How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 8)
Discussion
Crackie said:
No it wasn't. No doubt some in Westminster were dismissive of the mood within those constituencies. It wasn't measured in regions either; there were 12 of them; 3 voted to remain. The only remain voting region in England and Wales was London.
It is pure speculation regarding whether Westminster was ( and probably still is ) ignorant, complacent, naïve, arrogant, dismissive etc regarding the mood outside the capital. Irrespective of the reasons for their poor insight, the consequence was a vote to Leave.
....and here lies a key part of the problem. Totally out of touch people based in/around London.It is pure speculation regarding whether Westminster was ( and probably still is ) ignorant, complacent, naïve, arrogant, dismissive etc regarding the mood outside the capital. Irrespective of the reasons for their poor insight, the consequence was a vote to Leave.
.
Roman Rhodes said:
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? 
CaptainSlow said:
We have a representative democracy where the representatives don't represent the electorate.
Seems so in at least some areas but we have general elections where the electorate can remove said representatives if that persists in being the case; for that reason I suspect a lot of MP's wouldn't relish a General Election any time soon!Tuna said:
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.Somewhat of a fantasy to see Farage going from failing to get elected 7(?) times to being Prime Minister isn't it?
People fret about popularism and then strangely believe you can stop an idea from being popular.
wc98 said:
once more. it is no longer representative democracy when the decision is abrogated to the public. they are now working under direct instruction from the public as they bottled making it themselves.hth
^ This. And we appear to be experiencing a constitutional coup on top of that.
alfie2244 said:
Roman Rhodes said:
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? 
CaptainSlow said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
CaptainSlow said:
We have a representative democracy where the representatives don't represent the electorate.
They do, just not the way some leavers would like.Roman Rhodes said:
Yes, but the referendum result and what subsequently happens is one thing and a General Election is another. Even if all 17.4m feel that their referendum vote has been disrespected and ignored I don't believe they will abandon all other concerns and simply focus on one (very important) issue. Putting aside 'issues' in general many people are lifelong voters for one party irrespective of circumstance anyway.
Plenty of thoughtful Remainers also take a dim view of seeing the majority vote ignored. Principle aside, it might happen to them next. It is a very slippery slope. The next election will not be business as usual - neither main party can credibly play the competence or stability card, after all. There is no real binary party choice any more.
PurpleMoonlight said:
CaptainSlow said:
They don't, they don't even represent the manifestos they stood on.
Maybe they have changed their mind since, or is that not allowed?Besides, we are leaving the EU.
Eventually.
And the ones that have changed their minds have called by-elections to give the people another vote now they know more facts about their representative.
Roman Rhodes said:
alfie2244 said:
Roman Rhodes said:
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 would think most would see it is you and many of your fellow Remainers that are the angry ones.......Frazzles may have frazzled your funny bone SpeckledJim said:
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.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.
I am not in favour of that.
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.
CaptainSlow said:
Maybe they have, or maybe they're self-serving slime that put being re-elected over being honest with the electorate.
And the ones that have changed their minds have called by-elections to give the people another vote now they know more facts about their representative.
What by-elections have taken place?And the ones that have changed their minds have called by-elections to give the people another vote now they know more facts about their representative.
ElectricSoup said:
I'm not sure that would be wise thing to enshrine in the Constitution. Promises are made with the best of intentions which subsequently turn out to be foolish or damaging, and we must be able to change course on those promises. That's why we've got representative MPs to make judgements, but we can remove/change them on a regular basis.
Except in reality you can't. It will be the same old choice with the added problem that UKIP are unelectable even as a protest vote.
PurpleMoonlight said:
CaptainSlow said:
Maybe they have, or maybe they're self-serving slime that put being re-elected over being honest with the electorate.
And the ones that have changed their minds have called by-elections to give the people another vote now they know more facts about their representative.
What by-elections have taken place?And the ones that have changed their minds have called by-elections to give the people another vote now they know more facts about their representative.
ElectricSoup said:
I'm not sure that would be wise thing to enshrine in the Constitution. Promises are made with the best of intentions which subsequently turn out to be foolish or damaging, and we must be able to change course on those promises. That's why we've got representative MPs to make judgements, but we can remove/change them on a regular basis.
Well that's the nub of it isn't it? In many cases, they are not "made with the best of intentions". They are made to get elected, and then discarded as soon as it's convenient. Most people will accept someone changing their mind when it's done in good faith, but that's not what we are seeing here. And the public can see that very clearly.IMO right of recall would be a much better way to make politicians responsible for their decisions than just GEs.
Vaud 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.
Electoral commission don't like 3 way referendum. They tend to be binary.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.
psi310398 said:
Roman Rhodes said:
Yes, but the referendum result and what subsequently happens is one thing and a General Election is another. Even if all 17.4m feel that their referendum vote has been disrespected and ignored I don't believe they will abandon all other concerns and simply focus on one (very important) issue. Putting aside 'issues' in general many people are lifelong voters for one party irrespective of circumstance anyway.
Plenty of thoughtful Remainers also take a dim view of seeing the majority vote ignored. Principle aside, it might happen to them next. It is a very slippery slope. The next election will not be business as usual - neither main party can credibly play the competence or stability card, after all. There is no real binary party choice any more.
The Remainers seem to be suggesting that ignoring the first vote is perfectly acceptable whilst putting forward suggestions as to how best to engineer a 2nd referendum win for Remain.
Of course the 2nd referendum can't possibly be ignored because it suits this time around, yet based on their own arguments this morning their win can just as easily be blatantly ignored because Parliament ignored the first.
Will the second have any more validity/ credibility/ legitimacy to the first?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff