|
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 |
On January 22 2019 23:19 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +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. A referendum in a month means a month before a forced exit, doesn't leave a hell of a lot of time for negotiation and voting on whatever the referendum shows. Let alone giving the country time to prepare.
|
United States43991 Posts
The referendum has no power to bind Parliament (nothing does, that's basically the one sentence summary of our uncodified constitution). Parliament doesn't want to leave, and therefore in theory we should just be done here. It's a representative democracy, we elect these people to be more informed than us on our behalf and to make these informed decisions for us. They absolutely should listen to us, but they shouldn't come to us with major complex decisions.
The case for a second referendum is the case for political cowardice and abdication of responsibility. They're not willing to slavishly bow to the result and vote for the deal, but they're also not willing to tell the British people that 4% more people got it wrong than got it right (it's not even saying the British people got it wrong ffs). So instead they're going to do nothing and wait for the British people to tell them it's okay to do their fucking jobs.
They're too proud to follow to the British people and too cowardly to lead the British people.
We don't need a second referendum, we need Parliament to show some fucking leadership and hold a Parliamentary vote on withdrawing Article 50. It's not up to the British people, it's up to them, that's how the system works. If you're an MP who wants to remain then you can stand up there and cast your vote for remain and let your constituents judge you for it. This political paralysis is by far the most embarrassing thing about Brexit. Imagine the unlikely scenario of another leave vote. Are they just going to refuse to act for another two years and then hold a third referendum? How long must this farce continue?
If tomorrow May introduced a bill to withdraw Article 50 and withdrew the whip they'd all be forced to make a clear and public choice between the looming no deal Brexit and Remain. Their constituents may judge them for that choice, hell, some of them may lose their seats, but it'd be better than this mess.
|
Eh not for them
Politicians are there to get elected, that's their main motivation these days
And if you take away the illusion that you listen to people, like ignoring the referendum
they won't elect your party next time
|
On January 22 2019 23:30 KwarK wrote:
The referendum has no power to bind Parliament (nothing does, that's basically the one sentence summary of our uncodified constitution). Parliament doesn't want to leave, and therefore in theory we should just be done here. It's a representative democracy, we elect these people to be more informed than us on our behalf and to make these informed decisions for us. They absolutely should listen to us, but they shouldn't come to us with major complex decisions.
The case for a second referendum is the case for political cowardice and abdication of responsibility. They're not willing to slavishly bow to the result and vote for the deal, but they're also not willing to tell the British people that 4% more people got it wrong than got it right (it's not even saying the British people got it wrong ffs). So instead they're going to do nothing and wait for the British people to tell them it's okay to do their fucking jobs.
They're too proud to follow to the British people and too cowardly to lead the British people.
We don't need a second referendum, we need Parliament to show some fucking leadership and hold a Parliamentary vote on withdrawing Article 50. It's not up to the British people, it's up to them, that's how the system works. If you're an MP who wants to remain then you can stand up there and cast your vote for remain and let your constituents judge you for it. This political paralysis is by far the most embarrassing thing about Brexit. Imagine the unlikely scenario of another leave vote. Are they just going to refuse to act for another two years and then hold a third referendum? How long must this farce continue?
If tomorrow May introduced a bill to withdraw Article 50 and withdrew the whip they'd all be forced to make a clear and public choice between the looming no deal Brexit and Remain. Their constituents may judge them for that choice, hell, some of them may lose their seats, but it'd be better than this mess.
All of this is good in theory but our leaders have shown that they can't do it, not just at the last vote but since then too. There is no plan to get a deal and no plan for a workable alternative. Everything is ruled out.
|
On January 22 2019 23:42 LemOn wrote:
Eh not for them
Politicians are there to get elected, that's their main motivation these days
And if you take away the illusion that you listen to people, like ignoring the referendum
they won't elect your party next time Isn't that already the case? The reason why both The Conservative Party and The Labour Party can't show any leadership is because they both don't want to lose voters and because MPs on both sides represent people who are both for and against. And then there are leadership bids on both sides. In their effort not to take blame for the disaster brexit surely is, both parties are deferring on taking decision. The Conservatives are hoping that all the blame can be dumped on Theresa May, and the rest of the party will come out clean, and Labour is hoping to shift all the blame on the Conservatives.
|
United States43991 Posts
On January 22 2019 23:43 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2019 23:30 KwarK wrote:
The referendum has no power to bind Parliament (nothing does, that's basically the one sentence summary of our uncodified constitution). Parliament doesn't want to leave, and therefore in theory we should just be done here. It's a representative democracy, we elect these people to be more informed than us on our behalf and to make these informed decisions for us. They absolutely should listen to us, but they shouldn't come to us with major complex decisions.
The case for a second referendum is the case for political cowardice and abdication of responsibility. They're not willing to slavishly bow to the result and vote for the deal, but they're also not willing to tell the British people that 4% more people got it wrong than got it right (it's not even saying the British people got it wrong ffs). So instead they're going to do nothing and wait for the British people to tell them it's okay to do their fucking jobs.
They're too proud to follow to the British people and too cowardly to lead the British people.
We don't need a second referendum, we need Parliament to show some fucking leadership and hold a Parliamentary vote on withdrawing Article 50. It's not up to the British people, it's up to them, that's how the system works. If you're an MP who wants to remain then you can stand up there and cast your vote for remain and let your constituents judge you for it. This political paralysis is by far the most embarrassing thing about Brexit. Imagine the unlikely scenario of another leave vote. Are they just going to refuse to act for another two years and then hold a third referendum? How long must this farce continue?
If tomorrow May introduced a bill to withdraw Article 50 and withdrew the whip they'd all be forced to make a clear and public choice between the looming no deal Brexit and Remain. Their constituents may judge them for that choice, hell, some of them may lose their seats, but it'd be better than this mess. All of this is good in theory but our leaders have shown that they can't do it, not just at the last vote but since then too. There is no plan to get a deal and no plan for a workable alternative. Everything is ruled out.
True.
I’d rather they hold a second referendum and hope that their side wins so they can pretend to listen than they continue to do nothing at all. But it’s all a fucking farce and I hate them all for it.
|
On January 22 2019 23:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2019 23:42 LemOn wrote:
Eh not for them
Politicians are there to get elected, that's their main motivation these days
And if you take away the illusion that you listen to people, like ignoring the referendum
they won't elect your party next time Isn't that already the case? The reason why both The Conservative Party and The Labour Party can't show any leadership is because they both don't want to lose voters and because MPs on both sides represent people who are both for and against. And then there are leadership bids on both sides. In their effort not to take blame for the disaster brexit surely is, both parties are deferring on taking decision. The Conservatives are hoping that all the blame can be dumped on Theresa May, and the rest of the party will come out clean, and Labour is hoping to shift all the blame on the Conservatives.
Well yeah but they can't just scrap brexit without a referendum for that reason
|
United States43991 Posts
On January 22 2019 23:54 LemOn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2019 23:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On January 22 2019 23:42 LemOn wrote:
Eh not for them
Politicians are there to get elected, that's their main motivation these days
And if you take away the illusion that you listen to people, like ignoring the referendum
they won't elect your party next time Isn't that already the case? The reason why both The Conservative Party and The Labour Party can't show any leadership is because they both don't want to lose voters and because MPs on both sides represent people who are both for and against. And then there are leadership bids on both sides. In their effort not to take blame for the disaster brexit surely is, both parties are deferring on taking decision. The Conservatives are hoping that all the blame can be dumped on Theresa May, and the rest of the party will come out clean, and Labour is hoping to shift all the blame on the Conservatives. Well yeah but they can't just scrap brexit without a referendum for that reason
I’d support it.
“Leave voters clearly placed too much faith in the political establishment and it’s now obvious to everyone that Britain cannot govern itself effectively. I think we can all agree that it’d be better for everyone if the country was run by the Germans”.
|
On January 22 2019 23:54 LemOn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2019 23:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On January 22 2019 23:42 LemOn wrote:
Eh not for them
Politicians are there to get elected, that's their main motivation these days
And if you take away the illusion that you listen to people, like ignoring the referendum
they won't elect your party next time Isn't that already the case? The reason why both The Conservative Party and The Labour Party can't show any leadership is because they both don't want to lose voters and because MPs on both sides represent people who are both for and against. And then there are leadership bids on both sides. In their effort not to take blame for the disaster brexit surely is, both parties are deferring on taking decision. The Conservatives are hoping that all the blame can be dumped on Theresa May, and the rest of the party will come out clean, and Labour is hoping to shift all the blame on the Conservatives. Well yeah but they can't just scrap brexit without a referendum for that reason
They can do anything. When people voted to leave the EU, they didn’t vote for some shocking economic event that will put the England, Scotland and Ireland in a state of geopolitical limbo while everyone figures out where they stand. Kwark is right that following the referendum blindly off a cliff shows just how craven your countries leadership is. And as a citizen of the US, I’m an expert in craven legislative leadership.
|
On January 22 2019 23:54 LemOn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2019 23:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On January 22 2019 23:42 LemOn wrote:
Eh not for them
Politicians are there to get elected, that's their main motivation these days
And if you take away the illusion that you listen to people, like ignoring the referendum
they won't elect your party next time Isn't that already the case? The reason why both The Conservative Party and The Labour Party can't show any leadership is because they both don't want to lose voters and because MPs on both sides represent people who are both for and against. And then there are leadership bids on both sides. In their effort not to take blame for the disaster brexit surely is, both parties are deferring on taking decision. The Conservatives are hoping that all the blame can be dumped on Theresa May, and the rest of the party will come out clean, and Labour is hoping to shift all the blame on the Conservatives. Well yeah but they can't just scrap brexit without a referendum for that reason
Of course they can. Parliament is the decision maker.
Ccrapping brexit isn't what was Kwark proposed. What Kwark proposed was "May introduced a bill to withdraw Article 50 and withdrew the whip they'd all be forced to make a clear and public choice between the looming no deal Brexit and Remain."
What we are seeing right now is a 2 year long mess taking up all the attention in the business of governance, and when no deal happens, it'll be years of brexit taking up the business of governance, at a point in time when most people want to remain.
May should have never invoked article 50 in the first place without either setting up a deal or setting out plans for a no deal. It was a political stunt to try to unite the Conservative Party behind her, with disastrous repercussions.
|
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
On January 23 2019 00:18 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2019 23:54 LemOn wrote:On January 22 2019 23:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On January 22 2019 23:42 LemOn wrote:
Eh not for them
Politicians are there to get elected, that's their main motivation these days
And if you take away the illusion that you listen to people, like ignoring the referendum
they won't elect your party next time Isn't that already the case? The reason why both The Conservative Party and The Labour Party can't show any leadership is because they both don't want to lose voters and because MPs on both sides represent people who are both for and against. And then there are leadership bids on both sides. In their effort not to take blame for the disaster brexit surely is, both parties are deferring on taking decision. The Conservatives are hoping that all the blame can be dumped on Theresa May, and the rest of the party will come out clean, and Labour is hoping to shift all the blame on the Conservatives. Well yeah but they can't just scrap brexit without a referendum for that reason May should have never invoked article 50 in the first place without either setting up a deal or setting out plans for a no deal. It was a political stunt to try to unite the Conservative Party behind her, with disastrous repercussions.
I'd argue it was Cameron who did that, and then May decided to try and one-up him with article 50 followed by a disastrous general election (for her party)
|
On January 22 2019 23:42 LemOn wrote:
Eh not for them
Politicians are there to get elected, that's their main motivation these days
And if you take away the illusion that you listen to people, like ignoring the referendum
they won't elect your party next time
This is by far the biggest issue with the core idea of Democracy. If you allow the next election to dictate how you're suppose to lead, you're not going to be able to make good decisions. Not that I have any clue on how to fix it.
edit: Neither am I saying there's a better system than Democracy (at least of the one's which have been tried). They're all flawed in one way or another.
|
On January 23 2019 01:16 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2019 23:42 LemOn wrote:
Eh not for them
Politicians are there to get elected, that's their main motivation these days
And if you take away the illusion that you listen to people, like ignoring the referendum
they won't elect your party next time This is by far the biggest issue with the core idea of Democracy. If you allow the next election to dictate how you're suppose to lead, you're not going to be able to make good decisions. Not that I have any clue on how to fix it. edit: Neither am I saying there's a better system than Democracy (at least of the one's which have been tried). They're all flawed in one way or another. The point is to not ask the people about complex problems, especially if they are surrounded by lies.
That's why most countries are Representative Democracies. You get to vote on broad terms and catch phrases because anything more complex is to much.
|
You are supposed to have a good education system and a fair and free press which is supposed to enable "the people" to make complex decisions. Unfortunately education standards seem to be slipping in the UK for quite a long time.
|
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
On January 23 2019 02:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You are supposed to have a good education system and a fair and free press which is supposed to enable "the people" to make complex decisions. Unfortunately education standards seem to be slipping in the UK for quite a long time.
You're assuming that even with good education and a free and fair press, that the majority of the electorate have the time or the ability to understand all the complex key issues (not just brexit and Europe). Trouble is, there is a limit to just how informed your average member of the public can be.
|
On January 23 2019 01:23 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2019 01:16 Excludos wrote:On January 22 2019 23:42 LemOn wrote:
Eh not for them
Politicians are there to get elected, that's their main motivation these days
And if you take away the illusion that you listen to people, like ignoring the referendum
they won't elect your party next time This is by far the biggest issue with the core idea of Democracy. If you allow the next election to dictate how you're suppose to lead, you're not going to be able to make good decisions. Not that I have any clue on how to fix it. edit: Neither am I saying there's a better system than Democracy (at least of the one's which have been tried). They're all flawed in one way or another. The point is to not ask the people about complex problems, especially if they are surrounded by lies. That's why most countries are Representative Democracies. You get to vote on broad terms and catch phrases because anything more complex is to much.
Just got flashbacks to 2016...
|
Familiarity with direct democracy also helps. If you only have such a referendum every 20+ years, people vote on all sorts of stuff that is not on the ballot. Like how annoyed they are with politics in general, etc...
If you constantly vote directly on stuff, you get used to it, and also learn which people you can and cannot trust to give you good information on the stuff on the ballot.
|
On January 23 2019 01:23 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2019 01:16 Excludos wrote:On January 22 2019 23:42 LemOn wrote:
Eh not for them
Politicians are there to get elected, that's their main motivation these days
And if you take away the illusion that you listen to people, like ignoring the referendum
they won't elect your party next time This is by far the biggest issue with the core idea of Democracy. If you allow the next election to dictate how you're suppose to lead, you're not going to be able to make good decisions. Not that I have any clue on how to fix it. edit: Neither am I saying there's a better system than Democracy (at least of the one's which have been tried). They're all flawed in one way or another. The point is to not ask the people about complex problems, especially if they are surrounded by lies. That's why most countries are Representative Democracies. You get to vote on broad terms and catch phrases because anything more complex is to much.
Bingo...All this happened because Cameron was a cocky idiot who wanted to strengthen the foothold over his party.
You just can't ignore a referendum once you've already issued it you CAN technically...but you wouldn't get elected again so they won't do it without a new referendum. That's not how politics work guys. You don't issue it in the first place but now it's done and they can't just ignore it.
In other countries with nicely developed corruption system like our great Czech Republic you could have backroom deals where you could even make an entire party a scapegoat that goes against a referendum, while getting them functions etc. in state and other parties after the next election but you can't even do this in a bi-partisan system that seems close to broken to me with what happens in the UK and US lately
|
On January 23 2019 03:22 Simberto wrote:
Familiarity with direct democracy also helps. If you only have such a referendum every 20+ years, people vote on all sorts of stuff that is not on the ballot. Like how annoyed they are with politics in general, etc...
If you constantly vote directly on stuff, you get used to it, and also learn which people you can and cannot trust to give you good information on the stuff on the ballot.
Again it'll be always hard in a bi-partisan system where one party issues the referendum
And the other one will naturally have a huge incentive to campaign against it throwing millions at it turning it into more than just raw facts but ideologies, party sympathy etc.
|
I think i have made it very clear that i also think that two-party FPTP systems are really bad. Not dictatorship bad, but one of the worst ways to do democracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
