Brexit (Old)

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Do we upsurp democracy every time we have a general election ? Soon be 2019, 3 years since the Brexit vote, the electorate and opinions change, they are probably a lot more informed now than they were during the campaign of lies.
[SEPH]: Don't be silly. GEs are scheduled or forced; not brought about by the whims of campaigners. As to your second sentence, that is the Remainer's plea; test the 1st referendum (in the hoip of overturning it).

Hate and division seems to be the bright new future, I despair at the way the country is going, and not just because of Brexit. Poverty is increasing as are the number of homeless dying. Austerity and selfish attitude of many has taken its toll. Brexit is going to make things worse I'm afraid with an increasing rich/poor divide. Areas of the country that benefitted from EU help ie. most outside the SE, will be hit hard. Boris and Jacob will be ok though...
[SEPH]: Why wouldn't the guvmin allocate the regional fund equivalent after Brexit? You'll have a cynical answer, but I wouldn't expect the guvmin to stiff the people of who voted for Brexit.

Anyway, let's have a Brexit armistice for Xmas ! Peace and goodwill to all men and all that cobblers ! I'm off for a walk in the sunshine to desperately try and think of happy things
[SEPH]: Best wishes to you.

---------- Post added at 12:04 ---------- Previous post was at 11:58 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

It wasn’t binding. It was unconstitutional, and unfortunate, for Cameron to give that impression. No matter how many people believed it has no legal effect.

Democracy can never usurp democracy in our Parliamentary system. It’s impossible for a second vote to be unlawful if this Parliament enables it.

When the government funds a pamphlet and gives a commitment, then it has to deliver that commitment. If you think it's unconstitutional, please explain exactly how. If you are on the old chestnut that unless there was a law passed prior to the referendum making its result binding, then all you're doing is arguing the toss for the sake of it. The government gave a commitment to implement the decision and this decision was duly passed into law - something you seem not to have taken into account.

I've been very clear that it's people like you who are using democracy to usurp democracy. That's a very different thing from what you've said. It's people who do the usurping - much like McDonnell and Corbyn are trying to do to bring a Communist state into being.

[jfman]

Our constitution is based on a premise that no Parliament can bind a future Parliament.

No Government pamphlet can ever change that. If Cameron wanted to deliver that he should have triggered A50 immediately and hung around to deliver it as quickly as possible. Otherwise that piece of paper is no more legally binding than hopes and aspirations.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

Our constitution is based on a premise that no Parliament can bind a future Parliament.

No Government pamphlet can ever change that. If Cameron wanted to deliver that he should have triggered A50 immediately and hung around to deliver it as quickly as possible. Otherwise that piece of paper is no more legally binding than hopes and aspirations.

Why are you going down this nugatory line? Just for the sake of being argumentative? It's more than in the realms of the bleedin' obvious that the successor PM to Cameron would have to fulfil the pamphlet commitment or face the fury of 17.4 million voters. She got close by delaying the A50 process.

The fact is that unless the law changes, we are leaving the EU on 29-Mar-19. A commitment that needs to be kept.

And another thing. You go on about opinions changing. Are you sure? The people can see that the EU is as federalist as ever; the French are as beastly as ever in blackmailing us over fishing rights; the Euro is still in danger of collapse due to the Italian economy; the perfidious Irish government has backed down over a hard border if there is no deal (so what was the Backstop all about?). The youngest voters haven't a clue about any of this - see their instinctive support for Corbyn for details. I would support bringing the franchise back up to 21, btw - something for you to latch onto, no doubt.

Jeez - you Remainers.



---------- Post added at 13:18 ---------- Previous post was at 13:07 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Our constitution is based on a premise that no Parliament can bind a future Parliament.

No Government pamphlet can ever change that. If Cameron wanted to deliver that he should have triggered A50 immediately and hung around to deliver it as quickly as possible. Otherwise that piece of paper is no more legally binding than hopes and aspirations.

I need to take you up somewhat on that in relation to Article 50. This was issued by TM on 29-March-2017, in the then current Parliament of which Cameron had been the previous PM.

So the issue of one parliament binding another did not arise.

[jfman]

It’s not a nugatory line. It’s a fact. There’s no provisions for our Parliament in 2015 to bind our Parliament today, or indeed our Parliament to bind the Parliament of 2023. I accept a change would need to be made to primary legislation, but that’s not difficult if there’s the will in Parliament.

Still at it over the “beastly” French and the Irish, I see. Raging capitalists want something in return for free trade deal shocker.

I’m not entering a debate on the age at which people can vote. I know equally ignorant people at all ages.

The principle of one Parliament not binding another doesn’t require a change of PM, or a general election. It creates distance in theory, but in practice it could be the exact same Parliament changing it’s mind.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s not a nugatory line. It’s a fact. There’s no provisions for our Parliament in 2015 to bind our Parliament today, or indeed our Parliament to bind the Parliament of 2023. I accept a change would need to be made to primary legislation, but that’s not difficult if there’s the will in Parliament.

Still at it over the “beastly” French and the Irish, I see. Raging capitalists want something in return for free trade deal shocker.

I’m not entering a debate on the age at which people can vote. I know equally ignorant people at all ages.

The principle of one Parliament not binding another doesn’t require a change of PM, or a general election. It creates distance in theory, but in practice it could be the exact same Parliament changing it’s mind.

I was merely pointing out that the guvmin commitment made in the Brexit Pamphlet was executed by way of Article 50 under Parliamentary resolution in the same Parliament.

[RichardCoulter]

Just been on the radio that tomorrow's Queens Speech will call for everybody to unify and treat each other with respect; this is believed to refer to Brexit.

They also said that May had stated that people should come together and that this may involve dropping the terms 'Remainer' and 'Leaver'.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Just been on the radio that tomorrow's Queens Speech will call for everybody to unify and treat each other with respect; this is believed to refer to Brexit.

They also said that May had stated that people should come together and that this may involve dropping the terms 'Remainer' and 'Leaver'.

What's it going to be then celebrators and sulkers 1. (often plural) a state or mood of feeling resentful or sullen: he's in a sulk because he lost the game.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Just been on the radio that tomorrow's Queens Speech will call for everybody to unify and treat each other with respect; this is believed to refer to Brexit.

They also said that May had stated that people should come together and that this may involve dropping the terms 'Remainer' and 'Leaver'.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Just been on the radio that tomorrow's Queens Speech will call for everybody to unify and treat each other with respect; this is believed to refer to Brexit.

They also said that May had stated that people should come together and that this may involve dropping the terms 'Remainer' and 'Leaver'.

Yeah - that'll do the trick!

This topic has been the source of several reports recently.

So this is a reminder to everyone about Reported Posts.

As the report screen says ;

Note: This is ONLY to be used to report spam, advertising messages, and problematic (harassment, fighting, or rude) posts.

If we get any more frivolous reports that don’t fit the RP rules, I'll be handing out infraction points.

The team has better things to do over christmas than deal with peoples petty disagreements.

Three cheers for Her Maj.

[jfman]

I’m going to leave the thread until 4th January, as Parliament is in recess and nothing can meaningfully change before then anyway. We could all go round in circles once more but what’s the point?

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

[vincerooney]

Quite a lot of hostility here, in real life and social media etc. This whole brexit thing really has divided the country in such a nasty way.

I voted remain and would be in favour of another referendum purely for the fact pretty much no one is going to get what they voted for. The ballot said "do you want to leave the european union" mentioned nothing about freedom of movement or the single market (which we may be staying in at this rate)

A lot of people say thats unconstitutional and undemocratic. But we have elections every 5 years. You vote based on the circumstances the country find itself in and the policies advocated by the political party. Since the brexit vote circumstances have bloody changed. Its a mess. We now know what deal we're going to get. The choices should be now

1) Accept the deal - with the deal fully explained to people
2) Hard brexit
3) No brexit

At least people could then finally get what they want since circumstances have changed tremendously from what people voted for 2 years ago. Lies have been revealed. We're now finally going to see what we're going to get

Basically half in and half out of europe but with no say in the running of the EU. Which is quite ridiculous. So circumstances have changed why can't we have another vote to see if we want that or not? I think that is democracy at its finest.

I enjoy debates with people who voted brexit but i'll never insult them like i don't expect to be insulted back. So then i see childish words like "remoaners" i find it extraordinary. Or comments like "jeez you remainers!" like its a bad thing to have a different point of view.

We are all going to have different points of view. I won't sneer at people who voted for brexit and will treat them with respect and seeing social media and the attacks at people who have different points of view. I find it ironic that people who voted brexit don't want another refendrum because it'll "ruin democracy" but then attack people who haven an opposing view which is what democratic countries allow. Bitterly ironic.

The country is well and truly at a crossroads this year. God bless us all!

[Sephiroth]

@vincerooney - Of course there's hostility here. You are not really the voice of reason that you try to put across. We're well past the stage of debate in this thread. It's all boiled down now to arguments about what constitutes democracy.

The argument is between those who require the Referendum result to be fulfilled and those, like yourself, you will make any argument, roll out any reason, why there should be a second referendum. The usual reason (often hidden in argument about what is and what is not a democratic approach) is to obtain the best chance for Brexit to be overturned. The ballot paper said what it did and the voters said LEAVE. Nothing could be simpler.

Your description of the collision of views as "ironic" is unreasonable. The Referendum must be delivered. Had the result gone the other way, there would have been no question about a second referendum. So this bid of yours, in the name of democracy, is one sided and flawed.

Nothing has changed in the past two years, except perhaps new EU laws (like the lowering of the VAT threshold under EU directive). It's just that awareness of it all has been heightened. Germany remains boss; France remains a nasty blackmailer (Macron/Fisheries/Backstop); Ireland has proved to be a perfidious neighbour, demanding a Backstop on pretence that it protects the GFA whereas in reality it is to protect their economic interests (plus Varadkar has now said he won't actually put up a border). You want to be a part of that lot, do you?

All that said, a referendum that does not include "No Brexit" can be considered as reasonable; or put another way, I'd not grumble too much though I'm very happy for a clean break from that awful EU.

[Hom3r]

Originally Posted by vincerooney

Quite a lot of hostility here, in real life and social media etc. This whole brexit thing really has divided the country in such a nasty way.

I voted remain and would be in favour of another referendum purely for the fact pretty much no one is going to get what they voted for. The ballot said "do you want to leave the european union" mentioned nothing about freedom of movement or the single market (which we may be staying in at this rate)

A lot of people say thats unconstitutional and undemocratic. But we have elections every 5 years. You vote based on the circumstances the country find itself in and the policies advocated by the political party. Since the brexit vote circumstances have bloody changed. Its a mess. We now know what deal we're going to get. The choices should be now

1) Accept the deal - with the deal fully explained to people
2) Hard brexit
3) No brexit

At least people could then finally get what they want since circumstances have changed tremendously from what people voted for 2 years ago. Lies have been revealed. We're now finally going to see what we're going to get

Basically half in and half out of europe but with no say in the running of the EU. Which is quite ridiculous. So circumstances have changed why can't we have another vote to see if we want that or not? I think that is democracy at its finest.

I enjoy debates with people who voted brexit but i'll never insult them like i don't expect to be insulted back. So then i see childish words like "remoaners" i find it extraordinary. Or comments like "jeez you remainers!" like its a bad thing to have a different point of view.

We are all going to have different points of view. I won't sneer at people who voted for brexit and will treat them with respect and seeing social media and the attacks at people who have different points of view. I find it ironic that people who voted brexit don't want another refendrum because it'll "ruin democracy" but then attack people who haven an opposing view which is what democratic countries allow. Bitterly ironic.

The country is well and truly at a crossroads this year. God bless us all!

NO NO NO NO, to option 3.

We voted to leave, why cannot people get that.

Please don't say "we didn't know waht we were voting for" - if thats the case you should never be allowed to vote again.

Lets not even mention the £350m.