Brexit: The Last Stand (No name calling)

swampgas

A Little Pony wrote: »

Sovereignty, control of the border, British laws made in the UK, self determination etc. Lots of reasons people voted leave. I just think it is an insult to the people to say they didn't know what they voted for.

Most people who voted Leave had a good idea about why they were voting that way. But that doesn't mean that every other Leave voter had the same reasons, or even that they had similar reasons.

On top of that there were all the contradictory promises of Boris & Co - that the UK could maintain access to the single market and yet restrict movement of people. So somebody could have voted Leave based on what now appears to be a false promise and might now want to reconsider. Should Leave voters who want to change their minds because they were mislead about the deal the UK could get be required to shut up and suck it up?

The fact is we simply don't know how many of the Leave voters would actually want to leave when the Brexit arrangements finally become clear. Surely it is democratic to allow the people (or parliament) decide if the Brexit deal hammered out is an acceptable one?

A Little Pony

robindch wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Sovereignty, control of the border, British laws made in the UK, self determination etc. Lots of reasons people voted leave. I just think it is an insult to the people to say they didn't know what they voted for.

You can infer whatever insult you wish in the privacy of your own armchair, but it doesn't change the fact that the majority of people didn't vote for any specified outcome, since there wasn't one on offer.

"Leaving the EU" does not confer sovereignty on anybody; it doesn't return control of the border since the UK already retained border control (for example, has any brexiteer passed through an airport and seen that nice man or lady who asks for a passport? that's "border control" right there); laws are made in the EU with the permission and support of the UK government in areas of common interest with other EU countries - with very, very few exceptions (none of which are seemingly known to any brexiteer) they're not "imposed" by "Brussels" - instead, they are requested, agreed and implemented - all by duly elected politicians.

And if this yawning gap of knowledge means that the majority of the 17 million people who voted to "leave the EU" can legitimately be called ignorant - well, sometimes the truth hurts.

While the UK is part of the EU it can not control the numbers of people who come into the UK. That is something Farage has always been right on. Border control in terms of numbers and skilled based immigrants is an absolute must. It is a red line for me.

FrancieBrady

the evasion_kid wrote: »

Democracy is really taking a hammering under this EU...

It was a British court that made the ruling and it will be a British parliment making the decision to subvert democracy if they decide to ignore the 'people's wishes'.

the evasion_kid

wes wrote: »

There were changes, when we voted again. What exactly is wrong with more democracy? Winning once and you win forever is not democracy at all.

If people reject something, and changes are made, and they then accept it, that is democracy, whether you dislike the results or not.

How about a best of three type thing...

wes

the evasion_kid wrote: »

How about a best of three type thing...

The treaty's rejected here, had changes made to them. We were not voting on the same thing twice, despite the simply untrue claims made by people in that regard.

Again, people rejected something, and there concerns were addressed via changes, and the people accepted. What grounds would you propose a 3rd vote on exactly? The 2nd one was done as there were changes and as such justifiable. What is wrong with that? Care to provide a reason of some kind, as to why a 2nd vote on treaty's here should not have been done? The fact that the changes were accepted by the electorate, seems to suggest that the 2nd referendum was the right choice.

Still, I am open to hear out your argument as to why this was some how wrong, or undemocratic, and look forward to what I assume is perfectly good argument as to why that wasn't the case.

beach_walker

wes wrote: »

There were changes, when we voted again. What exactly is wrong with more democracy? Winning once and you win forever is not democracy at all.

If people reject something, and changes are made, and they then accept it, that is democracy, whether you like the results or not.

Who said anything about me liking it or not. The message from Nice and Lisbon was clear, any future changes needed to our constitution for EU treatys will pass one way or another. In the case of the French and the Dutch they just tweaked what on offer to bypass the people entirely. Why do think they went that way and didn't ask them again? What happened to more democracy?!

Do you honestly think any future Irish rejection of a treaty will be respected?

FrancieBrady

the evasion_kid wrote: »

How about a best of three type thing...

Or on the advice of one poster here - the Guy Fawkes solution. He's a democrat don't ya know! :rolleyes:

BorneTobyWilde

So Theresa May can not now trigger article 50 due to this court ruling.?

A Dub in Glasgo

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

So Theresa May can not now trigger article 50 due to this court ruling.?

She can but she needs Parliament approval to do so

wes

beach_walker wrote: »

Who said anything about me liking it or not. The message from Nice and Lisbon was clear, any future changes needed to our constitution for EU treatys will pass one way or another. In the case of the French and the Dutch they just tweaked what on offer to bypass the people entirely. Why do think they went that way and didn't ask them again? What happened to more democracy?!

Do you honestly think any future Irish rejection of a treaty will be respected?

They were respected the first time. Changes were made, and the electorate accepted them. There was nothing stopping the electorate from rejecting it the 2nd time. So again, give me a good reason why this was wrong? Changes were made, and they were accepted. How were our decisions not respected exactly?

A Little Pony

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

So Theresa May can not now trigger article 50 due to this court ruling.?

Needs a Parliament vote, unless the Supreme Court reverse this decision on an appeal.

beach_walker

the evasion_kid wrote: »

How about a best of three type thing...

