UK - December 2019 General Election

[Dave Rogers]

They voted against May's deal. May supported remain, and her deal was Brexit in name only.

And yet it involved leaving the EU. So apparently there are ways of leaving the EU that aren't actual leaving the EU, but there's nothing ambiguous or tricky about leaving the EU. Would you like to quit while you're not ahead on this one?

The question is, "What referendum results have been reversed before being implemented?"

If you scroll up, you'll se that that wasn't the question you actually asked; it was "What other democratic decisions have been reversed before being implemented?" But I'm not surprised at a Brexiteer deciding to pretend he asked a completely different question to the one he actually asked.

Dave

 

[ceptimus]

If you scroll up, you'll se that that wasn't the question you actually asked; it was "What other democratic decisions have been reversed before being implemented?" But I'm not surprised at a Brexiteer deciding to pretend he asked a completely different question to the one he actually asked.

Dave

Go on then, include "democratic decisions" Surely even you don't think there are any election results that have been reversed before being implemented?

So, INCLUDING ELECTIONS AND REFERENDUMS, what democratic decisions have been reversed before being implemented?

If you want to move the goalposts again, and maybe include other 'democratic decisions' in categories other than elections and referendums, let us know what those other categories are.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Go on then, include "democratic decisions" Surely even you don't think there are any election results that have been reversed before being implemented?

So, INCLUDING ELECTIONS AND REFERENDUMS, what democratic decisions have been reversed before being implemented?

I'm including in "democratic decisions" the election of a government on a platform that it then doesn't implement. If you think that isn't a democratic decision, then we've barely had any democratic decisions in the entire history of UK parliamentary democracy.

If you want to move the goalposts again,

Dave

 

[Mojo]

They have said they will have a brexit deal as one option and remain as another. That doesn't sound very confusing to me.

It’s probably a bit tricky for most Brexiteers.

 

[Rolfe]

A friend of mine who was very politically aware voted Leave because he was concerned that the TTIP agreement with the USA the EU was contemplating at the time would lead to the NHS being sold off to the USA.

 

[ceptimus]

I'm including in "democratic decisions" the election of a government on a platform that it then doesn't implement. If you think that isn't a democratic decision, then we've barely had any democratic decisions in the entire history of UK parliamentary democracy.





Dave

I think a referendum, held because parliament couldn't itself reach a decision, and with the promise to the people that the result would be implemented, overrides any subsequent choices made by those politicians.


Your irony meter is misplaced, unless you're directing it at yourself and your fellow remoaners.

 

[Vixen]

'We would like X' does not make Y unreasonable. You do understand that don't you?

Especially when Y is asking 'Do you really want X now that you know what X is?'

'Would you like a present?'

'YES PLEASE!'

'It's a box full of Ebola, still want it?'

'Well of course because it would be unreasonable and undemocratic to change my mind now after saying yes and you are a bad person for even asking me!'

You have to think of something a bit stronger as Ebola is far too subtle for a Brexiteer.

 

[p0lka]

Andrew Neil has called the PM out,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50679252

It's on youtube as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=lZATuljaRxs&feature=emb_logo

this could be interesting.

 

[Rolfe]

It doesn't really matter if "most of" the Leave voters haven't changed their minds. It was a very tight result and it wouldn't take many mind-changers to reverse it.


By the way, the 1979 Scottish devolution referendum produced a majority for Yes of about the same size as the 2016 majority for Leave. That wasn't implemented.

 

[GlennB]

Andrew Neil has called the PM out,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50679252

It's on youtube as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=lZATuljaRxs&feature=emb_logo

this could be interesting.

Interesting if Johnson takes up that challenge, but he won't. In the short any run his avoiding that interview will make sweet fanny adams difference.

 

[p0lka]

Interesting if Johnson takes up that challenge, but he won't. In the short any run his avoiding that interview will make sweet fanny adams difference.

Yeah,
it could be interesting though in that the BBC gets called biased a lot, but here they're putting the PM right in the firing line, via andrew neil.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I think a referendum, held because parliament couldn't itself reach a decision, and with the promise to the people that the result would be implemented, overrides any subsequent choices made by those politicians.

Parliament were QUITE capable of reaching a decision on EU membership prior to the referendum. It's only since the 'clear and simple' question was asked that there has been any problem deciding on anything.

The problem was the right wing of the Tories and the idiot machines in the right wing press. That's why we had a referendum.

 

[ceptimus]

How many MPs voted in favour of holding the referendum?

How many MPs voted in favour of triggering Article 50?

Yes, that's right. Overwhelming majorities in favour both times.

Which political parties stood on manifestoes of implementing the referendum result? Both the major ones did, though Labour have sort-of half U-turned since then.

Months of wasted time because professional politicians won't accept the clear result of the ballot box.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

How many MPs voted in favour of holding the referendum?

How many MPs voted in favour of triggering Article 50?

Yes, that's right. Overwhelming majorities in favour both times.

Which political parties stood on manifestoes of implementing the referendum result? Both the major ones did, though Labour have sort-of half U-turned since then.

Months of wasted time because professional politicians won't accept the clear result of the ballot box.

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck would chuck wood?

Welcome to random irrelevant question time with me, your host, Johnny Brexit.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

How many MPs voted in favour of holding the referendum?

How many MPs voted in favour of triggering Article 50?

Yes, that's right. Overwhelming majorities in favour both times.

When MPs vote for what I want it means something important about the validity of that decision and I can use it to show how right it is.

Which political parties stood on manifestoes of implementing the referendum result? Both the major ones did, though Labour have sort-of half U-turned since then.

When MPs don't vote for something I want it means they are evil ignorers of the Will of the People (TM) and I can use that to show how wrong it is.

Months of wasted time because professional politicians won't accept the clear result of the ballot box.

Or years of wasted time because bigots can't accept Muslims, immigrants and refugees living in the country.

Incidentally, so what if months have been wasted? What's the rush? The indecent haste and insistence that Brexit is done quickly rather than properly only suggests that Brexiteers can't believe they got away with it and want to smuggle any old ******** through before the people wake up and realise what they did.

What difference does it make if we leave the EU in 2019, 2020, 2022 or 2025?

 

[dudalb]

If Labor does poorly in this election, but keeps Corbyn on as leader, then they are truly clueless.

 

[McHrozni]

Ideally, yes, but I'm not sure we can get there from here right at the moment. The 2016 referendum result has been elevated to such a level of perceived legitimacy that it doesn't seem likely that it can be challenged by anything short of another referendum, to the point where the LibDems are being criticised for making a manifesto promise that contradicts its results - even though it's a perfectly proper way to determine government policy. But the Labour proposal, of determining a specific course of action and then holding a referendum to approve or reject that course, is a damned sight more sensible and straightforward than the current mess of contradictory interpretations each of which claims to be the One True Meaning of the referendum result; a referendum asking "Do we leave on this specific deal, or do we stay?" is at least not susceptible to any such misinterpretation.

The problem, of course, is that the 2016 referendum question was a stupid one to ask; but there's no way to un-ask it.

Dave

It's not that Labour wants to hold another referendum that's the issue.

The issue is their overall plan: dismiss this deal as Tory nonesense, negotiate a new and much better deal and offer that or Bremain, while staying neutral in the campaign.

That is the second worst approach imaginable (the worst being what's going on right now). First of all, it assumes you can negotiate a new and much better deal at all. There is no reason to expect EU will be in the mood for much more negotiating. Second, there's no reason to assume you can negotiate a much better deal. Staying netural in the campaign is abdicating their responsibility as political representatives of the nation. Finally, there is no "no-deal Brexit" option, which means the referendum result will be painted as illegitemate by the opponents.

Labour plan has the seed of a solution, nothing more.

Here's what needs to be done: There needs to be a time-limited debate on what is expected from a new deal. The time limit must be short enough to keep interest (7-30 days), the debate public and the wish must be realistic. If no realistic proposal for a deal can be made this should be communicated to the public, this is about the only thing that can happen. Then the referendum must be called, between either Bremain and no-deal Brexit, or else a threeway between Bremain, whatever deal is realistic (current deal +-) and no-deal Brexit.
The threeway referendum should either be in the form of a transferable vote or else two referendums with two ballots. The first ballot is whether the deal should be ratified or not, the second ballot is only counted if no wins and asks the question between no deal Brexit and Bremain. If Bremain wins the law should stipulate the question of Brexit is not debated again by Parliament for at least 10 years, to allow time to heal.

That's how you unboil this particular egg. Whatever wins, wins. Even if there's a no-deal Brexit, at least it has a democratic mandate behind it, not this weird septic tank of an issue.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It's not that Labour wants to hold another referendum that's the issue.

The issue is their overall plan: dismiss this deal as Tory nonesense, negotiate a new and much better deal and offer that or Bremain, while staying neutral in the campaign.

That is the second worst approach imaginable (the worst being what's going on right now). First of all, it assumes you can negotiate a new and much better deal at all. There is no reason to expect EU will be in the mood for much more negotiating. Second, there's no reason to assume you can negotiate a much better deal. Staying netural in the campaign is abdicating their responsibility as political representatives of the nation. Finally, there is no "no-deal Brexit" option, which means the referendum result will be painted as illegitemate by the opponents.

Labour plan has the seed of a solution, nothing more.

Here's what needs to be done: There needs to be a time-limited debate on what is expected from a new deal. The time limit must be short enough to keep interest (7-30 days), the debate public and the wish must be realistic. If no realistic proposal for a deal can be made this should be communicated to the public, this is about the only thing that can happen. Then the referendum must be called, between either Bremain and no-deal Brexit, or else a threeway between Bremain, whatever deal is realistic (current deal +-) and no-deal Brexit.
The threeway referendum should either be in the form of a transferable vote or else two referendums with two ballots. The first ballot is whether the deal should be ratified or not, the second ballot is only counted if no wins and asks the question between no deal Brexit and Bremain. If Bremain wins the law should stipulate the question of Brexit is not debated again by Parliament for at least 10 years, to allow time to heal.

That's how you unboil this particular egg. Whatever wins, wins. Even if there's a no-deal Brexit, at least it has a democratic mandate behind it, not this weird septic tank of an issue.

McHrozni

1. I don't think Labour would stay neutral, only JC.
2. A better deal than the Tory plan is easily achievable. Any deal is better than Boris's no deal by default
3. Most of Labour's improvements seem to be thing like not leaving the CU which the EU would prefer. I imagine the unicorn elements get negotiated away.
4. I no longer care if a second referendum result is considered illegitimate by Brexit muppets. Let's face it the first one actually was and it doesn't seem to have affected anything. Plus they will be dead in 10 years mostly. If Labour are elected to govern then you can argue that no-deal has already been rejected because those who want no-deal will vote Tory.

 

[McHrozni]

1. I don't think Labour would stay neutral, only JC.

I'm only responding to their current promises. If they intend to break them that's fine, but their current public position is inane.

2. A better deal than the Tory plan is easily achievable.

A better deal would involve UK remaining in the EU. A (significantly) better Brexit deal is a pipe dream of a madman.

3. Most of Labour's improvements seem to be thing like not leaving the CU which the EU would prefer. I imagine the unicorn elements get negotiated away.

Labour wants to remain in CU and negotiate its own trade deals. This is patent nonesense, EU can not agree to that. It's a form of the initial Brexit proposals, where UK would be a member of the CU with a standing equal to the rest of the EU.

This is basically what Tories have been trying to achieve for the past three years, to dramatic success.

Well, dramatic anyway.

4. I no longer care if a second referendum result is considered illegitimate by Brexit muppets. Let's face it the first one actually was and it doesn't seem to have affected anything. Plus they will be dead in 10 years mostly. If Labour are elected to govern then you can argue that no-deal has already been rejected because those who want no-deal will vote Tory.

That's how you unboil this egg. If you just want to prolong the agony that's your perogative, but that's a Bad stance and an unreasonable political position to hold.

McHrozni

 

[Vixen]

If Labor does poorly in this election, but keeps Corbyn on as leader, then they are truly clueless.

So you keep saying.