[Politics] Theresa May resigns as British PM.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Palindromemordnilap:

Dreiko:
She should have just taken a no deal option and gone ahead with it since that's the democratic thing to do.

Since the standards of the Brexit we have was never something actually voted for or stated by the British people, no, that would in fact not be the democratic thing to do

I'm just wondering if the date of leaving she stated is something else thats going to get pushed back like most of the dates for doing things she's given us

My understanding is that the deal that was being suggested last by May but ultimately rejected by the rest of the politicians was in fact not in following with at the very least the spirit of leaving the EU. It would basically retain all the reasons why the UK wants out such as having to pay money to the EU and whatnot and it would just technically count the UK as being not in the EU as a formality.

I think these things that made the deal undesirable are implied as being what the UK desires to rid itself of in exiting the EU, so keeping those even after having left defeats the point and you can never have a vote that covers every single thing that falls behind one's desire to be autonomous and retain sovereignty but you can still understand when something is not in line with that thinking.

Dreiko:

My understanding is that the deal that was being suggested last by May but ultimately rejected by the rest of the politicians was in fact not in following with at the very least the spirit of leaving the EU. It would basically retain all the reasons why the UK wants out such as having to pay money to the EU and whatnot and it would just technically count the UK as being not in the EU as a formality.

It pretty much boils down to wanting to have our cake and eat it. But we'd also like to complain to the chef about the cake, even though it was an okay cake.

Side note: I read through a few open Brexiteer Facebook groups last night. I went to bed quite depressed that (a) people are so vile; and (b) people can be such thick cunts. (That's not because they voted for Brexit, I know quite a few people who did who don't fall into (a) or (b); but, fuck me, what a bunch of thickos some of these clowns are.)

Dreiko:

Palindromemordnilap:

Dreiko:
She should have just taken a no deal option and gone ahead with it since that's the democratic thing to do.

Since the standards of the Brexit we have was never something actually voted for or stated by the British people, no, that would in fact not be the democratic thing to do

I'm just wondering if the date of leaving she stated is something else thats going to get pushed back like most of the dates for doing things she's given us

My understanding is that the deal that was being suggested last by May but ultimately rejected by the rest of the politicians was in fact not in following with at the very least the spirit of leaving the EU. It would basically retain all the reasons why the UK wants out such as having to pay money to the EU and whatnot and it would just technically count the UK as being not in the EU as a formality.

I think these things that made the deal undesirable are implied as being what the UK desires to rid itself of in exiting the EU, so keeping those even after having left defeats the point and you can never have a vote that covers every single thing that falls behind one's desire to be autonomous and retain sovereignty but you can still understand when something is not in line with that thinking.

The reason May keeps offering them the same deal is because those are the only options available to not cause a financial collapse in the UK. Everyone told Brexiters ahead of time that this is what would happen, but they didn't listen.

They can either:

1) Allow freedom of movement and abide by EU standards to maintain contracts to stay in the single market and not have all their exports tied up in customs to be checked to prevent an economic collapse ( May's deal)
or
2) No deal Brexit causing an economic collapse, food shortages, massive cuts to government services including healthcare and mass exodus of contracts and businesses fleeing the UK to maintain their access to the single market that will likely lead to their country breaking apart as Scotland has made it very clear they are not okay with this.

May's deal was the bare minimum necessary to save them from irreversible devastating effects that will depress the UK economy for years and reduce their influence and status on the global stage. It's not her fault that the Brexiters were lied to and are delusional.

Dreiko:

My understanding is that the deal that was being suggested last by May but ultimately rejected by the rest of the politicians was in fact not in following with at the very least the spirit of leaving the EU.

Lots of people felt that way, certainly, but the form that leaving would take was not explored before or during the referendum (one of many reasons the referendum was so poorly run).

And so, some people voted to leave to save money. Some voted to end freedom of movement. Some voted to end EU involvement in British law. And some voted for a hundred other reasons, many of which are mutually exclusive with other reasons. (Some people even voted to leave on the basis of promises which were retracted within 24 hours of the referendum result being announced!)

One thing is for certain, though: leaving on WTO terms was definitely not expressed as the preference of the electorate in that referendum. The Leave campaign explicitly campaigned on the promise of reaching a deal, so to default to WTO terms would be to directly contradict their own campaign promise.

Dreiko:

I think these things that made the deal undesirable are implied as being what the UK desires to rid itself of in exiting the EU, so keeping those even after having left defeats the point and you can never have a vote that covers every single thing that falls behind one's desire to be autonomous and retain sovereignty but you can still understand when something is not in line with that thinking.

The government has a terrible track record interpreting what it sees as the implied will of the people.

Under normal circumstances, the appropriate procedure would be to... ask the public. Yet, somehow, people seem to have been convinced that asking the public this question would somehow be undemocratic.

votemarvel:

Many countries in Europe, Germany perhaps being the foremost, are experiencing disquiet about the EU and its policies, suddenly having to pay more in could very well being the tipping point to seeing more countries wanting to leave the EU.

Considering what a massive clusterfuck Brexit has been, I imagine any other countries who might have been considering leaving are probably having second thoughts at this point. Britain is pretty much being the example of "See that guy? Don't be that guy".

As for Ms. May, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Good fucking riddance.

Silvanus:

The government has a terrible track record interpreting what it sees as the implied will of the people.

Under normal circumstances, the appropriate procedure would be to... ask the public. Yet, somehow, people seem to have been convinced that asking the public this question would somehow be undemocratic.

I don't think having a vote on which deal to take is objectionable. People seem to not want to have a second leave or stay vote specifically. If all the options were just different forms of leaving (and it was that in spirit too, not just technically) I doubt people would feel against having the vote.

Dreiko:

Silvanus:

The government has a terrible track record interpreting what it sees as the implied will of the people.

Under normal circumstances, the appropriate procedure would be to... ask the public. Yet, somehow, people seem to have been convinced that asking the public this question would somehow be undemocratic.

I don't think having a vote on which deal to take is objectionable. People seem to not want to have a second leave or stay vote specifically. If all the options were just different forms of leaving (and it was that in spirit too, not just technically) I doubt people would feel against having the vote.

Having a remain option on such a ballot would hardly be undemocratic; it's not undemocratic to allow for someone to be an option in their own recall election.

Dreiko:

Silvanus:

The government has a terrible track record interpreting what it sees as the implied will of the people.

Under normal circumstances, the appropriate procedure would be to... ask the public. Yet, somehow, people seem to have been convinced that asking the public this question would somehow be undemocratic.

I don't think having a vote on which deal to take is objectionable. People seem to not want to have a second leave or stay vote specifically. If all the options were just different forms of leaving (and it was that in spirit too, not just technically) I doubt people would feel against having the vote.

Why would it be somehow "acceptable" to take away people's options to force them to do something they do not wish to do? If people would rather remain than have a no deal Brexit, they should be given that option. This is their lives, their children's lives and their future at stake here and they should not be forced off the cliff just for the sake of going off the cliff. If the majority of people want to have a no deal Brexit then they should have no problem voting that in right? If people realize they have been scammed and want to change their vote, they should be able to do so as well. This is not a decision that should be taken lightly. Once it is done it is done and they will be forced to suffer through those decisions. Pretending like none of the ramifications exist does not make them suddenly disappear. This is not a case of if they ignore what will happen it will some how go away. The worst part about this was the majority of people who voted to leave are elderly and will not have to suffer through their own choices, their grandchildren will be forced to do so against their will.

Lil devils x:

May's deal was the bare minimum necessary to save them from irreversible devastating effects that will depress the UK economy for years and reduce their influence and status on the global stage.

Honestly, I think that's already happened, least as far as influence goes. Like, regardless of outcome, there's no walking cleaning the egg off the UK's face for quite awhile. And even then, can the UK really be said to have that much of a global influence? Like, I'm not discounting that it does, but if I'm thinking of the big boys of the 21st century, China, the US, India, and Russia (to an extent) come to mind. UK? Not so much.

Dreiko:

Silvanus:

The government has a terrible track record interpreting what it sees as the implied will of the people.

Under normal circumstances, the appropriate procedure would be to... ask the public. Yet, somehow, people seem to have been convinced that asking the public this question would somehow be undemocratic.

I don't think having a vote on which deal to take is objectionable. People seem to not want to have a second leave or stay vote specifically. If all the options were just different forms of leaving (and it was that in spirit too, not just technically) I doubt people would feel against having the vote.

Who, exactly, are these "people" (beyond a rhetorical stand-in to avoid saying "I")? Do you have a single piece of evidence to back up your conjectures about these "people" and their opinions?

You truly have zero grasp of the situation beyond spouting your personal ideology and claiming it represents the will of "the people."

Dreiko:

Silvanus:

The government has a terrible track record interpreting what it sees as the implied will of the people.

Under normal circumstances, the appropriate procedure would be to... ask the public. Yet, somehow, people seem to have been convinced that asking the public this question would somehow be undemocratic.

I don't think having a vote on which deal to take is objectionable. People seem to not want to have a second leave or stay vote specifically. If all the options were just different forms of leaving (and it was that in spirit too, not just technically) I doubt people would feel against having the vote.

Either leaving is the will of the people so putting that as an option on a referendum will have no effect or it is not the will of the people and not having remain as an option is the actually undemocratic option. It amazes me that Bre-tards want to deny people options under the guise of being "democratic". If no deal is truly the "democratic" option then it's what people will vote for. So what's the problem?

CheetoDust:

Dreiko:

Silvanus:

The government has a terrible track record interpreting what it sees as the implied will of the people.

Under normal circumstances, the appropriate procedure would be to... ask the public. Yet, somehow, people seem to have been convinced that asking the public this question would somehow be undemocratic.

I don't think having a vote on which deal to take is objectionable. People seem to not want to have a second leave or stay vote specifically. If all the options were just different forms of leaving (and it was that in spirit too, not just technically) I doubt people would feel against having the vote.

Either leaving is the will of the people so putting that as an option on a referendum will have no effect or it is not the will of the people and not having remain as an option is the actually undemocratic option. It amazes me that Bre-tards want to deny people options under the guise of being "democratic". If no deal is truly the "democratic" option then it's what people will vote for. So what's the problem?

It would be democratic if they had already left and then there was an option to return. You can't undo a vote just because it's command hasn't been implemented yet and people have changed their minds in the meantime. That's not how democracy works and if you did do that all it'd do is give people in power the suggestion that any time the public votes against their desires they can just fail at conducting what the public commanded them to and just wait until media propaganda has swayed enough minds. It's a pro-status-quo approach.

You first have to carry out the will of the people from the initial vote and actually leave and then you can have a new vote about entering or leaving. You can't vote to undo the previous vote before the actual result is fully carried out though, otherwise with your logic if Trump loses next year he'll be able to just call another vote which will have his side that just lost he more motivated to go vote.

Makes sense. Her primary task as PM was to ensure that the UK's exit from the EU went smoothly, something she evidently has not been able to. Stepping down is the reasonable thing to do.

Dreiko:

It would be democratic if they had already left and then there was an option to return. You can't undo a vote just because it's command hasn't been implemented yet and people have changed their minds in the meantime.

Wait-- you're genuinely arguing that if the people have changed their mind, then doing what the people want is undemocratic?

I don't know how that position can possibly be defended. Knowingly refusing to do what the population want is definitively undemocratic.

That's not how democracy works and if you did do that all it'd do is give people in power the suggestion that any time the public votes against their desires they can just fail at conducting what the public commanded them to and just wait until media propaganda has swayed enough minds. It's a pro-status-quo approach.

You first have to carry out the will of the people from the initial vote and actually leave and then you can have a new vote about entering or leaving. You can't vote to undo the previous vote before the actual result is fully carried out though, otherwise with your logic if Trump loses next year he'll be able to just call another vote which will have his side that just lost he more motivated to go vote.

Firstly, no, that US presidential analogy doesn't follow. The US election is... Well, it's an election, and thus legally binding. The referendum was advisory. And facts have since changed. So what legally and morally applies to one does not apply to the other.

Secondly: How about if there was significant proven illegal activity in one of the campaigns? I'm pretty sure a re-run in those circumstances is the usual practice internationally.

Because that's what happened in the EU referendum.

Is it democratic to follow through with a policy possibly decided by electoral fraud?

The solution to this is a second referendum, stating that "Hey, looks like we can not deliver as promised. Do you want us to continue to fuck this economy in this purgatory-limbo of being both within and without the EU or should we swallow our pride and take back our desire to leave the EU?"

Because that is literally what has happened here. People voted "Yes" thinking the idea of leaving was as was written, they did not know that leaving would have the repercussions that are being presented now because the average voter knows very little about the full intricacies of EU membership and responsibilities.

Also, those that pushed the Brexit referendum in the first place, lying by omission to the UK public, should have all private assets seized to pay for the damage their posturing has caused the UK. Or lined up against a wall and shot. Either is fine with me.

Again, that's just motivation for the status-quo to sabotage the attempt on purpose because they're against it and then claim it's undoable when in reality they could have done it if they tried. It also gives all the power to the EU cause all they have to do is offer unacceptable deals to the UK long enough until people become propagandized sufficiently to change their minds.

You can never know what effect potential lies had to the outcome so it's debatable whether or not any election truly was built on deception. Who knows, maybe people voted to leave for other reasons. You certainly can't prove they didn't.

The one thing we do know is that people voted to leave.

Dreiko:
Again, that's just motivation for the status-quo to sabotage the attempt on purpose because they're against it and then claim it's undoable when in reality they could have done it if they tried. It also gives all the power to the EU cause all they have to do is offer unacceptable deals to the UK long enough until people become propagandized sufficiently to change their minds.

You can never know what effect potential lies had to the outcome so it's debatable whether or not any election truly was built on deception. Who knows, maybe people voted to leave for other reasons. You certainly can't prove they didn't.

The one thing we do know is that people voted to leave.

This is false. Yes, you can know why they voted the way they did and whether or not they have changed their mind by LISTENING TO THEM. That is the point. We have heard many people talk about why they voted the way they did already. We can hear from many more. You do realize there is nothing stopping people from asking them, so of course we can know why they voted.

The original referendum was only held in the first place as leverage to have the EU meet the UK demands, which they did, and then the UK pulled a dumbass and voted to leave even though they had just gotten their way and to leave would mean to destroy their own economy and likely break up their nation because they were lied to. Yes, it has been established they were in fact lied to and many have expressed outrage over that fact. When the majority of people who voted to leave are elderly who were promised more money for NHS and then told the next day that was a lie and they would have cuts instead, what else would you think would happen?

All you have to do is actually talk to the people and they will tell you. It would be wrong for their representatives not to listen.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-voters-poll-mislead-leave-campaign-nhs-claims-lies-remain-win-second-referendum-a7905786.html
https://www.vox.com/2016/6/24/12024634/brexit-supporters-regret-vote
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/27/this-man-voted-for-brexit-hours-later-he-was-one-of-the-3-million-to-sign-a-petition-to-repeat-the-referendum/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5d2e353b58c1
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/im-full-of-regret---extraordinary-moment-brexit-voter-changes-he/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/06/i-voted-for-brexit-but-now-i-am-regret-the-terrifying-chaos-i-ha/
http://time.com/4381464/vote-leave-regret-referendum/
https://vip.politicsmeanspolitics.com/2018/06/28/why-i-voted-to-leave-the-eu-and-regret-it-now/

There are good number of things we know, not just "one". You act like this is unknown, it isn't. It has been established to be fact.

1) We KNOW That the UK has to have freedom of movement to have access to the single market.
2) We KNOW that if the UK loses access to the single market, London will cease to be the financial hub for the EU, because they will no longer have access to the single market to be able to carry out the business necessary to keep those businesses there and many businesses will leave the UK.
3) We KNOW that the UK losing access to the single market will be devastating to UK economy as much of the UK economy is dependent on this.
4) We KNOW That Scotland has already stated they will hold a vote to leave the UK over the Brexit and it will be drawn up before the end of 2019: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/world/europe/scotland-independence-referendum-brexit.html
https://globalnews.ca/news/5197357/scotland-independence-referendum-vote-to-leave-uk/

These things are not " unknowns" they are what has already been established and why this has been taking so long. How many people who voted to leave actually knew they were voting to destroy their country? at the time? Given the severity of this, they really should make sure the people know what they are doing and make sure they really want to do that.

Dreiko:

Palindromemordnilap:

Dreiko:
She should have just taken a no deal option and gone ahead with it since that's the democratic thing to do.

Since the standards of the Brexit we have was never something actually voted for or stated by the British people, no, that would in fact not be the democratic thing to do

I'm just wondering if the date of leaving she stated is something else thats going to get pushed back like most of the dates for doing things she's given us

My understanding is that the deal that was being suggested last by May but ultimately rejected by the rest of the politicians was in fact not in following with at the very least the spirit of leaving the EU. It would basically retain all the reasons why the UK wants out such as having to pay money to the EU and whatnot and it would just technically count the UK as being not in the EU as a formality.

I think these things that made the deal undesirable are implied as being what the UK desires to rid itself of in exiting the EU, so keeping those even after having left defeats the point and you can never have a vote that covers every single thing that falls behind one's desire to be autonomous and retain sovereignty but you can still understand when something is not in line with that thinking.

Yeah you've really kind of shifted what you're talking about there, haven't you? Democratic would imply that it was something the people of the UK had knowingly voted for. But terms were never stated, and a vote on what kind of Brexit we'd want has never been held. So its not the will of the people, and given that no kind of arrangement has been reached in Parliament you can't even say its the will of the people's representatives in government. So how exactly are you defining 'democratic' here? Because it seems suspiciously like you really mean "the thing I want" not "the thing the people want"

Abomination:
The solution to this is a second referendum, stating that "Hey, looks like we can not deliver as promised. Do you want us to continue to fuck this economy in this purgatory-limbo of being both within and without the EU or should we swallow our pride and take back our desire to leave the EU?"

Completely reasonable to at least consider a new referendum due to changes on the ground.

Because that is literally what has happened here. People voted "Yes" thinking the idea of leaving was as was written, they did not know that leaving would have the repercussions that are being presented now because the average voter knows very little about the full intricacies of EU membership and responsibilities.

Excellent point, it's a very complex issue.

Also, those that pushed the Brexit referendum in the first place, lying by omission to the UK public, should have all private assets seized to pay for the damage their posturing has caused the UK. Or lined up against a wall and shot. Either is fine with me.

Dreiko:

You can never know what effect potential lies had to the outcome so it's debatable whether or not any election truly was built on deception. Who knows, maybe people voted to leave for other reasons. You certainly can't prove they didn't.

I wasn't talking about lies, actually; I was referring to electoral law. The Leave campaign repeatedly broke electoral law on both spending and campaign coordination.

Seanchaidh:
I don't know, but this seems a great response:

Yup, sums it up nicely. Although what on earth was that Twitter user doing it describing as snapping? That was a calm and surgical demolition of May's tears. Although note notoriously right-wing Sky journo Adam Boulton getting disparagement in.

What I might say is that I'm sure the last 3 years have been a truly torrid and miserable time for Theresa May. She got handed an appalling mess, then she made a whole load more errors and everything went more wrong. I can actually raise some sympathy for her, because I suspect she has really suffered: I wouldn't be surprised if her tears were partly the stress and sense of failure finally cracking through rather than having to give up the job. In general though, she wasn't up to the task, and she has to go.

Dreiko:
Again, that's just motivation for the status-quo to sabotage the attempt on purpose because they're against it and then claim it's undoable when in reality they could have done it if they tried. It also gives all the power to the EU cause all they have to do is offer unacceptable deals to the UK long enough until people become propagandized sufficiently to change their minds.

Outside the frothing of the further right wing, no-one can claim the EU has behaved unreasonably. It said from the start what it was looking for, and what conditions it would accept in return for what, and it has stuck to them.

The further right are mad because their lying scumbag representatives and media that they could have it all, and the EU would roll over and give it to them. Now reality has arrived, they refuse to admit their lies and instead claim the EU somehow sort of "cheated", or that somehow the UK government sabotaged or betrayed their country. This is part of what this horseshit "No deal" nonsense is about: a fundamental inability by certain Leave big cheeses to give Leave voters what they said they would. After all, the second-class option they persuaded people to follow will expose them as liars. To protect their egos they'd rather blow up the evidence - the second-class option - and take a third-class option instead.

You can never know what effect potential lies had to the outcome so it's debatable whether or not any election truly was built on deception. Who knows, maybe people voted to leave for other reasons. You certainly can't prove they didn't.

The one thing we do know is that people voted to leave.

Fun fact: if the referendum had been legally binding policy, the legal breaches in how it was conducted would mean it would have to be re-run. However, because it was merely "advisory" on Parliament, it doesn't.

I honestly don't see how this ends except to send a vote back to the people, or perhaps a general election. Parliament is clearly stuck.

Agema:
The further right are mad because their lying scumbag

Huh, it's one of those rare cases when you can spell it "their" or "they're" and it still works.

Dreiko:
Again, that's just motivation for the status-quo to sabotage the attempt on purpose because they're against it and then claim it's undoable when in reality they could have done it if they tried. It also gives all the power to the EU cause all they have to do is offer unacceptable deals to the UK long enough until people become propagandized sufficiently to change their minds.

Well what is undoable is getting a deal that meets all the demands of the UK simply because some of their demands come with obligations they demand not to have. The EU is not offering unacceptable deals, the UK is asking for the unacceptable. Switzerland, EAA countries and Turkey managed to get deals with the EU, but the UK refuses any of the obligations coming with the deals those countries have signed. Basically, like always, the UK wants to be treated like a spoiled brat who gets more than the rest. That simply won't work anymore. The EU already gave the UK preferential treatment and all they got for it was this messy brexit.

Dreiko:

It would be democratic if they had already left and then there was an option to return. You can't undo a vote just because it's command hasn't been implemented yet and people have changed their minds in the meantime. That's not how democracy works and if you did do that all it'd do is give people in power the suggestion that any time the public votes against their desires they can just fail at conducting what the public commanded them to and just wait until media propaganda has swayed enough minds. It's a pro-status-quo approach.

You first have to carry out the will of the people from the initial vote and actually leave and then you can have a new vote about entering or leaving. You can't vote to undo the previous vote before the actual result is fully carried out though, otherwise with your logic if Trump loses next year he'll be able to just call another vote which will have his side that just lost he more motivated to go vote.

You seem to be severly misinformed on how western representative democracy works. The voters are allowed to change their mind on crucial issues after a few years. It is usually after 4-5 years but the US has it happen every 2 years. If the voters change their minds and elect a new set of politicians to run the country (or state/province/district/city/etx), those politicians have a mandate to stop any projects the previous group of politicians started and replace them with a new set of projects.

eg. When Trump was elected US President, he had the right to abandon Obama's universal healthcare agenda. He was not required to implement universal healthcare and only scrap it when it was successful. That would be idiotic.

The only issue with a second Brexit referendum is whether enough time has elapsed since the previous vote on the issue to warrant a revote on the issue. When May won the last election it reaffirmed her mandate to proceed with Brexit. However, her failure to complete the task has eroded the mandate and now that she resigned the mandate is severely in doubt. Whoever, becomes the new Prime Minister needs to reaffirm the mandate either by calling an election or a referendum.

Nielas:
Whoever, becomes the new Prime Minister needs to reaffirm the mandate either by calling an election or a referendum.

In a sane world, sure. However, the tactic thus far-- of insisting under all circumstances that the original mandate stands, and any deviation is betrayal-- has worked for them so far.

I think another referendum and/or a general election are unlikely before Brexit comes to pass. Another referendum is certainly reasonable, on the basis of the electoral lawbreaking alone. But the government is not obligated to do it, and it would damage the Conservative Party, which is their primary concern. They hold that concern far above the national interest.

Nielas:

Dreiko:

It would be democratic if they had already left and then there was an option to return. You can't undo a vote just because it's command hasn't been implemented yet and people have changed their minds in the meantime. That's not how democracy works and if you did do that all it'd do is give people in power the suggestion that any time the public votes against their desires they can just fail at conducting what the public commanded them to and just wait until media propaganda has swayed enough minds. It's a pro-status-quo approach.

You first have to carry out the will of the people from the initial vote and actually leave and then you can have a new vote about entering or leaving. You can't vote to undo the previous vote before the actual result is fully carried out though, otherwise with your logic if Trump loses next year he'll be able to just call another vote which will have his side that just lost he more motivated to go vote.

You seem to be severly misinformed on how western representative democracy works. The voters are allowed to change their mind on crucial issues after a few years. It is usually after 4-5 years but the US has it happen every 2 years. If the voters change their minds and elect a new set of politicians to run the country (or state/province/district/city/etx), those politicians have a mandate to stop any projects the previous group of politicians started and replace them with a new set of projects.

eg. When Trump was elected US President, he had the right to abandon Obama's universal healthcare agenda. He was not required to implement universal healthcare and only scrap it when it was successful. That would be idiotic.

The only issue with a second Brexit referendum is whether enough time has elapsed since the previous vote on the issue to warrant a revote on the issue. When May won the last election it reaffirmed her mandate to proceed with Brexit. However, her failure to complete the task has eroded the mandate and now that she resigned the mandate is severely in doubt. Whoever, becomes the new Prime Minister needs to reaffirm the mandate either by calling an election or a referendum.

The difference between your examples and this case is that the thing being upturned (eg. obamacare) did come into being and the results of it were what the basis for the opposition to it is founded upon.

Brexit hasn't happened yet so until it does and whatever follows it comes to play, any opposition to it is merely that of the losing side being sore losers and not wanting to accept the democratic result. If you give in to that you give the whiners' veto to every losing side in any future vote. I seriously doubt the same people would be asking for another vote if stay had won in that same process.

The issue with time is also a valid one but we're not even at that point yet. The thing you're counting those 2 years off of is British politicians failing to actually do a proper Brexit basically. Whatever animus is there is their fault, it's not the fault of the referendum. If the UK had actually left the EU 2 years ago then sure, having a vote about being in the EU would be absolutely fine.

Dreiko:

Brexit hasn't happened yet so until it does and whatever follows it comes to play, any opposition to it is merely that of the losing side being sore losers and not wanting to accept the democratic result.

Do you believe that what we know now is unchanged from what we knew then?

I'll remind you of two things before you answer: Firstly, that we have now received the government's commissioned impact reports, the existence of which had previously been denied by David Davis (and they're not pretty). Secondly, that several core campaign promises were retracted within 24 hours of the result announcement.

If you give in to that you give the whiners' veto to every losing side in any future vote. I seriously doubt the same people would be asking for another vote if stay had won in that same process.

Do you know why we know about the severe electoral lawbreaking within the Leave campaign?

It was revealed by a whistleblower who worked hard on that very campaign. Somebody who believed in leaving the EU strongly enough to devote a huge amount of time to it.

Someone who also believed that the people of the UK were entitled to a fair, legal referendum. Because, in truth, both Leavers and Remainers should be fucking incensed by that. A fair referendum was denied to all of us; both sides. Not all Leavers want to leave by relying on dubious, illegal means.

CM156:

Abomination:

[quote]Also, those that pushed the Brexit referendum in the first place, lying by omission to the UK public, should have all private assets seized to pay for the damage their posturing has caused the UK. Or lined up against a wall and shot. Either is fine with me.

I do understand where he's coming from. It's incredibly annoying to see people in power mislead the public, and we are the ones who have to clean up after them.

Marik2:

CM156:

Abomination:

[quote]Also, those that pushed the Brexit referendum in the first place, lying by omission to the UK public, should have all private assets seized to pay for the damage their posturing has caused the UK. Or lined up against a wall and shot. Either is fine with me.

I do understand where he's coming from. It's incredibly annoying to see people in power mislead the public, and we are the ones who have to clean up after them.

If corruption and essentially crippling the economy are NOT punished then people will continue to be corrupt and cripple the economy.

These were not cases of "Whoopsie Dasie", these were cases of "Hey, I know a real easy way to get elected on a shoddy platform and reap the benefits of that position temporarily".

generals3:
Basically, like always, the UK wants to be treated like a spoiled brat who gets more than the rest. That simply won't work anymore. The EU already gave the UK preferential treatment and all they got for it was this messy brexit.

This is all a colossal failure of British politics. The British politicians have broadly always understood the value of the EU, but they've been too busy playing domestic politics. Eventually, the anti-EU rhetoric and scapegoating for cheap and easy votes became the reality to the public. Even as Brexit crumbles around the British, too few (mostly Tories) are still prepared to stand up and tell the Brexiter public they're delusional and have been promised lies... because they want the votes of those Brexiters.

It has in a way been good for the rest of the EU, because it's told them all what happens if they don't fight for and make a case for the EU.

Dreiko:

Brexit hasn't happened yet so until it does and whatever follows it comes to play, any opposition to it is merely that of the losing side being sore losers and not wanting to accept the democratic result. If you give in to that you give the whiners' veto to every losing side in any future vote. I seriously doubt the same people would be asking for another vote if stay had won in that same process.

The referendum demanded the UK leave the EU. It didn't say how and in what form, yet that's probably the most important thing. A bad Brexit that fails the needs of the country is going to cause a great deal of pain and misery. People ultimately want a better Britain and Brexit needs to deliver that, otherwise even the people who "won" their Brexit will be losers too. In this sense, the referendum was a catastrophe, because the Leave option did not actually let the public know key information they needed for informed choice.

It is therefore absolutely the right thing to do to give the public crystal clear options and let them give full informed consent about what they want to subject their own country too - up to and including the right to change their mind.

I seriously doubt the same people would be asking for another vote if stay had won in that same process.

Actually, numerous leading Brexiters said exactly that, that they would seek another vote.

Nigel Farage: "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way." [1]

David Davis: "If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy."

Also by David Davis:
"There is a proper role for referendums in constitutional change, but only if done properly. If it is not done properly, it can be a dangerous tool... Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. So legislation should be debated by Members of Parliament on the Floor of the House, and then put to the electorate for the voters to judge. We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards. For referendums to be fair and compatible with our parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible and to know exactly what they are voting for. Referendums need to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it."

And yet, this is almost exactly what the Brexit referendum didn't do: the Leave position gave the public "a blank sheet of paper" and asked the politicians to fill in the details afterwards. It ended in a clusterfuck, as he predicted long before. But again: didn't hear him voicing his doubts after the referendum went his way and he took up the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU job of filling in the details.

[1] Funny how it suddenly became finished business once he was on the winning end of 52-48.

Also forgot to mention, down goes May!!! Down goes another conservative!!! Down goes a Prime minister of a country of sixty million!!!

trunkage:

bluegate:

Dreiko:
British politics is kinda hilarious at this time and this one prolly will add do it. I expect Corbin to win in the end of course big but I also am thoroughly enjoying how the UKIP people from youtube are getting everyone mad enough to throw shakes at them and whatnot. All in all it's thoroughly entertaining.

But yeah from what I have gathered, May's issue was that she had an inability to be firm and kept trying to appease the EU too much. She should have just taken a no deal option and gone ahead with it since that's the democratic thing to do. Trying to appease the EU which is freaking out cause it feels it's about to collapse is impossible.

Yeah, damn her for trying to make the UK leave in an orderly fashion with the least amount of damage or shock to the country 🤷

Farage keeps going on about immediately cutting ties and the EU will come begging to the UK for business. All this trying to do a deal before leaving is hurting the UK...

Which leads me to believe Farage has not much understanding of politics despite being an MP for two decades.

You know how the Big Short is about a bunch of guys who saw the 2008 financial crisis coming, and positioned themselves to make a load of money when it happened? Farage is those guys, only he's actively trying to make the crash happen..

He doesn't care if he's talking out of his own arse, so long as he can convince enough of the british people to slit their own throats to line his pockets.

One thing I'm not seeing talked about is that the EU is moving to ban offshore tax evasion, something Farage, Certain Tories and a lot of Tory donors would like to avoid... and will only be avoided with a No Deal Brexit.

Abomination:
If corruption and essentially crippling the economy are NOT punished then people will continue to be corrupt and cripple the economy.

These were not cases of "Whoopsie Dasie", these were cases of "Hey, I know a real easy way to get elected on a shoddy platform and reap the benefits of that position temporarily".

Not saying I disagree with the sentiment (it's impractical, though), but that's the sort of attitude you keep condemning from Saelune.

Windknight:

trunkage:

bluegate:
Yeah, damn her for trying to make the UK leave in an orderly fashion with the least amount of damage or shock to the country 🤷

Farage keeps going on about immediately cutting ties and the EU will come begging to the UK for business. All this trying to do a deal before leaving is hurting the UK...

Which leads me to believe Farage has not much understanding of politics despite being an MP for two decades.

You know how the Big Short is about a bunch of guys who saw the 2008 financial crisis coming, and positioned themselves to make a load of money when it happened? Farage is those guys, only he's actively trying to make the crash happen..

He doesn't care if he's talking out of his own arse, so long as he can convince enough of the british people to slit their own throats to line his pockets.

One thing I'm not seeing talked about is that the EU is moving to ban offshore tax evasion, something Farage, Certain Tories and a lot of Tory donors would like to avoid... and will only be avoided with a No Deal Brexit.

So he's actually George Soros... only deliberately making it happen

 Pages PREV 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