12gauge82 Posted March 13, 2019 Report Share Posted March 13, 2019 4 minutes ago, Blackstone said: A referendum that was advisory and not legally binding. The govt and parliament accepted this and went to negotiate an exit deal. Unsurprisingly, many of the things that the Leave campaign promised were simply not true. A trade deal with the EU was not the "easiest in history" to strike, and it certainly can't be done in an afternoon. If Brexiteers are so confident that the Will of the People is to leave, then why are they so afraid of a second vote, now that the People are much better informed as to the consequences? Bring on the hate mail Its not about being afraid of a second vote, I've no doubt in my mind another referendum with leave or remain on the ballot would result in an even bigger leave result, but they simply can't have another referendum on the same issue without enacting the first, it would be completely undemocratic and would make a mockary of the values our political system is based on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted March 13, 2019 Report Share Posted March 13, 2019 1 minute ago, Newbie to this said: A referendum that was advisory and not legally binding. That old chestnut, what did we have it for then ? 2 minutes ago, Newbie to this said: . Unsurprisingly, many of the things that the Leave campaign promised were simply not true The leave campaign had one job, they are not H M s government, their job was to campaign to leave. 3 minutes ago, Newbie to this said: A trade deal with the EU was not the "easiest in history" to strike It could be if they werent trying to overturn a vote of a sovereign country. But then , the EU dont believe in sovereign countries, their is only the Reich ! 7 minutes ago, Blackstone said: If Brexiteers are so confident that the Will of the People is to leave, then why are they so afraid of a second vote, now that the People are much better informed as to the consequences? Im not scared of a vote, Im scared of what a re run of the referendum for no good reason will do to the stability of this country. By all means vote on no deal or Mays deal, You have 18 days to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackstone Posted March 13, 2019 Report Share Posted March 13, 2019 The referendum has no power to bind Parliament (nothing does, that's basically the one sentence summary of our uncodified constitution). Parliament doesn't want to leave, and therefore in theory we should just be done here. It's a representative democracy, we elect these people to be more informed than us on our behalf and to make these informed decisions for us. They absolutely should listen to us, but they shouldn't come to us with major complex decisions. After all, isn't one of the main reasons for Leaving to retain our Sovereignty? And what is Sovereign? Parliament is. The case for a second referendum is the case for political cowardice and abdication of responsibility. They're not willing to slavishly bow to the result and vote for the deal, but they're also not willing to tell the British people that 4% more people got it wrong than got it right (it's not even saying the British people got it wrong ***). So instead they're going to do nothing and wait for the British people to tell them it's okay to do their ******* jobs. They're too proud to follow to the British people and too cowardly to lead the British people. We don't need a second referendum, we need Parliament to show some ******* leadership and hold a Parliamentary vote on withdrawing Article 50. It's not up to the British people, it's up to them, that's how the system works. If you're an MP who wants to remain then you can stand up there and cast your vote for remain and let your constituents judge you for it. This political paralysis is by far the most embarrassing thing about Brexit. Imagine the unlikely scenario of another leave vote. Are they just going to refuse to act for another two years and then hold a third referendum? How long must this farce continue? If tomorrow May introduced a bill to withdraw Article 50 and withdrew the whip they'd all be forced to make a clear and public choice between the looming no deal Brexit and Remain. Their constituents may judge them for that choice, hell, some of them may lose their seats, but it'd be better than this mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie to this Posted March 13, 2019 Report Share Posted March 13, 2019 7 minutes ago, Blackstone said: The referendum has no power to bind Parliament (nothing does, that's basically the one sentence summary of our uncodified constitution). Parliament doesn't want to leave, and therefore in theory we should just be done here. It's a representative democracy, we elect these people to be more informed than us on our behalf and to make these informed decisions for us. They absolutely should listen to us, but they shouldn't come to us with major complex decisions. After all, isn't one of the main reasons for Leaving to retain our Sovereignty? And what is Sovereign? Parliament is. The case for a second referendum is the case for political cowardice and abdication of responsibility. They're not willing to slavishly bow to the result and vote for the deal, but they're also not willing to tell the British people that 4% more people got it wrong than got it right (it's not even saying the British people got it wrong ***). So instead they're going to do nothing and wait for the British people to tell them it's okay to do their ******* jobs. They're too proud to follow to the British people and too cowardly to lead the British people. We don't need a second referendum, we need Parliament to show some ******* leadership and hold a Parliamentary vote on withdrawing Article 50. It's not up to the British people, it's up to them, that's how the system works. If you're an MP who wants to remain then you can stand up there and cast your vote for remain and let your constituents judge you for it. This political paralysis is by far the most embarrassing thing about Brexit. Imagine the unlikely scenario of another leave vote. Are they just going to refuse to act for another two years and then hold a third referendum? How long must this farce continue? If tomorrow May introduced a bill to withdraw Article 50 and withdrew the whip they'd all be forced to make a clear and public choice between the looming no deal Brexit and Remain. Their constituents may judge them for that choice, hell, some of them may lose their seats, but it'd be better than this mess. So yet another 'Sore Loser' that doesn't believe in Democracy. Not upholding Democracy would be the biggest embarrassment. Not sure why I am quoted in these, they are not my words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted March 13, 2019 Report Share Posted March 13, 2019 1 minute ago, Newbie to this said: So yet another 'Sore Loser' that doesn't believe in Democracy. Not upholding Democracy would be the biggest embarrassment. This IS democracy in action. Our elected members are not making decisions on our behalf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackstone Posted March 13, 2019 Report Share Posted March 13, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Newbie to this said: So yet another 'Sore Loser' that doesn't believe in Democracy. Not upholding Democracy would be the biggest embarrassment. What is "democracy" anyway? Straight democracy allows the majority to bully and oppress the minority. Your idea of democracy is not how the British democratic system works. Why do we elect representatives to make difficult decisions for us? Because the vast majority of us don't have time to become experts in subjects outside of what is applicable to our everyday lives (jobs and hobbies). The job of our representatives is to be informed. By sitting in Committees listening to the people who are experts. Edited March 13, 2019 by Blackstone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted March 13, 2019 Report Share Posted March 13, 2019 25 minutes ago, Blackstone said: Sovereignty? And what is Sovereign? Parliament is. Wrong, in this type of democracy, the people are sovereign . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted March 13, 2019 Report Share Posted March 13, 2019 (edited) Quote What is "democracy" anyway? Straight democracy allows the majority to bully and oppress the minority. Your idea of democracy is not how the British democratic system works. Why do we elect representatives to make difficult decisions for us? Because the vast majority of us don't have time to become experts in subjects outside of what is applicable to our everyday lives (jobs and hobbies). The job of our representatives is to be informed. By sitting in Committees listening to the people who are experts. The first para is pure stupidity. The second para is laughable. Is Diane Abbott one of the "experts". They are ordinary people, with expertise in very little. How many of these pigs with their nose in a trough have attended any committee meetings? I assume this is just a wind up. Edited March 13, 2019 by Gordon R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackstone Posted March 13, 2019 Report Share Posted March 13, 2019 Just now, Rewulf said: Wrong, in this type of democracy, the people are sovereign . No, Parliament is Sovereign. That's simply a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted March 13, 2019 Report Share Posted March 13, 2019 13 minutes ago, oowee said: This IS democracy in action. Our elected members are not making decisions on our behalf. Wrong, they are , some of them unashamedly going with what THEY want, saying its what we want, when the figures contradict them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackstone Posted March 13, 2019 Report Share Posted March 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, Gordon R said: The first sentence is pure stupidity. The second para is laughable. Is Diane Abbott one of the "experts". They are ordinary people, with expertise in very little. How many of these pigs with their nose in a trough have attended any committee meetings? I assume this is just a wind up. Diane Abbott, Chris Grayling, Karen Bradley, I agree are all incompetent cretins. It doesn't change the fact that a significant part of MPs jobs is to sit in committees to be briefed and informed on those subject matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted March 13, 2019 Report Share Posted March 13, 2019 Quote Diane Abbott, Chris Grayling, Karen Bradley, I agree are all incompetent cretins. It doesn't change the fact that a significant part of MPs jobs is to sit in committees to be briefed and informed on those subject matters. I think you missed Jezzer off your list. Your faith in our MPs is touching, if appallingly naïve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted March 13, 2019 Report Share Posted March 13, 2019 6 minutes ago, Blackstone said: No, Parliament is Sovereign. That's simply a fact. Well if you say its a fact, then it must be But Id have a read of this https://www.ft.com/content/9b00bca0-bd61-11e6-8b45-b8b81dd5d080 And that, just to be sure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_sovereignty We can effectively remove Parliament if we choose, how 'sovereign would they be after that ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted March 13, 2019 Report Share Posted March 13, 2019 (edited) Rewulf - just hang on a minute. Next you will be saying MPs aren't really experts at all. Edited March 13, 2019 by Gordon R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackstone Posted March 13, 2019 Report Share Posted March 13, 2019 1 minute ago, Rewulf said: Well if you say its a fact, then it must be But Id have a read of this https://www.ft.com/content/9b00bca0-bd61-11e6-8b45-b8b81dd5d080 And that, just to be sure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_sovereignty We can effectively remove Parliament if we choose, how 'sovereign would they be after that ? You've linked me to a Wikipedia article about Popular Sovereignty that doesn't mention the UK at all. You can go ahead and start a campaign to adopt Popular Sovereignty in the UK. Meanwhile, you can have a read of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted March 13, 2019 Report Share Posted March 13, 2019 3 minutes ago, Blackstone said: You've linked me to a Wikipedia article about Popular Sovereignty that doesn't mention the UK at all. You can go ahead and start a campaign to adopt Popular Sovereignty in the UK. Meanwhile, you can have a read of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/ Did you not bother with the FT link then ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackstone Posted March 13, 2019 Report Share Posted March 13, 2019 Just now, Rewulf said: Did you not bother with the FT link then ? It's paywalled. Also tell me how we the people can effectively remove Parliament if we choose. Short of a popular uprising and coup. Only the Queen has the authority to dissolve parliament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted March 13, 2019 Report Share Posted March 13, 2019 5 minutes ago, Blackstone said: You've linked me to a Wikipedia article about Popular Sovereignty that doesn't mention the UK at all. You can go ahead and start a campaign to adopt Popular Sovereignty in the UK. Meanwhile, you can have a read of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/ 👍 As is popular on here. Good post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted March 13, 2019 Report Share Posted March 13, 2019 Blackstone - your obsession with sovereignty is blinding you to the rank stupidity of many MPs, who:- Can't add up. Pervert the course of justice. Assault other MPs. Commit Perjury. To name but a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eyefor Posted March 13, 2019 Report Share Posted March 13, 2019 (edited) More of this please Edited March 13, 2019 by Eyefor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackstone Posted March 13, 2019 Report Share Posted March 13, 2019 6 minutes ago, Gordon R said: Blackstone - your obsession with sovereignty is blinding you to the rank stupidity of many MPs, who:- Can't add up. Pervert the course of justice. Assault other MPs. Commit Perjury. To name but a few. I'm not at all blind to it. The system is of course imperfect. But you would be hard pressed to argue that as a whole, the people whose job it is to make informed educated decisions on our behalf are on average more informed than the electorate. There are very few countries that practice a direct form of democracy. Switzerland is the closest I can think of, and their's is only a semi-direct democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted March 13, 2019 Report Share Posted March 13, 2019 Quote But you would be hard pressed to argue that as a whole, the people whose job it is to make informed educated decisions on our behalf are on average more informed than the electorate. I don't think you mean what you posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raja Clavata Posted March 13, 2019 Report Share Posted March 13, 2019 4 minutes ago, Blackstone said: I'm not at all blind to it. The system is of course imperfect. But you would be hard pressed to argue that as a whole, the people whose job it is to make informed educated decisions on our behalf are on average more informed than the electorate. There are very few countries that practice a direct form of democracy. Switzerland is the closest I can think of, and their's is only a semi-direct democracy. you're banging your head against the proverbial, the point about representative democracy has been made previously and not accepted in most cases where it does not serve the cause Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackstone Posted March 13, 2019 Report Share Posted March 13, 2019 Just now, Gordon R said: I don't think you mean what you posted. But I think you know what I mean. I regret the fact that reportedly, the Brexit negotiations were effectively conducted through No.10 and not by the Brexit Secretaries Davis and Rabb. Not because I believe having a 'real Brexiteer' negotiating would have resulted in anything better than what we have (and I don't consider No Deal to be better). But because Brexiteers going forwards will just be able to claim that things would have been much different with them negotiating, and there's no way to prove otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted March 13, 2019 Report Share Posted March 13, 2019 13 minutes ago, Gordon R said: Rewulf - just hang on a minute. Next you will be saying MPs aren't really experts at all. Experts at ignoring popular will, and getting their snouts stuck in ! 8 minutes ago, Blackstone said: Also tell me how we the people can effectively remove Parliament if we choose. Short of a popular uprising and coup. Only the Queen has the authority to dissolve parliament. Quite easily https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/mace-parliament-ceremonial-house-of-commons-labour-mp-lloyd-russell-moyle/ But a vote of no confidence, effectively dissolves Parliament. 16 minutes ago, Blackstone said: You've linked me to a Wikipedia article about Popular Sovereignty that doesn't mention the UK at all. You can go ahead and start a campaign to adopt Popular Sovereignty in the UK. Meanwhile, you can have a read of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/ Parliament is instructed to be formed by the H.O.S. the queen, after a general election, in which the people vote for MPs, this instructs the MP to represent them in Parliament. If there comes such time as the MP fails to deliver on their manifesto or election pledges, the PEOPLE again can move to have them removed from office via a by election, if you have been following the Onasanya case , this is about to happen in Peterborough. The various MP s who have failed to help in resolving the issues around Brexit, to the detriment of the majority of their constituents, are themselves facing deselection. Again ,Parliament can not just do as it please, it is not sovereign, as it can be removed , and is directly answerable to the people. Ask yourself this one simple question - If a majority of MPs are not in favour of leaving the EU (which is a fact) why dont they just cancel Brexit, declare the referendum vote null and void (like you are doing) and just get on with doing parliamentary business as usual, they can do that cant they ? They are sovereign. Its because they are answerable to US , first and foremost, because we put them there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts