topics, so the situation is slightly different. Furthermore, the question of EU membership involved a fundamental issue of national sovereignty. Argue how you like, but by stealth the UK has lost its primacy to make laws which contravene EU law. It is a fundamental tenet of the Lisbon Treaty that where a conflict exists between EU law and national law, EU law prevails and not only that, the final arbiter of any disputes arising from that is a foreign court. Deciding whether you agree with this is somewhat different to deciding what the speed limit should be. (And bear in mind that should the EU decide to implement a speed limit across the 28 nations not only would the public not have a say, but Westminster MPs would have no say either).
You can hypothesise all you like about the demographics of the vote (and it is only hypothesis because no such record was kept and the estimates you cite are about as good as opinion polls) but the plain fact is that more people voted to leave than to remain. Whether that would be the case in 10 years’ time (if the EU in its current form is still around, which is doubtful) is immaterial.
Leaving aside the legalities (which 3T’s asked us to do in his question) the government stated, both when the referendum bill was being debated in Parliament (which the Commons voted through by six to one) and in their pamphlet to the electorate, that it was the electorate’s choice and that their choice would be enacted. There were no ifs, no buts, no maybes. It was simply “Remain” or “Leave”. The current mess is the result of ineptitude on the part of the previous administration. But, in the light of the overwhelming vote to provide a referendum and the government’s pledge to see the result enacted it would be an outrage if that pledge was not maintained. To suggest that the referendum was a “glorified opinion poll” is about as sensible as saying a General Election is a glorified version of Strictly Come Dancing.
Yes.
As a person who voted to remain (and isn't a 'Remainiac' or a 'Remoaner' or whatever other current schoolyard word is in vogue), I feel that ultimately it would be very damaging for the country if MPs voted against the wishes of the majority.
There is a clear mandate from the electorate to leave, even if the referendum is not legally binding.
As a person who voted to remain (and isn't a 'Remainiac' or a 'Remoaner' or whatever other current schoolyard word is in vogue), I feel that ultimately it would be very damaging for the country if MPs voted against the wishes of the majority.
There is a clear mandate from the electorate to leave, even if the referendum is not legally binding.
"I voted remain to avoid the very situation we're now in Tora. "
So you knew such a situation would prevail the, Zacs? By your reasoning we should never consider leaving, whatever harm the EU bestows upon its member nations because to do so is a bit tricky.
The EU's own Lisbon Treaty provides for a member to leave:
"Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."
What's being debated now both in the courts and in Parliament is our constitutional requirements. There may indeed be challenges to abandoning individual laws which were formerly EU laws subsumed into UK law. Those challenges can be dealt with as and when they arise and I accept that some of them may be complex. But there is nothing complicated about leaving: A50 provides for it and the only "negotiations" that have to be carried out between then and the decree absolute relate to the UK's relationship with what remains of the EU. This can be anything between no relationship at all beyond what any normal, non-EU country has, through to co-operation on trade, commerce, law enforcement or anything else it is felt necessary to maintain. But those negotiations need not, and indeed should not delay withdrawal. If they are not bottomed out in time so be it. The important thing is to rid the country once and for all of the pernicious influence that the EU and all its institutions have upon the UK. If that means a bit of instability in the meantime it is a price well worth paying.
So you knew such a situation would prevail the, Zacs? By your reasoning we should never consider leaving, whatever harm the EU bestows upon its member nations because to do so is a bit tricky.
The EU's own Lisbon Treaty provides for a member to leave:
"Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."
What's being debated now both in the courts and in Parliament is our constitutional requirements. There may indeed be challenges to abandoning individual laws which were formerly EU laws subsumed into UK law. Those challenges can be dealt with as and when they arise and I accept that some of them may be complex. But there is nothing complicated about leaving: A50 provides for it and the only "negotiations" that have to be carried out between then and the decree absolute relate to the UK's relationship with what remains of the EU. This can be anything between no relationship at all beyond what any normal, non-EU country has, through to co-operation on trade, commerce, law enforcement or anything else it is felt necessary to maintain. But those negotiations need not, and indeed should not delay withdrawal. If they are not bottomed out in time so be it. The important thing is to rid the country once and for all of the pernicious influence that the EU and all its institutions have upon the UK. If that means a bit of instability in the meantime it is a price well worth paying.
NJ
'But there is nothing complicated about leaving: A50 provides for it and the only "negotiations" that have to be carried out between then and the decree absolute relate to the UK's relationship with what remains of the EU. This can be anything between no relationship at all beyond what any normal, non-EU country has, through to co-operation on trade, commerce, law enforcement or anything else it is felt necessary to maintain. But those negotiations need not, and indeed should not delay withdrawal. If they are not bottomed out in time so be it.
Do you not see the irony of that statement? You call it simple yet then go on to describe something with many seen potential pitfalls, not to mention unseen ones. Until the appeal, we're now in a situation where parliament has to vote on us leaving. Only this morning there's an article about May's senior politicians being 'difficult' if they don't get cabinet positions back within the year. If you think that's simple then your definition of the word is quite different to mine.
'But there is nothing complicated about leaving: A50 provides for it and the only "negotiations" that have to be carried out between then and the decree absolute relate to the UK's relationship with what remains of the EU. This can be anything between no relationship at all beyond what any normal, non-EU country has, through to co-operation on trade, commerce, law enforcement or anything else it is felt necessary to maintain. But those negotiations need not, and indeed should not delay withdrawal. If they are not bottomed out in time so be it.
Do you not see the irony of that statement? You call it simple yet then go on to describe something with many seen potential pitfalls, not to mention unseen ones. Until the appeal, we're now in a situation where parliament has to vote on us leaving. Only this morning there's an article about May's senior politicians being 'difficult' if they don't get cabinet positions back within the year. If you think that's simple then your definition of the word is quite different to mine.
"Do you not see the irony of that statement?"
No I don't, Zacs. What is needed is a clear separation between leaving and negotiating our future relationship. One does not depend on the success or failure of the other. Once again, leaving aside the legalities of our leaving process (which is actually not that complicated) the process of leaving is quite simple. We trigger A50 and two years later (maximum unless the other 27 nations agree to an extension) we're out. If all the "negotiations" fail to find agreement we're still out. Leaving is not conditional upon successful negotiations. The two year period (which seems eminently sensible) is provided to allow a successful transition from EU membership to normality.
Those suggesting that a second referendum should be held to ratify the terms of leaving does not hold water. What if the electorate rejects the terms of leaving? We don't leave? I think not.
Nobody with any sense suggested that negotiating our future relationship would be an easy process. You cannot disentangle forty years of enmeshment overnight. But opponents of Brexit who are trying to thwart the process by suggesting it is dependent on negotiations for the future are simply muddying the waters. There are two clear and separate aims: to leave the EU and to negotiate a future relationship outside it. The first will be settled either by the appeal (which I doubt) or by politicians getting themselves into gear. The second will take longer and will require MPs to apply themselves to a number of fairly complex issues.
No I don't, Zacs. What is needed is a clear separation between leaving and negotiating our future relationship. One does not depend on the success or failure of the other. Once again, leaving aside the legalities of our leaving process (which is actually not that complicated) the process of leaving is quite simple. We trigger A50 and two years later (maximum unless the other 27 nations agree to an extension) we're out. If all the "negotiations" fail to find agreement we're still out. Leaving is not conditional upon successful negotiations. The two year period (which seems eminently sensible) is provided to allow a successful transition from EU membership to normality.
Those suggesting that a second referendum should be held to ratify the terms of leaving does not hold water. What if the electorate rejects the terms of leaving? We don't leave? I think not.
Nobody with any sense suggested that negotiating our future relationship would be an easy process. You cannot disentangle forty years of enmeshment overnight. But opponents of Brexit who are trying to thwart the process by suggesting it is dependent on negotiations for the future are simply muddying the waters. There are two clear and separate aims: to leave the EU and to negotiate a future relationship outside it. The first will be settled either by the appeal (which I doubt) or by politicians getting themselves into gear. The second will take longer and will require MPs to apply themselves to a number of fairly complex issues.
Leaving a club you have belonged to for a long time can, and in this case obviously is, difficult for some people to cope with.
Overall the EU was and is toxic in many ways and luckily the majority could see that. Even now remainers find it hard to see the benefits that will be gained because they are too blinkered. It's not their fault really. Being indoctrinate by your small minded big brother is very compelling.
I don't know any Bretixer who thinks the whole process will be simple or easy. But if we wait for everything to be easy we will never move to a better place. That is called being frightened into inactivity. We will always be in an abusive relationship where we are taken advantage of and have to say thank you while we are being smacked in the face for doing well.
I had a friend once who was in an obusive relationship. Whenever we said she would be better off out of it she would always say it was too hard and she would be worse off out as she would have nowhere to live and no money and all manner of excuses came out. When she finally left with two black eyes and a couple of broken ribs it did seem for a while that it was worse. Living on someone's floor for a couple of months and slowing getting better physically and emotionally. But three years later she is transformed, happy, working and contented with life.
Overall the EU was and is toxic in many ways and luckily the majority could see that. Even now remainers find it hard to see the benefits that will be gained because they are too blinkered. It's not their fault really. Being indoctrinate by your small minded big brother is very compelling.
I don't know any Bretixer who thinks the whole process will be simple or easy. But if we wait for everything to be easy we will never move to a better place. That is called being frightened into inactivity. We will always be in an abusive relationship where we are taken advantage of and have to say thank you while we are being smacked in the face for doing well.
I had a friend once who was in an obusive relationship. Whenever we said she would be better off out of it she would always say it was too hard and she would be worse off out as she would have nowhere to live and no money and all manner of excuses came out. When she finally left with two black eyes and a couple of broken ribs it did seem for a while that it was worse. Living on someone's floor for a couple of months and slowing getting better physically and emotionally. But three years later she is transformed, happy, working and contented with life.
Comparing being in the EU to domestic abuse, or attempting to draw any parallels at all, is a bit low. Ditto all that brainwashing crap. I'm sick of this idea that permeates both sides, that "either you agree with me, or you are brainwashed by the leftie liberal wishy-washy media elite muesli-eaters" (from the right), and its equivalent from the left (ie anyone who is right-wing is racist/ sexist/ *ist, and therefore not worth talking to). It's pathetic, and it basically explains what happened in the US on Tuesday in spades. That not a single state voted differently in the separate president/ senate races shows just how divided and polarised politics has become, and it's typified by posts such as cassa's, with its faux-sympathetic "aww, you're just too indoctrinated to see the obvious" patronising bullcrap.
Enough. Those who voted in the EU referendum, overwhelmingly, did so for honest reasons, whichever way they voted. Perhaps one side was pragmatic, and the other hopeful, and no doubt there was plenty of diversity in the reasons for either vote. Too, I don't mean to say that all reasons are necessarily correct -- clearly, we can argue over why we voted how we did. I just am sick to death of this idea that one side or the other was the "stupid" vote, or the indoctrinated vote, or whatever dismissive adjective you could care to name. It kills the argument stone dead, and it should have no place in any discussion.
Enough. Those who voted in the EU referendum, overwhelmingly, did so for honest reasons, whichever way they voted. Perhaps one side was pragmatic, and the other hopeful, and no doubt there was plenty of diversity in the reasons for either vote. Too, I don't mean to say that all reasons are necessarily correct -- clearly, we can argue over why we voted how we did. I just am sick to death of this idea that one side or the other was the "stupid" vote, or the indoctrinated vote, or whatever dismissive adjective you could care to name. It kills the argument stone dead, and it should have no place in any discussion.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.