ChatterBank1 min ago
Revoke Brexit On Day One......
101 Answers
https:/
Well I do admire the clarity of our non dem friends but as we know there will not be an election before Halloween I assume she means she'll apply to rejoin in the unlikely even they get elected.
Well I do admire the clarity of our non dem friends but as we know there will not be an election before Halloween I assume she means she'll apply to rejoin in the unlikely even they get elected.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. 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 referendum came about as a result of a promise in the manifesto of a party that came to power through an election.//
Indeed. And A50 was triggered as a result of the promises in the manifestoes of the two major parties who won 80% of the seats in the most recent GE. A50 gave our notice to leave the EU and it was unconditional. We didn't declare that we'd leave only if it wasn't too much trouble.
Indeed. And A50 was triggered as a result of the promises in the manifestoes of the two major parties who won 80% of the seats in the most recent GE. A50 gave our notice to leave the EU and it was unconditional. We didn't declare that we'd leave only if it wasn't too much trouble.
I mean, legally, yes. But I was careful in my choice of words. Morally I think it's a far harder sell. I could play all sorts of number games at this point, but really my point is that Parties tend to win election majorities with around 10-13 million votes, and the referendum, we are constantly reminded, saw about 17.5 million people vote Leave. Even if you believe -- as I do -- that:
1. Parliamentary democracy is, and should be, the primary means of expressing the people's will;
2. The "will of the people" should not be assumed to be static;
3. Just as no Parliament can be held to bind its successors, so can no electorate be held to be bound by its past self;
4. The referendum in 2016, whilst there is/was a moral duty to *try* and implement it, was still advisory and shouldn't be seen as binding;
then it's still a very difficult sell to suggest that the implicit decision of 10 million or so should override the explicit decision of 17.5 million. I completely believe in that argument but I also simply can't see how it would be persuasive to anyone who feels, justifiably, cheated out of their decision and lied to by politicians who had offered the referendum in the first place.
1. Parliamentary democracy is, and should be, the primary means of expressing the people's will;
2. The "will of the people" should not be assumed to be static;
3. Just as no Parliament can be held to bind its successors, so can no electorate be held to be bound by its past self;
4. The referendum in 2016, whilst there is/was a moral duty to *try* and implement it, was still advisory and shouldn't be seen as binding;
then it's still a very difficult sell to suggest that the implicit decision of 10 million or so should override the explicit decision of 17.5 million. I completely believe in that argument but I also simply can't see how it would be persuasive to anyone who feels, justifiably, cheated out of their decision and lied to by politicians who had offered the referendum in the first place.
I had hoped that my post demonstrated that I did indeed understand the difference. As I was trying to say, even though legally there's no simply argument that a General Election trumps a referendum, I struggle to see how you could bring the country together that way.
I mean, part of the problem is of course that First Past the Post sucks: it allows parties to win absolute parliamentary majorities despite having popular minorities, and on divisive issues that allows the minority (albeit the largest single minority, most of the time) to impose its will on the majority.
I mean, part of the problem is of course that First Past the Post sucks: it allows parties to win absolute parliamentary majorities despite having popular minorities, and on divisive issues that allows the minority (albeit the largest single minority, most of the time) to impose its will on the majority.
The resolution to this dilemma, in practice, is for MPs to force a second referendum before the General Election. That way Brexit can, at least in principle, be settled before the more general democratic campaign. I strongly suspect that Johnson would need to give ground on a referendum anyway in order to get any supposed new deal he'll negotiate through the House.
Jim, //The resolution to this dilemma, in practice, is for MPs to force a second referendum before the General Election. //
No ... the resolution is to respect the result of the original referendum ... you know, the one that all major parties promised to respect - and to implement it. I seriously don't know how you have the gall to talk about democracy.
No ... the resolution is to respect the result of the original referendum ... you know, the one that all major parties promised to respect - and to implement it. I seriously don't know how you have the gall to talk about democracy.
Parliamentary democracy is only of value when it reflects the will and thus sovereignty ofvthevpeople; otherwise there's little point in parliament being there. Will need not be static, but it is undefendable to keep trying to change that will whilst refusing to enact the decision until it changes. That's the sort of dispicable undemocratic tactic that the EU uses and which we opted to get away from. The electorate has no successors apart from themselves. The comparison thus fails. The referendum ceased to be advisory when Cameron stated it would be acted upon, and confirmed when parliament agreed to kick off the process. Lies from politicians have nothing to do with it. We all had experience of the EU, knew what is was about, and decided appropriately.
The only way to bring the country together is to have all sides unite against the thing they don't want - e.g. Theresa May's deal or something very similar. Should we leave with that deal everybody will be unhappy and we'll be united in our unhappiness.
Then over the course of the next few years we'll gradually move away from that deal, probably (unless the EU changes significantly) closer to no deal, but using a series of stepping stones to get there instead of trying to make it in one jump, falling on our backsides and possibly breaking a limb or two.
Then over the course of the next few years we'll gradually move away from that deal, probably (unless the EU changes significantly) closer to no deal, but using a series of stepping stones to get there instead of trying to make it in one jump, falling on our backsides and possibly breaking a limb or two.
// I struggle to see how you could bring the country together that way.//
Which is the whole point, Jim. Binary issue, split evenly, no compromise position. England 1643 where there was no peaceful resolution available. The referendum was, or, should I say, ought to have been the way of deciding a contentious issue without blood-letting.
But that, of course, required the consent, however regretful, or begrudging, of the losers.
Small vindictive minds have never given that consent, have they, Jim?
Which is the whole point, Jim. Binary issue, split evenly, no compromise position. England 1643 where there was no peaceful resolution available. The referendum was, or, should I say, ought to have been the way of deciding a contentious issue without blood-letting.
But that, of course, required the consent, however regretful, or begrudging, of the losers.
Small vindictive minds have never given that consent, have they, Jim?
// and if this results in a 'leave' vote again (which it most probably will) what then; best of three, best of seven? //
You can only hold a referendum if you have the majority in Parliament to pass the necessary legislation to hold it. So all of this "best of three" is a red herring. There's not even a majority in Parliament -- yet -- for the second referendum, let alone a putative third, fourth etc. All those who would like to see said second referendum can do is keep arguing for it. Can't hold it unilaterally.
I've also said before, and I'll say again, that no referendum is uniquely binding, so yes, there *could* be further referendums if the people, via parliament, so wish for them. I personally very much doubt that Parliament or the people will so wish. beyond the second at least. At the moment, the country seems evenly split on the issue of holding said second referendum, and it's more or less the same as the Leave/Remain split.
You can only hold a referendum if you have the majority in Parliament to pass the necessary legislation to hold it. So all of this "best of three" is a red herring. There's not even a majority in Parliament -- yet -- for the second referendum, let alone a putative third, fourth etc. All those who would like to see said second referendum can do is keep arguing for it. Can't hold it unilaterally.
I've also said before, and I'll say again, that no referendum is uniquely binding, so yes, there *could* be further referendums if the people, via parliament, so wish for them. I personally very much doubt that Parliament or the people will so wish. beyond the second at least. At the moment, the country seems evenly split on the issue of holding said second referendum, and it's more or less the same as the Leave/Remain split.
I think you could have got the necessary consent had the referendum result not been very quickly hijacked by party politics -- which was more or less inevitable as soon as Theresa May made the utterly stupid and contemptible decision to hold that snap election in 2017, lose her majority, and then seek to form a minority government with DUP support rather than try to form some sort of unity government.
In Parliament at least, Brexit was made a Labour v. Tory issue, which it clearly isn't. That's the fault primarily of the May government, who decided to try and shut everybody out of the process, and then failed when they lost that majority. Johnson is doubling down on the failed policy of working against Parliament rather than with it.
In Parliament at least, Brexit was made a Labour v. Tory issue, which it clearly isn't. That's the fault primarily of the May government, who decided to try and shut everybody out of the process, and then failed when they lost that majority. Johnson is doubling down on the failed policy of working against Parliament rather than with it.
Powerpoint presentation.
Bullet points and a voice over, possibly reading the bullet points, (Screen shots available). Done that even at my advanced age.
OK, don't tell me that Parliament unanimously decides and legislates for the deferral of the issue of EU membership to plebiscite, but after the rabble has mischose to renege on the moral principle implicit in the offer [i]and the clear statements that the decision would be honoured".
Bullet points and a voice over, possibly reading the bullet points, (Screen shots available). Done that even at my advanced age.
OK, don't tell me that Parliament unanimously decides and legislates for the deferral of the issue of EU membership to plebiscite, but after the rabble has mischose to renege on the moral principle implicit in the offer [i]and the clear statements that the decision would be honoured".
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
One World Built On A Firm Foundation
Music10 mins ago
ChatterBank13 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles16 mins ago
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.