Lib Dems: Making a great comeback?
Discussion
JagLover said:
Don't bring logic and reason into this. Didn't you know the remainers have a monopoly on intelligence and education?
Well, it does appear to be the case.It's a shame really.
Remain voters didn't think the EU was perfect, but leaving seemed like such a ridiculous thing to do (and it appears that the leaders of the leave campaign agree with them) that they voted not to leave.
The angry poor and the noisily jingoistic anti-foreigners came together for the bad if the nation.
What an uneccessary shambles.
Not in my name
crankedup said:
As a long standing Lib -- Dem I find it embarrassing that the Party should resort to an affront of democracy in the interests of political advantage. How low can politicians stoop?
At what point in the future does it become an affront to democracy not to allow 'the people' to have their say on the EU again?footnote said:
crankedup said:
As a long standing Lib -- Dem I find it embarrassing that the Party should resort to an affront of democracy in the interests of political advantage. How low can politicians stoop?
At what point in the future does it become an affront to democracy not to allow 'the people' to have their say on the EU again?
crankedup said:
As a long standing Lib -- Dem I find it embarrassing that the Party should resort to an affront of democracy in the interests of political advantage. How low can politicians stoop?
It's perfectly reasonable for a political party to say we want to stay in the EU and will campaign for it, just as it was for UKIP to take it's seats in Brussels and oppose. Pretty much half the country wants to stay in, without going back over old ground, a decision such as this should have required far more than 50.01% of the vote to get through, there is simply too much at stake and Leave know it, which is why they are back peddling. You get on with your embarrassment and vote with your feet.crankedup said:
footnote said:
crankedup said:
As a long standing Lib -- Dem I find it embarrassing that the Party should resort to an affront of democracy in the interests of political advantage. How low can politicians stoop?
At what point in the future does it become an affront to democracy not to allow 'the people' to have their say on the EU again?What I'm saying is the problem with accepting that one referendum is the will of the people and then being unwilling to accept that another referendum is also the will of the people is quite clearly ridiculous but effectively illustrates the problem with not adhering to a system of parliamentary democracy.
Once we started the referendum scenario there is no 'right' place in which to stop. We arte almost obligated to continue ad infinitum - checking and re-checking - the 'will of the people'
We may as well set up Red Button voting on the BBC and go yes/no to everything
footnote said:
The issue of 'democracy' is surely a red herring in all of this.
If 'democracy' had ever bee a concern of parliament or the public, then surely there would have been a referendum on the death penalty yonks ago?
Of course, there never has been because of the fear that the 'will of the people' would be to bring back the death penalty.
Implicitly then, the 'people' are considered unready to make the 'right' decision on that.
The decision that 'the people' somehow knew what the 'right' decision was on the EU has (unfortunately from my perspective) been proved wrong.
The EU is against the death penalty you know.If 'democracy' had ever bee a concern of parliament or the public, then surely there would have been a referendum on the death penalty yonks ago?
Of course, there never has been because of the fear that the 'will of the people' would be to bring back the death penalty.
Implicitly then, the 'people' are considered unready to make the 'right' decision on that.
The decision that 'the people' somehow knew what the 'right' decision was on the EU has (unfortunately from my perspective) been proved wrong.
Oakey said:
footnote said:
The issue of 'democracy' is surely a red herring in all of this.
If 'democracy' had ever bee a concern of parliament or the public, then surely there would have been a referendum on the death penalty yonks ago?
Of course, there never has been because of the fear that the 'will of the people' would be to bring back the death penalty.
Implicitly then, the 'people' are considered unready to make the 'right' decision on that.
The decision that 'the people' somehow knew what the 'right' decision was on the EU has (unfortunately from my perspective) been proved wrong.
The EU is against the death penalty you know.If 'democracy' had ever bee a concern of parliament or the public, then surely there would have been a referendum on the death penalty yonks ago?
Of course, there never has been because of the fear that the 'will of the people' would be to bring back the death penalty.
Implicitly then, the 'people' are considered unready to make the 'right' decision on that.
The decision that 'the people' somehow knew what the 'right' decision was on the EU has (unfortunately from my perspective) been proved wrong.
footnote said:
That's not what I'm really saying - although I personally think leaving is the biggest mistake England will ever make and rather than let hubris take us down the road of cutting off our noses to spite our faces, we should have another hard think about things.
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither and will lose both"All I am hearing is that self-governance is wrong if it involves economic uncertainty and a small economic hit.
You might ask how much are you prepared to pay to elect the people who govern you?. But for many that is not even the question as the trend since the early 2000s has been prosperity for the few, greater uncertainty for the many.
JagLover said:
footnote said:
That's not what I'm really saying - although I personally think leaving is the biggest mistake England will ever make and rather than let hubris take us down the road of cutting off our noses to spite our faces, we should have another hard think about things.
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither and will lose both"All I am hearing is that self-governance is wrong if it involves economic uncertainty and a small economic hit.
You might ask how much are you prepared to pay to elect the people who govern you?. But for many that is not even the question as the trend since the early 2000s has been prosperity for the few, greater uncertainty for the many.
I'd like to know what essential liberty you really feel you're giving up?
I watched Tony Blair on TV over the weekend say that in all his time as PM, the EU never told him what to do about anything except issues involving the EU.
Having grown up with economic uncertainty, I happen to place a great value on it - and I think any sensible person should - poverty is deeply unpleasant.
Being gung-ho is all very well, but this is a new world and today's people are not the same ones that would unquestioningly climb out of the trenches and march for Queen and country into relentless machinegun fire - thank God.
MC Bodge said:
Well, it does appear to be the case.
It's a shame really.
Remain voters didn't think the EU was perfect, but leaving seemed like such a ridiculous thing to do (and it appears that the leaders of the leave campaign agree with them) that they voted not to leave.
The angry poor and the noisily jingoistic anti-foreigners came together for the bad if the nation.
What an uneccessary shambles.
Not in my name
I'm told that gripewater can help with that.It's a shame really.
Remain voters didn't think the EU was perfect, but leaving seemed like such a ridiculous thing to do (and it appears that the leaders of the leave campaign agree with them) that they voted not to leave.
The angry poor and the noisily jingoistic anti-foreigners came together for the bad if the nation.
What an uneccessary shambles.
Not in my name
crankedup said:
As a long standing Lib -- Dem I find it embarrassing that the Party should resort to an affront of democracy in the interests of political advantage. How low can politicians stoop?
He appears to now be arguing against the fixed term parliament act, which he was largely responsible for. But now he's not got his own way, he wants a GE called this year. The man is nothing if not consistent in his hypocrisy.
Blue62 said:
crankedup said:
As a long standing Lib -- Dem I find it embarrassing that the Party should resort to an affront of democracy in the interests of political advantage. How low can politicians stoop?
It's perfectly reasonable for a political party to say we want to stay in the EU and will campaign for it, just as it was for UKIP to take it's seats in Brussels and oppose. Pretty much half the country wants to stay in, without going back over old ground, a decision such as this should have required far more than 50.01% of the vote to get through, there is simply too much at stake and Leave know it, which is why they are back peddling. You get on with your embarrassment and vote with your feet.[/quote
Your upset aren't you.
When you have cleared your head of anger at losing out what you expected and wanted perhaps then you can digest the implications of exactly what democracy means.
As for back peddling, I don't know what you mean. I am very relaxed regarding the Countries decision and see great opportunities for the future of my grandchild.
footnote said:
crankedup said:
footnote said:
crankedup said:
As a long standing Lib -- Dem I find it embarrassing that the Party should resort to an affront of democracy in the interests of political advantage. How low can politicians stoop?
At what point in the future does it become an affront to democracy not to allow 'the people' to have their say on the EU again?What I'm saying is the problem with accepting that one referendum is the will of the people and then being unwilling to accept that another referendum is also the will of the people is quite clearly ridiculous but effectively illustrates the problem with not adhering to a system of parliamentary democracy.
Once we started the referendum scenario there is no 'right' place in which to stop. We arte almost obligated to continue ad infinitum - checking and re-checking - the 'will of the people'
We may as well set up Red Button voting on the BBC and go yes/no to everything
I was not impressed.with my local election results, can we have a re-run please. At what point do we discard democracy?
crankedup said:
A second referendum is not the will of the people, OK sure some remainders have voiced an opinion but that is all. It is not amounting to anything of significance.
I was not impressed.with my local election results, can we have a re-run please. At what point do we discard democracy?
When it goes against the views of the establishment.I was not impressed.with my local election results, can we have a re-run please. At what point do we discard democracy?
CrutyRammers said:
crankedup said:
As a long standing Lib -- Dem I find it embarrassing that the Party should resort to an affront of democracy in the interests of political advantage. How low can politicians stoop?
He appears to now be arguing against the fixed term parliament act, which he was largely responsible for. But now he's not got his own way, he wants a GE called this year. The man is nothing if not consistent in his hypocrisy.
The Lib-Dems have always backed staying within the EU it is a major part of the political agenda for the Party. Something that I have always disagreed with! However, I stand by my earlier remarks, it's a wonder Sturgeon hasn't asked the Party to come aboard her ship!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff