Sarge
God like member
- Joined
- 6 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 54,396
Re-entry? Why not? It only took 40 years for a second vote. We last voted to remain in the EEC...if you can`t see the difference...
Exactly, so much for the so called elected parliamentarians who should carry out the vote of the 17.4MMy fear is democracy will return a result that doesn't allow a majority for either Remain or Leave, and we are stuck paralysed again...
You do realise we had a General Election after the referendum don't you? so 'the 17.4M' helped cause the current impasse.Exactly, so much for the so called elected parliamentarians who should carry out the vote of the 17.4M
Let’s all be mindful of that the next time some wannabe PM knocks on your door for his or hers vote.
I believe you’ve answered the question yourself. The majority of the (current) elected MP’s constituencies voted to leave. So the hard /soft left wing (if there is such a thing) are treating the 17.4 like mugs. Incidentally, I voted to remain, but given the past 3 1/2 years and the oppositions / remoners and the EUs stance I’ve had enough and let’s get out on the 31st . Rant over and enough ?for me tonight ?You do realise we had a General Election after the referendum don't you? so 'the 17.4M' helped cause the current impasse.
And therein is the nub of the issue. With 52/48 not being a good enough majority, what is an acceptable majority, and who decides on it? How many votes do we have to find a majority? Who decides on what a vote is? How we adequately educate the Leavers who were "too thick to know what they were voting for last time"? How does Parliament complete that deal? How does that process integrate into out informal constitution? Will Leavers be able to trust the Remain side with all this after the past 3 years of abuse and obfuscation? Would it be another plot to stay in the EU?Practically, I think we all know that leaving the EU is not a decision that can be easily reversed.
So like any decision that can't be easily reversed, it's crucial to be certain that it's something that the majority of the people want to do before it's undertaken. Another referendum, or another general election with clearly defined positions, can achieve that.
I believe you’ve answered the question yourself. The majority of the (current) elected MP’s constituencies voted to leave. So the hard /soft left wing (if there is such a thing) are treating the 17.4 like mugs. Incidentally, I voted to remain, but given the past 3 1/2 years and the oppositions / remoners and the EUs stance I’ve had enough and let’s get out on the 31st . Rant over and enough ?for me tonight ?
COYY
And therein is the nub of the issue. With 52/48 not being a good enough majority, what is an acceptable majority, and who decides on it? How many votes do we have to find a majority? Who decides on what a vote is? How we adequately educate the Leavers who were "too thick to know what they were voting for last time"? How does Parliament complete that deal? How does that process integrate into out informal constitution? Will Leavers be able to trust the Remain side with all this after the past 3 years of abuse and obfuscation? Would it be another plot to stay in the EU?
And frankly. Will the EU be willing to have the British back in their little club with all the endless drama that we bring? Or will the world be extinct by the time that happens?
How to make that choice? Well, I think it comes down to two possibilities:
My preference - because it is how our democracy is set up to function - is to simply hold a General Election, with clearly delineated positions. Tories, DUP & Brexit Party will take us out with no deal; Lib Dems, Nationalist parties and effectively Labour will not (they're obfuscating and trying to sit on the fence - but it's pretty clear that a vote for Labour is not a vote for leaving the EU any time soon). Whoever gets the majority of MPs enacts that position.
The alternative is you hold a second referendum, with No Deal and Stay in the EU as the two voting options, and pass legislation in advance such that the UK parliament is legally obligated to enact the result.
My worry is because we have very clearly shown that we Brits don't know how to do direct democracy, that we'd find a way to **** up the question or the legislation, and end up pfaffing a whole lot more...….
What is it that you are failing to understand about the point that nobody was campaigning for a no deal exit?
Therefore the whole concept of EU exit was misleading and was mis-sold prior to the point of purchase.
Humour me for a moment and assume that your vote is a commodity that can be bought and sold....
In any other walk of life, if you are not happy with the purchase you've made, you can take it back and ask for a refund. If that product has been inaccurately described and you have been mislead then the people selling you that product will face criminal sanctions.
Why are you prepared to accept a lesser standard for our precious democracy on a once in a generation decision?
I'm baffled by the ambivalence, unless of course the result suits your objective and therefore by any means fair or foul is OK?
And I am still to hear what the benefits will be of a no deal exit...please can you explain?
The EU have red lines? I was told they didn't have anyWell, to answer your questions in a random order - I think we've seen enough now to know that a deal with the EU is now vanishingly unlikely.
The type of deal the EU is willing to make, given its self-imposed redlines about the indivisibility of the four freedoms, is not one that seems to be acceptable to either side of the UK debate - we know that because May tried her darnedest to get it passed three times and failed.
So the choice is now much clearer than it was three years ago.
It's stay in the EU (they'll have us back - we're too big an economic contributor to bar) or leave without a deal.
We still don't know exactly what this will mean in terms of economic disruption, but we do know that in the short and medium terms it will mean tariffs and the necessity of some form of Irish border checks (something that was never contemplated three years ago).
How to make that choice? Well, I think it comes down to two possibilities:
My preference - because it is how our democracy is set up to function - is to simply hold a General Election, with clearly delineated positions. Tories, DUP & Brexit Party will take us out with no deal; Lib Dems, Nationalist parties and effectively Labour will not (they're obfuscating and trying to sit on the fence - but it's pretty clear that a vote for Labour is not a vote for leaving the EU any time soon). Whoever gets the majority of MPs enacts that position.
The alternative is you hold a second referendum, with No Deal and Stay in the EU as the two voting options, and pass legislation in advance such that the UK parliament is legally obligated to enact the result.
My worry is because we have very clearly shown that we Brits don't know how to do direct democracy, that we'd find a way to **** up the question or the legislation, and end up pfaffing a whole lot more...….
If anyone wants reinforcement of the electorates wishes look at the election of MEP`s, which is more reflective because they use a PR system.
But the main driver is, how can I, as a Leaver, trust any Remainer politicians not keep moving the goal posts to something else if they lose or the election is close and they lost? We've been briefed constantly at how unfair it is to be so close, so we need appropriate thresholds and then default fall back positions. I won't tolerate Remain won, we're done - there has been too much abuse of people and their views for that sit right.
My only fallback position is to respect the original referendum and leave as per the terms of article 50. But Remainers don't want that. Nor do they want a GE until their red lines are met. We're stuck in the now pointless cycle because self interest > national interest. Thus ironically, as I've warned, No Deal becomes the only realistic option to resolve the impasse. And that is sad.