[POLITICS] Brexit deadline

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

So, uh... what's going on with Brexit? I guess there's some kind of a deadline that is passing? Does a failure to endorse a deal here mean the UK is for sure out with no deal? What will it mean for the future of the UK?

I'd post in the Brexit thread about this topic, but it was lost in the Great Purge.

Tpday is the last day to sign the withdrawal agreement and start withdrawing May 22nd. Originally friday was not meant to have parliament buissness but they made an exception after they managed wednesday to refuse all 8 other ideas of how to proceed.

So it gets voted on. May promised to step down if that gets the deal approved.

If they don't. There are two options :

They ask for a loooong extension and participate in the next European election, which they can only do if they manage to have a clear idea about what to do until 12. of April.

They leave without a deal on 12. of April.

Seanchaidh:
So, uh... what's going on with Brexit?

The EU gave the UK another fortnight pretty much free to sort its shit out. Don't count on it happening.

If the UK can't pass anything meaningful today, it will probably have to either ask for a BIG extention (~1 year) with a promise for some sort of radical change such as a referendum or general election, or it's a no deal crash out on 12th April. Theresa May has tried to split up the exit deal into components to vote on: if parliament can pass something vaguely meaningful that indicates some sort of progress, it might get a shorter extention to 22nd May.

Interestingly, half those stand-up, honourable hard Brexiters have agreed to back the PM's despised deal on the promise she resigns... because that's how principled their objection to the deal was. No crisis big enough to deter their personal ambition! However, I think she still can't pass it - still too much opposition.

Agema:

Interestingly, half those stand-up, honourable hard Brexiters have agreed to back the PM's despised deal on the promise she resigns... because that's how principled their objection to the deal was. No crisis big enough to deter their personal ambition! However, I think she still can't pass it - still too much opposition.

Of course.

This way they can come to power and still blame everything wrong with Brexit on May. That is exactly what they always wanted.

we have a PM who has shown themselves too weak to even resign. That's a whole new level of astonishing incompetence. Not sure if it's any more or less worrying than some of the harder brexiters referring to themselves as grand wizards though

what a shitfest of cunts

Satinavian:
This way they can come to power and still blame everything wrong with Brexit on May. That is exactly what they always wanted.

Possibly. I suspect there's another long game they were eyeing.

Tory hard Brexiters tend to be very free market ideologically. I suspect what appealed might have been to take power and a) somehow orchestrate a no deal anyway and b) get in there and shape Brexit as quickly as possible, like selling the country to whatever demands Trump made for a trade deal. Then probably slash the crap out of taxes and social spending - these guys couldn't give a damn about throwing the less affluent to the worst vicissitudes of capitalist competition.

One way or another, the vote today has failed by a margin of 58. The UK Parliament has resolved nothing, again.

I honestly don't see any answer to no deal at this point except a long extention to Brexit based on the promise of one or more of a) new referendum, b) general election, c) massive Parliamentary reorganisation (e.g. formation of a grand coalition Conservatives & Labour). And (c) is incredibly unlikely.

I think brexit is good. I love it and want to see it happen.

BreakfastMan:
I think brexit is good.

Indeed it is - for the US agriculture and pharmaceutical industries, Russia, and possibly China.

I'm very excited for Brexit.

I'll be taking a vacation to Scotland to buy large quantities of nice Scotch as the pound is depreciating and Scotland is trying to get back into the EU.

I know it's not funny but the whole thing comes across as some bizarre political soap opera at times. Especially where apparently Parliament voted on No Deal, May's deal and a bunch of other permutations and literally all the votes came in as NO.

They apparently know what they don't want but no idea what they do. I'm kinda amazed by the fact this has apparently been going on for 2 years at this point and pretty much nothing has been resolved. Yes, I realize it's tricky for a number of reasons(among them being the Irish Border) but damn, one would think eventually they'd get serious about this and pick a damn option already.

And I say this as an American who has our own share of idiots in Congress(not to mention the YUUUUGGGGGGGGEEEEEE Idiot in the white house).

I like how every MP voted against all 8 possible options going forward. Fun times.

We'll see what Monday brings.

Would you believe that Theresa May is going to try for a fourth vote? What on earth is wrong with that woman?

How long until we call it off and just agree to stay in the EU?

Agema:
Would you believe that Theresa May is going to try for a fourth vote? What on earth is wrong with that woman?

She's broken and no one can find the manual.

Palindromemordnilap:
How long until we call it off and just agree to stay in the EU?

I mean, to me that would be the logical option. If you can't agree on a good exit plan and you aren't prepared, stay until you do. The exit door will be there later if you really want to go.

Right now it looks like a crash out is gonna happen despite nobody being ready for it because nobody can agree on anything, which sounds like a terrible plan.

But I'm not British or an MP, so what do I know?

Dalisclock:

But I'm not British or an MP, so what do I know?

More than 52% the voting public!

Leave. Face the consequences. Move on. Most importantly, stop panicking.

It's obvious the MPs don't want to deal with this issue, making another vote won't change it. I guess politicians want to pin the oncoming disaster on a particular political movement, and use it as fodder for the future.

You can't have a second referendum on the exact same thing if you didn't like what the first referendum decided. That's disregarding the democratic process. Those that advocated for a second referendum should have been more active during the first one.

I'll wait and see how this ends up.

We could all be wrong about this. This sort of thing was never done before.

TheIronRuler:
Leave. Face the consequences. Move on. Most importantly, stop panicking.

Leave how? This entire situation was caused by the 'Leave' option not being defined at all during the Referendum, meaning that people were voting to leave for wildly different reasons.

Merely restating that we should leave, still without defining it, means approximately bugger all.

TheIronRuler:
You can't have a second referendum on the exact same thing if you didn't like what the first referendum decided. That's disregarding the democratic process. Those that advocated for a second referendum should have been more active during the first one.

The democratic process is to not hold a vote and stick with a previous decision?

TheIronRuler:
You can't have a second referendum on the exact same thing if you didn't like what the first referendum decided.

Maybe not. But you can have a second referendum on the basis of "Now we've got a much better idea of what this means, we'd like to reconsider." There is nothing undemocratic about allowing the a change of mind once people have more information to base their decision on.

Secondly, you have have a referendum to ask a different question: specifically, "Now we know exactly what the leave options actually are, what do you prefer?" It's also valid to add to this referendum the option of not leaving because (as per the above) it turns out all the leave options are worse.

You've got to face the consequences of your actions like big boys. There was a vote on the matter - and those who voted agreed to leave the EU. The whole process was wrapped in smoke and mystery because it was never well-defined in the EU itself. The reason for that is, I believe, that they never expected anyone would actually up and leave once they got in.

If you're a Briton, and you voted in the referendum to stay in the EU, and the vote didn't pass your way - then so be it. You could have convinced more people to come out and vote - your friends, family, co-workers. That is the democratic process - you can't refuse to accept it and ask for a second vote just because you lost! It is literally undemocratic to disregard a previous vote, and make a second vote! I suppose the people that don't like the fact Britain is leaving the EU would bombard regular voters in order to convince them to vote to stay - perhaps they think they could make a better job next time? Have a re-do vote? Throw a little temper-tantrum because they didn't get it their way?

If you're not a Briton, or if you hadn't voted either way in the referendum, then I don't even think you can honestly argue in good faith about disregarding the opinions of so many people on the matter because it's an inconvenience to you.

BTW I wanted to check R&P yesterday and it was closed! I was so eager to read how people accepted the fact Trump did nothing wrong and was exonerated from "collusion" with the Russians. The universe just keeps on giving bad news to commies. Thanks, universe!

TheIronRuler:
That is the democratic process - you can't refuse to accept it and ask for a second vote just because you lost!

Yeah, that's why political offices are held for life. If you didn't want that candidate, you should have just campaigned harder in the first place!

Or maybe the aim of democratic processes is executing current public opinion, not that of three years ago; if the UK wants to vote a second time, there's nothing wrong with that.

TheIronRuler:
BTW I wanted to check R&P yesterday and it was closed! I was so eager to read how people accepted the fact Trump did nothing wrong and was exonerated from "collusion" with the Russians. The universe just keeps on giving bad news to commies. Thanks, universe!

Please stop calling boring centrists without a compelling political vision beyond not being Trump 'commies'. It's insulting to commies.

Agema:
Would you believe that Theresa May is going to try for a fourth vote? What on earth is wrong with that woman?

I would dare say that this is literally all May can get from the EU. There is NO other plan forward, other than second referendum or very hard brexit

Silvanus:

TheIronRuler:
Leave. Face the consequences. Move on. Most importantly, stop panicking.

Leave how? This entire situation was caused by the 'Leave' option not being defined at all during the Referendum, meaning that people were voting to leave for wildly different reasons.

Merely restating that we should leave, still without defining it, means approximately bugger all.

I'd assume Farage style. No plan. Just go.

Farage doesn't understand that the EU has been nice negotiate currently, leaving is going to make it worse.

TheIronRuler:

If you're a Briton, and you voted in the referendum to stay in the EU, and the vote didn't pass your way - then so be it. You could have convinced more people to come out and vote - your friends, family, co-workers. That is the democratic process - you can't refuse to accept it and ask for a second vote just because you lost! It is literally undemocratic to disregard a previous vote, and make a second vote!

It is literally democratic to allow the people to freely vote on absolutely anything, at any time. It might not necessarily be wise or constructive, but it's surely democratic.

* * *

Okay, let's imagine your country has a referendum to build a physics lab to carry out a specific experiment in your capital. A year later, the physicists realise if they run this experiment, there's an 85% chance it will end in a catastrophic explosion destroying everything within 5 miles. Are you seriously arguing that the physics lab must be built and the experiment must be conducted because you had a referendum on it and it can't be reversed?

Agema:

TheIronRuler:

If you're a Briton, and you voted in the referendum to stay in the EU, and the vote didn't pass your way - then so be it. You could have convinced more people to come out and vote - your friends, family, co-workers. That is the democratic process - you can't refuse to accept it and ask for a second vote just because you lost! It is literally undemocratic to disregard a previous vote, and make a second vote!

It is literally democratic to allow the people to freely vote on absolutely anything, at any time. It might not necessarily be wise or constructive, but it's surely democratic.

* * *

Okay, let's imagine your country has a referendum to build a physics lab to carry out a specific experiment in your capital. A year later, the physicists realise if they run this experiment, there's an 85% chance it will end in a catastrophic explosion destroying everything within 5 miles. Are you seriously arguing that the physics lab must be built and the experiment must be conducted because you had a referendum on it and it can't be reversed?

The biggest issue is the remain campaign actually told people what a disaster this would be, it is just people didn't understand that they were not exaggerating but in fact were telling them the truth. This is my issue with campaigns that knowingly lie to the people. The people who lied are not being held accountable for their lies, hell they are not even going to have to pay the consequences for them as some of them are actually leaving the country to suffer through their lies without them. The lack of accountability for those telling the lies is what allows this to blow up as bad as it does. The reason they cannot even agree on Brexit negotiations is due to people STILL thinking they will get the lie even after they have been told it was always a lie. How do you resolve such things when people are literally not getting what they thought they voted for in the first place and it is not even remotely possible for them to do so? There should be some way to hold people personally accountable for telling lies that impact peoples lives that actually helps prevent this from happening repeatedly.

Agema:

TheIronRuler:

If you're a Briton, and you voted in the referendum to stay in the EU, and the vote didn't pass your way - then so be it. You could have convinced more people to come out and vote - your friends, family, co-workers. That is the democratic process - you can't refuse to accept it and ask for a second vote just because you lost! It is literally undemocratic to disregard a previous vote, and make a second vote!

It is literally democratic to allow the people to freely vote on absolutely anything, at any time. It might not necessarily be wise or constructive, but it's surely democratic.

* * *

Okay, let's imagine your country has a referendum to build a physics lab to carry out a specific experiment in your capital. A year later, the physicists realise if they run this experiment, there's an 85% chance it will end in a catastrophic explosion destroying everything within 5 miles. Are you seriously arguing that the physics lab must be built and the experiment must be conducted because you had a referendum on it and it can't be reversed?

.
I don't see it this way. I can compare it to elections. If after a general elections in the UK there's a group of people protesting, asking for a second round of elections because their preferred party didn't get the majority. It's akin to people protesting an elections in the US because their candidate didn't win and demanding a re-vote... It's undemocratic, literally ignoring the rules of the game they agreed to before the election - or referendum, just because they didn't get it their way.

TheIronRuler:

Agema:

TheIronRuler:

If you're a Briton, and you voted in the referendum to stay in the EU, and the vote didn't pass your way - then so be it. You could have convinced more people to come out and vote - your friends, family, co-workers. That is the democratic process - you can't refuse to accept it and ask for a second vote just because you lost! It is literally undemocratic to disregard a previous vote, and make a second vote!

It is literally democratic to allow the people to freely vote on absolutely anything, at any time. It might not necessarily be wise or constructive, but it's surely democratic.

* * *

Okay, let's imagine your country has a referendum to build a physics lab to carry out a specific experiment in your capital. A year later, the physicists realise if they run this experiment, there's an 85% chance it will end in a catastrophic explosion destroying everything within 5 miles. Are you seriously arguing that the physics lab must be built and the experiment must be conducted because you had a referendum on it and it can't be reversed?

.
I don't see it this way. I can compare it to elections. If after a general elections in the UK there's a group of people protesting, asking for a second round of elections because their preferred party didn't get the majority. It's akin to people protesting an elections in the US because their candidate didn't win and demanding a re-vote... It's undemocratic, literally ignoring the rules of the game they agreed to before the election - or referendum, just because they didn't get it their way.

So what about fraud? If candidates actively lie to the people and then do the opposite of what they stated they would do, or misrepresented themselves, should they not be held accountable? The leave campaign actively promoted a fraud, they admitted this the day after they won. It is not just people who voted to remain that are pissed, there are plenty of people who believed the lie and now they found out they were lied to and want to change their vote.

I think it is important we start holding people accountable for fraud or we can never actually have people know what they are voting for in the first place. People are voting for one thing because they are told this is what it means, then they do the opposite in reality once they win. If we allow the rampant lying to continue, this will only get worse, not better.

When there is cheating, they redo elections. They should classify actively defrauding the public as cheating as well.

Lil devils x:

TheIronRuler:

Agema:

It is literally democratic to allow the people to freely vote on absolutely anything, at any time. It might not necessarily be wise or constructive, but it's surely democratic.

* * *

Okay, let's imagine your country has a referendum to build a physics lab to carry out a specific experiment in your capital. A year later, the physicists realise if they run this experiment, there's an 85% chance it will end in a catastrophic explosion destroying everything within 5 miles. Are you seriously arguing that the physics lab must be built and the experiment must be conducted because you had a referendum on it and it can't be reversed?

.
I don't see it this way. I can compare it to elections. If after a general elections in the UK there's a group of people protesting, asking for a second round of elections because their preferred party didn't get the majority. It's akin to people protesting an elections in the US because their candidate didn't win and demanding a re-vote... It's undemocratic, literally ignoring the rules of the game they agreed to before the election - or referendum, just because they didn't get it their way.

So what about fraud? If candidates actively lie to the people and then do the opposite of what they stated they would do, or misrepresented themselves, should they not be held accountable? The leave campaign actively promoted a fraud, they admitted this the day after they won. It is not just people who voted to remain that are pissed, there are plenty of people who believed the lie and now they found out they were lied to and want to change their vote.

I think it is important we start holding people accountable for fraud or we can never actually have people know what they are voting for in the first place. People are voting for one thing because they are told this is what it means, then they do the opposite in reality once they win. If we allow the rampant lying to continue, this will only get worse, not better.

When there is cheating, they redo elections. They should classify actively defrauding the public as cheating as well.

How far does that extend though?

One of Obama's campaign promises was that he would close Guantanamo Bay. This is something that he never did. Should there have been consequences for that during his presidential term? What would those consequences have been? Does Obama not honoring a campaign promise make him a bad president?

What about if third parties prevent a campaign promise from being achieved? Trump is attempting to get his border wall built despite pretty much everyone thinking it's a stupid idea, and congress isn't letting him. If he doesn't get it built would that be his fault for promising it, or would should the congress people who are standing in his way experience some repercussions for making it impossible for the president to fulfill his stupid stupid promise?

What about if during the election a candidate made promises that they thought were feasible and then it turned out they weren't because they received additional information once they were elected and had more access? What if Bernie gets elected and it turns out that all of his campaign promises are impossible to fulfill in the 4-8 years that he has as president, should he immediately be impeached for defrauding the public who voted him in specifically to fulfill those promises?

Dirty Hipsters:

Lil devils x:

TheIronRuler:

.
I don't see it this way. I can compare it to elections. If after a general elections in the UK there's a group of people protesting, asking for a second round of elections because their preferred party didn't get the majority. It's akin to people protesting an elections in the US because their candidate didn't win and demanding a re-vote... It's undemocratic, literally ignoring the rules of the game they agreed to before the election - or referendum, just because they didn't get it their way.

So what about fraud? If candidates actively lie to the people and then do the opposite of what they stated they would do, or misrepresented themselves, should they not be held accountable? The leave campaign actively promoted a fraud, they admitted this the day after they won. It is not just people who voted to remain that are pissed, there are plenty of people who believed the lie and now they found out they were lied to and want to change their vote.

I think it is important we start holding people accountable for fraud or we can never actually have people know what they are voting for in the first place. People are voting for one thing because they are told this is what it means, then they do the opposite in reality once they win. If we allow the rampant lying to continue, this will only get worse, not better.

When there is cheating, they redo elections. They should classify actively defrauding the public as cheating as well.

How far does that extend though?

One of Obama's campaign promises was that he would close Guantanamo Bay. This is something that he never did. Should there have been consequences for that during his presidential term? What would those consequences have been? Does Obama not honoring a campaign promise make him a bad president?

What about if third parties prevent a campaign promise from being achieved? Trump is attempting to get his border wall built despite pretty much everyone thinking it's a stupid idea, and congress isn't letting him. If he doesn't get it built would that be his fault for promising it, or would should the congress people who are standing in his way experience some repercussions for making it impossible for the president to fulfill his stupid stupid promise?

What about if during the election a candidate made promises that they thought were feasible and then it turned out they weren't because they received additional information once they were elected and had more access? What if Bernie gets elected and it turns out that all of his campaign promises are impossible to fulfill in the 4-8 years that he has as president, should he immediately be impeached for defrauding the public who voted him in specifically to fulfill those promises?

.
No. They should get a re-election vote if their favorite candidate didn't win. That's what I think the three main gentlemen in this thread are essentially saying.

Dirty Hipsters:

Lil devils x:

TheIronRuler:

.
I don't see it this way. I can compare it to elections. If after a general elections in the UK there's a group of people protesting, asking for a second round of elections because their preferred party didn't get the majority. It's akin to people protesting an elections in the US because their candidate didn't win and demanding a re-vote... It's undemocratic, literally ignoring the rules of the game they agreed to before the election - or referendum, just because they didn't get it their way.

So what about fraud? If candidates actively lie to the people and then do the opposite of what they stated they would do, or misrepresented themselves, should they not be held accountable? The leave campaign actively promoted a fraud, they admitted this the day after they won. It is not just people who voted to remain that are pissed, there are plenty of people who believed the lie and now they found out they were lied to and want to change their vote.

I think it is important we start holding people accountable for fraud or we can never actually have people know what they are voting for in the first place. People are voting for one thing because they are told this is what it means, then they do the opposite in reality once they win. If we allow the rampant lying to continue, this will only get worse, not better.

When there is cheating, they redo elections. They should classify actively defrauding the public as cheating as well.

How far does that extend though?

One of Obama's campaign promises was that he would close Guantanamo Bay. This is something that he never did. Should there have been consequences for that during his presidential term? What would those consequences have been? Does Obama not honoring a campaign promise make him a bad president?

What about if third parties prevent a campaign promise from being achieved? Trump is attempting to get his border wall built despite pretty much everyone thinking it's a stupid idea, and congress isn't letting him. If he doesn't get it built would that be his fault for promising it, or would should the congress people who are standing in his way experience some repercussions for making it impossible for the president to fulfill his stupid stupid promise?

What about if during the election a candidate made promises that they thought were feasible and then it turned out they weren't because they received additional information once they were elected and had more access? What if Bernie gets elected and it turns out that all of his campaign promises are impossible to fulfill in the 4-8 years that he has as president, should he immediately be impeached for defrauding the public who voted him in specifically to fulfill those promises?

Intentionally defrauding, for example, if Obama had promised to close GITMO, but instead expanded it and put more people in it, he should be held accountable. In Trump's case, he promised not to cut medicare, social security, and then specifically proposed cuts. He should be held accountable for that. When Trump lied about preexisting conditions coverage and then not even having a plan but instead is just trying to cut them, he should be held accountable.

In the case of the Brexit, they claimed they would have more money for NHS, the next day after winning said that was a lie and there would be massive cuts instead. They told people they would be able to limit freedom of movement while remaining in the single market to keep the economic sector from collapsing, which was a lie as well. Now people who believed that they would have increase funding for NHS and still have access to the single market that voted to leave want to change their votes due to being lied to.

More than 2.6 million people have abandoned their support for Brexit and now back staying in the EU, a major study has concluded.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-referendum-millions-leave-voters-best-for-britain-no-deal-theresa-may-conservative-government-a8521346.html

TheIronRuler:

Dirty Hipsters:

Lil devils x:
So what about fraud? If candidates actively lie to the people and then do the opposite of what they stated they would do, or misrepresented themselves, should they not be held accountable? The leave campaign actively promoted a fraud, they admitted this the day after they won. It is not just people who voted to remain that are pissed, there are plenty of people who believed the lie and now they found out they were lied to and want to change their vote.

I think it is important we start holding people accountable for fraud or we can never actually have people know what they are voting for in the first place. People are voting for one thing because they are told this is what it means, then they do the opposite in reality once they win. If we allow the rampant lying to continue, this will only get worse, not better.

When there is cheating, they redo elections. They should classify actively defrauding the public as cheating as well.

How far does that extend though?

One of Obama's campaign promises was that he would close Guantanamo Bay. This is something that he never did. Should there have been consequences for that during his presidential term? What would those consequences have been? Does Obama not honoring a campaign promise make him a bad president?

What about if third parties prevent a campaign promise from being achieved? Trump is attempting to get his border wall built despite pretty much everyone thinking it's a stupid idea, and congress isn't letting him. If he doesn't get it built would that be his fault for promising it, or would should the congress people who are standing in his way experience some repercussions for making it impossible for the president to fulfill his stupid stupid promise?

What about if during the election a candidate made promises that they thought were feasible and then it turned out they weren't because they received additional information once they were elected and had more access? What if Bernie gets elected and it turns out that all of his campaign promises are impossible to fulfill in the 4-8 years that he has as president, should he immediately be impeached for defrauding the public who voted him in specifically to fulfill those promises?

.
No. They should get a re-election vote if their favorite candidate didn't win. That's what I think the three main gentlemen in this thread are essentially saying.

Is that what these people are saying too?

More than 2.6 million people have abandoned their support for Brexit and now back staying in the EU, a major study has concluded.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-referendum-millions-leave-voters-best-for-britain-no-deal-theresa-may-conservative-government-a8521346.html

TheIronRuler:

Agema:

TheIronRuler:

If you're a Briton, and you voted in the referendum to stay in the EU, and the vote didn't pass your way - then so be it. You could have convinced more people to come out and vote - your friends, family, co-workers. That is the democratic process - you can't refuse to accept it and ask for a second vote just because you lost! It is literally undemocratic to disregard a previous vote, and make a second vote!

It is literally democratic to allow the people to freely vote on absolutely anything, at any time. It might not necessarily be wise or constructive, but it's surely democratic.

* * *

Okay, let's imagine your country has a referendum to build a physics lab to carry out a specific experiment in your capital. A year later, the physicists realise if they run this experiment, there's an 85% chance it will end in a catastrophic explosion destroying everything within 5 miles. Are you seriously arguing that the physics lab must be built and the experiment must be conducted because you had a referendum on it and it can't be reversed?

.
I don't see it this way. I can compare it to elections. If after a general elections in the UK there's a group of people protesting, asking for a second round of elections because their preferred party didn't get the majority. It's akin to people protesting an elections in the US because their candidate didn't win and demanding a re-vote... It's undemocratic, literally ignoring the rules of the game they agreed to before the election - or referendum, just because they didn't get it their way.

Have you ever wondered why political offices in countries that want to convince their people that they are democratic typically don't last for the entire life of the ones elected? Brexit is something that would likely last much longer than that in its implications. So how could it be 'democratic' to hold to a years old narrow majority when the people feel otherwise later? The Brexit vote was nearly three years ago and real action hasn't been taken yet-- only political maneuvering. If the people feel differently now, then they should absolutely be heard. There is nothing 'democratic' about ignoring them now.

TheIronRuler:

Agema:

TheIronRuler:

If you're a Briton, and you voted in the referendum to stay in the EU, and the vote didn't pass your way - then so be it. You could have convinced more people to come out and vote - your friends, family, co-workers. That is the democratic process - you can't refuse to accept it and ask for a second vote just because you lost! It is literally undemocratic to disregard a previous vote, and make a second vote!

It is literally democratic to allow the people to freely vote on absolutely anything, at any time. It might not necessarily be wise or constructive, but it's surely democratic.

* * *

Okay, let's imagine your country has a referendum to build a physics lab to carry out a specific experiment in your capital. A year later, the physicists realise if they run this experiment, there's an 85% chance it will end in a catastrophic explosion destroying everything within 5 miles. Are you seriously arguing that the physics lab must be built and the experiment must be conducted because you had a referendum on it and it can't be reversed?

.
I don't see it this way. I can compare it to elections. If after a general elections in the UK there's a group of people protesting, asking for a second round of elections because their preferred party didn't get the majority. It's akin to people protesting an elections in the US because their candidate didn't win and demanding a re-vote... It's undemocratic, literally ignoring the rules of the game they agreed to before the election - or referendum, just because they didn't get it their way.

Funny that, because in Britain general elections can end up being called because of lack of faith in or support for the government. Britain literally had an unscheduled general election during Brexit. The will of the people can change and if he majority no longer supports a decision it had previously made refusing to let then vote on it is anti-democratic.

TheIronRuler:

I don't see it this way. I can compare it to elections. If after a general elections in the UK there's a group of people protesting, asking for a second round of elections because their preferred party didn't get the majority. It's akin to people protesting an elections in the US because their candidate didn't win and demanding a re-vote... It's undemocratic, literally ignoring the rules of the game they agreed to before the election - or referendum, just because they didn't get it their way.

I don't think it's comparable with electing people. Electing people involves agreeing to let someone else trying to implement his agenda, which is rather "vague". In the case of a referendum it's actually binary: do A or do not do A. But in certain situations, like Brexit, doing or not doing it is not a binary choice. The current mess has shown that. So it would be quite normal and democratic to present defined choices to the people. It wouldn't be Brexit versus no Brexit but rather "This Brexit" or "That Brexit" vs no brexit.

Let's just think about it for a minute:
48% didn't want to leave the EU.
52% wanted to leave the EU but nobody knows how many prefer staying to a hard brexit.
All you need is that more than 2% who voted for brexit (expecting a soft brexit) prefer to remain than a hard brexit for it to be "undemocratic" to just go with a hard brexit instead of revoting based on the possibilities.

And if we'd actually compare it to elections than brexit should be cancelled. Just take the US as an example. When Trump doesn't get a majority in congress/the senate to support his agenda it's simply not done. Just like how obama hasn't provided everything he promised due to a lack of support. In this case: people voted brexit, parliament isn't able to agree on how to do it, no brexit happens.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here