Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So even if every single person in the UK now opposed brexit you are saying that the government should just stubbornly go ahead anyway, and on the most extreme terms if necessary to push it through regardless of the damage, because of a vote 3.5 years ago?
That seems more like masochism than democracy to me.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,816 posts, read 34,814,543 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by MnM258
So even if every single person in the UK now opposed brexit you are saying that the government should just stubbornly go ahead anyway, and on the most extreme terms if necessary to push it through regardless of the damage, because of a vote 3.5 years ago?
That seems more like masochism than democracy to me.
At least in sports though they have the decency to tell you how long the game officially runs before it’s over, not when the losing team decides it’s gone on too long so the winning team needs to forfeit its win.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,816 posts, read 34,814,543 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
But it is.
Having a second referendum is the government doing whatever the hell it likes.
Once you break the wall that permits a government to obstruct a vote, it applies to every vote from then on, whether you like it or not. Parliament had the option to not respect the outcome, it was non-binding, Tories, Labour and Lib-Dem all stood in front of 65M people and said they would respect the outcome. They could have just said they wouldn't. Rather than 3 years on be proven liars, Boris gets a pass, since he wasn't leader, but Corbyn and Swinson stood there bald face lying to the UK population.
It's like Harry Reid in the US Senate, he introduced filibuster blockers, and the "nuclear option" on appointments. What he never foresaw was that in a few years those same tools would be working against him.
In politics you need to be really careful about what you ask for, because the truth is all unintended consequences will be seized on and used against you. Rejecting a vote because it's too difficult, or not the outcome you desired, or whatever, is going to end up being used repeatedly until it makes voting more irrelevant than it already is.
Excellent example. Something needed to be done, but Harry took the easy way out.
If, in 2016, it was said "let's have a redo", I would have been irate, because it would have meant multiple votes for everything in the future. You can't redo a vote. Now, there's good evidence that the 2020 vote was already being tampered with, so I want it thoroughly investigated, and if proven, impeach.
Redoing the vote in the UK seems like an equally bad idea for the same reason. How many votes on everything do you have? Plus, if you don't vote, don't complain about the result.
So even if every single person in the UK now opposed brexit you are saying that the government should just stubbornly go ahead anyway, and on the most extreme terms if necessary to push it through regardless of the damage, because of a vote 3.5 years ago?
That seems more like masochism than democracy to me.
Which planet do you live on?
When you make an agreement you stick by it. Everyone doesnt want to remain, and stubbornly going ahead is less traumatic. The remainers are already hysterically soiling themselves, and leavers expect delivery on the promises made. If the government doesnt live up to its promises, then it's not representative, by definition.
By your logic we'd poll everyone every year about pretty much everything to make sure they still held the same position.
That's fine, we can do that. But, we'd need a much smaller government. If everyone is representing themselves via annual referendum on how the country should be run. We don't need representatives in Westminster, but, we'd need a very politically active citizenship.
Having a second referendum is the government doing whatever the hell it likes.
But it isn't is it. The minority government has been unable to enact the referendum. And why?
Because the referendum consisted of a simple question with a variety of answers, and that is the root of the problem. Which answer? should we have negotiated a deal? should we accept deal A or deal B, or should we have said **** a deal, we'll leave without one?
Some MP's want a deal some couldn't care less about a deal - so what is the true enactment of the referendum. What is and what isn't Brexit?
If we have another referendum it will not be a case of the government 'doing whatever the hell it likes'
it will be the result of government's inability to enact the referendum.
A second vote is therefore perfectly democratic and does not set any precedent for the future.
On the contrary it illustrates just how unprecedented this situation is.
When you make an agreement you stick by it. Everyone doesnt want to remain, and stubbornly going ahead is less traumatic. The remainers are already hysterically soiling themselves, and leavers expect delivery on the promises made. If the government doesnt live up to its promises, then it's not representative, by definition.
At the moment government is being extremely representative of the country as a whole and the 2017 GE result in not knowing what on earth to do.
Going for a hard Brexit off 52 - 48 is not democratic. By rights it should be the softest possible Brexit.
Starting the break up of the UK by putting NI in a separate customs and regulatory territory without a vote is also undemocratic.
At the moment government is being extremely representative of the country as a whole and the 2017 GE result in not knowing what on earth to do.
Going for a hard Brexit off 52 - 48 is not democratic. By rights it should be the softest possible Brexit.
Starting the break up of the UK by putting NI in a separate customs and regulatory territory without a vote is also undemocratic.
How can the government not know what to do, when the referendum said leave, and Cameron, Corbyn, and Swinson said they would respect that result. Are they idiots? The goal is crystal clear.
Northern Ireland as part of the deal has a vote on whether to continue within a dual customs region, or not. They get to say when they leave the EU.
I'm not suggesting we go for a hard or soft Brexit, just a Brexit. Softest possible isn't realistic, if it costs the UK $50B a year in payments. That said, the goal is well known.
How can the government not know what to do, when the referendum said leave, and Cameron, Corbyn, and Swinson said they would respect that result. Are they idiots? The goal is crystal clear.
You still skirt around the problem. What should they have done then, decline to negotiate and just left without a deal? You think there would be no backlash in that event?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
