Another Brexit Casualty

[nowtelse2do]

Barryd999 - 2017-10-16 7:27 AM

 

As I suspected no sensible answer from Roger or any of the Brexiteers to any of my hyperthetical scenarios. The truth is you won't answer because even if you knew for definate there had been a huge sea change in favour of remaining or a soft Brexit you would fight a second referendum or call foul on any vote because your not interested in democracy like you have all been claiming for the past 16 months just your way or the highway.

 

Dave, as far as remember the Tories set out to increase their majority but actually ended up without one! They then had to bribe (with our money) a bunch of nutcases from Northern Ireland who don't believe in dinosaurs in a desperate and selfish attempt to cling to power. Anyone who thinks either Brexit or the Tories is going well is completely in denial.

 

 

Why do we need another referendum? The majority of those that voted won, that = democracy. You casted your vote and you lost, accept democracy.

 

The Tories won and are still in power so they are still doing better than Labour.

 

Anyone who thinks we will stay in the EU is in denial.

 

Dave

[Brian Kirby]

nowtelse2do - 2017-10-16 2:50 PM...............................Why do we need another referendum? The majority of those that voted won, that = democracy. You casted your vote and you lost, accept democracy....................................Dave

If that were true we would still have the same government we elected in 1918! Would that be the kind of democracy you have in mind? :-D

 

Democracy allows the electorate to change its mind about how it wishes to be governed. It embraces continual changes in opinion, which is why our great unwritten constitution imposes a duty on governments to subject themselves to periodic elections (Parliament Act 1911).

 

(before 1918 Britain was not, in the modern sense, democratic: http://tinyurl.com/yaurxwqz )

[antony1969]

Brian Kirby - 2017-10-16 3:36 PM

 

nowtelse2do - 2017-10-16 2:50 PM...............................Why do we need another referendum? The majority of those that voted won, that = democracy. You casted your vote and you lost, accept democracy....................................Dave

If that were true we would still have the same government we elected in 1918! Would that be the kind of democracy you have in mind? :-D

 

Democracy allows the electorate to change its mind about how it wishes to be governed. It embraces continual changes in opinion, which is why our great unwritten constitution imposes a duty on governments to subject themselves to periodic elections (Parliament Act 1911).

 

(before 1918 Britain was not, in the modern sense, democratic: http://tinyurl.com/yaurxwqz )

 

So if as Barry suggests we now need another referendum because the mood has changed and remain would now win , if that happened and in another 2 years the mood swung back to leave does that mean we'd have another referendum and so on and so on till the end of time ?

[RogerC]

Barryd999 - 2017-10-16 7:27 AMAs I suspected no sensible answer from Roger or any of the Brexiteers to any of my hyperthetical scenarios. The truth is you won't answer because even if you knew for definate there had been a huge sea change in favour of remaining or a soft Brexit you would fight a second referendum or call foul on any vote because your not interested in democracy like you have all been claiming for the past 16 months just your way or the highway. Dave, as far as remember the Tories set out to increase their majority but actually ended up without one! They then had to bribe (with our money) a bunch of nutcases from Northern Ireland who don't believe in dinosaurs in a desperate and selfish attempt to cling to power. Anyone who thinks either Brexit or the Tories is going well is completely in denial.

Hyperthetical?? (spell check would have avoided this opening for me  :-)  )  Hyper is right.....all the whining and bleating, all the what if's, all the reacting to the 'changed my mind' brigade who can not prove if they indeed voted in the first place ergo the 'couldn't be bothered' element of society get to influence the outcome of something they don't like 'after the event'?  No way.

Oh and as for answering your questions.....100% against?, then 65/35 split?.....  I'm waiting until you decide the split has swung the other way.  

All this whining is quite boring. 

However in the same vein as your 'premise' let me ask this:

Let's assume in a general election, only 50% of registered voters bother to vote and Labour get into office with 35% of the vote.   However when the vote is analysed and polls are taken it transpires that actually 60% of the 100% of 'registered voters' don't want Labour in office.  So do we hold another election, and another and another until the 'couldn't be bothered to vote' element get the result that suits them?

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-10-16 3:36 PM

nowtelse2do - 2017-10-16 2:50 PM...............................Why do we need another referendum? The majority of those that voted won, that = democracy. You casted your vote and you lost, accept democracy....................................Dave

If that were true we would still have the same government we elected in 1918! Would that be the kind of democracy you have in mind? :-D Democracy allows the electorate to change its mind about how it wishes to be governed. It embraces continual changes in opinion, which is why our great unwritten constitution imposes a duty on governments to subject themselves to periodic elections (Parliament Act 1911).(before 1918 Britain was not, in the modern sense, democratic: http://tinyurl.com/yaurxwqz )

Can you tell me where, written or otherwise, it is incumbent upon any government to hold referendum after referendum, ballot after ballot until a section of the population, which in actuality lost the first referendum because of apathy on their part, obtains the result 'it' wants?

 

[John52]

nowtelse2do - 2017-10-16 2:50 PM

The majority of those that voted .....

 

Dave

 

voted for something they can't have, because self serving politicians made them promises they can't keep.

[antony1969]

John52 - 2017-10-16 5:06 PM

 

nowtelse2do - 2017-10-16 2:50 PM

The majority of those that voted .....

 

Dave

 

voted for something they can't have, because self serving politicians made them promises they can't keep.

 

Like "dealing with student debt" ya mean l

[Brian Kirby]

RogerC - 2017-10-16 4:45 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-10-16 3:36 PM

nowtelse2do - 2017-10-16 2:50 PM...............................Why do we need another referendum? The majority of those that voted won, that = democracy. You casted your vote and you lost, accept democracy....................................Dave

If that were true we would still have the same government we elected in 1918! Would that be the kind of democracy you have in mind? :-D Democracy allows the electorate to change its mind about how it wishes to be governed. It embraces continual changes in opinion, which is why our great unwritten constitution imposes a duty on governments to subject themselves to periodic elections (Parliament Act 1911).(before 1918 Britain was not, in the modern sense, democratic: http://tinyurl.com/yaurxwqz )

Can you tell me where, written or otherwise, it is incumbent upon any government to hold referendum after referendum, ballot after ballot until a section of the population, which in actuality lost the first referendum because of apathy on their part, obtains the result 'it' wants?

 

Or, can you tell me where "written or otherwise, it is incumbent upon any government to hold" any referendum; or where " written or otherwise, it is incumbent upon any government to hold" only one referendum?I think you will find that referendums have no part in our constitution whatever. They have become a vehicle for governments to pass issues they can't resolve (for reasons of party unity) to the electorate. A more thoughtful and settled government would have put the issue before parliament (which is the way our constitution works). They might have gauged the public's appetite for change beforehand, but they didn't. In short, they bottled it, leaving us all with the present mess!

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-10-16 5:30 PM

RogerC - 2017-10-16 4:45 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-10-16 3:36 PM

nowtelse2do - 2017-10-16 2:50 PM...............................Why do we need another referendum? The majority of those that voted won, that = democracy. You casted your vote and you lost, accept democracy....................................Dave

If that were true we would still have the same government we elected in 1918! Would that be the kind of democracy you have in mind? :-D Democracy allows the electorate to change its mind about how it wishes to be governed. It embraces continual changes in opinion, which is why our great unwritten constitution imposes a duty on governments to subject themselves to periodic elections (Parliament Act 1911).(before 1918 Britain was not, in the modern sense, democratic: http://tinyurl.com/yaurxwqz )

Can you tell me where, written or otherwise, it is incumbent upon any government to hold referendum after referendum, ballot after ballot until a section of the population, which in actuality lost the first referendum because of apathy on their part, obtains the result 'it' wants?

 

Or, can you tell me where "written or otherwise, it is incumbent upon any government to hold" any referendum; or where " written or otherwise, it is incumbent upon any government to hold" only one referendum?I think you will find that referendums have no part in our constitution whatever. They have become a vehicle for governments to pass issues they can't resolve (for reasons of party unity) to the electorate. A more thoughtful and settled government would have put the issue before parliament (which is the way our constitution works). They might have gauged the public's appetite for change beforehand, but they didn't. In short, they bottled it, leaving us all with the present mess!

Regardless of the presence of referenda in the constitution or not (I did not ask if it was part of the constitution) and irrespective of the way in which it was employed on this occasion my question still stands:

Can you tell me where, written or otherwise, it is incumbent upon any government to hold referendum after referendum, ballot after ballot until a section of the population, which in actuality lost the first referendum because of apathy on their part, obtains the result 'it' wants?

[Brian Kirby]

RogerC - 2017-10-16 5:36 PM..............................Regardless of the presence of referenda in the constitution or not (I did not ask if it was part of the constitution) and irrespective of the way in which it was employed on this occasion my question still stands: Can you tell me where, written or otherwise, it is incumbent upon any government to hold referendum after referendum, ballot after ballot until a section of the population, which in actuality lost the first referendum because of apathy on their part, obtains the result 'it' wants?

As I said, the constitution does not impose such a duty. Where, other than through the constitution, could such a duty be imposed? No mention, no duty.

 

Where is this hold "referendum after referendum, ballot after ballot until a section of the population, which in actuality lost the first referendum because of apathy on their part, obtains the result 'it' wants" stuff coming from? Not from me.

 

Apathy? Who was apathetic? If some who voted have now changed their minds, it hardly makes them apathetic. Better informed perhaps, but apathetic? Democracy is a process, not a one-time snapshot. As I said above, if that were true, we would still have the same government we elected in 1918!

[Barryd999]

I wonder if the news today that the UK is now £490bn worse off since the referendum might mean a few more change their minds. I suspect it will. I also suspect it may well bring the pollys to their senses.

 

But no! We can't have that. The Brexiteers won the referendum all that time ago and even if Nigel Farage is the last person still I'm favour of it we must go ahead. Bonkers.

 

 

[nowtelse2do]

Brian Kirby - 2017-10-16 3:36 PM

 

nowtelse2do - 2017-10-16 2:50 PM...............................Why do we need another referendum? The majority of those that voted won, that = democracy. You casted your vote and you lost, accept democracy....................................Dave

If that were true we would still have the same government we elected in 1918! Would that be the kind of democracy you have in mind? :-D

 

Democracy allows the electorate to change its mind about how it wishes to be governed. It embraces continual changes in opinion, which is why our great unwritten constitution imposes a duty on governments to subject themselves to periodic elections (Parliament Act 1911).

 

(before 1918 Britain was not, in the modern sense, democratic: http://tinyurl.com/yaurxwqz )

 

Brian, I've voted in the past and the party I voted for lost so I accepted that decision. I didn't make a oo aah about it...I accepted it. Elections are NOT the same as referendums. We are leaving full stop.

 

Dave

[peribro]

Barryd999 - 2017-10-16 7:56 PM

 

I wonder if the news today that the UK is now £490bn worse off since the referendum might mean a few more change their minds. I suspect it will. I also suspect it may well bring the pollys to their senses.

 

But no! We can't have that. The Brexiteers won the referendum all that time ago and even if Nigel Farage is the last person still I'm favour of it we must go ahead. Bonkers.

 

Look at Ireland when it voted against the Lisbon Treaty - it was told to go back and vote again and it was pretty clear that it would have to carry on voting again until it came up with the right result.

 

Does the EU go around canvassing the populations of all the EU member states that ratified the Lisbon Treaty to make sure that no one's changed their minds? Of course it doesn't . The Lisbon Treaty was one of the least democratically decided treaties decided by any western country(ies) for many years but when the UK has a democratic vote the losers cry foul and want a re-run. Grow up!

