ChatterBank0 min ago
With The Ongoing Debacle That Is Brexit….
…has your attitude towards politics changed?
I’ve spoken to so many voters, both Labour and Conservative, who say that such is their disgust at the blatant disregard for the electorate and for the democratic process that they see no point in ever voting again.
What about you?
I’ve spoken to so many voters, both Labour and Conservative, who say that such is their disgust at the blatant disregard for the electorate and for the democratic process that they see no point in ever voting again.
What about you?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// The only way the result can be legitimately overturned is to rerun the referendum in exactly the same format as the first ... //
Quite apart from the fact that this assertion is completely unjustified, it's also a totally impossible standard to meet. The format of a future referendum ought by definition to represent what has happened since the last one, which will therefore include addressing in more substance the actual detail of *how* the UK is to Leave, if it indeed still wants to.
It's not a matter of spin, either. These are fundamental principles of the UK constitution. It would be nice if, for a change, you presented an argument that stood on its own merits, without attacking the integrity of its opposition.
Quite apart from the fact that this assertion is completely unjustified, it's also a totally impossible standard to meet. The format of a future referendum ought by definition to represent what has happened since the last one, which will therefore include addressing in more substance the actual detail of *how* the UK is to Leave, if it indeed still wants to.
It's not a matter of spin, either. These are fundamental principles of the UK constitution. It would be nice if, for a change, you presented an argument that stood on its own merits, without attacking the integrity of its opposition.
// It would be nice if, for a change, you presented an argument that stood on its own merits, without attacking the integrity of its opposition//
A future referendum which reaffirmed the Leave result first would be disregarded in the same contemptuous way and circumvented by Jims in and out of Parliament.
A future referendum which reaffirmed the Leave result first would be disregarded in the same contemptuous way and circumvented by Jims in and out of Parliament.
v-e: Firstly, as to your most recent post, we can cross that bridge when we come to it. But, at the very least, you should certainly stop confusing "disagreeing with" a result with "disregarding" it.
* * * * * * * * * *
// Was Article 50 approved by the House overwhelmingly?
And doesn't this give a moral argument for leaving on March 29th even if there are legal get-arounds? //
Yes, it was, but I am not sure the second part follows. Let me concede, for the moment, the idea that we should revoke A50 notification altogether some day in the near future as too far-fetched. But even in that case, the referendum made no mention as to *when* its result was to be finally implemented. Brexit is in no sense threatened if it happens on the 30th of March, 2019, as opposed to the 29th. Why, too, should another month matter either, if the effect is to ensure that, once it is done, it is done properly?
Whether this is the effect in practice of the delay is another matter. It may very well not be, especially as long as the only option to implement other than No-Deal is the current Withdrawal Agreement, which is almost universally accepted to be awful even by those who have voted for it.
Maybe this won't do to those who hold that the only viable solution was to walk away following the referendum at the earliest possible moment. But doing so was quite impossible to start with, because our own constitution forbade it and because basic decency on the international stage required us to at least allow *some* time to pass between making the decision to leave and actually doing so. Even now, walking away will still never resolve anything, either with the EU or with the world we're supposed to become more open to. It would merely be a blip (and quite a damaging one at that) before finally normality was restored and everyone remembered that they had to deal with other countries rather than argue with them.
* * * * * * * * * *
// Was Article 50 approved by the House overwhelmingly?
And doesn't this give a moral argument for leaving on March 29th even if there are legal get-arounds? //
Yes, it was, but I am not sure the second part follows. Let me concede, for the moment, the idea that we should revoke A50 notification altogether some day in the near future as too far-fetched. But even in that case, the referendum made no mention as to *when* its result was to be finally implemented. Brexit is in no sense threatened if it happens on the 30th of March, 2019, as opposed to the 29th. Why, too, should another month matter either, if the effect is to ensure that, once it is done, it is done properly?
Whether this is the effect in practice of the delay is another matter. It may very well not be, especially as long as the only option to implement other than No-Deal is the current Withdrawal Agreement, which is almost universally accepted to be awful even by those who have voted for it.
Maybe this won't do to those who hold that the only viable solution was to walk away following the referendum at the earliest possible moment. But doing so was quite impossible to start with, because our own constitution forbade it and because basic decency on the international stage required us to at least allow *some* time to pass between making the decision to leave and actually doing so. Even now, walking away will still never resolve anything, either with the EU or with the world we're supposed to become more open to. It would merely be a blip (and quite a damaging one at that) before finally normality was restored and everyone remembered that they had to deal with other countries rather than argue with them.
//Brexit is in no sense threatened if it happens on the 30th of March, 2019, as opposed to the 29th. Why, too, should another month matter either, if the effect is to ensure that, once it is done, it is done properly?//
Fine piece of sophistry, Jim. (The paragraphs following it are just rhetoric rather than honest arguments)
The "done properly" is a subjective judgment to be decided by a majority Remainer House.
Look me in the eye and tell me that I and a majority of my fellow citizens are not[i in your view fools for wanting to leave the EU.
And that on this issue (if on no other) you and [i]your] mates are determined to disregard our wishes of us fools (and of course your) best interests.
That is what you think, isn't it?
Fine piece of sophistry, Jim. (The paragraphs following it are just rhetoric rather than honest arguments)
The "done properly" is a subjective judgment to be decided by a majority Remainer House.
Look me in the eye and tell me that I and a majority of my fellow citizens are not[i in your view fools for wanting to leave the EU.
And that on this issue (if on no other) you and [i]your] mates are determined to disregard our wishes of us fools (and of course your) best interests.
That is what you think, isn't it?
I'm always honest in my arguments, v-e. Or, at the very least, I always try to be. No, I don't think you fools for wanting to leave the EU. I profoundly disagree with that aim, and I disagree even more strongly with both the current visions for carrying that out. That doesn't remotely make Brexiters fools.
With respect to "done properly", for example: yes, I concede too that my idea of that is different from yours. But still the point holds: if *you* get what you want out of Brexit, then why should it matter to you that it happens now or at any other time soon? It says a lot that Brexiters in Parliament, and there are many even if they are not outnumbered, are firstly divided themselves on what the nature of "properly" even means, but still don't seem to agree that they ought to work that one out *before* it happens, rather than after.
Returning to the topic of the OP, I agree that having a majority Remainer House trying to implement Brexit is not working, especially not for Brexit supporters in the country. But then, again, that still supports the idea that Brexit supporters shouldn't give up voting. If you are dissatisfied with the Commons *now*, just wait to see what it's like when you gave up even trying to shape it. I can think of no stronger argument for Naomi, and those she has spoken to, continuing to vote, to do all they can to put their views forward, than that to stop doing so would be to leave politics to me and my like for good.
With respect to "done properly", for example: yes, I concede too that my idea of that is different from yours. But still the point holds: if *you* get what you want out of Brexit, then why should it matter to you that it happens now or at any other time soon? It says a lot that Brexiters in Parliament, and there are many even if they are not outnumbered, are firstly divided themselves on what the nature of "properly" even means, but still don't seem to agree that they ought to work that one out *before* it happens, rather than after.
Returning to the topic of the OP, I agree that having a majority Remainer House trying to implement Brexit is not working, especially not for Brexit supporters in the country. But then, again, that still supports the idea that Brexit supporters shouldn't give up voting. If you are dissatisfied with the Commons *now*, just wait to see what it's like when you gave up even trying to shape it. I can think of no stronger argument for Naomi, and those she has spoken to, continuing to vote, to do all they can to put their views forward, than that to stop doing so would be to leave politics to me and my like for good.
If a second referendum returned 60% for leaving and 40% for staying the anti-Brexit campaigners would be forced to abandon former arguments (false info, didn't know what they were voting for, old xenophobes dead replaced by woke eighteen year olds, who wants to be poorer) and invent new ones.
Given that the Jims are so much smarter than the VEs this won't be too difficult, will it? It re-establishes the case for eugenics: VEs can't be trusted to make wise decisions. Just about every lefty from Shaw to Wells to Keynes acknowledged this obvious fact a hundred years ago.
(Not that today's lefty, even in the rare case that he's sufficiently educated to know it, will admit such)
Given that the Jims are so much smarter than the VEs this won't be too difficult, will it? It re-establishes the case for eugenics: VEs can't be trusted to make wise decisions. Just about every lefty from Shaw to Wells to Keynes acknowledged this obvious fact a hundred years ago.
(Not that today's lefty, even in the rare case that he's sufficiently educated to know it, will admit such)
Leave the EU ought to mean: quit the club, don't pay subs any more, make our own rules for trade outside the EU, reject EU regulation on any internal matters like environmental standards or human rights.
What is so bad about that? And why does this contradict the idea that we still want to trade on good, if not the same, terms with our European neighb ours?
What is so bad about that? And why does this contradict the idea that we still want to trade on good, if not the same, terms with our European neighb ours?
What even is the point of asking me what I think if, once I tell you what it is, you persist in maintaining the exact opposite anyway?
As it happens I've been reading some of the seminal texts on the UK constitution lately: Bagehot and Dicey. Neither of them really holds back, to be sure, on their views of the influence of "the masses" on politics. But, then, Dicey also turns rather sour on the issue of women's suffrage, and both seem to have a peculiar dislike for the French, and far too much deference to the traditional class system.
As it happens I've been reading some of the seminal texts on the UK constitution lately: Bagehot and Dicey. Neither of them really holds back, to be sure, on their views of the influence of "the masses" on politics. But, then, Dicey also turns rather sour on the issue of women's suffrage, and both seem to have a peculiar dislike for the French, and far too much deference to the traditional class system.
I think all decent MPs in Parliament following the referendum result most of them disagreed with ought to have got together to ensure (or try to) that we left the EU on good terms. From the point of view of the Remainers this would be mitigating the damage (exclusively defined in economic terms I note). Given that uncertainty about the future rather than a known policy which will be harmful to your business (e.g. raising the minimum wage to £20 an hour) which you can plan for, the the Remainer tactics have been less helpful than, say, a No Deal Brexit on a fixed date.
Parliament can only come together inasmuch as the government allows it to, though (it is the government that sets the agenda), and that has not been forthcoming. Theresa May may have voted Remain, but she is not employing "Remainer tactics". No-one can legitimately believe that.
Still, I agree that there should have been more cooperation. The problem is that the people pulling the strings, Theresa May and her team, have refused to consider this seriously -- and even when they have consulted more widely, have only done so from a very narrow pool, namely the DUP and ERG. Even then, they haven't managed to satisfy them.
Still, I agree that there should have been more cooperation. The problem is that the people pulling the strings, Theresa May and her team, have refused to consider this seriously -- and even when they have consulted more widely, have only done so from a very narrow pool, namely the DUP and ERG. Even then, they haven't managed to satisfy them.
NJ p3.13.59
"...Nobody will see it apart from the erk who counts the papers..."
thats told me! I did the count & can assure you each ballot is counted over by 3 separate counters (erks to NJ). Every ballot is numbered & owners thereby traceable. Your ballot is held by your MP who can treat you likewise.
"...Nobody will see it apart from the erk who counts the papers..."
thats told me! I did the count & can assure you each ballot is counted over by 3 separate counters (erks to NJ). Every ballot is numbered & owners thereby traceable. Your ballot is held by your MP who can treat you likewise.
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.