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

[Tuna]

Roman Rhodes said:

Tuna said:

Roman Rhodes said:

Which are you, misinformed or lying? I’m assuming that you haven’t elevated yourself above “the public as a whole” of course.

Lol, cheap shot. I have no more ideas how this will pan out than helicopter123. At least I'm aware of that and what to understand the context rather than just applying the same assumptions I had three years ago.

Nothing cheap about it, just using your own words. A shame you didn't answer the question but interesting to see your reply found another way to say you're right and others are wrong. Should that be taken as an admission that you do see yourself superior to "the public as a whole"?

WTF? Seriously you need to get that chip off your shoulder. My opinion is worth no more than yours or anyone else's. I hope though that I'm more open to debate and conversation than someone who is determined to score points. The reason I talk about this stuff on here is to figure out where I'm misinformed - and you're more than welcome to point out if I'm lying about anything. That's kinda the point of a public forum.

[ElectricSoup]

SpeckledJim said:

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.

No, we should change the Constitution if we want to be able to hold politicians to our wishes, and move from representative democracy to direct democracy.

I am not in favour of that.

[anonymous-user]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The trouble with "disenfranchised" becoming the cliche de jour is that people use the word inappropriately. If you think the 17.4m are only concerned about leaving the EU then fair enough (they're still not disenfranchised though) but I can guarantee you are wrong.

Somewhat of a fantasy to see Farage going from failing to get elected 7(?) times to being Prime Minister isn't it?

[bitchstewie]

amusingduck said:

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?

Not at all, I just found it funny (not the bad results, that's not good for anyone).

[amusingduck]

bhstewie said:

amusingduck said:

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?

Not at all, I just found it funny (not the bad results, that's not good for anyone).

I was joking

[anonymous-user]

alfie2244 said:

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?

I'll admit to having dabbled with Frazzles when younger but I grew out of it.

[ElectricSoup]

SpeckledJim said:

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.

They also have to be handled constitutionally. Ignorance of the constitution is no reason to ignore it. Right or wrong, it overrides political promises.

[TTmonkey]

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/hows-that-...

[JNW1]

Nickgnome said:

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.

Nobody is refuting that technically the referendum was advisory but the point is we were promised the result would be implemented regardless of the outcome (and that reality trumps the technicality of the small print IMO). With everything that was said during the campaign - and all that's happened since - it would be ludicrous to play the advisory card at this stage (which is why no serious politician has) so I'm not sure why people keep raising it on here; it's irrelevant given the current position.

As I've said before, I wouldn't have granted the 2016 referendum in the first place but we are where we are and trying to fall back on technicalities in an attempt to avoid what was promised simply isn't credible in my view.....

[Tuna]

Roman Rhodes said:

The trouble with "disenfranchised" becoming the cliche de jour is that people use the word inappropriately. If you think the 17.4m are only concerned about leaving the EU then fair enough (they're still not disenfranchised though) but I can guarantee you are wrong.

Somewhat of a fantasy to see Farage going from failing to get elected 7(?) times to being Prime Minister isn't it?

I agree Farage's party isn't going to storm the elections, but let's be honest - one of the big messages of the Leave campaign was that we had no influence over the 'unelected elite'. Disenfranchisement is exactly the right word if you demonstrate to 17.4 million people that they were right - their voices are not being heard. It stops being about leaving the EU pretty quickly and becomes about whether their vote actually has any consequence or meaning.

People fret about popularism and then strangely believe you can stop an idea from being popular.

[alfie2244]

Roman Rhodes said:

alfie2244 said:

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?

I'll admit to having dabbled with Frazzles when younger but I grew out of it.

Ah the chemicals............that explains it

[JNW1]

ElectricSoup said:

They also have to be handled constitutionally. Ignorance of the constitution is no reason to ignore it. Right or wrong, it overrides political promises.

Which part of our constitution prevents Parliament from honouring its promise to uphold the outcome of the 2016 referendum?

[techguyone]

How many times can May (or anyone else ) keep putting up the same bill?

Isn't there some kind of hard limit that stops that, it's a bit like trying someone for the same crime over ad over until the balance of probabilities means they're found guilty.

[Crackie]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

[amusingduck]

techguyone said:

How many times can May (or anyone else ) keep putting up the same bill?

Isn't there some kind of hard limit that stops that, it's a bit like trying someone for the same crime over ad over until the balance of probabilities means they're found guilty.

https://news.sky.com/story/an-ancient-rule-means-bercow-could-take-drastic-action-on-brexit-11664555

This is what you're describing

[Vaud]

Tuna said:

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.

Indeed - it was very carefully worded with a lot of tests:

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-inform...

[anonymous-user]

Tuna said:

Roman Rhodes said:

Tuna said:

Roman Rhodes said:

Which are you, misinformed or lying? I’m assuming that you haven’t elevated yourself above “the public as a whole” of course.

Lol, cheap shot. I have no more ideas how this will pan out than helicopter123. At least I'm aware of that and what to understand the context rather than just applying the same assumptions I had three years ago.

Nothing cheap about it, just using your own words. A shame you didn't answer the question but interesting to see your reply found another way to say you're right and others are wrong. Should that be taken as an admission that you do see yourself superior to "the public as a whole"?

WTF? Seriously you need to get that chip off your shoulder. My opinion is worth no more than yours or anyone else's. I hope though that I'm more open to debate and conversation than someone who is determined to score points. The reason I talk about this stuff on here is to figure out where I'm misinformed - and you're more than welcome to point out if I'm lying about anything. That's kinda the point of a public forum.

That's fine - your as misinformed as anyone else. Your original post came across as very judgemental.

[SpeckledJim]

ElectricSoup said:

SpeckledJim said:

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.

No, we should change the Constitution if we want to be able to hold politicians to our wishes, and move from representative democracy to direct democracy.

I am not in favour of that.

What you seem to be saying is that your level of tolerance of parliament telling you lies varies according to whether you agree with the lie or not. Referenda are legal, and promising to enact the result is legal too.

I'm suggesting that once parliament makes the people a promise it should be kept, regardless of whether I personally like the promise or not.

[anonymous-user]

alfie2244 said:

Roman Rhodes said:

alfie2244 said:

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?

I'll admit to having dabbled with Frazzles when younger but I grew out of it.

Ah the chemicals............that explains it

Explains what?

[CaptainSlow]

We have a representative democracy where the representatives don't represent the electorate.