One Saying Dante Had Is Revised Now As...
Crosswords1 min ago
The Most Pointless Job In Politics Is About To Be Announced......
137 Answers
https:/
....excited?
....excited?
Answers
Well, I can't speak for anyone else Gully, but Tora and I were discussing our differences, no arguments from either side so far as I can tell. Maybe your problem is that you see any contrary opinion as an argument?
19:00 Thu 27th Aug 2020
As TTT says, though, "had [the LibDems] won the election they could legitimately have argued that the public had in fact changed their minds," which is to say that reverting Brexit would have been democratic, had the LibDems won. Arguing for a position that is against the 2016 referendum is not anti-Democratic if the people support it. As it happens, they did not (in large enough numbers), but it is the practice that put paid to the position, not the theory.
"If I were ever to consider voting LibDem that^ wouldn't have stopped me - but their clear disdain for the electorate in their blatant disregard for democracy would have. Shameful! "
Which actually is fundamentally illogical, because as Tora points out (glad he at least can see it) if people had voted for that to the extent of getting into power, then it would plainly have shown that the public wanted the result overturned.
As Jim says, people such as yourself were not going to vote LibDem anyway, so to those people the policy on overturning Brexit was proably irrelevant.
Which actually is fundamentally illogical, because as Tora points out (glad he at least can see it) if people had voted for that to the extent of getting into power, then it would plainly have shown that the public wanted the result overturned.
As Jim says, people such as yourself were not going to vote LibDem anyway, so to those people the policy on overturning Brexit was proably irrelevant.
The nature of democracy is that no Parliament and no electorate is ever bound by its past self. Any law can be overturned, any ote can be overruled, and any Parliament can be unelected, but *only* by means of a further vote. As a result, if the LibDems had won in 2019, they would have had the democratic mandate required to implement their policies. To pretend otherwise is nonsense.
Compare the following:
1. The Conservatives in 2019 are elected on a manifesto promise to deliver Brexit. Subsequently, in an astonishing twist, Johnson decides to cancel it after all. Undemocratic.
2. The Lib Dems in 2019 are elected on a manifesto promise to reverse Brexit. They do so. Democratic.
Compare the following:
1. The Conservatives in 2019 are elected on a manifesto promise to deliver Brexit. Subsequently, in an astonishing twist, Johnson decides to cancel it after all. Undemocratic.
2. The Lib Dems in 2019 are elected on a manifesto promise to reverse Brexit. They do so. Democratic.
Naomi, I would not have accepted any of the HOQ attempts at ignoring the referendum between June 2016 and Dec 2019, however as a technical point I would agree that, in the extremely unlikely event, the public had elected the Lib Non dems in 2019 on a ticket of "bowlocks to Brexit", then I would accept that the public had indeed changed their mind.
-- answer removed --
ich: "Glad you accept that the Lib Dems position was actually democratic (if ill-advised). " - well that's the "so" rule without a so, AH will be impressed. NO x 1000 the Lib non dems position was not democratic they set their stall out to ignore democracy and I abhor that. All I am saying is that had the public elected them I would have accepted that the public had changed it's mind. Geddit?
"All I am saying is that had the public elected them I would have accepted that the public had changed it's mind. Geddit?"
But that was the condition that would have seen their policy enacted.
As I said before, though, illadvised, because with no realistic prospect of that happening it felt ridiculous.
But that was the condition that would have seen their policy enacted.
As I said before, though, illadvised, because with no realistic prospect of that happening it felt ridiculous.
It's difficult to see how someone who's had a consistent position for years can be described as "flip-flipping". Ah, well.
As TTT says -- it may be a technical point, but since we are arguing about the definition of democracy, the technicality matters. Had the Libdems won the General Election then the public would have endorsed their position, and so it would have been democratic. As we know, they did not, which puts an end to the matter -- until the next election, when they or any other party would be free to put the same policy back to the people and see if, this time, it would be accepted. And so on. That's how democracy works.
By contrast, the insistence that any given law or vote or whatever is binding in perpetuity and can neither be questioned nor overturned by democratic means is obviously, by definition, anti-democratic. It takes away power from the people of today and hands it to their past selves. It may well be that the country of today agrees with the country of 2016, and would reaffirm that result if asked today -- but there is never anything anti-democratic about asking. After all, what if we *had*, as a nation, changed our minds?
As TTT says -- it may be a technical point, but since we are arguing about the definition of democracy, the technicality matters. Had the Libdems won the General Election then the public would have endorsed their position, and so it would have been democratic. As we know, they did not, which puts an end to the matter -- until the next election, when they or any other party would be free to put the same policy back to the people and see if, this time, it would be accepted. And so on. That's how democracy works.
By contrast, the insistence that any given law or vote or whatever is binding in perpetuity and can neither be questioned nor overturned by democratic means is obviously, by definition, anti-democratic. It takes away power from the people of today and hands it to their past selves. It may well be that the country of today agrees with the country of 2016, and would reaffirm that result if asked today -- but there is never anything anti-democratic about asking. After all, what if we *had*, as a nation, changed our minds?
I daresay Brentry will not be an issue for years, perhaps ever, but the big thing about Brexit happening is that no longer can anyone be accused of going back on it (at least not the people who are not charged with enacting it)
No doubt anything less than Royal navy gunboats blasting French fishing vessels out of the North Sea will please the real fundamentalists.
No doubt anything less than Royal navy gunboats blasting French fishing vessels out of the North Sea will please the real fundamentalists.
//in the extremely unlikely event, the public had elected the Lib Non dems in 2019 on a ticket of "bowlocks to Brexit", then I would accept that the public had indeed changed their mind.//
Out of interest, would you have done the same had a second referendum been held and Brexit overturned that way?
Out of interest, would you have done the same had a second referendum been held and Brexit overturned that way?
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.