[nowtelse2do]

Barryd999 - 2017-10-16 7:56 PM

 

I wonder if the news today that the UK is now £490bn worse off since the referendum might mean a few more change their minds. I suspect it will. I also suspect it may well bring the pollys to their senses.

 

But no! We can't have that. The Brexiteers won the referendum all that time ago and even if Nigel Farage is the last person still I'm favour of it we must go ahead. Bonkers.

 

 

A mistake on asset values owned by corporations NOT by the government.

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-10-16 6:16 PM

RogerC - 2017-10-16 5:36 PM..............................Regardless of the presence of referenda in the constitution or not (I did not ask if it was part of the constitution) and irrespective of the way in which it was employed on this occasion my question still stands: Can you tell me where, written or otherwise, it is incumbent upon any government to hold referendum after referendum, ballot after ballot until a section of the population, which in actuality lost the first referendum because of apathy on their part, obtains the result 'it' wants?

As I said, the constitution does not impose such a duty. Where, other than through the constitution, could such a duty be imposed? No mention, no duty.Where is this hold "referendum after referendum, ballot after ballot until a section of the population, which in actuality lost the first referendum because of apathy on their part, obtains the result 'it' wants" stuff coming from? Not from me.Apathy? Who was apathetic? If some who voted have now changed their minds, it hardly makes them apathetic. Better informed perhaps, but apathetic? Democracy is a process, not a one-time snapshot. As I said above, if that were true, we would still have the same government we elected in 1918!

Brian I have come to the conclusion that you clearly have your 'Devil's Advocate' hat on because you are clearly more intelligent than that which comes across in your post.

It is clear to a blind man that the remain camp is dissatisfied with the 'out' result.  The younger generation is blaming the older for stealing it's future.  There is a section of society clamouring for another referendum which is clear for all to see and you ask where this is coming from!!!

Who was apathetic?????  Those that clearly couldn't be bothered to get off their backsides and vote....or prefer Glastonbury to voting.  Approximately 13,000,000 registered voters did not vote.  now don't tell me they were 'all' otherwise occupied:

...ill....hospital....incapacitated....on holiday....at Glastonbury etc etc

I give up.  It looks to me as though obfuscation, twist, turn even a denial of pertinent knowledge is your order of the day ergo there is no point in continuing.

[Barryd999]

peribro - 2017-10-16 9:55 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2017-10-16 7:56 PM

 

I wonder if the news today that the UK is now £490bn worse off since the referendum might mean a few more change their minds. I suspect it will. I also suspect it may well bring the pollys to their senses.

 

But no! We can't have that. The Brexiteers won the referendum all that time ago and even if Nigel Farage is the last person still I'm favour of it we must go ahead. Bonkers.

 

Look at Ireland when it voted against the Lisbon Treaty - it was told to go back and vote again and it was pretty clear that it would have to carry on voting again until it came up with the right result.

 

Does the EU go around canvassing the populations of all the EU member states that ratified the Lisbon Treaty to make sure that no one's changed their minds? Of course it doesn't . The Lisbon Treaty was one of the least democratically decided treaties decided by any western country(ies) for many years but when the UK has a democratic vote the losers cry foul and want a re-run. Grow up!

 

Ooh I see we have recruited a Facts Brexiteer, welcome Peter. What I want Peter is for the UK to be sure we want to leave the EU once we know what that might mean and currently every month is looking like less people do want to leave and virtually nobody wants a hard Brexit apart from a few swivel eyed Tory party members and a few rich motorhomers now.

 

All I am saying which will make sense to anyone who hasn't fallen victim to Brexit tunnel vision where we must leave no matter what is that we should let the public decide once they know a few facts. That would be the sensible democratic thing to do. why would you object to that? If your so confident what have you got to lose?

 

If the anti Brexit feeling continues considering the majority of mp's are remainers I suspect they will go against the referendum anyway.

[John52]

Its even worse than that. Since Theresa May called a snap election (after saying she wouldn't and thus losing her credibility as well as her majority) she has been bribing the DUP with our money to keep her job. The DUP are blackmailing her to get what they want - including an open border with the Irish Republic at the expense of everything else.

May has already backed down from her demand that Britain won't pay a divorce settlement before negotiations start. The £2bn bung she gave to the DUP is being dwarfed by the bung she is giving to the EU to keep her job. Bribe money we haven't even got and are havng to borrow. We will still be paying it back long after she has gone.

[Guest pelmetman]

Actually the EU might be worth rejoining if they carry on moving to the right ;-) .........

 

Looks like the Czech maybe the next to see the Right......I mean light B-) .........

 

 

[antony1969]

pelmetman - 2017-10-17 9:33 AM

 

Actually the EU might be worth rejoining if they carry on moving to the right ;-) .........

 

Looks like the Czech maybe the next to see the Right......I mean light B-) .........

 

 

Horrible people ... Do they want another Kristallnacht or sumat

 

[Brian Kirby]

antony1969 - 2017-10-16 4:35 PM...........................So if as Barry suggests we now need another referendum because the mood has changed and remain would now win , if that happened and in another 2 years the mood swung back to leave does that mean we'd have another referendum and so on and so on till the end of time ?

Well, that's what happens with governments, isn't it? So, why not, if people aren't given the information to allow them to decide what they actually want to do? That is the flaw in legislating by referendum.

 

Of course, we could always develop an okey-cokey relationship with the EU - in out, in out, shake it all about. In this week, out next, undecided the week after. :-D Or could we?

 

It's a problem for all democracies. When "the people" change their minds (as they will), at what point do you send in the riot police to enforce an earlier decision. Think Guardia Civil in Barcelona. Regimes that do so are, in the end, rightly described as totalitarian.

 

That is the reason most developed democracies transfer the decision making from the populace to their elected representatives, whose job it then is to absorb and analyse the facts on a given issue, and then make decisions on the basis that they do so in the best overall interests of the whole country. If they get it wrong they get the sack, and someone else tries to resolve the mess.

 

All referendums achieve is to take a snapshot of public opinion on a single day. The next day that opinion will have shifted, and so on. They are a hopeless vehicle for taking long-term decisions. That is why we have elections every five years. No one vote can fix public opinion in perpetuity.

 

Membership of the EU is not, and never has been, a party political issue. The fault line crosses all party boundaries. For some it is a matter of principle. For others it is a matter of economics. For most, I guess, it is a mix of the two. The parties are merely getting in the way.

 

For me, economics trumps the, as I see it, rather misty eyed, principles. Pragmatism over romanticism. If it's better for us to be in, in terms of rising living standards and long term growth and stability, then in is where we should be. If that means forfeiting a bit more national independence, so be it. The worst outcome will be to become incrementally worse off, because that progressive impoverishment will result in political unrest and instability. That is not a future I wish to bequeath to future generations.

[Brian Kirby]

nowtelse2do - 2017-10-16 8:00 PM......................Brian, I've voted in the past and the party I voted for lost so I accepted that decision. I didn't make a oo aah about it...I accepted it. Elections are NOT the same as referendums. We are leaving full stop. Dave

But you didn't, really, did you? You just said to yourself, as well all do, "OK, bad result - but we'll win next time". :-D Elections are reversible. This decision is being presented as irreversible. Public opinion shifts all the time. No-one, no force on earth, can resist that change when it comes. It will come.

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-10-17 11:38 AM

antony1969 - 2017-10-16 4:35 PM...........................So if as Barry suggests we now need another referendum because the mood has changed and remain would now win , if that happened and in another 2 years the mood swung back to leave does that mean we'd have another referendum and so on and so on till the end of time ?

Well, that's what happens with governments, isn't it? So, why not, if people aren't given the information to allow them to decide what they actually want to do? That is the flaw in legislating by referendum. Of course, we could always develop an okey-cokey relationship with the EU - in out, in out, shake it all about. In this week, out next, undecided the week after. :-D Or could we?It's a problem for all democracies. When "the people" change their minds (as they will), at what point do you send in the riot police to enforce an earlier decision. Think Guardia Civil in Barcelona. Regimes that do so are, in the end, rightly described as totalitarian.That is the reason most developed democracies transfer the decision making from the populace to their elected representatives, whose job it then is to absorb and analyse the facts on a given issue, and then make decisions on the basis that they do so in the best overall interests of the whole country. If they get it wrong they get the sack, and someone else tries to resolve the mess.All referendums achieve is to take a snapshot of public opinion on a single day. The next day that opinion will have shifted, and so on. They are a hopeless vehicle for taking long-term decisions. That is why we have elections every five years. No one vote can fix public opinion in perpetuity.Membership of the EU is not, and never has been, a party political issue. The fault line crosses all party boundaries. For some it is a matter of principle. For others it is a matter of economics. For most, I guess, it is a mix of the two. The parties are merely getting in the way.For me, economics trumps the, as I see it, rather misty eyed, principles. Pragmatism over romanticism. If it's better for us to be in, in terms of rising living standards and long term growth and stability, then in is where we should be. If that means forfeiting a bit more national independence, so be it. The worst outcome will be to become incrementally worse off, because that progressive impoverishment will result in political unrest and instability. That is not a future I wish to bequeath to future generations.

Sort of says it all really.  While the rest of the world, outside of the clutches of the EU happily (relative term) exists under it's own government and legal/legislative system you Brian are prepared to sacrifice that which I would hazard to guess the greater part of the global population hold dear........independence of nation and government.....self determination.  They co-operate, trade and generally have an amicable existence.  Agreed there are a few exceptions but in general terms nations survive pretty well as independent nations.

As Gorbachov said as the Soviet 'Union'.....note 'Union' disintegrated:

“The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.”

So Brian one might be forgiven for thinking you could possibly be a closet communist?

[antony1969]

Brian's much loved EU may have a difficult decision to make if so called far right Freedom Party forms a coalition in Austria ... The last time they formed part of a coalition the mighty EU imposed sanctions against Austria ... Bet they don't this time

[Brian Kirby]

RogerC - 2017-10-17 12:09 PM...............So Brian one might be forgiven for thinking you could possibly be a closet communist?

Roger, one could never be forgiven for harbouring such an extreme thought! I just don't see everything through the prism of party political dogma. It's too limiting. Besides, someone has to try to keep an open mind! :-D

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-10-17 8:40 PM

RogerC - 2017-10-17 12:09 PM...............So Brian one might be forgiven for thinking you could possibly be a closet communist?

Roger, one could never be forgiven for harbouring such an extreme thought! I just don't see everything through the prism of party political dogma. It's too limiting. Besides, someone has to try to keep an open mind! :-D

OK so not a closet Communist.  It was not an accusation but simply a comment based on reading your comment regarding surrendering a degree of independence.

How is it that you are prepared to sacrifice a degree(and to what degree?) of national independence to an organisation that even the leader of the former Soviet 'Union' can not understand why it even exists.  

There are, as I have said so before, a great many other countries in the world that exist, trade, co-operate etc without having their nationhood subverted by an overbearing organisation that has designs on ever invasive authority and control over members of the club 'it controls'.  I can not understand why anyone would be prepared to permit ones nation to be subsumed by an organisation that is clearly hell bent on forming a European superstate under one central government, with one currency and overall legislative control. 

I am just glad that there is (I hope most sincerely)no one in a position of authority that thinks as you do.  To gift ones nations independence is beyond forgiveness.  Should that happen I honestly consider there would be a civil uprising, if not war.

PS.

It is not party political dogma that informs my opinion.  I read, digest and consider comments from a great many sources and angles.  From those angles/sources it is my determination that the EU leadership, despite your protestations to the contrary, is driven to enact a European superstate centrally governed from Brussels. In essence it is on a calculated and determined creep towards domination. When?  Who knows but I and thank goodness millions of others are not prepared to do as you champion which is to stay in the club and wait and see.  That to me is a dangerous game of brinkmanship which we could so easily lose.