Farage's March To Leave
Discussion
nadger said:
You may have done, and there are remainers who did as well. However there would have been many leavers who wouldn’t have, just as there are many remainers who haven’t. As a previous poster stated, the closeness of the result, along with the perceived unfairness of leave’s behaviour has resulted in what we now have. A second referendum might not solve the issue, but I think it would at least establish if Brexit still is the will of the people. If it turns out now that one more person wishes to remain, how would that make you feel?
At that point it has already been established that you can overturn a result you don't like by complaining, so obviously keep campaigning to leave anyway. JuanCarlosFandango said:
b
hstewie 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.
alfie2244 said:
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: The answer is simply that one has been enacted, four decades ago, and one hasn't and democracy lets you do everything the law allows to try to either stop it or ensure it's done in an acceptable manner.
The answer to what?We have a referendum result and two general elections confirming this decision. If it isn't enacted then we don't have a democracy.
Nickgnome said:
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.
amusingduck said:
Nickgnome said:
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:
amusingduck said:
Nickgnome said:
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.
Piha said:
chrispmartha said:
But...... but....... but....... durrr, it doesn't mean wot it says innit......... I didn't vote Leave for that............
how much influence did the remain campaign have on you ?
chrispmartha said:
I don’t particularly want another referendum but I agree with his points, The world isn’t as black and white as it sometimes seems.
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.
i was more than prepared to accept a remain result, as i would imagine were most reasonable people. that the post you cite earlier was well written is purely a matter of opinion. it appears to beyond many remain supporters that many people might just want to reduce the number of politicians that have any form of control over them. less politicians of all persuasions is generally accepted as a good thing,yes/no ?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.
Nickgnome said:
So do you accept that when we joined the EEC it was both democratic and legitimate?
I agree that when we joined, the EEC was both democratic and legitimate.What the EEC morphed into however is quite a different entity.
Do you accept that the Referendum result was both democratic and legitimate?
wc98 said:
Piha said:
chrispmartha said:
But...... but....... but....... durrr, it doesn't mean wot it says innit......... I didn't vote Leave for that............how much influence did the remain campaign have on you ?
I posted it because it was asserted that the official leave campaign didn’t use this sligan when they did.
wc98 said:
Nickgnome said:
So do you accept that when we joined the EEC it was both democratic and legitimate?
the vote to remain a member was. the decision to join in the first place wasn't.JuanCarlosFandango said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: "not obvious why we should accept one result as a given and disregard another"
Should we require a super majority to change laws on gender equality, gay rights or environmental protection? Or only on stuff you want to keep? Sorry but I quite literally don't understand the question
JuanCarlosFandango said:
If we should have required a super majority in the 2016 referendum then why shouldn't we require a super majority in any other referendum or even parliament itself in order to change long standing policies?
Why on earth would you choose gender equality, gay rights or environmental protection as examples? The answer is no, I don't have a fixed position on a "super majority".
I do think it pay to be clear just what the hell it is "you" are voting for as a nation.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff