How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 8)
Discussion
What everyone here seems to be forgetting in relation to the Parliament they seem to be accusing of thwarting their will, is that this is a Parliament we elected, and after the referendum. So its mandate is fresher. It is a representation of our "will". It is doing its job. That job is still likely to result in the UK leaving the EU. I happen to think that May's deal will now pass, and we'll leave without participating in the EU elections, at the end of June, and enter transition.
I think that's a woeful outcome, and frankly an unmitigated disaster. I also think it stands against the wishes of a majority of the electorate in that there are more of us who would prefer another solution rather than May's deal. But if that's where the correct process has taken us, then that's that. Any Leave voter will have no justification in disputing the outcome, it'd be one of the several possible outcomes possible under a Leave vote. They voted "Leave", not "Leave, but my way". We will have left. We will be diminished in wealth and influence, but we will have left. Lump it, in just the same way you have been emploring Remainers to "get over it". You own it.
I happen also to think there was no need for this process to have even started. I happen to think that the illegality of the Leave campaign should render the result invalid. I think many, many things about this wretched situation. But I've only had one full say, at one point, 3 years ago, and a further diminished say 2 years ago, both times expressing my "will" to stay in the EU. You can't always get what you want, no. But there's absolutely nothing to say you have to stop arguing and fighting for it where the means exist. I expect my Parliamentary representatives to do the same, according to their judgement.
I think that's a woeful outcome, and frankly an unmitigated disaster. I also think it stands against the wishes of a majority of the electorate in that there are more of us who would prefer another solution rather than May's deal. But if that's where the correct process has taken us, then that's that. Any Leave voter will have no justification in disputing the outcome, it'd be one of the several possible outcomes possible under a Leave vote. They voted "Leave", not "Leave, but my way". We will have left. We will be diminished in wealth and influence, but we will have left. Lump it, in just the same way you have been emploring Remainers to "get over it". You own it.
I happen also to think there was no need for this process to have even started. I happen to think that the illegality of the Leave campaign should render the result invalid. I think many, many things about this wretched situation. But I've only had one full say, at one point, 3 years ago, and a further diminished say 2 years ago, both times expressing my "will" to stay in the EU. You can't always get what you want, no. But there's absolutely nothing to say you have to stop arguing and fighting for it where the means exist. I expect my Parliamentary representatives to do the same, according to their judgement.
ElectricSoup said:
An advisory referendum does not change the Constitution.
Even haitch-er to h.
you need a very hard neck to trot out the advisory line given statements from the prime minister of the day at the time. if he had said we will implement what the people decide but you better check the legal definition to understand we might not ,i might be supportive of your decision. of course the flip side is , had we voted remain you wouldn't be bothered at all had politicians attempted to reverse the result so we left instead Even haitch-er to h.
ElectricSoup said:
What everyone here seems to be forgetting in relation to the Parliament they seem to be accusing of thwarting their will, is that this is a Parliament we elected,.
No it isn't.ElectricSoup said:
I happen to think that the illegality of the Leave campaign should render the result invalid.
don'tbesilly said:
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.
The issue is that parliament does not know what to do. Right now there are three perfectly valid responses to the referendum result. All have negative consequences for the country and Parliament has no idea if any of them represent the 2016 mandate.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.
Do we accept the deal, leave with no deal or delay and try to renegotiate?
We are making Parliament decide and they are leaning heavily toward the delay option. If you are happy to leave the final decision up to The MPs then that is your look out. Just don’t complain if they choose a route you do not like.
I would personally prefer the electorate to ‘take back control’ and the only way to do that is a three way referendum on the deal, no-deal and remain.
They are the only implementable choices available right now.
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.
Genuinely I don't know. However I will be actively supporting an independent candidate at the next election and cannot see a single mainstream party that I trust to represent my views. You make the assumption that only Leave voters could feel that way - but I don't think a single mainstream politician has covered themselves in glory during this process, regardless of which position they support. The comedy incompetence of the People's Vote should be pissing people off just as much as the clunky efforts of the ERG.For me, this process has crystallised the idea that our politicians are not serving the country or the people who elected them. Not a new idea, I grant you, but previously I've held my nose and assumed it would all work out in the end.
wc98 said:
ElectricSoup said:
An advisory referendum does not change the Constitution.
Even haitch-er to h.
you need a very hard neck to trot out the advisory line given statements from the prime minister of the day at the time. if he had said we will implement what the people decide but you better check the legal definition to understand we might not ,i might be supportive of your decision. of course the flip side is , had we voted remain you wouldn't be bothered at all had politicians attempted to reverse the result so we left instead Even haitch-er to h.
So long as things turn out in accordance with Constitutional requirements, then there can be no argument, other than "change the Constitution". Which is a whole other battle, and one which has been a favourite topic of mine for a long time. I deeply believe in new constitutional arrangements (such as PR, elected Upper House etc), and have voted accordingly for many years. But you can only play the game in front of you at any given time.
ElectricSoup said:
What everyone here seems to be forgetting in relation to the Parliament they seem to be accusing of thwarting their will, is that this is a Parliament we elected, and after the referendum. So its mandate is fresher. It is a representation of our "will". It is doing its job. That job is still likely to result in the UK leaving the EU. I happen to think that May's deal will now pass, and we'll leave without participating in the EU elections, at the end of June, and enter transition.
I think that's a woeful outcome, and frankly an unmitigated disaster. I also think it stands against the wishes of a majority of the electorate in that there are more of us who would prefer another solution rather than May's deal. But if that's where the correct process has taken us, then that's that. Any Leave voter will have no justification in disputing the outcome, it'd be one of the several possible outcomes possible under a Leave vote. They voted "Leave", not "Leave, but my way". We will have left. We will be diminished in wealth and influence, but we will have left. Lump it, in just the same way you have been emploring Remainers to "get over it". You own it.
I happen also to think there was no need for this process to have even started. I happen to think that the illegality of the Leave campaign should render the result invalid. I think many, many things about this wretched situation. But I've only had one full say, at one point, 3 years ago, and a further diminished say 2 years ago, both times expressing my "will" to stay in the EU. You can't always get what you want, no. But there's absolutely nothing to say you have to stop arguing and fighting for it where the means exist. I expect my Parliamentary representatives to do the same, according to their judgement.
Gosh you seem really angry, are you middle aged with a ruddy complexion?I think that's a woeful outcome, and frankly an unmitigated disaster. I also think it stands against the wishes of a majority of the electorate in that there are more of us who would prefer another solution rather than May's deal. But if that's where the correct process has taken us, then that's that. Any Leave voter will have no justification in disputing the outcome, it'd be one of the several possible outcomes possible under a Leave vote. They voted "Leave", not "Leave, but my way". We will have left. We will be diminished in wealth and influence, but we will have left. Lump it, in just the same way you have been emploring Remainers to "get over it". You own it.
I happen also to think there was no need for this process to have even started. I happen to think that the illegality of the Leave campaign should render the result invalid. I think many, many things about this wretched situation. But I've only had one full say, at one point, 3 years ago, and a further diminished say 2 years ago, both times expressing my "will" to stay in the EU. You can't always get what you want, no. But there's absolutely nothing to say you have to stop arguing and fighting for it where the means exist. I expect my Parliamentary representatives to do the same, according to their judgement.
Has anyone been charged for the illegality of the Leave campaign?
Have you started campaigning locally for the 2nd referendum?
Have you warned everyone that whilst the 2nd referendum is advisory only, but come with caveats that clearly infer that their vote will be implemented, there is a chance that their vote will be ignored despite the very clear caveats.
Would a hug help?
don'tbesilly said:
There seems to be a very strong argument going on this morning as to just why a 2nd referendum is a pointless and futile way forward.
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?
Your understanding of the discussion is flawed, which is causing you to assign incorrect motivations to other people actions. 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?
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.Staggering that so many people don't understand this.
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.
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.
CaptainSlow said:
ElectricSoup said:
What everyone here seems to be forgetting in relation to the Parliament they seem to be accusing of thwarting their will, is that this is a Parliament we elected,.
No it isn't.ElectricSoup said:
I happen to think that the illegality of the Leave campaign should render the result invalid.
Honestly, stop showing yourself up.
ElectricSoup said:
I happen to think that the illegality of the Leave campaign should render the result invalid.
I think it's funny that you've spent your morning telling people all about our constitution and how technically this, and advisory that.and then you post that, less than a week since the legal challenge on those very grounds was rejected
Elysium said:
don'tbesilly said:
There seems to be a very strong argument going on this morning as to just why a 2nd referendum is a pointless and futile way forward.
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?
Your understanding of the discussion is flawed, which is causing you to assign incorrect motivations to other people actions. 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