|
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 November 09 2019 01:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2019 01:19 Zealos wrote:
I think you way underestimate the level of political suicide it would be for Labour to out&out support revoking article 50 I think there’s popular support for Remain, and that it’s less divided on party lines that the support for Leave. But more importantly, if they do support revocation they cannot possibly negotiate an exit deal in good faith and the promise to do so is defrauding the electorate. Labour need to pick a side and that side can’t be “vote for us and if we win we’ll ask you what side that should be”.
I don't disagree with that at all. It makes no logical sense to hold a phony renegotiation, but on the other hand, politics makes no logical sense either.
A vast number of Labour voters are brexiteers, and I believe they would never forgive the party for revoking so harshly.
|
Judging by the results of the previous general election, more people voted for remain parties than leave parties, but the Conservatives took the most votes and MP and so headed the government. And that's why everything is in a bit of a mess, that's why remain prefers a new referendum but not the general election in general.
Both Conservatives and Labour have voters who like to leave, like to remain, and those who don't care. Conservative party makes messages of brexit everytime brexit party rises at Conservative's loss, and Labour make remain and referendum noises everytime Lib dem popularity rises at Labour's loss. Both appear to be keenly watching the polls instead of staking a position seriously.
|
On November 09 2019 00:40 KwarK wrote:Your first point is an obvious problem with “we’ll hold a referendum” as a manifesto promise. They’re calling on people to vote for them so that they can hold a vote and ask the voters what they should do. It’s about as far from leadership as you can get. If they believe we should stay they should argue it at the polls and get a mandate from the people there, if they believe we should stay they can do the same. This is going in with absolutely no stance and asking for a popular mandate (electoral win) to abdicate responsibility.
It’s not just that they haven’t defined what they disliked about the existing deals or what a Labour deal looks like, it’s that they aren’t able to say whether they’ll even agree with what’ll be in their deal. It’s nonsensical, dishonest, and farcical. Let’s say that they win, they negotiate a new deal which places a trade barrier in the Irish Sea, and then take that to the people to approve or reject. Do Labour ask the people to support their deal or vote it down? If they ask them to support it then they’re a leave party masquerading as a confused party. If they ask them to oppose it, as they should because it’d break the Union, then what the fuck are we even doing here? Why are they negotiating deals they oppose?
I want Boris to lose in a fucking landslide because he’s an insult to the collective dignity of the British people (not to mention the human race) but fucking hell Labour, get your shit together. Get in a room and work out whether you think we should leave the EU and then tell people what you decided. It’s called leadership. If you think we shouldn’t leave the EU then don’t commit to making an agreement to leave the EU and then dither on it. If you think we should then the time to say that is now. Say that you’re in favour of leaving but that you opposed the May deal because it lacked X, you’re going to try to get a new deal including X, and then to help get it through Parliament, because apparently you’re expecting to get a minority government at best(?), you’re going to seek a separate popular mandate for your deal.
You can’t try to play both sides by roping in remain voters with a promise of a second referendum and a cancellation of Brexit while also insisting that you’re going to negotiate your own Brexit deal. If it was better organized the current Labour Party could aspire to being called systematically dishonest and self serving, but right now it’s failing to even serve itself. It’s a fucking clustershambles that results from a deficit of leadership. We can’t be four years into the Brexit drama and still have an opposition that doesn’t have a coherent policy on Brexit.
Thanks for the reply. Your viewpoint seems to completely ignore the fact that we had a referendum in which over 17M people voted to leave and for which both the major parties agreed to honour. By the way 17M is considerably more than the number of people who voted either Tory or Labour at the last election, and contains about 3-4M Labour voters. As another poster pointed out going straight to revoke would be political suicide for Labour.
Labour have been clear from the start that they preferred to stay in the EU. They already did argue it at the polls prior to the referendum and remain lost. Labour quite clearly do not have no stance, their stance is they would prefer to remain but if instructed to leave by the people then they will leave with a less damaging leave option.
They have also been very clear about what they dont like about both May's and Boris's deal - if you dont know you just arent looking. I have already answered the question about whether they would support their own deal or not (Corbyn will remain neutral and MPs can choose their own side).
"Why are they negotiating a deal they oppose" - the Tories campaigned to remain too but they still negotiated two deals now, the first of which May "opposed" in the way that she preferred to remain as did the Tory party as a whole but when faced with a referendum which instructed them to organise leaving the EU thats what they came up with. Lets not pretend that if Labour were put in the same position suddenly it is ridiculous.
You just keep repeating that Labour dont know their position, but I have repeated their position about five times now you seem to just be pretending to not understand it at this point.
|
On November 09 2019 23:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Judging by the results of the previous general election, more people voted for remain parties than leave parties, but the Conservatives took the most votes and MP and so headed the government. And that's why everything is in a bit of a mess, that's why remain prefers a new referendum but not the general election in general.
I think you need to be careful saying that remain parties got more votes than leave parties. Labour ran in the 2017 election on a promise to honour the referendum result so they were a leave party.
The problem is actually that there are more remain MPs than leave MPs even though more constituencies voted to Leave.
So the people that voted feel like they are being ignored by their MPs, but the majority of MPs think that remaining is in the UK's best interest. That's where the conflict is.
Let us not forget last election the Lib Dems ran on a second referendum policy on Brexit (no idea what they were planning to do if Leave won again) and that was what the remainers wanted. Now they are being offered it suddenly it isnt good enough and they want revoke.
|
United States43964 Posts
On November 11 2019 23:08 rjpageuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2019 00:40 KwarK wrote:Your first point is an obvious problem with “we’ll hold a referendum” as a manifesto promise. They’re calling on people to vote for them so that they can hold a vote and ask the voters what they should do. It’s about as far from leadership as you can get. If they believe we should stay they should argue it at the polls and get a mandate from the people there, if they believe we should stay they can do the same. This is going in with absolutely no stance and asking for a popular mandate (electoral win) to abdicate responsibility.
It’s not just that they haven’t defined what they disliked about the existing deals or what a Labour deal looks like, it’s that they aren’t able to say whether they’ll even agree with what’ll be in their deal. It’s nonsensical, dishonest, and farcical. Let’s say that they win, they negotiate a new deal which places a trade barrier in the Irish Sea, and then take that to the people to approve or reject. Do Labour ask the people to support their deal or vote it down? If they ask them to support it then they’re a leave party masquerading as a confused party. If they ask them to oppose it, as they should because it’d break the Union, then what the fuck are we even doing here? Why are they negotiating deals they oppose?
I want Boris to lose in a fucking landslide because he’s an insult to the collective dignity of the British people (not to mention the human race) but fucking hell Labour, get your shit together. Get in a room and work out whether you think we should leave the EU and then tell people what you decided. It’s called leadership. If you think we shouldn’t leave the EU then don’t commit to making an agreement to leave the EU and then dither on it. If you think we should then the time to say that is now. Say that you’re in favour of leaving but that you opposed the May deal because it lacked X, you’re going to try to get a new deal including X, and then to help get it through Parliament, because apparently you’re expecting to get a minority government at best(?), you’re going to seek a separate popular mandate for your deal.
You can’t try to play both sides by roping in remain voters with a promise of a second referendum and a cancellation of Brexit while also insisting that you’re going to negotiate your own Brexit deal. If it was better organized the current Labour Party could aspire to being called systematically dishonest and self serving, but right now it’s failing to even serve itself. It’s a fucking clustershambles that results from a deficit of leadership. We can’t be four years into the Brexit drama and still have an opposition that doesn’t have a coherent policy on Brexit. Thanks for the reply. Your viewpoint seems to completely ignore the fact that we had a referendum in which over 17M people voted to leave and for which both the major parties agreed to honour. By the way 17M is considerably more than the number of people who voted either Tory or Labour at the last election, and contains about 3-4M Labour voters. As another poster pointed out going straight to revoke would be political suicide for Labour. Labour have been clear from the start that they preferred to stay in the EU. They already did argue it at the polls prior to the referendum and remain lost. Labour quite clearly do not have no stance, their stance is they would prefer to remain but if instructed to leave by the people then they will leave with a less damaging leave option. They have also been very clear about what they dont like about both May's and Boris's deal - if you dont know you just arent looking. I have already answered the question about whether they would support their own deal or not (Corbyn will remain neutral and MPs can choose their own side). "Why are they negotiating a deal they oppose" - the Tories campaigned to remain too but they still negotiated two deals now, the first of which May "opposed" in the way that she preferred to remain as did the Tory party as a whole but when faced with a referendum which instructed them to organise leaving the EU thats what they came up with. Lets not pretend that if Labour were put in the same position suddenly it is ridiculous. You just keep repeating that Labour dont know their position, but I have repeated their position about five times now you seem to just be pretending to not understand it at this point.
I’m not pretending to not understand it, you are pretending that you have adequately addressed any of the issues. You have not. Repeating your answers won’t change my response because your answers don’t address the issue. Labour don’t have a policy, they have a promise to come up with a policy later. That’s not good enough.
|
On November 11 2019 23:16 rjpageuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2019 23:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Judging by the results of the previous general election, more people voted for remain parties than leave parties, but the Conservatives took the most votes and MP and so headed the government. And that's why everything is in a bit of a mess, that's why remain prefers a new referendum but not the general election in general. I think you need to be careful saying that remain parties got more votes than leave parties. Labour ran in the 2017 election on a promise to honour the referendum result so they were a leave party. The problem is actually that there are more remain MPs than leave MPs even though more constituencies voted to Leave. So the people that voted feel like they are being ignored by their MPs, but the majority of MPs think that remaining is in the UK's best interest. That's where the conflict is. Let us not forget last election the Lib Dems ran on a second referendum policy on Brexit (no idea what they were planning to do if Leave won again) and that was what the remainers wanted. Now they are being offered it suddenly it isnt good enough and they want revoke. Wow there. The UK (like the US) vote for 'their' MP's directly. If there are more Remain MP's then Leave MP's its because the people who live in those districts chose to vote for an MP that wants to remain over one that wants to leave.
Your free to argue that people are stupid (they mostly are), but its hard to claim the House of Commons isn't representing the will of the people when they are directly elected by the people to represent them.
|
On November 11 2019 23:08 rjpageuk wrote:
Thanks for the reply. Your viewpoint seems to completely ignore the fact that we had a referendum in which over 17M people voted to leave and for which both the major parties agreed to honour. By the way 17M is considerably more than the number of people who voted either Tory or Labour at the last election, and contains about 3-4M Labour voters. As another poster pointed out going straight to revoke would be political suicide for Labour.
Don't play around with numbers like this to give your "side" the most favoured perspective. It's ugly.
17,410,742 voted for leave.
16,141,241 voted for Remain.
2017 General Election:
13,636,684 voted for Conservative
12,877,918 voted for Labour.
2,371,861 voted for Lib Dem.
977,568 voted for SNP.
525,665 voted for Green.
Other votes about 1,800,000 uncertain side.
|
On November 11 2019 23:35 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2019 23:16 rjpageuk wrote:On November 09 2019 23:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Judging by the results of the previous general election, more people voted for remain parties than leave parties, but the Conservatives took the most votes and MP and so headed the government. And that's why everything is in a bit of a mess, that's why remain prefers a new referendum but not the general election in general. I think you need to be careful saying that remain parties got more votes than leave parties. Labour ran in the 2017 election on a promise to honour the referendum result so they were a leave party. The problem is actually that there are more remain MPs than leave MPs even though more constituencies voted to Leave. So the people that voted feel like they are being ignored by their MPs, but the majority of MPs think that remaining is in the UK's best interest. That's where the conflict is. Let us not forget last election the Lib Dems ran on a second referendum policy on Brexit (no idea what they were planning to do if Leave won again) and that was what the remainers wanted. Now they are being offered it suddenly it isnt good enough and they want revoke. Wow there. The UK (like the US) vote for 'their' MP's directly. If there are more Remain MP's then Leave MP's its because the people who live in those districts chose to vote for an MP that wants to remain over one that wants to leave.Your free to argue that people are stupid (they mostly are), but its hard to claim the House of Commons isn't representing the will of the people when they are directly elected by the people to represent them.
Did they though? Or did they vote for whatever candidate their favoured party put forward? Isn't there only one candidate per constituency per party in the UK?
|
On November 11 2019 23:55 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2019 23:35 Gorsameth wrote:On November 11 2019 23:16 rjpageuk wrote:On November 09 2019 23:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Judging by the results of the previous general election, more people voted for remain parties than leave parties, but the Conservatives took the most votes and MP and so headed the government. And that's why everything is in a bit of a mess, that's why remain prefers a new referendum but not the general election in general. I think you need to be careful saying that remain parties got more votes than leave parties. Labour ran in the 2017 election on a promise to honour the referendum result so they were a leave party. The problem is actually that there are more remain MPs than leave MPs even though more constituencies voted to Leave. So the people that voted feel like they are being ignored by their MPs, but the majority of MPs think that remaining is in the UK's best interest. That's where the conflict is. Let us not forget last election the Lib Dems ran on a second referendum policy on Brexit (no idea what they were planning to do if Leave won again) and that was what the remainers wanted. Now they are being offered it suddenly it isnt good enough and they want revoke. Wow there. The UK (like the US) vote for 'their' MP's directly. If there are more Remain MP's then Leave MP's its because the people who live in those districts chose to vote for an MP that wants to remain over one that wants to leave.Your free to argue that people are stupid (they mostly are), but its hard to claim the House of Commons isn't representing the will of the people when they are directly elected by the people to represent them. Did they though? Or did they vote for whatever candidate their favoured party put forward? Isn't there only one candidate per constituency per party in the UK?
While true that there is only one candidate per party per constituency the vote is for the person and not the party. This is why there is no by-election when an MP leaves a party. In practice though I think most people vote on party lines, particularly since few MPs vote against their party.
Edit: And it is always very hard to know why people voted how they did. I am an ardent remainer but voted Labour in 2017 because I knew the Lib Dems/Greens had no chance at all of winning my seat.
|
On November 12 2019 00:08 Melliflue wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2019 23:55 maybenexttime wrote:On November 11 2019 23:35 Gorsameth wrote:On November 11 2019 23:16 rjpageuk wrote:On November 09 2019 23:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Judging by the results of the previous general election, more people voted for remain parties than leave parties, but the Conservatives took the most votes and MP and so headed the government. And that's why everything is in a bit of a mess, that's why remain prefers a new referendum but not the general election in general. I think you need to be careful saying that remain parties got more votes than leave parties. Labour ran in the 2017 election on a promise to honour the referendum result so they were a leave party. The problem is actually that there are more remain MPs than leave MPs even though more constituencies voted to Leave. So the people that voted feel like they are being ignored by their MPs, but the majority of MPs think that remaining is in the UK's best interest. That's where the conflict is. Let us not forget last election the Lib Dems ran on a second referendum policy on Brexit (no idea what they were planning to do if Leave won again) and that was what the remainers wanted. Now they are being offered it suddenly it isnt good enough and they want revoke. Wow there. The UK (like the US) vote for 'their' MP's directly. If there are more Remain MP's then Leave MP's its because the people who live in those districts chose to vote for an MP that wants to remain over one that wants to leave.Your free to argue that people are stupid (they mostly are), but its hard to claim the House of Commons isn't representing the will of the people when they are directly elected by the people to represent them. Did they though? Or did they vote for whatever candidate their favoured party put forward? Isn't there only one candidate per constituency per party in the UK? While true that there is only one candidate per party per constituency the vote is for the person and not the party. This is why there is no by-election when an MP leaves a party. In practice though I think most people vote on party lines, particularly since few MPs vote against their party. Edit: And it is always very hard to know why people voted how they did. I am an ardent remainer but voted Labour in 2017 because I knew the Lib Dems/Greens had no chance at all of winning my seat.
Yet another reminder that FPTP is a garbage system
|
Farage announced he is standing down in all 317 seats that the conservatives won at the last election. This will hurt the SNP and lib dems mostly limiting what they can gain from the conservatives. Labour wont be hurt by this too much but I suspect they are going to be torn about in every direction anyway from Leavers to Brexit Party and Conservatives and Remainers and left leaning who don't like Corbyn to Green, Lib Dem, SNP, Plaid.
|
On November 12 2019 00:08 Melliflue wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2019 23:55 maybenexttime wrote:On November 11 2019 23:35 Gorsameth wrote:On November 11 2019 23:16 rjpageuk wrote:On November 09 2019 23:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Judging by the results of the previous general election, more people voted for remain parties than leave parties, but the Conservatives took the most votes and MP and so headed the government. And that's why everything is in a bit of a mess, that's why remain prefers a new referendum but not the general election in general. I think you need to be careful saying that remain parties got more votes than leave parties. Labour ran in the 2017 election on a promise to honour the referendum result so they were a leave party. The problem is actually that there are more remain MPs than leave MPs even though more constituencies voted to Leave. So the people that voted feel like they are being ignored by their MPs, but the majority of MPs think that remaining is in the UK's best interest. That's where the conflict is. Let us not forget last election the Lib Dems ran on a second referendum policy on Brexit (no idea what they were planning to do if Leave won again) and that was what the remainers wanted. Now they are being offered it suddenly it isnt good enough and they want revoke. Wow there. The UK (like the US) vote for 'their' MP's directly. If there are more Remain MP's then Leave MP's its because the people who live in those districts chose to vote for an MP that wants to remain over one that wants to leave.Your free to argue that people are stupid (they mostly are), but its hard to claim the House of Commons isn't representing the will of the people when they are directly elected by the people to represent them. Did they though? Or did they vote for whatever candidate their favoured party put forward? Isn't there only one candidate per constituency per party in the UK? While true that there is only one candidate per party per constituency the vote is for the person and not the party. This is why there is no by-election when an MP leaves a party. In practice though I think most people vote on party lines, particularly since few MPs vote against their party. Edit: And it is always very hard to know why people voted how they did. I am an ardent remainer but voted Labour in 2017 because I knew the Lib Dems/Greens had no chance at all of winning my seat.
Technically you vote for the candidate. In practice, however, most constituencies are considered safe for one of the parties. Many have been for generations.
|
|
|
On November 11 2019 23:35 Gorsameth wrote:Wow there. The UK (like the US) vote for 'their' MP's directly. If there are more Remain MP's then Leave MP's its because the people who live in those districts chose to vote for an MP that wants to remain over one that wants to leave.
Your free to argue that people are stupid (they mostly are), but its hard to claim the House of Commons isn't representing the will of the people when they are directly elected by the people to represent them.
While I understand and in general agree with your point, I think the issue here is that the opinion of the relevant MPs was never made clear and transparent at that time. There were no remain and leave MPs - their personal views on this have only become clear after voting on various ways out have happened.
Labour and the Tories ran on manifestos that said they would honour the referendum result and I think some people voted on that basis. Hence why they feel betrayed by their MP that is supporting remain - I think it is pretty easy to understand that even if you dont share the same view.
On November 11 2019 23:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2019 23:08 rjpageuk wrote:
Thanks for the reply. Your viewpoint seems to completely ignore the fact that we had a referendum in which over 17M people voted to leave and for which both the major parties agreed to honour. By the way 17M is considerably more than the number of people who voted either Tory or Labour at the last election, and contains about 3-4M Labour voters. As another poster pointed out going straight to revoke would be political suicide for Labour.
Don't play around with numbers like this to give your "side" the most favoured perspective. It's ugly. 17,410,742 voted for leave. 16,141,241 voted for Remain. 2017 General Election: 13,636,684 voted for Conservative 12,877,918 voted for Labour. 2,371,861 voted for Lib Dem. 977,568 voted for SNP. 525,665 voted for Green. Other votes about 1,800,000 uncertain side.
Firstly I am a remain supporter, so the first part of your reply is wrong. Secondly, what about the numbers you posted contradicts what I said in my post?
|
What part isn't you playing with numbers? Over 17 million voted to leave sounds completely unimpressive if you write that over 16 million also voted to remain. Or I can say similar numbers voted in the referendum and in the general election. See, I can play with numbers too. Labour, no matter how you claim otherwise is seen as a remain party. Add up the numbers yourself and see that there are more nominally remain MP's than leave MP's. Your implied point is that there is a clear democratic mandate for leave, and that is not the case.
|
Didn't Labour campaign for respecting the referendum a.k.a. Leaving? Their manifesto in 2017 explictly stated the UK should leave the EU if I'm not mistaken. There absolutely is a clear democratic mandate for Leave, the problem for last year is that there hasn't been one for remain.
|
On November 14 2019 08:50 Longshank wrote:
Didn't Labour campaign for respecting the referendum a.k.a. Leaving? Their manifesto in 2017 explictly stated the UK should leave the EU if I'm not mistaken. There absolutely is a clear democratic mandate for Leave, the problem for last year is that there hasn't been one for remain.
A 'democratic mandate' based on a pipedream. Even the leavers are disenchanted and aren't getting what they thought they were getting.
It's like saying there's a democratic mandate for bringing unicorns into existence, only to discover three years later that unicorns are actually twenty foot tall, human-eating, firebreathing monsters who'll terrorise the UK and consume all humans they encounter. BUT THERE'S A DEMOCRATIC MANDATE SO WE MUST INTRODUCE THEM INTO THE WILD.
Leave won the referendum after a series of very specific promises were made by the leave side. Every single one of those promises turned out to be bullshit.
So how can we be certain there's a democratic mandate for leave?
The most likely 'leave' outcome is a hard brexit, or Johnson's deal, which most leavers don't like. Maybe they'd rather that than remain, but is that for sure? Entire constituencies that voted leave have since learned that leaving will have serious consequences that they weren't expecting. Would their people vote the same way if they knew then what they do now?
The democratic mandate argument doesn't hold water. There was so much misinformation and so little effort by the public to educate themselves that the vote was entirely ideological. Now people have a much clearer idea of what's coming. A second referendum is by far the most sensible approach at this point.
|
On November 14 2019 08:50 Longshank wrote:
Didn't Labour campaign for respecting the referendum a.k.a. Leaving? Their manifesto in 2017 explictly stated the UK should leave the EU if I'm not mistaken. There absolutely is a clear democratic mandate for Leave, the problem for last year is that there hasn't been one for remain.
In our FPTP system their are many constituencies that will only ever be won by Labour or Conservatives. If both parties are saying they will leave the EU then there is no pro-EU choice for many people, so you cannot say there is a clear mandate for Leave.
Pro-EU people could have voted Lib Dem in England (or Green I guess) but if they have no realistic shot at winning then it is a wasted vote. In normal circumstances, voting for smaller parties can influence the two main parties to change their policies. The rise of UKIP was a factor in David Cameron including a referendum in the 2015 manifesto, for example. However, this form of politics only works if you can wait a general election or two for a major party to shift position. In 2017 pro-EU voters were facing the prospect of being outside the EU before the following general election scheduled for 2022 so voting Lib Dem in the hope that Labour or Conservatives would adopt a more pro-Remain policy in 2022 would have been foolish. For many it was a choice between Tory Brexit or Labour Brexit. Picking Labour Brexit over Tory Brexit does not mean that person is in favour of Brexit.
On November 13 2019 23:09 rjpageuk wrote:
Labour and the Tories ran on manifestos that said they would honour the referendum result and I think some people voted on that basis. Hence why they feel betrayed by their MP that is supporting remain - I think it is pretty easy to understand that even if you dont share the same view.
A reminder that it wasn't remain MPs who prevented Brexit from happening thus far. Labour voted against May's deal because they didn't like the deal; they were worried about worker rights weakening etc. (and Corbyn was probably trying to bring down the Tories in the hope of becoming PM). There were also many hard Brexit Tories who voted against May's deal, and then voted against all the indicative vote options besides no-deal.
The Tory party has been split on how close to stay to the EU after Brexit. The MPs like Hammond and Gauke wanted to minimise the disruption to the economy and businesses so wanted to prevent the hard Brexit that the MPs like Dominic Raab and Theresa Villiers were aiming for and would accept nothing less than. Brexit would have happened by now if not for the ERG voting against May's deal.
|
On November 14 2019 21:22 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2019 08:50 Longshank wrote:
Didn't Labour campaign for respecting the referendum a.k.a. Leaving? Their manifesto in 2017 explictly stated the UK should leave the EU if I'm not mistaken. There absolutely is a clear democratic mandate for Leave, the problem for last year is that there hasn't been one for remain. A 'democratic mandate' based on a pipedream. Even the leavers are disenchanted and aren't getting what they thought they were getting. It's like saying there's a democratic mandate for bringing unicorns into existence, only to discover three years later that unicorns are actually twenty foot tall, human-eating, firebreathing monsters who'll terrorise the UK and consume all humans they encounter. BUT THERE'S A DEMOCRATIC MANDATE SO WE MUST INTRODUCE THEM INTO THE WILD. Leave won the referendum after a series of very specific promises were made by the leave side. Every single one of those promises turned out to be bullshit. So how can we be certain there's a democratic mandate for leave? The most likely 'leave' outcome is a hard brexit, or Johnson's deal, which most leavers don't like. Maybe they'd rather that than remain, but is that for sure? Entire constituencies that voted leave have since learned that leaving will have serious consequences that they weren't expecting. Would their people vote the same way if they knew then what they do now? The democratic mandate argument doesn't hold water. There was so much misinformation and so little effort by the public to educate themselves that the vote was entirely ideological. Now people have a much clearer idea of what's coming. A second referendum is by far the most sensible approach at this point.
Well yes, if there was a referendum on bringing unicorns back and 'Yeah, let's!' got a majority, then there would be a democratic mandate for that. If it's a pipedream, unrealistic or even impossible is beside the point.
A democratic mandate for something is given by an election or referendum. Not opinion polls, political analysis or common sense. Leave got a clear mandate in the 2016 referendum. The result isn't disputed, they recieved a majority of the votes. That the leave campaign lied through their teeth and promised unicorns is unfortunate but no court has overruled the result. Guess what, Remain lied as well. Not to the same extent but still. I'd go so far and say that there hasn't been an election in a western democracy where there hasn't been lies or broken promises.
The 2017 election did nothing to diminish the mandate given by the referendum. Leave and Remain voters voted for the main parties for all sorts of reasons but they both stood on a manifesto to deliver Brexit, not to overturn the result. You can't really say anything about the 2017 election in regards to leave/remain given their similar stance and the lack of alternatives. That goes both ways, Brexiteers are quick to point out that 80-ish%(or whatever high number) voted for Leave parties in 2017 which is equally stupid.
Even if revoking would be the smart, sensible and responsible thing to do, fact remains that it's incredible difficult for politicians to do without getting a political mandate for it in either a referendum or general election. It has never really been a thing in the Parliament. Leave, while lacking just about everything else, do have that mandate. For now.
|
This internet idea Labour have had is absolutely the worst thing they could have possibly done.
I might not vote Labour now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
