Jump to content
blandy

The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

That woman on question time who couldn't see why we didn't just leave the day after the referendum. 

This is why we have parliamentary democracy. I don't believe in any sort of intelligence test to qualify to vote, but executive decisions must be in the hands of those who are trained, and paid to do it. That way, we are at least know who to blame when they screw up, and we can effectively fire them in an election. Who's going to fire the 17.4 million if/when Brexit proves catastrophic? You, me and the man on the Clapham omnibus do not have the information, nor the time, nor the pay grade to make those sort of decisions. It's not our job, never has been. Throwing it to a referendum was not just stupid and irresponsible, but it set a dangerous precedent. 

I don't see the idea that large constitutional changes shouldn't get public support via a referendum taking hold. You'll notice that everybody is talking about if/when the next Scottish independence referendum will be held, and nobody is really suggesting that the SNP should just be able to choose it because they have a majority in the Scottish Parliament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

I don't get involved on here as I can get very political. An the fact some of you claim Coybyn would be better than what we have, reiterates the fact why I should stay out.

What a convincing argument.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

I don't see the idea that large constitutional changes shouldn't get public support via a referendum taking hold. You'll notice that everybody is talking about if/when the next Scottish independence referendum will be held, and nobody is really suggesting that the SNP should just be able to choose it because they have a majority in the Scottish Parliament.

Well, I'm not a Scot, but if I was, I'd want to see a VERY convincing argument about the future economic prospects of an independent Scotland, and I'd want any such decision made by those who were willing to carry the can, rather than trusting to the electorate's feelings about Bannockburn and Cullodden. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Well, I'm not a Scot, but if I was, I'd want to see a VERY convincing argument about the future economic prospects of an independent Scotland, and I'd want any such decision made by those who were willing to carry the can, rather than trusting to the electorate's feelings about Bannockburn and Cullodden. 

The point is, the SNP would always be willing to 'carry the can' for that decision. It's the single driving political conviction they have.* If the only requirement for independence is for the SNP to form a majority in the Scottish Parliament, then they would have done it years ago, and they would have only needed one majority, in history, to achieve this goal.

Maybe that would have been better for Scotland; I don't think so, but I don't have very strong opinions on the matter. But the argument that it's important that the public get a direct say on enormous constitutional questions is not ridiculous on its face. Plausible alternatives include the SNP gaining independence on 35% of the vote in a first-past-the-post election, and the Spanish state locking away democratically-electede politicians for more than a decade for testing the strength of Catalan feeling for independence.

*EDIT: I meant to add, many elected nationalist politicians became involved in their cause for precisely the sort of 'emotional' feelings about Bannockburn and Cullodden that you suggest might corrupt the electorate's considered opinion.

Edited by HanoiVillan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

I think a second referendum is probably the least bad option, but I come back to my comments above about complexity, and whose responsibility it is. I can only assume that the Johnson deal would require more than one page of A4, and would require some detailed scrutiny by people who know what they are talking about, rather than Sharon from Stoke (or for that matter, Mike from Leeds), who is more likely to vote on 'gut feeling'. These things should not be decided by 'gut feeling'. 

It’s a valid point , how indeed do you summarise the “deal” in a way that people can understand... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

I think a second referendum is probably the least bad option, but I come back to my comments above about complexity, and whose responsibility it is. I can only assume that the Johnson deal would require more than one page of A4, and would require some detailed scrutiny by people who know what they are talking about, rather than Sharon from Stoke (or for that matter, Mike from Leeds), who is more likely to vote on 'gut feeling'. These things should not be decided by 'gut feeling'. 

I think like you said the referendum was a dangerous precedent to set but having gone down that route in terms of membership of the EU then as simply revoking isn't going to happen the only potential way out of this mess is to go back to the people and hope that enough now see they were duped and promised unicorns that can't be delivered, as shown in Johnsons deal, and change their minds or that those that didn't vote before who would have voted to remain now come out and vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it feasible that the EU will not grant any extension to force Parliament to agree the deal, for fear of a no deal? Is this why the government seem confident?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, brommy said:

Is it feasible that the EU will not grant any extension to force Parliament to agree the deal, for fear of a no deal? Is this why the government seem confident?

The potential for no deal is far greater by not granting the extension. The whole reason for the Letwin amendment being attached to Johnson's deal yesterday is that if the legislation behind Johnsons deal is blocked it then prevents no deal by default.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, brommy said:

Is it feasible that the EU will not grant any extension to force Parliament to agree the deal, for fear of a no deal? Is this why the government seem confident?

I was thinking about this yesterday .. as parliament have in effect said leaving with no deal isn’t an option , if the EU refuse an extension does that by default mean we’d have to revoke article 50 ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I was thinking about this yesterday .. as parliament have in effect said leaving with no deal isn’t an option , if the EU refuse an extension does that by default mean we’d have to revoke article 50 ?

 

Only if you believe politicians will do what they say. :)

It'd be...interesting, but fairly bad for the country either way, wouldn't it. If they're put in a spot where they have to pick no deal or no Brexit. I know which I'd prefer, but I don't see either outcome doing anything to help heal the rift in the country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Only if you believe politicians will do what they say. :)

It'd be...interesting, but fairly bad for the country either way, wouldn't it. If they're put in a spot where they have to pick no deal or no Brexit. I know which I'd prefer, but I don't see either outcome doing anything to help heal the rift in the country. 

Yeah I agree , I was just trying to figure out where it could go next , guess a lot depends on  the outcome of the vote on Johnson’s deal , assuming Bercow actually allows it to take place , think he rules on that tomorrow 

Edited by tonyh29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

The potential for no deal is far greater by not granting the extension. The whole reason for the Letwin amendment being attached to Johnson's deal yesterday is that if the legislation behind Johnsons deal is blocked it then prevents no deal by default.

Whether Parliament agrees or doesn’t agree the current deal, my understanding is, if the EU refuse an extension, the UK has no choice but to leave at 23:00 GMT on 31st October. Faced with leaving without a deal, it would force Parliament to pass the withdrawal agreement; although I’d prefer if someone could tell me why I’m wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I was thinking about this yesterday .. as parliament have in effect said leaving with no deal isn’t an option , if the EU refuse an extension does that by default mean we’d have to revoke article 50 ?

 

Essentially a straight vote - Revoke vs Deal. Probably never going to happen but what would win in Parliament? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bickster said:

If I was put before a firing squad where I had to make the binary choice or die, I'd pick Corbyn but only then

That's useful to know.  I've passed your details to the Merseyside Corrections Committee.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Would anyone actually vote Tory because of Johnson though?   I wouldn’t want either him or Corbyn as PM. Any vote would be based on party manifesto. Not these two clowns.

When voting ‘blind’, just based on manifesto, the country votes Labour.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, foreveryoung said:

I don't get involved on here as I can get very political. An the fact some of you claim Coybyn would be better than what we have, reiterates the fact why I should stay out.

tenor.gif?itemid=7198574

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

When voting ‘blind’, just based on manifesto, the country votes Labour.

I don’t agree.   Also why do you say voting based just in a manifesto is voting blind? It’s more important than voting simply on whether you like the leader of the party or not surely?

Edited by Vive_La_Villa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

I don’t agree.   Also why do you say voting based just in a manifesto is voting blind? It’s more important than voting simply on whether you like the leader of the party or not surely?

Theres been studies where the parties manifestos are rated in 'blind' tests (i.e. they were stripped of the party identification and boiled down to the basic policies) and generally, Labour comes out on top in them.

But when it comes to the polling station, the country (/England) tends to swerve right.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â