How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 8)

[anonymous-user]

alfie2244 said:

slow_poke said:

All right, good good, we're brainstorrming here and making progress. Let's try this:

tick a box - you only get one tick;

a: Remain
b: Leave No Deal
C: Leave May Deal.

If A is greater than B & C combined, then Remain.

If B&C combined is greater than A, then Leave - and look to see which is greater, B or C to see if it's Leave No Deal or Leave May's Deal.

Everyone gets one vote. The leave vote isn't split vs remain, only vs itself when/if remain is eliminated.

Have I got this right?

lets assume:

48% vote - a

28% vote - b

24% vote - c

ergo we Leave on b even though it is what only 28% of the voters actually want...have I got this right?

If you're pointing out that the proposal is ludicrous then, perhaps for the first time, I am in agreement with you!

[gooner1]

ElectricSoup said:

dasigty said:

ElectricSoup said:

It is not an instruction. It is advice.

Do you give a servant advice or an instruction ?

I expect I'm the only person on PH without a servant.

Even if I did have one, he'd still have the right to tell me to sod off, seeing as servant does not mean slave.

Anyway, it's the wrong word. They're not our servants. They're our representatives. Which is entirely the point.

Strange then that our representatives have not collectively and openly , told those that
they are supposedly representing to sod off.
What on earth are they worried about?

[SpeckledJim]

ElectricSoup said:

SpeckledJim said:

ElectricSoup said:

Dr Jekyll said:

ElectricSoup said:

FFS. The English Civil War, if that's what you're referring to, decided that Parliament was Sovereign, not the Monarch, and not people. Parliament serves us in so far as it's there to represent our best interests, based on Parliament's best judgement. It is not there to implement the people's "will" whenever someone has decided that the people have a "will". It's called representative democracy, it's our basic political principle.

Staggering that so many people don't understand this.

The argument for parliamentary sovereignty as opposed to royal sovereignty was precisely that parliament even then had some claim to represent the people. So to claim parliamentary sovereignty as an argument for elevating parliaments wishes over those of the people is absurd.

You use the word "represent", thereby proving my point.

So what were the MPs doing when 550 of them agreed to hold the referendum, and the Remainer boss of the process promised to enact the result?

They were agreeing to hold a referendum, and promising to enact the result.

Which does not change the Constitution. The Constitution does not give a st as to what politicians promise.

We shouldn't be ok with that. We should demand a bit more probity and moral fibre from them. Rather than shrugging our shoulders, "politicans, eh, tut".

No. You said you'd do it. We shouldn't have to force you to do it. You should just do it.

It's not your fault if it goes wrong, it's our fault. So, there's your blame path cleared, now just do it.

[alfie2244]

Roman Rhodes said:

If you're pointing out that the proposal is ludicrous then, perhaps for the first time, I am in agreement with you!

Does that make you gammon as well then?

[Vaud]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Not a chance. He might get enough to create a 3rd party of 10-30 seats, but not a majority in the house.

[bitchstewie]

Yet another business owner mentioning Brexit uncertainty after poor results caused by poor management decisions

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47581483

[Nickgnome]

crankedup said:

Nickgnome said:

dasigty said:

ElectricSoup said:

FFS. The English Civil War, if that's what you're referring to, decided that Parliament was Sovereign, not the Monarch, and not people. Parliament serves us in so far as it's there to represent our best interests, based on Parliament's best judgement. It is not there to implement the people's "will" whenever someone has decided that the people have a "will". It's called representative democracy, it's our basic political principle.

Staggering that so many people don't understand this.

No it did not, Parliament gets its AUTHORITY from the people, it represents by the consent of the people, that consent is defined in law as being able to exercise the franchise of a MEANINGFUL vote.

Parliament does not get to "Represent our best interests based on parliaments best judgement" when it directly conflicts with the expressed instruction of the people in a vote.

You are just wrong. You will find nothing that substantiates your view.

Our MPs work, in what they see to be best interests of the whole 65M population.

You cannot instruct your MP or parliament. There is no mechanism for that.

Which begs the question why on earth hold a National referendum on a single issue? To what purpose is it serving if the HoC is going to decide itself what it thinks is in the Country’s best interest?

I’ve posted on that a number of times. A referendum contradicts the principals under which our constitution works.

The resultant chaos is a direct result of that.

MPs now have unenviable task of delivering what they promised knowing it will not be in the best interest of the nation. They are trying to come up with the least worst option and it’s hardly surprising that it is not easy.

The Eu set out their position from day 1 tand if TM has taken a colleagate approach from the beginning we may well have had this done by now.

Either TM will be third time lucky or there will likely be a year or so extension to A50.

[Dr Jekyll]

mattmurdock said:

That is because that is exactly what the word represent means - to represent someone, not to be someone. They are not puppet extensions of other people.

Many on here would say that Ian Blackford's constant bleating about Scotland being dragged out of the EU against its will is annoying, but using your argument he is full well representing the will of the people of Scotland who clearly voted in favour of remain.

Absolutely, and equally you represent people who want to leave by pushing for leave.

mattmurdock said:

The issue with statistics is they can be cut a number of different ways to support the argument that something is the will of some subset or section of people.

The point of Parliamentary representatives and Parliamentary Sovereignty is to provide informed representatives who are able to make their own minds up, which is the absolute definition of democracy compared to dictatorship, where a single viewpoint or single person suppresses all other opinions, often via violence.

No, the assumption that the people in Whitehall know best is nothing to do with democracy. By your logic following the referendum result would be undemocratic.

[dasigty]

ElectricSoup said:

I expect I'm the only person on PH without a servant.

Even if I did have one, he'd still have the right to tell me to sod off, seeing as servant does not mean slave.

Anyway, it's the wrong word. They're not our servants. They're our representatives. Which is entirely the point.

So they dont SERVE a term in office ?, stop trying to play semantics because you lost the argument, servants who tell there masters to sod off are not slaves, they are unemployed.

[alfie2244]

Vaud said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Not a chance. He might get enough to create a 3rd party of 10-30 seats, but not a majority in the house.

How many seat do the DUP have?

[amusingduck]

bhstewie said:

Yet another business owner mentioning Brexit uncertainty after poor results caused by poor management decisions

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47581483

Are you saying you know more about Wetherspoons' business than he does?

[JNW1]

ElectricSoup said:

They were agreeing to hold a referendum, and promising to enact the result.

Which does not change the Constitution. The Constitution does not give a st as to what politicians promise.

The people do though which is surely the point? The politicians promised to do something which was - and is - in their power to deliver and they did so on one specific issue on which the people were granted a vote.

That's not like putting something in an election manifesto and just not acting upon it - just about every government in history has done that with at least one of their manifesto pledges. However, in this case we held a referendum on one specific issue with a promise to uphold the result and, IMHO, our politicians will rightly be held in contempt if they renege on that (assuming of course it's possible for them to be held in even more contempt than is already the case!).

[Nickgnome]

JNW1 said:

Nickgnome said:

Our MPs work, in what they see to be best interests of the whole 65M population.

You cannot instruct your MP or parliament. There is no mechanism for that.

So what in your view was the purpose of granting the 2016 referendum?

I think everyone (or at least most people!) understand we govern via a system of representative democracy in the UK but to me that doesn't wash if you then decide to hold a referendum on a specific issue and tell the people you'll honour the outcome. Once you've let that particular genie out of the bottle IMO there's no credible way of putting it back in and pointing to the equivalent of the small print - by saying "ah but it was only ever advisory" - definitely doesn't work for me (or I would imagine for many others).

The referendum was advisory. That cannot be refuted.

However The government and parliament voted to accept the vote.

This mess is now the result of the contradiction of representative democracy being overuled in this instance by a delegational approach.

I accept you cannot put the genie back in the bottle.

[CrutyRammers]

don'tbesilly said:

amusingduck said:

Nickgnome said:

dasigty said:

ElectricSoup said:

FFS. The English Civil War, if that's what you're referring to, decided that Parliament was Sovereign, not the Monarch, and not people. Parliament serves us in so far as it's there to represent our best interests, based on Parliament's best judgement. It is not there to implement the people's "will" whenever someone has decided that the people have a "will". It's called representative democracy, it's our basic political principle.

Staggering that so many people don't understand this.

No it did not, Parliament gets its AUTHORITY from the people, it represents by the consent of the people, that consent is defined in law as being able to exercise the franchise of a MEANINGFUL vote.

Parliament does not get to "Represent our best interests based on parliaments best judgement" when it directly conflicts with the expressed instruction of the people in a vote.

You are just wrong. You will find nothing that substantiates your view.

Our MPs work, in what they see to be best interests of the whole 65M population.

You cannot instruct your MP or parliament. There is no mechanism for that.

Sure there is, they just have to decide to let the public decide, exactly as they did. No amount of but TECHNICALLY... can undo that.

As much as people are now saying the people shouldn't have been given a referendum in the first place, that's exactly what Parliament did, they passed over their responsibility and gave it to the people, they now don't like the result the people gave and are doing everything possible to now grasp that responsibility back

It's amazing that the very same people who say we shouldn't have had a referendum in the first place are now demanding a 2nd bite at an opportunity that apparently we should have never had in the first place.

Sums it up really.

This argument is so frustrating. Advice or instruction, either way, MPS were elected on manifestos to abide by it, parliament voted to abide by it. It doesn't matter what the technical status of the referendum was, it was superceeded by following events. To vote for it, then try their best to undermine it with technical fudges, is just dishonest. If they didn't want it, or didn't think it was right, they shouldn't have voted for it.

[Nickgnome]

dasigty said:

No pal, its you that is wrong, its simple enough to search where and how Parliament gets its authority, a referendum is an instruction to parliament of the will of the people.

Stop trying to compare what would be a normal situation of an elected government failing to carry out its stated policies, a referendum is the peoples decision, the MPs only role is to implement that decision, not make up one they like better.

Then you will be able to post the links that evidences your claim.

[don'tbesilly]

SpeckledJim said:

ElectricSoup said:

SpeckledJim said:

ElectricSoup said:

Dr Jekyll said:

ElectricSoup said:

FFS. The English Civil War, if that's what you're referring to, decided that Parliament was Sovereign, not the Monarch, and not people. Parliament serves us in so far as it's there to represent our best interests, based on Parliament's best judgement. It is not there to implement the people's "will" whenever someone has decided that the people have a "will". It's called representative democracy, it's our basic political principle.

Staggering that so many people don't understand this.

The argument for parliamentary sovereignty as opposed to royal sovereignty was precisely that parliament even then had some claim to represent the people. So to claim parliamentary sovereignty as an argument for elevating parliaments wishes over those of the people is absurd.

You use the word "represent", thereby proving my point.

So what were the MPs doing when 550 of them agreed to hold the referendum, and the Remainer boss of the process promised to enact the result?

They were agreeing to hold a referendum, and promising to enact the result.

Which does not change the Constitution. The Constitution does not give a st as to what politicians promise.

We shouldn't be ok with that. We should demand a bit more probity and moral fibre from them. Rather than shrugging our shoulders, "politicans, eh, tut".

No. You said you'd do it. We shouldn't have to force you to do it. You should just do it.

It's not your fault if it goes wrong, it's our fault. So, there's your blame path cleared, now just do it.

The Remainers seem to be shooting themselves in the foot here.

If a referendum and the subsequent result can be blatantly ignored, why on earth would anyone bother to vote in a second?

If Team Leave won again it will simply bring about a constant rinse cycle, how many cycles would you have before the drum broke through overuse, or would you stop when the 'right' person decided the garments had shed enough water.

[Tuna]

JNW1 said:

silentbrown said:

Tuna said:

People worry that we might leave with no deal, so they choose not to vote for Remain, but to vote for the May Deal just to ensure we don't accidentally 'crash out' with No Deal. The vote is distorted by nervous Remainers. Doesn't work.

So those remainers who've been endlessly chastised for not "getting behind" leaving, now actually vote to leave (but not the way you want), and you're upset?

I think he's just illustrating why the suggestion of a referendum with three options is potentially flawed.....

Exactly. This is why the Electoral Commission took so long to chose the questions for a simple binary choice - there are lots of accidental biases that you can include.

And let's be clear about this - unlike some posters on this forum I don't want Leavers or Remainers to do anything, and I don't want a specific result at the cost of all others. I'm not trying to argue people into having to support my point of view through some legal jujitsu. I'll happily say that I think some outcomes are better than others - and try to explain why I think that. But I'm heartily sick of people trying to force 'the other side' into acquiescence by semantic argument.

And that's the problem with any second referendum - it can't possibly reflect the choices people want to make in a fair and unbiased way.

[gooner1]

alfie2244 said:

Vaud said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Not a chance. He might get enough to create a 3rd party of 10-30 seats, but not a majority in the house.

How many seat do the DUP have?

[amusingduck]

Nickgnome said:

The referendum was advisory. That cannot be refuted.

However The government and parliament voted to accept the vote.

This mess is now the result of the contradiction of representative democracy being overuled in this instance by a delegational approach.

I accept you cannot put the genie back in the bottle.

Agreed, with one exception.

How was representative democracy overruled by the same representatives voting to hold a referendum?

[SpeckledJim]

amusingduck said:

Nickgnome said:

The referendum was advisory. That cannot be refuted.

However The government and parliament voted to accept the vote.

This mess is now the result of the contradiction of representative democracy being overuled in this instance by a delegational approach.

I accept you cannot put the genie back in the bottle.

Agreed, with one exception.

How was representative democracy overruled by the same representatives voting to hold a referendum?

Exactly. 550 of our representatives agreed in parliament that the best thing to happen next was to delegate the decision to the people.

We can argue whether that should have happened, but the fact is that it DID happen, and now the consequences have to be handled with dignity and intellectual honesty.