Farage's March To Leave
Discussion
Thorodin said:
Edit:
By the way, Turkey had applied to join the EU at that time and was in direct close contact with the EU Council, a precursor to full membership. Do keep up!
Uhm, no.By the way, Turkey had applied to join the EU at that time and was in direct close contact with the EU Council, a precursor to full membership. Do keep up!
Turkey started its attempt to join many years ago. It was well and truly scuppered way before the Brexit campaigns started. France had made it perfectly clear they would veto it.
The irony is that the only thing threatened by Turkish membership of the EU is the EU's ability to become more tightly integrated. Turkish membership would have created a more diverse and loosely coupled EU; exactly the sort of EU that the UK wanted. Failure to get Turkey into the EU a decade or more ago is one of the greatest missed geo-political opportunities of the last 50 years. The impact an economically successful, democratically stable, outward-looking, majority Muslim state could have had bridging the borders physically and culturally between Europe, Asia and the Middle East is hard to exaggerate.
It's rather tragic that some people still thought Turkish membership was on the cards and couldn't see beyond "oh noes, Muslim immigrants!!!".
chrispmartha said:
cardigankid said:
Let me put it this way. There is no way any mature and sensibly structured democracy would make a major constitutional decision like this on a bare majority. It is not workable. Most democracies with a formal constitution need a 75% vote with a minimum turn out. What we have is not ‘the British people have spoken’. What a load of crap. We have 17.2 odd million for it on the basis of no accurate information or any real idea of what would actually transpire versus 17.0m who are dead against it. Having seen the damage it has already caused, it is almost inconceivable that a similar vote would end in the same result. If it did it has to be said it would be decisive. And if this is to be decided by referenda the people should have the chance to decide on the terms of the exit. Any other result will only leave the country permanently and irreparably divided.
Agree with that 100%Down and out said:
chrispmartha said:
cardigankid said:
Let me put it this way. There is no way any mature and sensibly structured democracy would make a major constitutional decision like this on a bare majority. It is not workable. Most democracies with a formal constitution need a 75% vote with a minimum turn out. What we have is not ‘the British people have spoken’. What a load of crap. We have 17.2 odd million for it on the basis of no accurate information or any real idea of what would actually transpire versus 17.0m who are dead against it. Having seen the damage it has already caused, it is almost inconceivable that a similar vote would end in the same result. If it did it has to be said it would be decisive. And if this is to be decided by referenda the people should have the chance to decide on the terms of the exit. Any other result will only leave the country permanently and irreparably divided.
Agree with that 100%chrispmartha said:
He wrote a well thought out post, which you may disagree with but don’t counter with any decent points and you’re telling him to grow up?
It's a pretty decent point that you want to have another go because it didn't go your way. That's the bottom line when you cut through the waffle. Down and out said:
chrispmartha said:
He wrote a well thought out post, which you may disagree with but don’t counter with any decent points and you’re telling him to grow up?
It's a pretty decent point that you want to have another go because it didn't go your way. That's the bottom line when you cut through the waffle. Flip it round remain had won by a small margin, would you really just suck it up and say fair enough we lost?
The referendum should have had to have a clear majority (either way ) to have been a settles decision, the blame lies fair and square with David Cameron who was arrogant enough to think remain would automatically win.
Enacting on a decision that was pretty much an even split was always going to cause the division that is now occuring in the country, its got nothing to do with who ‘won’ or ‘lost’ think about the bigger picture and the shades of grey in between the black and white.
chrispmartha said:
Flip it round remain had won by a small margin, would you really just suck it up and say fair enough we lost?
Snipped for waffle.If it had been 1 vote, I would have accepted the result. That's democracy in action, without it there's chaos. What's happening right now and probably more in the future if it carries on being ignored and twisted is the direct result.
Down and out said:
chrispmartha said:
Flip it round remain had won by a small margin, would you really just suck it up and say fair enough we lost?
Snipped for waffle.If it had been 1 vote, I would have accepted the result. That's democracy in action, without it there's chaos. What's happening right now and probably more in the future if it carries on being ignored and twisted is the direct result.
chrispmartha said:
cardigankid said:
Let me put it this way. There is no way any mature and sensibly structured democracy would make a major constitutional decision like this on a bare majority. It is not workable. Most democracies with a formal constitution need a 75% vote with a minimum turn out. What we have is not ‘the British people have spoken’. What a load of crap. We have 17.2 odd million for it on the basis of no accurate information or any real idea of what would actually transpire versus 17.0m who are dead against it. Having seen the damage it has already caused, it is almost inconceivable that a similar vote would end in the same result. If it did it has to be said it would be decisive. And if this is to be decided by referenda the people should have the chance to decide on the terms of the exit. Any other result will only leave the country permanently and irreparably divided.
Agree with that 100%Well, let's go.
We didn't join the EEC even on a bare majority.
The vote in 1975 to stay in the EEC would have failed if using your 75% rule above, and that was the last time the people got a say for 40 years.
The 2016 referendum is your "extra democracy". It's an outlier, an exception, a unicorn. An unfortunate necessity to be overcome, get it over with and put them back in their box for another 40 years. Don't like it? It was the decider, remember. Once in a generation, them's the rules.
In conclusion, we clearly don't have a "mature and sensibly structured democracy", what we do have is the most democratic decision ever taken WRT our EU membership. Perhaps if you'd shouted about democracy sooner, this whole mess could have been avoided. You were content to cruise along signing treaty after treaty with no concern for democracy, so your laughable concerns can now simply be dismissed as sour grapes
amusingduck said:
chrispmartha said:
cardigankid said:
Let me put it this way. There is no way any mature and sensibly structured democracy would make a major constitutional decision like this on a bare majority. It is not workable. Most democracies with a formal constitution need a 75% vote with a minimum turn out. What we have is not ‘the British people have spoken’. What a load of crap. We have 17.2 odd million for it on the basis of no accurate information or any real idea of what would actually transpire versus 17.0m who are dead against it. Having seen the damage it has already caused, it is almost inconceivable that a similar vote would end in the same result. If it did it has to be said it would be decisive. And if this is to be decided by referenda the people should have the chance to decide on the terms of the exit. Any other result will only leave the country permanently and irreparably divided.
Agree with that 100%Well, let's go.
We didn't join the EEC even on a bare majority.
The vote in 1975 to stay in the EEC would have failed if using your 75% rule above, and that was the last time the people got a say for 40 years.
The 2016 referendum is your "extra democracy". It's an outlier, an exception, a unicorn. An unfortunate necessity to be overcome, get it over with and put them back in their box for another 40 years. Don't like it? It was the decider, remember. Once in a generation, them's the rules.
In conclusion, we clearly don't have a "mature and sensibly structured democracy", what we do have is the most democratic decision ever taken WRT our EU membership. Perhaps if you'd shouted about democracy sooner, this whole mess could have been avoided. You were content to cruise along signing treaty after treaty with no concern for democracy, so your laughable concerns can now simply be dismissed as sour grapes
But it does sound like you want brexit to right a wrong from the 70s, which is ‘laughable, as you like to call things. I wasn’t born when the vote to join the EEC took place so how on earth do you or I know how I would have viewd the voting process then?
Edited by chrispmartha on Sunday 7th April 08:38
chrispmartha said:
Well we can agree on something, it’s a mess alright.
But it does sound like you want brexit to right a wrong from the 70s, which is ‘laughable, as you like to call things. I wasn’t born when the vote to join the EEC took place so how on earth do you or I know how I would have viewd the voting process then?
A mess that we could have avoided. You can argue that the EU shouldn't have forged ahead without getting the consent of the people, but it's our own politicians who decided not to give us the opportunity, every single time it knocked.But it does sound like you want brexit to right a wrong from the 70s, which is ‘laughable, as you like to call things. I wasn’t born when the vote to join the EEC took place so how on earth do you or I know how I would have viewd the voting process then?
That's the root cause of the division IMO. We couldn't nip stuff in the bud, so it's festered into a high-stakes hyperpolarised s
tfest.I was born a shortly before Maastrict, so there's no old score to settle for me. When people make democracy arguments, the conclusion that I always come to is that if the 2016 referendum is not good enough, neither is anything that preceded it, so how can joining the EEC without a vote be legimate? If democracy is the concern, our membership has never really been democratic, except for say 1975-Maastrict at the absolute most.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: How many times to we have to keep going back to 1975?
I literally don't get it.
Can I pick something that happened back in 1836 and whinge "I never got a vote"?
My views on Brexit aside it's just bizarre.
The idea that a potential remain demographic didn't get to vote in 2016 seems to get a lot of coverage. I literally don't get it.
Can I pick something that happened back in 1836 and whinge "I never got a vote"?
My views on Brexit aside it's just bizarre.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: How many times to we have to keep going back to 1975?
I literally don't get it.
Can I pick something that happened back in 1836 and whinge "I never got a vote"?
My views on Brexit aside it's just bizarre.
The idea that a potential remain demographic didn't get to vote in 2016 seems to get a lot of coverage. I literally don't get it.
Can I pick something that happened back in 1836 and whinge "I never got a vote"?
My views on Brexit aside it's just bizarre.
Sorry, but I struggle with a bunch of 60 year olds moaning that their rights were stolen four decades ago.
Down and out said:
chrispmartha said:
Flip it round remain had won by a small margin, would you really just suck it up and say fair enough we lost?
Snipped for waffle.If it had been 1 vote, I would have accepted the result. That's democracy in action, without it there's chaos. What's happening right now and probably more in the future if it carries on being ignored and twisted is the direct result.
amusingduck said:
A mess that we could have avoided. You can argue that the EU shouldn't have forged ahead without getting the consent of the people, but it's our own politicians who decided not to give us the opportunity, every single time it knocked.
That's the root cause of the division IMO. We couldn't nip stuff in the bud, so it's festered into a high-stakes hyperpolarised stfest.
I was born a shortly before Maastrict, so there's no old score to settle for me. When people make democracy arguments, the conclusion that I always come to is that if the 2016 referendum is not good enough, neither is anything that preceded it, so how can joining the EEC without a vote be legimate? If democracy is the concern, our membership has never really been democratic, except for say 1975-Maastrict at the absolute most.
With regard to your final paragraph, when in your history lessons in school or college did they tech you that referenda are part of our constitution?That's the root cause of the division IMO. We couldn't nip stuff in the bud, so it's festered into a high-stakes hyperpolarised s
tfest.I was born a shortly before Maastrict, so there's no old score to settle for me. When people make democracy arguments, the conclusion that I always come to is that if the 2016 referendum is not good enough, neither is anything that preceded it, so how can joining the EEC without a vote be legimate? If democracy is the concern, our membership has never really been democratic, except for say 1975-Maastrict at the absolute most.
They are not. Our government makes decisions on our behalf so your belief is at at best Ill informed.
It is of course completely irrelevant now.
Nickgnome said:
With regard to your final paragraph, when in your history lessons in school or college did they tech you that referenda are part of our constitution?
They are not. Our government makes decisions on our behalf so your belief is at at best Ill informed.
It is of course completely irrelevant now.
Except they delegated this particular decision back to the electorate and promised to enact the decision...so you are the one that is either ill informed or being just a tad disingenuous........and if irrelevant why bring it up?They are not. Our government makes decisions on our behalf so your belief is at at best Ill informed.
It is of course completely irrelevant now.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I'd suggest that it's fairly obvious that 3 years is less than 40 years and more relevant given the situation we're in.
Sorry, but I struggle with a bunch of 60 year olds moaning that their rights were stolen four decades ago.
It's obvious that 3 is less than 40 but not obvious why we should accept one result as a given and disregard another. Unless your starting point is "how can we remain in despite the result?"Sorry, but I struggle with a bunch of 60 year olds moaning that their rights were stolen four decades ago.
The obvious answer is that those who are 18 now have their whole lives ahead of them and us grouchy old gammons are depriving them of it for our late life crisis of wanting to recreate the British empire for a couple of years before dying of old age.
Although cardigankid says we're not a mature or well structured democracy (which ones are?) one principle which is pretty well established is that parliament can not bind its successors. This means there's nothing stopping generation love and peace rejoining once all the gammons are dead. They will simply have to elect a parliament to do so.
We currently have a parliament elected to enact the result of a referendum which they called. Not to keep holding referendums or inventing excuses to delay and frustrate the process in the hope we will change our minds.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff