Brexit!

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

I echo Matts statements on this. If you find him dangerous for democracy then fair enough, but surely Lib Dems and the revoking of Article 50 are even more of a danger? If it's purely revoked then how the hell are we was a country ever going to respect the result of anything ever again?

While I don't agree with the Lib Dems' policy, if they ever had the power to enact it (spoiler, they won't have) then they will be there because they were democratically elected to that position. By the same token, if there was a second referendum then whoever won the subsequent election could choose to ignore the result if they ran on a pro-Brexit platform. No electorate or Parliament can bind its successor, and democracy in Britain didn't begin and end on 23 June 2016.

[Leicester_Loyal]

4 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

While I don't agree with the Lib Dems' policy, if they ever had the power to enact it (spoiler, they won't have) then they will be there because they were democratically elected to that position. By the same token, if there was a second referendum then whoever won the subsequent election could choose to ignore the result if they ran on a pro-Brexit platform. No electorate or Parliament can bind its successor, and democracy in Britain didn't begin and end on 23 June 2016.

Becuase you can't just overturn a result before it's been implemented? Once it's implemented the Lib Dems are more than entitled to campaign to put us back into the EU, which if it is as bad as they say it's going to be after leaving, people will happily vote for them to do.

 

So if there's a second referendum, remain wins and the Cons/Brexit Party decide to take us out of EU anyway, many on here will be ok with it? I'm going to respectfully disagree with you there. Boris was called a lying dictator because some thought he was never going to try to get another deal, imagine if he 'ignores' a refendum vote. Or will this one be legally binding, whereas the one previously where leave won was only advisory?

Edited 24 October 2019 by Leicester_Loyal

[Carl the Llama]

14 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

This is the scary thing on here. Many people are willing to just turn over a democratic vote because they voted the opposing way. If it happens, you've got to remember one day in the future it'll happen to something you voted for, at which point you'll cry 'NAZI, EXTREMIST, DICTATOR' and expect the vote to be honoured.

Disregarding the fact that it was an advisory referendum which didn't even muster enough support to pass King Farage's own 52-48 red line, I reject the claim that it was a functionally democratic vote given the farcical propaganda and manipulative online practices.

[Voll Blau]

4 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Becuase you can't just overturn a result before it's been implemented? Once it's implemented the Lib Dems are more than entitled to campaign to put us back into the EU, which if it is as bad as they say it's going to be after leaving, people will happily vote for them to do.

 

So if there's a second referendum, remain wins and the Cons/Brexit Party decide to take us out of EU anyway, many on here will be ok with it? I'm going to respectfully disagree with you there. Boris was called a lying dictator because some thought he was never going to try to get another deal, imagine if he 'ignores' a refendum vote. Or will this one be legally binding, whereas the one previously where leave won was only advisory?

I think you're missing my point slightly. I'm not necessarily saying it would be right, I'm just saying it wouldn't be undemocratic - certainly compared to what Cummings is up to.

 

The Lib Dems would need a huge amount of the electorate's backing to enact what they want to do, whereas the unelected Cummings is already influencing our democracy in a very troubling way, which patently makes him a bigger danger.

Edited 24 October 2019 by Voll Blau

[Leicester_Loyal]

8 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Disregarding the fact that it was an advisory referendum which didn't even muster enough support to pass King Farage's own 52-48 red line, I reject the claim that it was a functionally democratic vote given the farcical propaganda and manipulative online practices.

And there comes the advisory refendum quote Followed by only the leave side lied and illegally gave out wrong facts. Next you'll be saying the remain side told the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

 

If Remain won and we were being taken out by the Conservatives it would be ok because it was only 'advisory'? Somehow I think you wouldn't be ok with that, and rightly so.

 

If a second referendum occurs with Remain winning we'll be in an even worse situation, because you'll have both sides claiming they have won the democratic vote and you'll have both sides protesting, marching and trying to overturn democratic results. It seems a strange concept that people think once the leave vote is somehow overturned that those original 17.4 million people will be ok with it.

Edited 24 October 2019 by Leicester_Loyal

[lgfualol]

11 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

This is the scary thing on here. Many people are willing to just turn over a democratic vote because they voted the opposing way. If it happens, you've got to remember one day in the future it'll happen to something you voted for, at which point you'll cry 'NAZI, EXTREMIST, DICTATOR' and expect the vote to be honoured.

I think it is reasonable and actually pretty democratic to have the possibility to reverse the vote given what's come up over the years since and the laughing stock the UK has become. If remain had won by a tight margin, and people were unhappy with how it was going afterwards, you would want another vote or to at least discuss trying to leave again, right? We have general elections every few years because people change their minds. 

[Leicester_Loyal]

Just now, lgfualol said:

I think it is reasonable and actually pretty democratic to have the possibility to reverse the vote given what's come up over the years since and the laughing stock the UK has become. If remain had won by a tight margin, and people were unhappy with how it was going afterwards, you would want another vote or to at least discuss trying to leave again, right? We have general elections every few years because people change their minds. 

I've no issue with people campaigning to put us back into the EU, after we actually leave. We don't rerun a general election before the winning party has taken office though do we?

 

People seem to just want to ignore democratic votes because they didn't go their way. My point is that it's a dangerous precedent to set. You may be on the losing side this time, so are happy to do that, but one day you may be on the winning side, and will have a totally opposing view.

[RoboFox]

 

Labour and the Lib Dems trying to smear one another when they should be uniting agains the Tories who are the ones attempting to flog off the NHS wholesale.

 

Bonkers.

[Carl the Llama]

2 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

And there comes the advisory refendum quoteFollowed by only the leave side lied and illegally gave out wrong facts. Next you'll be saying the remain side told the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

 

If Remain won and we were being taken out by the Conservatives it would be ok because it was only 'advisory'? Somehow I think you wouldn't be ok with that, and rightly so.

 

If a second referendum occurs with Remain winning we'll be in an even worse situation, because you'll have both sides claiming they have won the democratic vote and you'll have both sides protesting, marching and trying to overturn democratic results. It seems a strange concept that people think once the leave vote is somehow overturned that those original 17.4 million people will be ok with it.

No, just that you need to look at my post again and work on your reading comprehension.  That's a whole lot of content that you've projected into my comment.

 

If remain had won I would have been relieved that such a major decision wasn't taken on the back of arguably the most dishonest and provably manipulated campaign period in recent memory, for the UK at least. I would also have been entirely sympathetic if leavers wanted to give the referendum another shot following a slightly more sane period where people became more accurately aware of the realities of EU membership and the cost of losing it.  But that's purely hypothetical.

[Guest MattP]

24 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

While I don't agree with the Lib Dems' policy, if they ever had the power to enact it (spoiler, they won't have) then they will be there because they were democratically elected to that position. By the same token, if there was a second referendum then whoever won the subsequent election could choose to ignore the result if they ran on a pro-Brexit platform. No electorate or Parliament can bind its successor, and democracy in Britain didn't begin and end on 23 June 2016.

I was always a firm believer that for huge constitutional change you need referenda and you then need to win a majority in that to enact it. 

 

If we lose that I think it's sad and potentially dangerous to allow such things when a parliamentary majority could theoretically be delivered on 28% of the vote.

[Leicester_Loyal]

5 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

No, just that you need to look at my post again and work on your reading comprehension.  That's a whole lot of content that you've projected into my comment.

 

If remain had won I would have been relieved that such a major decision wasn't taken on the back of arguably the most dishonest and provably manipulated campaign period in recent memory, for the UK at least. I would also have been entirely sympathetic if leavers wanted to give the referendum another shot following a slightly more sane period where people became more accurately aware of the realities of EU membership and the cost of losing it.  But that's purely hypothetical.

The same arguments have been spouted for over 3 years on here. They would have 100% been your next posts had I argued back.

 

So my point stands then? If Remain had won and we were being taken out of the EU, you wouldn't be happy about it? What actual fresh information has come out since the original vote 3 years ago? We've had a lot of speculation, combined with stuff that we already knew when the original campaigns were happening.

 

Like it or not, we were told it was a once in a generation vote, with our votes being listened to no matter the outcome. A deal would try to be agreed, if it wasn't we'd leave on WTO terms after two years. Remainers should be blaming parliament for triggering Article 50 if they weren't ready to fulfil those commitments that were stated to us.

Edited 24 October 2019 by Leicester_Loyal

[Guest MattP]

Just now, Leicester_Loyal said:

Haha, the same arguments have been spouted for over 3 years on here. They would have 100% been your next posts had I argued back.

 

So my point stands then? If Remain had won and we were being taken out of the EU, you wouldn't be happy about it? What actual fresh information has come out since the original vote 3 years ago? We've had a lot of speculation, combined with stuff that we already knew when the original campaigns were happening.

 

Like it or not, we were told it was a once in a generation vote, with our votes being listened to no matter the outcome. A deal would try to be agreed, if it wasn't we'd leave on WTO terms after two years. Remainers should be blaming parliament for triggering Article 50 if they weren't ready to fulfil those commitments that were stated to us.

Yeah but they assumed you were voting Remain

[Leicester_Loyal]

Just now, MattP said:

Yeah but they assumed you were voting Remain

Very true Matthew. I can see why you took a break from this thread, it sends you insane. It's a very short sighted view to be happy to overturn a result (before it has been implemented) because you disagree with the outcome and if it were to occur, it sets a dangerous precedent for us as a democracy going forward in the future.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Why do you find him dangerous for democracy? As far as I can see he's trying to implement the referendum result and if parliament doesn't want to do that they have the option of a General Election instead, I don't see how that can be dangerous for democracy. If anything I'd said the "people's vote" crowd and the Liberal Democrats are the biggest dangers to democracy in our country at the minute by discarding losers consent and wanting to either revoke the decision taken or keep voting until we change our mind.

For all the talk about him and Boris circumventing or breaking the law when it came to the Benn Act they didn't and as soon as the supreme court ruled against them on prorogation they came back to parliament.

 

He certainly has the "Alistairs Campbell's" about him but he's nowhere near his level yet, this was a bloke who turned the civil service and the media into his own propaganda machine through fear and intimidation.

 

48 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

I echo Matts statements on this. If you find him dangerous for democracy then fair enough, but surely Lib Dems and the revoking of Article 50 are even more of a danger? If it's purely revoked then how the hell are we was a country ever going to respect the result of anything ever again?

 

I think the danger to democracy is self-evident from Oborne's outstandingly well-argued article: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/british-journalists-have-become-part-of-johnsons-fake-news-machine/

Anyone with an open mind should read that.

 

Namely: It is dangerous for democracy if (a) the Govt exerts increasing control over mainstream media coverage; (b) Anonymous lies & smears are put into that media without source or challenge.

Extreme examples of where this can end up:

- China, with media content largely controlled by Govt

- USA, which now seems to exist in a post-truth furore as to what is or is not fake news

High-quality, objective, sceptical, challenging journalism is important to democracy.

 

I'm well aware that others (e.g. Campbell) have exerted similar malign influence. But their manipulation has often been challenged by mainstream media (e.g. media debate, correctly, about his "dodgy dossier" on Iraq).

 

@Leicester_Loyal, I completely agree with you about the Lib Dem revocation policy - probably one of the few things we do agree about! 

Although I've mainly voted Labour in the past, I have voted LD a couple of time....but wouldn't consider it when they have such an anti-democratic policy on the key issue of the day.

 

Must bow out for today now - work deadline!

 

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, Leicester_Loyal said:

Haha, the same arguments have been spouted for over 3 years on here. They would have 100% been your next posts had I argued back.

Erm no.  I do wonder if there's much point responding to anything else you say if you're going to have these little arguments with an imagined version of me in your head.

 

1 minute ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

So my point stands then? If Remain had won and we were being taken out of the EU, you wouldn't be happy about it? What actual fresh information has come out since the original vote 3 years ago? We've had a lot of speculation, combined with stuff that we already knew when the original campaigns were happening.

IObviously I would be upset, what's your point?  For 2 major examples we learned the Cambridge Analytica stuff and the fact that the Irish border issue might be more complicated than people assumed.  If you're telling me you've learned nothing new in the past 3 years that's highly concerning.

 

7 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Like it or not, we were told it was a once in a generation vote, with our votes being listened to no matter the outcome. A deal would try to be agreed, if it wasn't we'd leave on WTO terms after two years. Remainers should be blaming parliament for triggering Article 50 if they weren't ready to fulfil those commitments that were stated to us.

As we've been discussing we were told many things, much of it false.  Reading comprehension alert: Neither side was singled out for issuing false information in the previous sentence.  We were also told that Brexiteers wouldn't accept a 52-48 defeat so I'm really scratching my head at all of them up in arms that their precious be contested.

[RoboFox]

6 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

I think the danger to democracy is self-evident from Oborne's outstandingly well-argued article: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/british-journalists-have-become-part-of-johnsons-fake-news-machine/

Anyone with an open mind should read that.

 

I think you've misjudged certain members of your audience here, Alf. 

[Guest MattP]

Another classic from Tottenham's village idiot.

 

David Lammy, who voted for the Benn act that enshrines into law that the EU decide the length of our extention - now complains about the EU deciding the length of our extention and manages somehow to try and blame it on Brexit. 

 

And they say leavers don't understand what they are voting for.

Edited 24 October 2019 by MattP

[Bobby Hundreds]

2 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Like it or not, we were told it was a once in a generation vote, with our votes being listened to no matter the outcome. A deal would try to be agreed, if it wasn't we'd leave on WTO terms after two years. Remainers should be blaming parliament for triggering Article 50 if they weren't ready to fulfil those commitments that were stated to us.

We were told that post-referendum not before. Leave's message pre-referendum was a Norwegian and Swiss style deal, which would be an absolute breeze to sort out. 

[Manwell Pablo]

It'll be interesting if they do decline the extension. I guess that would make accepting the current deal the only alternative to no deal.

 

I wonder what Jeremy "No deal must be avoided at all costs" Corbyn and Co will make of that scenario 

[Dr The Singh]

2 hours ago, Manwell Pablo said:

It'll be interesting if they do decline the extension. I guess that would make accepting the current deal the only alternative to no deal.

 

I wonder what Jeremy "No deal must be avoided at all costs" Corbyn and Co will make of that scenario 

Diane Abbott makes the decisions mate, hence there fooked.

[Guest MattP]

Boris going for another for General Election - looking forward to hear the excuses from Jeremy post-extension.

[HappyHamza]

5 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

I've no issue with people campaigning to put us back into the EU, after we actually leave. We don't rerun a general election before the winning party has taken office though do we?

 

People seem to just want to ignore democratic votes because they didn't go their way. My point is that it's a dangerous precedent to set. You may be on the losing side this time, so are happy to do that, but one day you may be on the winning side, and will have a totally opposing view.

If we had a general election before brexit and the lib dems won a majority by promising to revoke article 50 then that is the overriding democratic mandate.

 

The fact there was an earlier vote, the result of which hadn't finished being acted upon is completely irrelevant. If the will of the people was demonstrated to have changed it would be perverse to continue regardless. 

 

If you can't see that it's either because you refuse to see it or your brain isnt wired correctly. 

 

The lib dems won't win an election though. 

[HappyHamza]

6 hours ago, MattP said:

I was always a firm believer that for huge constitutional change you need referenda and you then need to win a majority in that to enact it. 

 

If we lose that I think it's sad and potentially dangerous to allow such things when a parliamentary majority could theoretically be delivered on 28% of the vote.

What we need is proportional representation and an end to the fixed term parliament act. The FTPA and FPTP are together (and separately) both anti-democratic.

 

And nobody won a majority after the brexit referendum. 

Edited 24 October 2019 by HappyHamza

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, HappyHamza said:

What we need is proportional representation and an end to the fixed term parliament act. The FTPA and FPTP are together (and separately) both anti-democratic.

 

And nobody won a majority after the brexit referendum. 

No chance of it happening though, Labour and the Tories aren't even going to give up FPTP.

 

Public probably wouldn't either when put to them.

[bovril]

7 hours ago, MattP said:

Why do you find him dangerous for democracy? As far as I can see he's trying to implement the referendum result and if parliament doesn't want to do that they have the option of a General Election instead, I don't see how that can be dangerous for democracy. If anything I'd said the "people's vote" crowd and the Liberal Democrats are the biggest dangers to democracy in our country at the minute by discarding losers consent and wanting to either revoke the decision taken or keep voting until we change our mind.

My memory is not great but when did May's government ever attempt to generate losers' consent? I just remember a 52/48 referendum, a couple of months of silence, then the red lines.