Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Bit cynical · 11-09-2019 05:41PM

Strazdas wrote: »

The "respecting the result of the referendum" argument makes no sense. Someone heading to the House of Commons with a flamethrower and hand grenades would be someone not respecting the result. Merely saying you disagree with the result and want to see it overturned is absolutely fine.

My view is that you have a right to protest and indeed call for a democratic result to be overturned, but that calling for the result to be overturned is not democratic although it could be argued to be for the the best in other respects.

Getting back to the Tommy Robinson example. I don't agree with him and would not vote for him and like I said I do not agree with those who voted for him. But calling for a by-election on the basis that people did not know what they were voting for or some other reason is an undemocratic request. On the other hand, disagreeing with him and supporting MPs who disagree with him and campaigning against him is not undemocratic in my view.

J Mysterio · 11-09-2019 05:42PM

Strazdas wrote: »

Wrong! If Tommy Robinson was elected PM, would you feel you had to support him because people had voted for him? In a democracy, you are totally free to oppose an election result or a referendum result and to campaign to have it overturned.

I don't know where on earth you and the 17m have gotten the idea it is "undemocratic" to disagree with an election result.

I've heard this in the US first hand, it's totally bizarre:

"I may not like the guy, but he is mah president".

Referring to GW Bush at the time.

SeaBreezes · 11-09-2019 05:44PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well I think the UK joined the EU (EEC then) without a referendum initially. The 1975 referendum was to confirm that they were to stay in that organisation.

However, yes we can treat the 2016 referendum as the second referendum, the first being in 1975. Even so, I don't think there's a democratic problem with rerunning in this situation. The problem comes with running a second referendum without implementing the first.

In this regard, there's no problem having a third referendum but to be democratic, a) the previous referendum must be implemented and b) some time must pass. How much time? I don't know. But immediately rerunning the referendum I would suggest is problematic.

It's my understanding the leave referendum was ADVISORY, not a mandate. So another ref with options was expected. (In fact, JRM himself assured parliament there would be another with the options) So surely the democratic thing is to go back to the people with ALL options on the table to make an informed choice? Problematic? Why? Democratic? Definitely..

But it won't happen, as JRM and Boris and co. won't pay their taxes on offshore accounts and that's all that Brexit was ever about...

Otherwise why the mad rush? Why not an orderly phased leave over 5 years? Why the self imposed deadline and crash?

prawnsambo · 11-09-2019 05:46PM

Things are getting a little spicy now. The government didn't ask for a stay until the Supreme Court heard it, so moves are afoot to restore parliament.

Tippex · 11-09-2019 05:48PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

How about:

You asked us to leave the EU. Here's our plan to leave. Are you happy to go ahead with it? Please tick yes or no.

That would make logical sense but considering they have failed miserably coming up with a plan in the 3 years post vote there was bo way they were coming up with one in order to have it as part of the vote. That would entail far too much foresight.

Bit cynical · 11-09-2019 05:53PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Real democracy is based on informed consent

Voting for what was essentially a 'mystery box' where the remain side were saying 'be careful what you wish for, voting to leave will have lots of bad consequences' and the 'leave' side said 'don't believe them, that's just project fear'

is not informed consent when the consequences of the vote were so blatantly misrepresented by the leave side.

Yes, but what this means is that both sides are given the opportunity to put their case forward. It was always the case that Brexit would involve some leap into the unknown. Of course Brexiteers are going to downplay the risks just like Remainers are going to emphasise them. There's no obligation on either side to be balanced in their campaigns.

MadYaker · 11-09-2019 05:56PM

hill16bhoy wrote: »

See, where have I said anything about tolerating the DUP's bigotry?

I said nothing of the sort, and I do think they're a crowd of hateful, bigoted wee shltes, to use Northern terminology.

What I do respect is their right to their British identity and their opposition to an NI backstop on that basis, as I do with all unionists who oppose it.

Respecting Irish/British/both identities is the cornerstone of the Good Friday Agreement.

I find it hard to respect any politician who puts their misguided principles over the prosperity and well being of themselves and their constituents. Regulatory alignment between Ireland and NI would be a huge benefit to the north after brexit but the DUP fought it tooth and nail for reasons I’ll never understand and are now likely going to end up with it anyway. None of them are fit to hold any sort of public office.

The backstop in the Irish Sea would likely bring lots of prosperity to the north as they would have unique to both EU and UK markets. How is that going to affect their “British” identity.

The idea that they are British exists only in their own heads anyway. The English consider them Irish and so do most Irish people.

J Mysterio · 11-09-2019 05:57PM

Rumours abounding also that the Government will now release some Yellowhammer documents?
Could that conceivably be a dead cat? There will be no cats left.

fash · 11-09-2019 06:00PM

dublinjock wrote: »

Thanks this is very interesting and appreciate the explanation.
Can you tell me Sir Julian King was he an MEP voted in by his constituency or just picked as im not sure.Im going to look into this a bit more.

Sajid Javid was elected as a MP then given the job as Chancellor of the Exchequer as an elected member of parliament.

How relevant is the "election as member of parliament" - especially in the UK where because of the FPTP system and "safe seats" an inanimate carbon rod will be elected if the party puts that person forward? What qualifications exactly does a member of parliament have to be chancellor of the Exchequer and what entitles the person who selected him for that role to make that selection?
Is it a problem that the Queen and the peers in the HOL were not voted for?
Are you aware that the PM need not be an MP?

Enzokk · 11-09-2019 06:05PM

J Mysterio wrote: »

Rumours abounding also that the Government will now release some Yellowhammer documents?
Could that conceivably be a dead cat? There will be no cats left.

Or they know the game is up. They have just been found to have lied to prorogue parliament so another instance of them ignoring democracy and the rule of law might not be a good look, especially with a election coming up.

I would not be surprised if some civil servants start fighting back against Cummings. The worst that can happen is that they will be fired but will win a employment tribunal most likely, so why not do as you are basically told by parliament.

VinLieger · 11-09-2019 06:09PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

Things are getting a little spicy now. The government didn't ask for a stay until the Supreme Court heard it, so moves are afoot to restore parliament.

Would love to be sitting in a room with bercow right now to hear what his thoughts were

prawnsambo · 11-09-2019 06:13PM

Enzokk wrote: »

Or they know the game is up. They have just been found to have lied to prorogue parliament so another instance of them ignoring democracy and the rule of law might not be a good look, especially with a election coming up.

I would not be surprised if some civil servants start fighting back against Cummings. The worst that can happen is that they will be fired but will win a employment tribunal most likely, so why not do as you are basically told by parliament.

Can Cummings actually fire civil servants? I would have thought he could remove them from whatever posts they hold in Number 10, but not actually fire them. They would just be redeployed or returned to whatever department they came from I would have thought.

dublinjock · 11-09-2019 06:14PM

DOCARCH wrote: »

The Queen?

Im opposed to the royal family in its current structure.
Totally unelected with some having far to much say.

fash · 11-09-2019 06:18PM

dublinjock wrote: »

I understand what your saying about the President being like a head od state. But its an important role and they get to have say more than any other head of state would on matters.
Im a firm believer any head of state should stand for an election and be voted in by the people.

"the President of the European commission" is no more "the President of Europe" than "Vice President of McDonalds Europe" is the "vice President of Europe".
Should we also elect who gets to be monarch of the UK?

looksee · 11-09-2019 06:18PM

There is no structure of a royal family that could be elected, and while some of them may have opinions, the only one with any clout, the queen, says remarkably little.

dublinjock · 11-09-2019 06:19PM

Calina wrote: »

The UK's head of state is a hereditary monarch. Election is nowhere near schedule.

In terms of Presidents of EU institutions, it is worth bearing in mind that président also translates as chairman as well as president and a lot of terminology came from French.

If you look at the roles in each of the 3 main institutions, for Commission and Council, the role maps more to Chairperson than a head of state. For Parliament, I would say the mapping is more to speaker in terms of role.

The UK royal family is a totally unelected head of state and im not a believer in the royal family in its current role.

Enzokk · 11-09-2019 06:19PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

Can Cummings actually fire civil servants? I would have thought he could remove them from whatever posts they hold in Number 10, but not actually fire them. They would just be redeployed or returned to whatever department they came from I would have thought.

Well in the legal sense special advisers are temporary civil servants and that is who he fired from Sajid Javid office, so he has that power (for the moment) and is using it.

Zubeneschamali · 11-09-2019 06:22PM

J Mysterio wrote: »

Rumours abounding also that the Government will now release some Yellowhammer documents?

Last time they tried to dodge a Humble Address, they were found to be in contempt of Parliament, the first Government ever to be so.

prawnsambo · 11-09-2019 06:22PM

Enzokk wrote: »

Well in the legal sense special advisers are temporary civil servants and that is who he fired from Sajid Javid office, so he has that power (for the moment) and is using it.

No, I understand spads (although some are actually career civil servants) it was just the OP i replied to didn't specify them as such. Hence the question.

Enzokk · 11-09-2019 06:24PM

dublinjock wrote: »

Im opposed to the royal family in its current structure.
Totally unelected with some having far to much say.

Can you tell us which ones have far too much to say and how this is different from, say Gary Linekar or Ricky Gervais making comments on events of the world?

Also, you seem very uninformed on the EU and how it works and also the complex question that Brexit entails, do you think it is right you had say in such a complex question that will potentially cost people their lives?

dublinjock · 11-09-2019 06:28PM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

OK so you voted to leave the EU.
Did you vote to leave the single market?
Did you vote toe leave the customs union?
Did your vote take into account the other legal aspects affected by exiting the EU such as poorer trade deals, trade tarrifs and so on?
Did your vote take into account the complexities of Northern Ireland and how existing legal agreements made in part by the UK mean that Brexit cannot happen without negatively affecting the political, economic and social status of Northern Ireland? This in turn would have ramifications on the Uk's reputation across the world (for breaking an agreement registered with the UN).

So what should the HoC do?
Should they accept the deal that May agreed with the EU?
Should they accept the default exit i.e. a crash out which will be a massive economic and social disaster for the UK?
What should they do because nobody in there seems to agree with the person sitting beside them!

All them questions was not part of the referendum and i would not be qualified to answer them.
As for Nortnern Ireland i hope that the UK and Irish govemments stick to there word about being no border. If both stick to this then there be no border.
As for ramifications i dont know, leaving is going to be a big change and there be winners and losers.

theguzman · 11-09-2019 06:29PM

Cork Boy 53 wrote: »

If the Supreme Court upholds the Scottish Court`s decision then I would say that, shortly afterwards, Johnson can expect a summons from the Palace for a "little chat" with the Queen.

One admires your tenacity Boris, Keep going and get us out of Europe, do mind one's corgi on the way out. The Royal Family absolutely admonish the EU and they want a Tory in power and the UK out of the EU. They like to tell others what to do not take orders from Brussels or Berlin.

Enzokk · 11-09-2019 06:29PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

No, I understand spads (although some are actually career civil servants) it was just the OP i replied to didn't specify them as such. Hence the question.

I got it, I am actually not sure if he has threatened civil servants or just the spads. I get the feeling it is only the spads as he knows he has no real power to fire civil servants working on the day to day goings on of the UK. I think you were replying to me and as usual I typed way too quickly before engaging my brain to check if he had actually done what I thought he did.

The spads being temporary civil servants is more a technicality as it seems they are not there for the long haul but use it as a stepping stone to bigger things later in life. Look at Nick Timothy and how he has flourished.

BonnieSituation · 11-09-2019 06:32PM

dublinjock wrote: »

Im opposed to the royal family in its current structure.
Totally unelected with some having far to much say.

I think it's fair to say that your understanding of the constitutional vagaries of the UK isn't all that great.

dublinjock · 11-09-2019 06:35PM

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I do find the Brexiter attitude on the EU officials bizarre to say the least. Only yesterday, ex PM May appointed a whole load of failures to the upper house in the UK Houses of Parliament so dublinjock, how did you vote for them? For me as a UK resident, how do I vote for them?

Im finding it all bizarre to be honest. The UK house of commons has proved to be undemocratic. Im still the same on the EU being undemocratic.

You can vote through the post or by proxy, get someone to do this for you. If you google it your find its quite easy to do.

But i dont think voting will change anything.

BonnieSituation · 11-09-2019 06:35PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

Things are getting a little spicy now. The government didn't ask for a stay until the Supreme Court heard it, so moves are afoot to restore parliament.

So with the government the only ones able to recall parliament, it stands to reason that we don't need to wait on BJ to summon parliament if it is still in session as per the advice.

This prorogation really had gotten out of hand. Delighted.

dublinjock · 11-09-2019 06:39PM

fash wrote: »

How relevant is the "election as member of parliament" - especially in the UK where because of the FPTP system and "safe seats" an inanimate carbon rod will be elected if the party puts that person forward? What qualifications exactly does a member of parliament have to be chancellor of the Exchequer and what entitles the person who selected him for that role to make that selection?
Is it a problem that the Queen and the peers in the HOL were not voted for?
Are you aware that the PM need not be an MP?

Yes im aware the PM does not have to be an MP. This is wrong totally wrong.
In Scotalnd our first minister is not an MP Nicola Sturgeon.

prawnsambo · 11-09-2019 06:39PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Last time they tried to dodge a Humble Address, they were found to be in contempt of Parliament, the first Government ever to be so.

Well it seems they're going to release it alright. Just giving it a haircut and mani-pedi before they do it seems.

A Shropshire Lad · 11-09-2019 06:41PM

What difference does it make whether this parliament is open or closed for a month.
They cant agree on anything in there anyway.

VinLieger · 11-09-2019 06:41PM

dublinjock wrote: »

Yes im aware the PM does not have to be an MP. This is wrong totally wrong.
In Scotalnd our first minister is not an MP Nicola Sturgeon.

Because shes the first minister of the Scottish parliament at Holyrood to which she was elected to as a MSP.........

You are seriously uninformed about the institutions of the United Kingdom and even though you keep saying you think the EU is undemocratic you havent yet managed to give a good example of how

Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Comments