[Deleted User] wrote: » I phrased it as a moral argument; and then went on to supply arguments to justify that claim. Thus far, those arguments have yet to be addressed. I meant, the forthcoming manifesto from when Article 50 was invoked; the 2017 General Election.
Deleted User wrote: » That is a clear admission that you have no tangible response to the legitimate questions I posed.
Deleted User wrote: » I phrased it as a moral argument; and then went on to supply arguments to justify that claim. Thus far, those arguments have yet to be addressed.
26000 Elephants wrote: » You framed it as a moral question. It's not.
What are you saying here? He has already reneged in his forthcoming manifesto? I'm not clear what you mean
[Deleted User] wrote: » That is a clear admission that you have no tangible response to the legitimate questions I posed.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Well, he didn't. His forthcoming manifesto pledged to deliver on the referendum result as per Article 50 - something he has conveniently decided to renege.
26000 Elephants wrote: » Because you refuse to accept the objective and tangible arguments that literally prove brexit is a terrible idea, so you go down the route of trying to frame it in gaseous, ethereal terms like 'morality' ( which has absolutely nothing to do with it). Please dont hate on people who value their time sufficiently to refuse to walk down these blind alleys with you.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Also, on the question of holding a second referendum as the first was "non-binding", nobody has even come close to answering these points.
Strazdas wrote: » Corbyn messed up by voting for it. There was no moral or legal requirement for him to support it and May had enough MPs to see it triggered.
Deleted User wrote: » Fine, but 498 MPs voted to trigger Article 50 - to "leave the EU with or without a deal".
Deleted User wrote: » Fine, but almost 500 MPs voted to trigger Article 50.
Strazdas wrote: » Lib Dems voted to block the triggering of A50 (which they had every right to do.....they thought it was a terrible idea).
Deleted User wrote: » You claimed that the "parties didn't hold a referendum", that is was all the Conservatives doing. A cursory glance at how the parties voted in 2015 shows that holding an EU referendum was widely endorsed and voted in favour of by all, except the SNP. That evidence contradicts the claim you've made.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » What? You said that the parties held the referendum. Only one party won in 2015 and it did so. They had a mandate and they executed it. I have no idea what you're getting at here.
Deleted User wrote: » So, you accept the mandate of the majority Liberal Democrat result to unilaterally revoke Article 50, whereas when the Conservative Party won a majority in 2015 on holding an EU In/Out referendum, you take the opposite view. How can you hold both views at the same time? Incidentally, the European Union Referendum Act 2015 was supported by all parties except the SNP, so the idea that the "parties didn't hold a referendum" is quite simply false.
Deleted User wrote: » That is not true. As I stated elsewhere, those who voted for Remain may have done so "on balance', many of whom disapprove of free movement, disapprove of further political integration, disapprove of the European Defence Pact, and the general direction the EU appears to be heading toward. Remain split in its interpretations on the direction of the EU.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » There is no moral argument because the parties didn't hold the referendum. Only the governing party held it and that was the Conservatives. They've been responsible for all of this, from start to finish.
Deleted User wrote: » A question, if the Liberal Democrats win the next General Election with a majority (admittedly, a ridiculously low chance), would they have a mandate to revoke Article 50?
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Of course they would.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Yes, once the first referendum result has been implemented; in the same way we hold general elections after the result has been implemented, not before. Thanks for reaffirming my position.
CelticRambler wrote: » Now you see: that is a perfectly valid position to hold as an individual Leave voter - provided that you don't claim to speak for the other 17,399,999 people who voted Leave. This is where the problem with enacting Brexit comes from, and why it's unfair to blame Remainers for frustrating the process. Leaving aside the debate about "Project Fear" and the various prediction, the Remain position was really quite simple: stay in, everything stays the same, no change. That's what the 48% voted for. But the Leave position was - and still is - open to all kinds of interpretation.
The poll also suggests - not surprisingly - that Remain voters overwhelmingly (80%) support free movement. But a third of Leave voters (33%) also support it.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » The Tories are trying to buy the election with promises of a magic money tree that could only be paid for if the economy improves. And that depends on getting good trade deals or WTO magic claims (lies?) from those who don't understand the WTO.Most of the countries they need deals with are already screaming.https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50419130 How much trade does the UK do outside of EU/US/Oz/NZ/India and Brazil ? The UK already dances to China's tune. Vetoing EU tariffs on Chinese steel. Putting lots of EU steelworkers jobs at risk to save the average UK family a fiver on cheap imported shoes. Let's not forget that Moldova was blocking UK access to $1.7 Trillion of procurement until Feb.
Deleted User wrote: » Second, I'll always offer examples as to why I think a federalised/militarized Europe is a bad idea
I have no plans to "run away' - though many on here have openly asked for me to be "banned" or that I espouse "complete delusion", but those condemnations, without evidence, are now considered acceptable opinion.
Deleted User wrote: » I don't think you understand the position of many Brexiteers - namely, that we are willing to take an economic hit in order to restore democratic control of our money, laws and borders.
Shelga wrote: » Do you think that it is selfish to force an economic hit on the nearly 50% of the country who didn’t vote for it, in order to satisfy the whims of your ideology?
Deleted User wrote: » Also, on the question of holding a second referendum as the first was "non-binding", nobody has even come close to answering these points.
[Deleted User] wrote: » I don't think you understand the position of many Brexiteers - namely, that we are willing to take an economic hit in order to restore democratic control of our money, laws and borders. It's the principle that matters, not GDP going down a few points (which is debatable). Not everything can be reduced to money. Some things matter more.
Deleted User wrote: » Au contraire, the "non-binding" legal component is massively drowned out by the moral argument, which states that every leading major player indicated that the referendum result would be implemented. I can't think of one major player, on both sides of the argument, who claimed it was merely an "advisory" result and, even if Leave did win, it wouldn't be enacted automatically. Furthermore, the General Election of 2017 had parties - 80+% of whom stated that they would "respect the implement the referendum result". Let's not ignore that either, nor the mass support in parliament for invoking Article 50. Unless you can provide me with one example to the contrary, we must therefore assume that the referendum was held with complete intent, by all parties and independents, as I have already assumed. This "non-binding" argument only grew in strength once Remain had lost. Furthermore, had "Remain" won, what's to stop me arguing that it was a "non-binding" referendum and therefore a second version of same should be held? The answer: nothing at all. But I wouldn't have done that. I would have respected the original result. That's what differs my political consistency and legitimacy over those who play legal pedantics to overturn the democratic result of the 2016 referendum. Again, I provide consistency - whereas Remainers manufacture reasons to overturn the referendum result because they simply cannot accept that they lost. It really is as simple as that.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/92ec68194a3f4c0d45091ea3a5d3ed2f.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/df05300f57fe28ddd3330602c0adbfdb.svg)
