|
Post by daveu on Aug 29, 2019 15:07:34 GMT
Didn't mention Hitler.
|
|
|
Post by shamstone on Aug 29, 2019 15:28:55 GMT
You just have
|
|
|
Post by malibustacey on Aug 29, 2019 16:45:00 GMT
I am also someone who would prefer to remain - however I think we should leave.
I just don’t understand why we have to burn everything on the way out.
|
|
|
Post by malibustacey on Aug 29, 2019 16:48:29 GMT
Incidentally, I got admitted to hospital today. People I have dealt with: Consultant, Doctor, Lead Nurse, Nurse - not one from the UK. This government better not threaten them.
Edit: Plus the blood lady.
|
|
|
Post by Better things to do in life on Aug 29, 2019 19:15:13 GMT
Two excellent Posts which I totally agree with. Although I voted to Remain I now believe that Leaving is the only option. DaveU appears to be representative of those who can't/won't accept the Referendum result. Those of us who hail from north of Watford can fully understand why people voted to Leave. The Remainers just need to grow up and accept it. I would accept the referendum result however dishonesty achieved if what we were getting was what was voted for. Of the options discussed prior to the referendum, no deal wasn't even among them. But even then, it's not actually the no deal Brexit I'm complaint about, it's Boris' flagrant abuse of our Constitution to force through an unpopular policy. If parliament had voted through a no deal Brexit then that's what we should have, but forcing it through is not only sticking two fingers up at democracy, but sets a dangerous precedent for the future when the next government with an unpopular policy decides to follow Boris' example. Errr, what about Bercows flagrant abuse of our Constitution to stop a popular (i.e voted for in a referendum) policy getting agreed and passed by parliament? Isn't his sticking two fingers up at his supposedly neutral role as Speaker to thwart any Brexit deal at all set a dangerous precedent for the future when the next government refuses to put into law what the public voted them to do? Johnson is having to take extreme action to combat extremely undemocratic and unchecked behaviour by Parliament for the last three years.
|
|
|
Post by malibustacey on Aug 29, 2019 19:33:02 GMT
Some thoughts...
What constitution is that? I’d love to read it.
When did this thwarting happen? It’s just I seem to remember vote to do a referendum, vote to start a50, 3 x votes for a withdrawal deal.
How does Parliament voting become undemocratic? Isn’t taking away the ability to vote more undemocratic?
|
|
|
Post by daveu on Aug 29, 2019 21:11:42 GMT
Oh dear, now we're denying the existence of a constitution simply because it isn't written down in a single document. Maybe you can arrange to rewrite history to erase all the atrocities this country perpetrated in the name of empire as well and we can all live in some Brexit utopia.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2019 21:47:25 GMT
Bercow is doing his duty protecting parliament Fact The referendum was done for the benefit of the Tories fact The referendum was flawed fact The vote was split and edged by leave at a time of high paranoia over immigration Fact There is No majority for no deal Fact In politics if you don't agree you continue to campaign fact Race hate crimes have risen dramatically since the referendum fact The only people to gain from leaving will be those who benefit from deregulation or are foreign powers who will have successfully weakened the E.U. and Britain (divide and conquer) Fact The vast majority of the public on both sides of the debate are largely ignorant of the pros and cons of membership fact Most should be in a better position now to make a more informed judgement fact There's been far too much bullshit fact
However you slice it though, you have to protect parliament from the excesses of any government and, or its leader and it cannot be allowed to govern with no checks and balances. An effective opposition is key to successful governance and shutting down the opposition is tantamount to criminal usurping of power and if allowed to get away with it sets a massively dangerous precedent for the whole damn country which ever side of the debate you are.
The last toff/ elitest to try it lost at Naseby, Marston Moor, Taunton and elsewhere and then lost his head.
This nation needs to replace any head of, or government that seeks to rule without due process of adversarial accountability.
|
|
|
Post by headstone on Aug 30, 2019 9:48:24 GMT
The majority of the public want any Brexit, the referendum said so, they weren't concerned with the details (Cameron failed to mention them). What amuses me is the "opposition" squawking non-democratic, when that is exactly what they are, trying to overturn or adjust the referendum result. Hypocrites or what? I was tempted to write to the paper, but I'll write on here instead, as it's a forum renowned for its sense of reason and moderation. As for the rest...if you are all so confident then why do you shun a second vote of any kind A second referendum is the antithesis of democracy, it's "let's keep going until we get the result we want". Also relevant to my mind is the votes in favour of leaving of those who have died since 2016 - should their votes no longer count? There were three more pages after nws' comment, but I'm not going to read them, so I apologise if someone else has made these points already.
|
|
|
Post by 61666 on Aug 30, 2019 10:13:18 GMT
I really don't understand the 'no need for a second referendum brigade'. Other than a basic fear of 'we won, so how dare you contradict us', the whole idea makes no sense. We vote every five years, or less, on a new government, simply to prevent any sort of regime taking control and becoming a dictatorship. Depending on preferences, it is a case of win some, lose some. The EU vote was SO important, but has been oft repeated here and elsewhere, the basic question was flawed, indeed badly argued, so that many people, especially leavers, did not know what they were voting for. Given the small overall majority, or indeed complete lack of one given it wasn't a majority of the whole electorate, is it any wonder many people remained disappointed with the consequences? I suspect many people, me included, now want Brexit to end. However, to accept the views of a small minority of politicians, in the hope of making it go away, is simply being short sighted and not thinking of the bigger picture. And when those politicians are operating what at best might be described as dubious tactics (and at worst towering arrogance in pursuit of personal motives), I find it astonishing that anyone can allow such things to occur to them without someone asking questions and offering alternatives. It is not sour grapes asking for a second referendum, it is about making sure we know what we are voting for. I didn't vote for Boris, because I am not a member of the Tory party. If the man had any sense of honour and duty, then a general election should be his first step, with Brexit delayed, so it can be widely debated, as part of the whole process. Instead, he is denying even parliament a vote. In the past, folk like him have been imprisoned in the Tower and even lost their heads for less. Now there's a thought.
|
|
|
Post by sword65 on Aug 30, 2019 11:39:29 GMT
Why can't you just get over the fact that you lost? What do you think would happen if you went to the FA and said that your opponents had 52%possession to your 48%and they won 1-0 but you hit the woodwork three times so you deserve the points? Now I know the FA are prone to some very silly decisions but I wouldn't fancy your chances. You LOST, move on.
|
|
|
Post by 61666 on Aug 30, 2019 12:08:17 GMT
Sorry, not a relevant arguement in my book. Brexit is way bigger than those sort of analogies and this is certainly well beyond basic win or lose. Many leavers would appear to agree too.
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Aug 30, 2019 12:28:52 GMT
No democracy anywhere else in the world would allow such a huge constitutional decision to be settled because 37% voted (in an advisory referendum) for it, and 34% voted against. All other democracies have some sort of minimum threshold before a vote is valid - over 50% of the electorate, or something similar. In Hungary, for instance, the only other country whose politics I am familiar with, you need over 66% of the MPs to vote for a constitutional change.
Even here in the UK, you need at least 40% of the electorate to vote 'yes' before you can call a strike in certain industries (introduced, somewhat ironically by, the Tories). So, we have the bizarre situation where the most important constitutional change in our lifetimes is seen as 'democratic' and 'the will of the people', when the vote wouldn't even have been enough to call a strike in the NHS.
And if anyone still feels that 52-48 was any sort of decisive victory, I point them at an interview Farage did with the Mirror, just before the referendum (when it looked like Leave would suffer a narrow defeat). He said that a 52-48 victory for Remain (exactly those numbers) would not be acceptable and the vote would have to be re-run.
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Aug 30, 2019 12:30:15 GMT
As for Parliament - we have a parliamentary democracy - ie Parliament is supreme - not the people, not the Queen, not the courts, not even the PM, just Parliament. And Parliament does not exist to represent the people or do our bidding, this is a complete fallacy - it exist purely to run the country as best it can. There have been many times over the last few hundred years where Parliament has decided to do something it considers right against the will of the people (abolishing the death penalty, for instance).
Our democracy starts and ends with our ability/right to elect an MP, once elected that MP then does (in theory) what he or she thinks is best for the country, even if that might be against the wishes of the majority of his/her constituents. If they don't like it, they simply vote him/her our at the next election. These Labour MPs who say they favour Remain but have to vote Leave because they represent a majority Leave constituency, are talking out of their collective arses. Their job is to do what is best for the country – not themselves.
And Bercow's job is simply to maintain that supremacy of Parliament, and to ensure it is not prevented from doing its job by any other agency - including the PM. The apparent 'power' of the Prime Minister is just a convention that has grown up over the centuries. He/she is simply the Monarch's First Minister, he or she represents Parliament to the Queen/King, he or she has no power of their own, unless granted by Parliament. That is why we don't vote for the Prime Minister.
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Aug 30, 2019 12:35:36 GMT
The referendum revealed something that we all should have been aware of, and worried about for decades – that a great deal of this country was deep in the shit because of the failure of governments to address the problem of the collapse of traditional industries, and the current ‘austerity’ programme (making the poor pay for a problem the rich had created). People were pissed of and angry, and that anger was harnessed by right-wing populist politicians like Farage, and careerists and narcissists like Johnson, and channelled into supporting Brexit. Something that would benefit them immensely, but completely screw the very people they persuaded to vote for it.
Membership of the EU was never the problem, and leaving it won’t be the answer – in fact it will make most Leavers' lives much more difficult. The referendum did send an important message to the government, but it was not that we need to leave the EU.
But, of course, it’s a lot easier to say that ‘we must honour the will of the people’ than to take responsibility for the mess and actually do something about it. When this is all over – whichever way it goes – nothing will have changed in all those places the government has ignored for decades, indeed, life will be a lot worse for most of them, but Britain will have fucked itself up totally in the process.
|
|