Well given the winning side were blasting out populist untruths like "Vote Yes to Jobs!" and "Yes to recovery!" (which politicians shied away from once the vote was passed) you might expect some people to see a similarity with the Brexit campaign... *cough*

catbear

wes wrote: »

The treaty's rejected here, had changes made to them. We were not voting on the same thing twice, despite the simply untrue claims made by people in that regard.

Again, people rejected something, and there concerns were addressed via changes, and the people accepted. What grounds would you propose a 3rd vote on exactly? The 2nd one was done as there were changes and as such justifiable. What is wrong with that? Care to provide a reason of some kind, as to why a 2nd vote on treaty's here should not have been done? The fact that the changes were accepted by the electorate, seems to suggest that the 2nd referendum was the right choice.

Still, I am open to hear out your argument as to why this was some how wrong, or undemocratic, and look forward to what I assume is perfectly good argument as to why that wasn't the case.

The thing about that vote was the main issues were abortion and neutrality.

There's no compromise on emigration to even justify a second brexit vote. Unless the politicians can make it seem like there is and the pubic knowingly consent to the illusion.

BorneTobyWilde

May said she will press on regardless of a court ruling? Isn't that breaking the law, another Hillary on our hands.

BorneTobyWilde

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

She can but she needs Parliament approval to do so

Hmmm or she can't until a vote is made. ?

beach_walker

wes wrote: »

They were respected the first time. Changes were made, and the electorate accepted them. There was nothing stopping the electorate from rejecting it the 2nd time. So again, give me a good reason why this was wrong? Changes were made, and they were accepted. How were our decisions not respected exactly?

A rejection would never be the accepted final answer. We know that now. Nice dodging on the French and Dutch question btw.

BorneTobyWilde

Do people really believe that 2% of people do not regret their vote. I think a lot more than 2% do. It would only take 2% to overturn this leave vote, if another vote was asked of the people.

wes

catbear wrote: »

The thing about that vote was the main issues were abortion and neutrality.

There's no compromise on emigration to even justify a second brexit vote. Unless the politicians can make it seem like there is and the pubic knowingly consent to the illusion.

Well, the Brexit case is different. I was taking issue with some people bringing up previous referendums.

BorneTobyWilde

Parliament would vote 98% to stay.

A Little Pony

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Parliament would vote 98% to stay.

I'd be amazed if they did.

2ygb4cmqetsjhx

This is the most hilarious thing to ever happen. Seriously what a fiasco. I hope they proceed to leave just for the pure entertainment. If Trump gets elected next week that would be the icing on the cake for 2016.

wes

beach_walker wrote: »

A rejection would never be the accepted final answer. We know that now.

Changes were offered and accepted. So again, what exactly is wrong with that? Care to explain why the changes were not a good enough reason for a rerun, especially in light of them being accepted 2nd time round. The very fact that they were accepted clearly suggest that the changes addressed peoples concerns. How is that not democratic? It seems common sense to me, that addressing people concerns is what democracy is about.

beach_walker wrote: »

Nice dodging on the French and Dutch question btw.

I didn't dodge anything, as the point I wanted to address was in regards to Ireland. Simply put, I am unfamiliar with what happened in France and the Netherlands and as such simply taught it best not to talk about it.

I do note that you haven't exactly been forthcoming yourself btw, in regards to questions asked.

the evasion_kid

beach_walker wrote: »

Who said anything about me liking it or not. The message from Nice and Lisbon was clear, any future changes needed to our constitution for EU treatys will pass one way or another. In the case of the French and the Dutch they just tweaked what on offer to bypass the people entirely. Why do think they went that way and didn't ask them again? What happened to more democracy?!

Do you honestly think any future Irish rejection of a treaty will be respected?

If it’s a Yes we will say “on we go”, and if it’s a No we will say “we continue”.’
(Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Council)

They must go on voting until they get it right.”
(Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission)

I believe neither the French nor the Dutch really rejected the constitutional treaty.”
(Jean-Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg)

The ‘no’ votes were a demand for more Europe, not less.”
(Romano Prodi, former President of the European Commission)

These fellas are actually quite psychopathic....what's even odder is that there is people out there that actually support this monstrosity

MichaelScarn

The people voted for Brexit, their wishes should be heard.

catbear

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Do people really believe that 2% of people do not regret their vote. I think a lot more than 2% do. It would only take 2% to overturn this leave vote, if another vote was asked of the people.

And include those who didn't vote. If I remember correctly the same proportion voted against Lisbon the second time but the yes vote doubled!

BorneTobyWilde

A Little Pony wrote: »

I'd be amazed if they did.

but they all were on the remain team, including May.
Would be a betrayal of all the people who voted to remain if the people who told them to vote to remain now voted to leave.

catbear

MichaelScarn wrote: »

The people voted for Brexit, their wishes should be heard.

Yes, they should appeal the UK court decision to the ECJ.

BorneTobyWilde

MichaelScarn wrote: »

The people voted for Brexit, their wishes should be heard.

It was just a few council estates in north east that tipped vote though,

MichaelScarn

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

It was just a few council estates in north east that tipped vote though,

So? If they had tipped the vote the other way you wouldn't be complaining.

the evasion_kid

MichaelScarn wrote: »

So? If they had tipped the vote the other way you wouldn't be complaining.

What do we want democracy....when do we want it?......only when it suits our opinion