EPTUK Politics Mega-thread - Page 468
| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On January 21 2019 23:05 Deleuze wrote: My understanding is that Article 50 can be revoked by UK without approval by other members. This would be an extension of sorts and it would be done on the proviso of 'we'll call it when we're actually ready to leave this time.' UK could, but Theresa May seems absolutely adamant that she will not. Perhaps she would rather see UK have no deal, which is the direction UK is heading towards, or perhaps she thinks that even if she ordered it, it would not be revoked and she would have to fight out another vote of no confidence. Then again, it is Theresa May, who knows what she is actually thinking. | ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
On January 21 2019 23:22 Gorsameth wrote: No one is going to fall for "We will stop it now but we're totally going to start it up again really soon, pinky promise". It would not so much be a case of "falling for" but more a case of kicking the can down the road which I doubt anyone would object. Plan B seems to be Plan A only with a different name. Its kinda funny that may presents plan B without any significant changes,i kinda like it actually. Its between Mays deal,no deal or an extension of sorts possibly leading to a 2nd referendum ditching the brexit all together. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22373 Posts
On January 22 2019 02:12 pmh wrote: No one would object, except for all the people that want a Brexit, which appears to be the majority.It would not so much be a case of "falling for" but more a case of kicking the can down the road which I doubt anyone would object. Plan B seems to be Plan A only with a different name. Its kinda funny that may presents plan B without any significant changes,i kinda like it actually. Its between Mays deal,no deal or an extension of sorts possibly leading to a 2nd referendum ditching the brexit all together. | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
On January 21 2019 23:05 Deleuze wrote: My understanding is that Article 50 can be revoked by UK without approval by other members. This would be an extension of sorts and it would be done on the proviso of 'we'll call it when we're actually ready to leave this time.' It's designed so that it can't be used in an abusive manner, as in an extension of sorts by restarting the clock. In practice it would be difficult to police but you'd make sure to piss off the EU big time. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On January 22 2019 02:18 Gorsameth wrote: They aren't the majority. Certainly not since the 2 years of the referendum.No one would object, except for all the people that want a Brexit, which appears to be the majority. | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
| ||
|
Taelshin
Canada420 Posts
I believe that this kind of talk is what leads to the break down of democracy, in its purest form you had a vote of the people, everyone's vote was counted, and now a couple years later after the waters have arguably been muddied, the people who never wanted to leave in the first place are now talking about a new vote, Maybe some people who voted to leave have changed their mind since, It doesn't matter. What's done is done the world doesn't work on "how you feel this morning politics". I find this insanely infuriating and I've got no real dog in this fight but god damn people if Quebec had won there vote to leave Canada during their ref I would have stood up for everyone one of them that wanted to regardless of the potential impacts to Canada as a whole. I dunno maybe i'm way off base here i'm sure someone will let me know. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8257 Posts
On January 22 2019 21:31 Taelshin wrote: Ahh right they aren't the majority now, so that vote didn't matter right? give me a break you had a vote, it didn't go the way some people wanted, That's tough, it happens, I cannot believe people are seriously considering/discussing a second referendum. I believe that this kind of talk is what leads to the break down of democracy, in its purest form you had a vote of the people, everyone's vote was counted, and now a couple years later after the waters have arguably been muddied, the people who never wanted to leave in the first place are now talking about a new vote, Maybe some people who voted to leave have changed their mind since, It doesn't matter. What's done is done the world doesn't work on "how you feel this morning politics". I find this insanely infuriating and I've got no real dog in this fight but god damn people if Quebec had won there vote to leave Canada during their ref I would have stood up for everyone one of them that wanted to regardless of the potential impacts to Canada as a whole. I dunno maybe i'm way off base here i'm sure someone will let me know. You do realise you're talking about the breakdown of democracy while simultaneously refusing the idea of keeping up to date with the will of the people, right? Just checking if there is any hint of self reflection here. While we're at it, Norway voted in 1814 to go to war with Sweden, so why aren't we? It was the will of the people back then, so give me a break with all this "Time's changed" and "People don't want that any more" bullshit. This is how democracy breaks down! | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18292 Posts
On January 22 2019 21:31 Taelshin wrote: Ahh right they aren't the majority now, so that vote didn't matter right? give me a break you had a vote, it didn't go the way some people wanted, That's tough, it happens, I cannot believe people are seriously considering/discussing a second referendum. I believe that this kind of talk is what leads to the break down of democracy, in its purest form you had a vote of the people, everyone's vote was counted, and now a couple years later after the waters have arguably been muddied, the people who never wanted to leave in the first place are now talking about a new vote, Maybe some people who voted to leave have changed their mind since, It doesn't matter. What's done is done the world doesn't work on "how you feel this morning politics". I find this insanely infuriating and I've got no real dog in this fight but god damn people if Quebec had won there vote to leave Canada during their ref I would have stood up for everyone one of them that wanted to regardless of the potential impacts to Canada as a whole. I dunno maybe i'm way off base here i'm sure someone will let me know. Using that reasoning, they also had a vote in the 70s to JOIN the EU. Why did they have a second referendum 2 years ago?! The main reason to have a second referendum would be that advancing insight into what shape a possible Brexit could have requires a second referendum. And yeah, for PMs to cover their asses. It's quite clear that the British parliament has no fucking idea what they're doing, so something has to change. Whether a new referendum is the right solution? I dunno. But shooting it down with "the people have spoken" doesn't help, because the actual "will of the people", if given a choice between the 4 current most viable options: remain, norway, may's deal, no deal, may end up being remain. And if it doesn't, at least it's clear what kind of Brexit "the people" want. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11839 Posts
Also, it turned out afterwards that a lot of the stuff people campaigned on were just lies. And that the thing that people imagined a brexit to be were never anything close to the reality of what it would be. The simplest solution, in retrospect, is not to have a completely disinformed simple majority vote on such an important question as the first action of direct democracy in a very long while (or ever?). But now that the vote has happened, should it be binding forever? Even if it turns out that it was a really, really bad idea, and can only turn out badly, should people keep on charging into the abyss because a decision made can not ever be changed, even if circumstances change or new evidence turns up? If the vote for "leave" is so inconsistent that it would now be a "remain", why did the people of two years ago get to make that decision, and not the people of now? The problem here is that stuff takes a while in politics, and that constantly having referenda until you get the result you want is indeed not that democratic. But at what point do you stop letting the dead rule the living? A more reasonable approach from the start would have been to actually negotiate the deal, and THEN have a referendum on the actual thing that a brexit would be. Instead of having everyone imagine what they think a brexit would entail, and then vote on that. But that was not the path taken. Now, two years later, there is neither a majority for the deal that was negotiated, nor for a hard brexit, because both are shit. But those are the brexit options. The unicorn and rainbow brexit of two years ago never manifested, and never will. | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
On January 22 2019 21:31 Taelshin wrote: Ahh right they aren't the majority now, so that vote didn't matter right? give me a break you had a vote, it didn't go the way some people wanted, That's tough, it happens, I cannot believe people are seriously considering/discussing a second referendum. I believe that this kind of talk is what leads to the break down of democracy, in its purest form you had a vote of the people, everyone's vote was counted, and now a couple years later after the waters have arguably been muddied, the people who never wanted to leave in the first place are now talking about a new vote, Maybe some people who voted to leave have changed their mind since, It doesn't matter. What's done is done the world doesn't work on "how you feel this morning politics". I find this insanely infuriating and I've got no real dog in this fight but god damn people if Quebec had won there vote to leave Canada during their ref I would have stood up for everyone one of them that wanted to regardless of the potential impacts to Canada as a whole. I dunno maybe i'm way off base here i'm sure someone will let me know. The problem is that the referendum was deeply flawed in its construction. The leave option had no manifesto laying out what would happen if it won and created this mess where there were several irreconcilable options. That goes for the parliament as well as the public. Currently there's no mandate for anything. A second referendum isn't saying that the public got it wrong, but that the incompetent twats responsible for first one did. As for your example: "Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?" is quite in contrast to "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union? " | ||
|
Taelshin
Canada420 Posts
It is a problematic topic. Most countries require large majorities for things like changing the constitution, and i would say that leaving (or entering) the EU is on a similar level of importance. As such, it seems like something that should not be decided by a very small margin. I like this, this seems a reasonable stance to me, However that's not how it was setup, we cant go back in time, And we shouldn't. While we're at it, Norway voted in 1814 to go to war with Sweden, so why aren't we? It was the will of the people back then, so give me a break with all this "Time's changed" and "People don't want that any more" bullshit. This is how democracy breaks down! No idea, Don't know anything about it, But I've got a hunch it wont align perfectly with what we are talking about now. It's quite clear that the British parliament has no fucking idea what they're doing, so something has to change. Whether a new referendum is the right solution? I dunno. But shooting it down with "the people have spoken" doesn't help, because the actual "will of the people", if given a choice between the 4 current most viable options: remain, norway, may's deal, no deal, may end up being remain. And if it doesn't, at least it's clear what kind of Brexit "the people" want. So your stance is, at the time we voted we didn't know what the picture would look like perfectly 2 years down the road so we should have another vote now that we do(sort of, unless 2 years from now there are more options) and can make more informed decisions? it seems like a tough hill to climb to get anything done or make any movement, I feel like we'd need a crystal ball for this type of governing. Simberto I really like your post I didn't want to quote everything in it and i'm pretty sleepy now but I totally understand what your saying. I really don't like the But at what point do you stop letting the dead rule the living? I would argue this is hyperbolic and 2 years is not in anyway letting the "dead rule the living" and the idea that that's what's happening now seems fairly disingenuous. I also feel like you answer your 4th statement with your 5th statement and ill admit to not knowing the answer to that one, Obviously I lean towards the former. Anecdotally I watch different people from over the UK and I find that they seem to be more pro hard Brexit, They definitely were not for the may deal and don't seem to think a hard Brexit is a bad option. I don't know the polling now, but the assumption that many of the people who voted to leave(the majority) now desire to remain, seems a stretch. Good post though really interesting really something to think about. | ||
|
schaf
Germany1326 Posts
I don't think there will be a second referendum since extending article 50 is not easy and cancelling it will be seen as a remain move from a remain PM trying to backstab the beautiful unicorn brexit English people dream of. ... I need to try and shorten my sentences. Damn German... | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10884 Posts
The question itself was fine - not allready having a pretty clear cut plan on what an exit would mean, wasn't. The plan of the brexiteers after they won was absolutely non existant. The campaign before the referendum was full of lies. If anything this stuff hurt Democracy, a second referendum with clear choices would put an end to this clusterfuck for good. | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
On January 22 2019 22:35 Taelshin wrote: Anecdotally I watch different people from over the UK and I find that they seem to be more pro hard Brexit, They definitely were not for the may deal and don't seem to think a hard Brexit is a bad option. I don't know the polling now, but the assumption that many of the people who voted to leave(the majority) now desire to remain, seems a stretch. Good post though really interesting really something to think about. This isn't the question though. What you have to ask is if they want to leave with no deal or remain. Or May's deal or remain. Or customs union or remain. It doesn't matter if they have a desire to remain or not, what matters is if they prefer it to another clarified option. | ||
|
Banaora
Germany234 Posts
On January 22 2019 22:03 Longshank wrote: The problem is that the referendum was deeply flawed in its construction. The leave option had no manifesto laying out what would happen if it won and created this mess where there were several irreconcilable options. That goes for the parliament as well as the public. Currently there's no mandate for anything. A second referendum isn't saying that the public got it wrong, but that the incompetent twats responsible for first one did. As for your example: "Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?" is quite in contrast to "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union? " I agree with this opinion. The remain vote was for the status quo. The leave vote was for a multitude of conflicting things and did not specify what leave exactly meant. This inherently favoured leave which was unfair. The leave campaign should have been forced to work out a plan and tell what leave actually meant and this plan should have been voted on together with remain (status quo). Now you have May's deal and it could be put to the vote. I don't see how it would be undemocratic to ask whether people still favour leave and if yes in a second question whether they want May's deal or no deal exit. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
People voted when Brexit was sold as 'we'll leave overnight and be richer and better off and can keep all the good stuff and make trade deals with whomever we want and it'll be great'. Now, two years later, we actually know what we're likely to get. One referendum was based on a dream, that will in no way resemble reality. How can it possibly be binding when people were voting to receive something they aren't going to? | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
On January 22 2019 21:31 Taelshin wrote: Ahh right they aren't the majority now, so that vote didn't matter right? give me a break you had a vote, it didn't go the way some people wanted, That's tough, it happens, I cannot believe people are seriously considering/discussing a second referendum. Rees-Mogg himself said back in 2011, that a second referendum could be held, and that it would make more sense if this was after Britain had finished negotiating with the EU. Responding to a question about how the Brexit referendum would work, he replied: “That issue can be dealt with in the legislation. Indeed, we could have two referendums. “As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed.” | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9848 Posts
On January 22 2019 23:11 iamthedave wrote: Taelshin, your argument comes down to this: "Well, now that I've put my dick in the vice, I must crank the handle and crush it. There is no alternative." People voted when Brexit was sold as 'we'll leave overnight and be richer and better off and can keep all the good stuff and make trade deals with whomever we want and it'll be great'. Now, two years later, we actually know what we're likely to get. One referendum was based on a dream, that will in no way resemble reality. How can it possibly be binding when people were voting to receive something they aren't going to? I don't even necessarily think No Brexit needs to be in the second referendum. They need to have one though because Parliament and our PM between them have already shown us that they can't make the choice themselves. They don't know how. Give em a month to get the viable options sorted and then do a referendum on how we leave. Its the only way I can see us leaving with a deal. | ||
| ||
