Brexit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • jpkeates
    replied
    But you can't keep holding referendums until the popular vote matches what you would prefer.

    We're a parliamentary democracy, not a direct democracy - you can't mix and match.
    That's why the EU referendum had to be advisory in the form it was presented in, and the proportional representation issue had to be a referendum (because it was a vote to change the parliamentary elections and you can't ask MPs elected under one system to vote to change it - they would have conflicts of interest all over the place).

    But we voted and now politics has to deliver or persuade people that they either didn't really want what they voted for or that what they're delivering is equal or better.
    What's been really interesting is watching the constitution of the UK hold together and absorb the pressures being placed on it.

    Two or three general elections will sort things out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Macromia
    replied
    Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
    I think we should honour the result of the referendum, you can't keep having them until you get the result you want.

    We had the referendum in 1975.
    There was a referendum in 1975, but when circumstances change it can be appropriate to have another referendum on the same, or very similar, issues.

    Circumstances now are not the same as they were in June 2016, because the leave campaigns made very different promises about what would happen if we left the EU than we are now being offered.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    Originally posted by kennyj52 View Post
    Not sure of the validity of that considering the high turnout for the referendum, but I suspect the turnout for a repeat referendum will be considerably lower. Never mind though, we can always continue to repeat the referendum until we get the result we want.
    I think we should honour the result of the referendum, you can't keep having them until you get the result you want.

    We had the referendum in 1975.

    Leave a comment:


  • theartfullodger
    replied
    Originally posted by kennyj52 View Post
    Bojo ( I like that name), bless his cotton socks,...
    I usually refer to him as Bozo but was merely trying to be polite...

    But of-course he is frustrated, poor lad, because he doesn't have a majority. It's a shame Parliament can't follow the example of the England rugby team and work as a TEAM - then we'd be able to muller any nation in the World as well as the All Blacks.
    Aye, of course, no worries: Is that before or after all the new trade agreements have been completed?

    Leave a comment:


  • kennyj52
    replied
    Just re-read the rules - apologies to all for shouting.

    Leave a comment:


  • kennyj52
    replied

    Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
    In 2016, no one gave a monkeys about the EU apart from a very small minority of people.
    When surveyed, the public cared a lot about the NHS and immigration and the EU barely registered.
    Not sure of the validity of that considering the high turnout for the referendum, but I suspect the turnout for a repeat referendum will be considerably lower. Never mind though, we can always continue to repeat the referendum until we get the result we want.

    Originally posted by theartfullodger View Post
    So Bojo is demanding a general election because the public can't possibly want what they voted for way way back in 2017...
    .
    Bojo ( I like that name), bless his cotton socks, is just trying to do what all governments usually do, i.e. listen to the debate in Parliament and then carry on regardless doing whatever it is they wanted to do in the first place.

    But of-course he is frustrated, poor lad, because he doesn't have a majority. It's a shame Parliament can't follow the example of the England rugby team and work as a TEAM - then we'd be able to muller any nation in the World as well as the All Blacks.

    Leave a comment:


  • nukecad
    replied
    Originally posted by nukecad View Post
    The great suspicion/conclusion is that he is trying to push Brexit through while parliament is not sitting, denying MPs due scrutiny of what he is doing.

    They are not 'running scared', they are simply trying to prevent this current Government from riding rough-shod over Parliamentary procedure
    Interestingly this has been confirmed today:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50199682
    the SNP will block attempts by the government to seek an election on 12 December under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act as it allows the prime minister to "force through his devastating Brexit deal and take the UK out of the EU".

    Leave a comment:


  • islandgirl
    replied
    Have been missing the fun here whilst away for the weekend. Glad to see the old racist stereotypes emerging "Ironically, for those who cared most about immigration, leaving the EU will increase the numbers of immigrants who (like our passports) are seen as the wrong colour" plus many other hilarious snippits...I should not go away too much it only encourages you!

    Leave a comment:


  • ram
    replied
    Juncker makes it clear, in his farewell speech, that the EU’s purpose is to destroy the nation state,
    e.g. Britain, France, Italy, ect.
    Anyone who wants to leave the E.U. will be destroyed. And anyone who is in Europe who does not
    join, will be destroyed.The E.U. Empire strikes back.

    see https://telegra.ph/file/0ca749fd5424670c6ec62.mp4

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    I was wrong/
    Last December general election was 1926.

    I shouldn't trust twitter!

    Leave a comment:


  • Kape65
    replied
    Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
    We haven't had an election in the middle of winter since 1910.
    Not true, there have been loads!

    Leave a comment:


  • theartfullodger
    replied
    So Bojo is demanding a general election because the public can't possibly want what they voted for way way back in 2017...

    - However they definitely haven't changed their minds about what they voted for in 2016.

    Leave a comment:


  • nukecad
    replied
    Originally posted by nukecad View Post
    The question has to be- "Why does the PM (Boris) keep trying to shut down parliament?"
    I'll answer my own question.
    1. He tried to shut down parliament for 5 weeks as 'preparation' for a Queens speech.
    2. When that didn't work he almost immediately tried to get a recess for the Conservative Party Conference.
    3. Now he wants to call a general election and shut parliament down for 25 days.
    The great suspicion/conclusion is that he is trying to push Brexit through while parliament is not sitting, denying MPs due scrutiny of what he is doing.

    The other parties can see through this, which is why they have been resisting his previous calls for anything that would mean a recess, including a general election.

    They are not 'running scared', they are simply trying to prevent this current Government from riding rough-shod over Parliamentary procedure.

    Discussion about whether to have a new referendum or a general election become meaningless if the Government manage to push through Brexit, without due scrutiny, before either of those things could happen.

    As Iam Flemming wrote in Goldfinger:
    "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, the third time it's enemy action."

    (Interestingly as I'm typing this a government advertisement has come on TV still telling us to "Get ready for Brexit on the 31st October").

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    In 2016, no one gave a monkeys about the EU apart from a very small minority of people.
    When surveyed, the public cared a lot about the NHS and immigration and the EU barely registered.

    So having a referendum was pointless, because when people are asked a question they have an opinion and because they weren't that interested, they didn't bother to research or even think about it much.

    The leave campaign made the issue about the NHS and Immigration, which people did care about. Unsurprisingly, people wanted to save the NHS and wanted fewer immigrants.

    Ironically, for those who cared most about immigration, leaving the EU will increase the numbers of immigrants who (like our passports) are seen as the wrong colour. And leaving the EU harms the NHS

    People still don't care about the EU and if we decided to stay in it, there won't be riots, there'll be some isolated local protests from a few lunatic right wingers and then we'll move on, muttering.

    Almost no one still knows anything about the EU and how it works or affects us. But it's got to the point where there's no longer any kind of rational approach. No one can compromise or change their mind. It's like religion.

    We need to leave without no deal, so we need to agree on a transition deal we can live with and move on.

    And I don't see a general election delivering that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Macromia
    replied
    It's not an argument against democracy at all, islandgirl.

    It's very simple, a general election will not tell the government (whoever that might end up being) what the majority of voters want regarding Brexit.

    Even if we assume that everyone chooses their vote in a general election based solely on whether or not they want to leave the EU (which just isn't going to happen because general elections aren't decided on single issues), the majority of seats in parliament can very easily be won by parties that support Brexit, even if majority opinion is to remain (or vice-versa).
    In addition, a general election win for a party supporting Brexit doesn't tell us how those who want to leave the EU want to leave.

    For example, if we assume that all votes for the conservatives, the Brexit Party and UKIP are votes for Brexit, and all votes for any other party/candidate are votes against Brexit (already an oversimplification), 300 of the 650 seats in the house of commons could (hypothetically) be won by parties that stand against Brexit, with an average of 60% of votes in those constituencies going to anti-Brexit parties - and these seats might be split between several parties.
    The remaining 350 seats might only get an average of 55% of the vote for Brexit supporting parties - but almost all of these 350 seats might be won by the Conservatives (perhaps with an average of 35-45% of the vote in each constituency.
    If we assume that the average number of voters in each constituency is similar, with the above result, which would give the conservatives a comfortable majority in the house of commons, only 48.1% of voters would have voted for pro-Brexit parties, while 51.9% would have voted for parties that stood against Brexit - and a result with that sort of percentage result is (supposedly) a decisive mandate that it would be undemocratic to go against.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X