Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Brexit: The Last Stand (No name calling)

1…5152545657…333

Comments

  • #1592
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,469 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Anita Blow wrote: »
    [...] it would be wholly undemocratic for the Tory party not to be morally bound by the referendum vote. Any suggestion that "it was only advisory" is nothing more than an excuse & technicality.
    Apart from the questionable wisdom of trashing 45 years of co-operation in a blaze of nationalistic rhetoric which lead to the assassination of an MP, it would also be undemocratic and immoral to execute on a referendum whose passage was acquired by deceit.


  • #1593
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    jmayo wrote: »
    The sad thing is that you might actually believe the EU is about democracy. :rolleyes:

    I must have imagined voting for MEPs :rolleyes:.
    jmayo wrote: »
    The EU dressed up the "EU constitution treaty" in affect as the Lisbon Treaty, because the French and Dutch voters had rejected it.

    I simply don't have enough info on that, but I can't blindly trust the opinions of people on forums.
    jmayo wrote: »
    Then they added a few minor cosmetic changes to the Lisbon Treaty after it had been rejected by the Irish electorate and together with a lot of threats forced it through.

    Electorate could have easily rejected it again, and they decided not to. A 2nd referendum is not undemocratic. The changes were clearly enough for the electorate.
    jmayo wrote: »
    Was it democratic for other heads of state and EU apparatchiks to threaten and try strong arm Irish voters ?

    We had a vote, we could have voted against it again. We were not stopped from doing so.
    jmayo wrote: »
    Have you never read the ideals of some of the founding fathers of the EU.
    The whole idea of the European project was to actually remove democratic will of the European electorate and thus prevent the reoccurrence of what happened in the 30s which ultimately led to WWII.

    Again, I must be imaging all those votes for MEPs, and our own government..........


  • #1594
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,896 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Interesting commentary in the Guardian. The Leave side campaigned in the referendum calling for the restoration of the sovereignty of parliament. The court judgement today appears to support that and now they suddenly don't like it. What a pack of hypocrites.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/03/will-article-50-ruling-stop-brexit-high-court-parliament


  • #1595
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 76,312 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Interesting commentary in the Guardian. The Leave side campaigned in the referendum calling for the restoration of the sovereignty of parliament. The court judgement today appears to support that and now they suddenly don't like it. What a pack of hypocrites.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/03/will-article-50-ruling-stop-brexit-high-court-parliament


    It de wrong kinda sovereignty! ;)


  • #1596
    A Little Pony
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭A Little Pony


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Interesting commentary in the Guardian. The Leave side campaigned in the referendum calling for the restoration of the sovereignty of parliament. The court judgement today appears to support that and now they suddenly don't like it. What a pack of hypocrites.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/03/will-article-50-ruling-stop-brexit-high-court-parliament
    Parliament did vote though, they voted FOR the referendum and promised they would deliver the result. It is in writing. If Parliament was now to vote against the majority of people who voted leave, then it would simply make a complete mockery of democracy.

    What would be the point of ever voting again when you know Parliament would just overrule the people, it takes all the power out of the hands of the people, it would make future referendums utterly pointless. If they reject the triggering article 50, I will question why I even bothered to get out and vote believing they would carry out the wishes of the majority.


  • Advertisement
  • #1597
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,622 ✭✭✭swampgas


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    Parliament did vote though, they voted FOR the referendum and promised they would deliver the result. It is in writing. If Parliament was now to vote against the majority of people who voted leave, then it would simply make a complete mockery of democracy.

    What would be the point of ever voting again when you know Parliament would just overrule the people, it takes all the power out of the hands of the people, it would make future referendums utterly pointless. If they reject the triggering article 50, I will question why I even bothered to get out and vote believing they would carry out the wishes of the majority.

    True enough. However David Cameron didn't actually anticipate losing the referendum, so not much thought went into what might actually happen if Leave won out. It was crazy to have a referendum on something worded so vaguely.


  • #1598
    Snickers Man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    jmayo wrote: »
    Have you never read the ideals of some of the founding fathers of the EU.
    The whole idea of the European project was to actually remove democratic will of the European electorate and thus prevent the reoccurrence of what happened in the 30s which ultimately led to WWII.

    That is horse****. Democracy isn't just about elections. Getting elected president or prime minister does not grant you dictatorial powers. Or it shouldn't in a properly democratic system. There HAVE to be checks and balances.

    In America they are very strong on their "three branches of Government" namely the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, all of which are supposedly at least independent of one another.

    The president is the chief executive but his (or her) hands can be tied by sufficiently strong forces in either of the other branches. And they frequently are. Look how long it took Obama to pass Obamacare. Or at the fact that Quantanamo Bay prison is still open.

    In Britain, without a written constitution, the relationship between the various elements of government is more fluid. So the courts have to decide which mechanism is most appropriate in which decision-making case.

    They have not taken a decision on whether to permit or prohibit Brexit. All they have done is determine, under law, how the process shall proceed. So Mrs May must now persuade Parliament as a whole, not just her little clique in cabinet, of the details of the post-Brexit relationship with the EU member states.

    That's all.

    Brexit will happen, because whatever Britain (or at least its parliament) decides to do, none dare deny it's Brexit.


  • #1599
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,896 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    Parliament did vote though, they voted FOR the referendum and promised they would deliver the result. It is in writing. If Parliament was now to vote against the majority of people who voted leave, then it would simply make a complete mockery of democracy.

    What would be the point of ever voting again when you know Parliament would just overrule the people, it takes all the power out of the hands of the people, it would make future referendums utterly pointless. If they reject the triggering article 50, I will question why I even bothered to get out and vote believing they would carry out the wishes of the majority.

    The judgement is not about parliament 'overruling the people'. Its about establishing the position of parliament as regards these decisions and who actually undertakes them. Are you aware one of the two people who brought this appeal voted for Brexit?


  • #1600
    beach_walker
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 976 ✭✭✭beach_walker


    robindch wrote: »
    Apart from the questionable wisdom of trashing 45 years of co-operation in a blaze of nationalistic rhetoric which lead to the assassination of an MP, it would also be undemocratic and immoral to execute on a referendum whose passage was acquired by deceit.

    Hmm, is it ok to tarnish the Remainers with violence by people on their side? Or would it look rather foolish and do well to realise that there's headers in all parts of society and neither campaign were out for blood?


  • #1601
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,216 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    Parliament did vote though, they voted FOR the referendum and promised they would deliver the result. It is in writing. If Parliament was now to vote against the majority of people who voted leave, then it would simply make a complete mockery of democracy.

    What would be the point of ever voting again when you know Parliament would just overrule the people, it takes all the power out of the hands of the people, it would make future referendums utterly pointless. If they reject the triggering article 50, I will question why I even bothered to get out and vote believing they would carry out the wishes of the majority.

    Problem is they didnt do the research to check if they could gurantee such a thing.

    Also your as usual ignoring the referendum was only advisory if it had been binding they couldnt have ignored the result.

    Your problem is hilariously and ironically that the UK is applying its sovereign rules to the process which you claim to be for.


  • Advertisement
  • #1602
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 76,312 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    Parliament did vote though, they voted FOR the referendum and promised they would deliver the result. It is in writing. If Parliament was now to vote against the majority of people who voted leave, then it would simply make a complete mockery of democracy.

    What would be the point of ever voting again when you know Parliament would just overrule the people, it takes all the power out of the hands of the people, it would make future referendums utterly pointless. If they reject the triggering article 50, I will question why I even bothered to get out and vote believing they would carry out the wishes of the majority.


    Brexiters wanted a return to the sovereignty of the UK (i.e. it's parliment is sovereign)

    Will you accept the sovereignty of parliment?

    *or continue making ridiculous and contradictory claims.


  • #1603
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,052 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    swampgas wrote: »
    True enough. However David Cameron didn't actually anticipate losing the referendum, so not much thought went into what might actually happen if Leave won out. It was crazy to have a referendum on something worded so vaguely.


    i think its fair to say that neither side put much thought into what might happen if leave won out


  • #1604
    A Little Pony
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭A Little Pony


    VinLieger wrote: »
    A Little Pony wrote: »
    Parliament did vote though, they voted FOR the referendum and promised they would deliver the result. It is in writing. If Parliament was now to vote against the majority of people who voted leave, then it would simply make a complete mockery of democracy.

    What would be the point of ever voting again when you know Parliament would just overrule the people, it takes all the power out of the hands of the people, it would make future referendums utterly pointless. If they reject the triggering article 50, I will question why I even bothered to get out and vote believing they would carry out the wishes of the majority.

    Problem is they didnt do the research to check if they could gurantee such a thing.

    Also your as usual ignoring the referendum was only advisory if it had been binding they couldnt have ignored the result.

    Your problem is hilariously and ironically that the UK is applying its sovereign rules to the process which you claim to be for.
    Advisory or not, the majority will of the people has to take precedent. You either believe in the will of the people or you don't. If not, then we should just scrap elections and let unelected peers control the country. David Cameron has even said the result should be respected and carried on.

    Fellow remain MPs have said likewise, I just hope the MPs see sense and do not undermine the democratic result of the people. It will create a constitutional crisis if they did do. If remain won, I would have said the same thing, accept the will of the people if that is what they choose. Do we ignore the result of a vote just because we don't like it?


  • #1605
    Snickers Man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    Looking at those quotes it amazes me that some people support the EU. It is a fascist construction designed to overwhelm democracy by the men at the very top.

    Do you even know what a fascist is?


  • #1606
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,469 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    beach_walker wrote: »
    Hmm, is it ok to tarnish the Remainers with violence by people on their side?
    Where did I do that?

    I pointed out that nationalistic rhetoric lead to the assassination of an MP - are you suggesting that the two are not linked?

    Or if you believe that they are linked, then are you simply objecting to me pointing it out?


  • #1607
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,216 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    Advisory or not, the majority will of the people has to take precedent. You either believe in the will of the people or you don't. If not, then we should just scrap elections and let unelected peers control the country. David Cameron has even said the result should be respected and carried on.
    Fellow remain MPs have said likewise, I just hope the MPs see sense and do not undermine the democratic result of the people. It will create a constitutional crisis if they did do. If remain won, I would have said the same thing, accept the will of the people if that is what they choose. Do we ignore the result of a vote just because we don't like it?

    No it won't!!!! Because the referendum was not binding, you literally do not understand how the thing you apparently are so avidly fighting for works. Kind sad but also ironic. All it MIGHT do is trigger an election.

    It doesn't matter what cameron said because now we have found out he hadn't a clue what he was doing because what he said could happen legally cannot happen.


  • #1608
    catbear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,092 ✭✭✭catbear


    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    What should the Tory MP for **generic Surrey constituency where Remain got 60%** do in any parliament vote? Vote in line with the wishes of his constituents or with the overall 52% Leave vote?
    In that situation I'd abstain. If the vote fails, the government falls and I stay onside with my constituents. In the following election the media circus will focus heavily on brexiteer hollow arguments.

    If it passes I get sent to the back benches but I'm still onside with my constituents.


  • #1609
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,951 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    A Little Pony wrote: »

    I just hope the MPs see sense and do not undermine the democratic result of the people.

    What should the Tory MP for **generic Surrey constituency where Remain got 60%** do in any parliament vote? Vote in line with the wishes of his constituents or with the overall 52% Leave vote?


  • #1610
    A Little Pony
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭A Little Pony


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    A Little Pony wrote: »
    Parliament did vote though, they voted FOR the referendum and promised they would deliver the result. It is in writing. If Parliament was now to vote against the majority of people who voted leave, then it would simply make a complete mockery of democracy.

    What would be the point of ever voting again when you know Parliament would just overrule the people, it takes all the power out of the hands of the people, it would make future referendums utterly pointless. If they reject the triggering article 50, I will question why I even bothered to get out and vote believing they would carry out the wishes of the majority.


    Brexiters wanted a return to the sovereignty of the UK (i.e. it's parliment is sovereign)

    Will you accept the sovereignty of parliment?

    *or continue making ridiculous and contradictory claims.

    If Parliament voted against triggering Article 50, would you say that is acceptable? Would you think it is fine if they overturned the June 23rd vote? I think if they want to vote on it is fine but just be aware of the consequences if they screw the people.


  • #1611
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,277 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Snickers Man wrote: »
    Do you even know what a fascist is?

    It's what you call something you disagree with? Right?


  • Advertisement
  • #1612
    A Little Pony
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭A Little Pony


    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    A Little Pony wrote: »

    I just hope the MPs see sense and do not undermine the democratic result of the people.

    What should the Tory MP for **generic Surrey constituency where Remain got 60%** do in any parliament vote? Vote in line with the wishes of his constituents or with the overall 52% Leave vote?
    Vote WITH the people, who voted in a majority to leave.


  • #1613
    A Little Pony
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭A Little Pony


    VinLieger wrote: »
    A Little Pony wrote: »
    Advisory or not, the majority will of the people has to take precedent. You either believe in the will of the people or you don't. If not, then we should just scrap elections and let unelected peers control the country. David Cameron has even said the result should be respected and carried on.
    Fellow remain MPs have said likewise, I just hope the MPs see sense and do not undermine the democratic result of the people. It will create a constitutional crisis if they did do. If remain won, I would have said the same thing, accept the will of the people if that is what they choose. Do we ignore the result of a vote just because we don't like it?

    No it won't!!!! Because the referendum was not binding, you literally do not understand how the thing you apparently are so avidly fighting for works. Kind sad but also ironic. All it MIGHT do is trigger an election.

    It doesn't matter what cameron said because now we have found out he hadn't a clue what he was doing because what he said could happen legally cannot happen.
    It doesn't need to be legally binding, it is the will of the people in a democratic referendum. Not carrying out the wishes of the people will make a mockery of the democratic system in the UK. It will tell every voter they have ultimately have no say how the country is run.

    It will basically be the people vs Parliament, the voters v the Establishment. It will be a constitutional crisis.


  • #1614
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,216 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    Vote WITH the people, who voted in a majority to leave.

    But he's elected by his constituents to serve their interests, so your saying they should ignore the sovereignty of parliament and just do what they are told to protect parliamentary sovereignty?

    Your posts are so contradictory it shows you really have no clue what you are talking about


  • #1615
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,216 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    It doesn't need to be legally binding, it is the will of the people in a democratic referendum. Not carrying out the wishes of the people will make a mockery of the democratic system in the UK. It will tell every voter they have ultimately have no say how the country is run.

    It does need to be legally binding, no matter how many times you blindly and ignorantly state this it wont change that fact. Also they can just vote the politicians out in a democratic election which is where people get to have their say in how the country is run
    A Little Pony wrote: »
    It will basically be the people vs Parliament, the voters v the Establishment. It will be a constitutional crisis.

    Who the people vote for and can vote them out if they want to.


  • #1616
    A Little Pony
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭A Little Pony


    Snickers Man wrote: »
    A Little Pony wrote: »
    Looking at those quotes it amazes me that some people support the EU. It is a fascist construction designed to overwhelm democracy by the men at the very top.

    Do you even know what a fascist is?

    The unelected European commission.


  • #1617
    beach_walker
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 976 ✭✭✭beach_walker


    robindch wrote: »
    Where did I do that?

    I pointed out that nationalistic rhetoric lead to the assassination of an MP - are you suggesting that the two are not linked?

    Or if you believe that they are linked, then are you simply objecting to me pointing it out?

    Fair enough.

    "Remain" campaigners building on the outrage and shock over the referendum result, the rhetoric of which lead to the brutal beating to death of a Leave voter in the immediate aftermath, have hailed the courts decision today that parliament must have a say in the invocation of Article 50.

    Sauce for the goose and all that, right? I should work for the BBC!


  • #1618
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,052 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    Vote WITH the people, who voted in a majority to leave.

    mps represent the people in their constituency. I would be interested to see a breakdown of the vote by constituency. I seem to remember that a few areas voted overwhelmingly in favour but most constituencies voted against.


  • #1619
    A Little Pony
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭A Little Pony


    VinLieger wrote: »
    A Little Pony wrote: »
    Vote WITH the people, who voted in a majority to leave.

    But he's elected by his constituents to serve their interests, so your saying they should ignore the sovereignty of parliament and just do what they are told to protect parliamentary sovereignty?

    Your posts are so contradictory it shows you really have no clue what you are talking about
    The case for the majority of the country takes precedent over a single constituency. The majority of the UK voted to leave, that democratic will should be respected. What you fail to understand about that is bizarre.


  • #1620
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,052 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    The case for the majority of the country takes precedent over a single constituency. The majority of the UK voted to leave, that democratic will should be respected. What you fail to understand about that is bizarre.

    well no it doesnt. MPs represent their constituents.


  • Advertisement
  • #1621
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,216 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    The case for the majority of the country takes precedent over a single constituency. The majority of the UK voted to leave, that democratic will should be respected. What you fail to understand about that is bizarre.

    Not for an MP who is elected by their constituency to serve their interests, what you fail to understand about that is nothing less than willful ignorance


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement