Brexit: The Last Stand (No name calling)

the evasion_kid wrote: »

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

Ok. So if the vote had been to remain, what would the Brexit supporters be asking for now? Farage made it quite clear what he would do. Do you remember?

MrP

A Little Pony wrote: »

If Parliament d on't let the triggering of Article 50 through, I will probably never vote again, except for the special case of a United Ireland referendum. I imagine millions of people would feel the same, it would just make people feel what is the point of voting if it is just going to be ignored.

I also think brexiteers should campaign to abolish the house of lords.

Understanding the system before you are allowed to vote would be something worth campaigning for too.

If this debacle shows anything it shows a huge deficit with regard to understanding how the system works and how your vote works.
In relation to both the UK and the EU.
If Brexiters actually knew what the reality of EU membership was (how the UK had feathered their bed in it, in a way no other country had. Opt outs and veto etc) they would have seen that the EU wasn't the big bad media created boogeyman. That boogeyman is closer to home.

wes wrote: »

I must have imagined voting for MEPs :rolleyes:.

We have 11 out of a total of 751.

That is 1.47% of the MEPs.

Leitrim who shares 4 TDs with Sligo has a slightly smaller say in the running of Ireland than Ireland has in running of EU through European Parliament.

Oh and what does the European Parliament actually do again ?
Does it draft legislation ?
Does it have an actual government, not that I would ever want it to have one since it would be just dominated by continental Europe's biggest players.

wes wrote: »

I simply don't have enough info on that, but I can't blindly trust the opinions of people on forums.

You blindly trust the EU ?

wes wrote: »

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

Yeah those 11 MEPs.
Just enough for a football team.
Granted the goalie is in a wheelchair.

Snickers Man wrote: »

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.

Talk about horseshy*e
You completely fail to acknowledge the actual European countries that had elected dictators in the 20th century. :rolleyes:
And the ones that were ruled by dictatorships after the overthrow of democratically elected governments.

And WTF has the US constitution and it's "checks and balances" (reminds me of The Shooter movie BTW) got to do with anything in Europe.

Germany elected a dictator.
So did Italy in effect.
Spain had a dictator who overthrew a democratically elected government.
Portugal had a dictatorship.
Greece had a military junta.

The founding fathers of the EU included such people as Konrad Adenauer, Joseph Bech (Luxembourg), Jean Monnet (France), Robert Schuman (France), Paul-Henri Spaak (Belgium), Altiero Spinelli (Italy).

They had all seen the devastation of WWII and wanted nothing more than prevent the rise of dictatorships ever again in Europe.
Some of them were lifelong Federalists and their aim was a united Europe.

They started off with tying in France and Germany in the European Coal and Steel Community and this evolved into European Economic Community with the Treaty of Rome.

One of the key aims of the The Schumann Declaration that started the ball rolling was the birth of a united Europe which would make war between member states impossible.
And it wanted to transform Europe in a step by step process ultimately leading leading to democratic unification of Europe.

A Little Pony wrote: »

I am fundamentally against the EU. It stands for things I just can't accept.

Name all of the things it stands for that you disagree with

A Little Pony wrote: »

The European Commission for me is the antithesis of democracy. The institution was designed to strip democratic rights away from sovereign nations and look to Federalize Europe.
I am against that and it seems the people who voted leave do too.

No the insitution was designed to stop wars and decrease restrictions on trade between all its members.

A Little Pony wrote: »

I am fundamentally against the EU. It stands for things I just can't accept. The European Commission for me is the antithesis of democracy. The institution was designed to strip democratic rights away from sovereign nations and look to Federalize Europe.
I am against that and it seems the people who voted leave do too.

given the lies that were spouted during the referendum campaign you cant possibly know why people voted to leave.

jmayo wrote: »

We have 11 out of a total of 751.

That is 1.47% of the MEPs.

Leitrim who shares 4 TDs with Sligo has a slightly smaller say in the running of Ireland than Ireland has in running of EU through European Parliament.

Oh and what does the European Parliament actually do again ?
Does it draft legislation ?
Does it have an actual government, not that I would ever want it to have one since it would be just dominated by continental Europe's biggest players.

How is this different than Dublin getting more representation than say Donegal? Seems to be pretty straight forward based on our population in relation to the rest of the EU.

I do agree that the way the EU parliament work is overly convoluted and could be simplified. Like any system it needs improvement.

jmayo wrote: »

You blindly trust the EU ?

Far more than people on internet forums...

jmayo wrote: »

Yeah those 11 MEPs.
Just enough for a football team.
Granted the goalie is in a wheelchair.

So you don't have any argument basically from what I can see. Just empty rhetoric.

And just when you thought the tone of the discourse couldn't get any worse.

Outrage as Great Ormond Street hospital worker stuns BBC Question Time viewers by wishing illness on Brexiteers' children

The whole thing is has turned into a car crash in slow motion at this stage.
Having legal appeals and/or a parliamentary vote will delay things even more causing even more uncertainty.
We'll probably see more of the toxic campaigning that we saw previously.
I can't even imagine the mess that would be created if parliament votes against leaving.
Either way they need to sort things out fast, although I'd say their relationship with the EU is irreparably damaged.

A Little Pony wrote: »

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.

I think this WOULD be an example of "keep voting again until you get it right". I could well imagine a majority voting against triggering Article 50 until PARLIAMENT, not Mrs May and her Cabinet, had a say in what should be Britain's basic demands prior to negotiation of a new relationship with Europe.

ie The parliamentary vote would not be a permanent veto of triggering Article 50, more a case of "Tell us what we're going to ask for as a minimum" and we'll agree whether or not it's a good idea.

Brexit is going to happen. We just have no clue of what it's going to look like in operation.