51–60 of 254 posts
Any outcome other than UK leaving the EU would go against democratically elected decision, in essence suspending democracy.
In a representative democracy, all you vote for is your representative. The rest is politics.
There's a lot of clutching at straws going on at the moment. People coming out with political or legal theories, trying to interpret David Cameron's failure to immediately declare leaving under article 50 as kicking the whole issue into the long grass etc etc. This is the latest, like others it's more of an exercise in denial than it is in reality. Many of these things could come to pass, it's true, but each one carr…
And there's the problem.
There IS a case to be made that a democratic majority with a margin of merely 4% is something that can, in fact, be ignored. In the United States, we have these lovely Senate filibusters, for instance, which everyone loves to complain about when their party isn't the one doing them. And vetos. And Supreme Court smackdowns.
The UK has at least a couple of these it could theoretically apply (e.g. the fact that Parliament isn't bound by the results, and some long-shot ones like Scottish Parliament or the royal veto that they apparently never use) but when you put something on the ballot like that and make the entire nation vote, it kind of sends a message that this is something that's going to be respected. If there's a whole new Parliament in a few months that may be different? But substantial fallout will remain.
There's a lot of clutching at straws going on at the moment. People coming out with political or legal theories, trying to interpret David Cameron's failure to immediately declare leaving under article 50 as kicking the whole issue into the long grass etc etc. This is the latest, like others it's more of an exercise in denial than it is in reality. Many of these things could come to pass, it's true, but each one carr…
----
Some people voted leave for less immigration, others for more balanced (non EU-biased) immigration, it seems that these goals are fundamentally at odds. This isn't the only example of polarising goals that people have expressed. Until a referendum is put forward that actually allows people to express the end result they're hoping for (leaving the EU just seems to be the first step, not the goal for most people), I strongly believe it's undemocratic to proceed under the false argument that the people have spoken.
For what it's worth, the point i'm making is the same as the argument in favour of alternative vote (or single transferable vote) vs first-past-the-post elections. The way in which people are polled is insufficient for ascertaining what they actually want. A binary choice doesn't work in a world with more than two possible opinions.
----
There's a lot of clutching at straws going on at the moment. People coming out with political or legal theories, trying to interpret David Cameron's failure to immediately declare leaving under article 50 as kicking the whole issue into the long grass etc etc. This is the latest, like others it's more of an exercise in denial than it is in reality. Many of these things could come to pass, it's true, but each one carr…
It's as big as a constitutional change and such change usually require more than 50% to be adopted.
There's a lot of clutching at straws going on at the moment. People coming out with political or legal theories, trying to interpret David Cameron's failure to immediately declare leaving under article 50 as kicking the whole issue into the long grass etc etc. This is the latest, like others it's more of an exercise in denial than it is in reality. Many of these things could come to pass, it's true, but each one carr…
Any outcome other than UK leaving the EU would go against democratically elected decision, in essence suspending democracy.
This is also my opinion, but for those downvoting/greying this comment could you elaborate why you disagree?
As such, there are several levels I object to this comment, in particular that we have fair reason to believe the will of the people might have changed in recent days.
Stubbornly following the result of a majority vote is majoritarianism, not democracy.
There's a lot of clutching at straws going on at the moment. People coming out with political or legal theories, trying to interpret David Cameron's failure to immediately declare leaving under article 50 as kicking the whole issue into the long grass etc etc. This is the latest, like others it's more of an exercise in denial than it is in reality. Many of these things could come to pass, it's true, but each one carr…
Around 4 million EU nationals that live in the UK, were not eligible to vote, and they are directly affected by his decision, while they pay taxes and they contribute to the economy as much as the ones who could vote ( if not more... ). Also, a significant percentage of those who voted "Leave", around 10% at least, now would certainly change their vote since they saw that "scare tactics" was basically people telling…
2. I voted 'remain'. If this result is ignored for a.second referendum I will vote 'leave' because I believe democratic respect is more important than EU membership.
3. Your 10% figure is pure conjecture.
4. It was a 4% margin.
5. Whether the referendum is legally binding or not has no bearing on its democratic legitimacy, nor on the potential fallout of ignoring the result.
Clause 28 of the 1998 Act notes at sub-clause 7, in dry terms, with regard to legislative competence that "this section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland." In that single little line is the subordinate nature of devolution. Generally, Westminster will let the Scottish Parliament get on with devolved legislation. Carry on governing. But it is also made clear th…
You're right, but I think they could make it very difficult for Westminster if they wanted to. It's not a fight they can legally win, but it could still be in their interests to fight it anyway. There's a joke going around here in London that we should devolve with them forming Scotlondon and set up immigration controls at M25 junctions. It's becoming pretty clear that a lot of exit voters never imagined it could act…
Is it just London that wanted to remain? What about the other cities?
I haven't followed the race closely, but I'm guessing it was the country bumpkins mostly in favor of leaving?
There's a lot of clutching at straws going on at the moment. People coming out with political or legal theories, trying to interpret David Cameron's failure to immediately declare leaving under article 50 as kicking the whole issue into the long grass etc etc. This is the latest, like others it's more of an exercise in denial than it is in reality. Many of these things could come to pass, it's true, but each one carr…
Around 4 million EU nationals that live in the UK, were not eligible to vote, and they are directly affected by his decision, while they pay taxes and they contribute to the economy as much as the ones who could vote ( if not more... ). Also, a significant percentage of those who voted "Leave", around 10% at least, now would certainly change their vote since they saw that "scare tactics" was basically people telling…
True - though the gov white paper mentioned that it was, in effect, binding because ignoring its result would irreversibly damage representative democracy.
Even if the UK were somehow to backtrack: they broke any faith and goodwill on EU side (not the entire EU but key members).
Politically, the Tories have to rally Brexit - or they will get killed by UKIP in the next election run.
The box is open. At some point in 10-20 years, a new agreement will probably bring the UK back to most of its EU membership. Until then, there's no way back.
Legally, as far as I understand no. But politically? Almost certainly. If Scotland could remain in the EU (By remaining , not re-joining, which Madrid would oppose) then they almost certainly would. This means that "brexit" would imply the end of the "United" in the UK and I believe that would be enough of a change in circumstances that a) leave politicians could hold off invoking Article 50 without losing face or b)…
Scotland can't leave the UK and remain in the EU. They would have to become independent and then begin the application process, which could take years. There's a real possibility that some EU members will oppose their application. EDIT: "UK Government could use Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty to apply for a treaty change which would allow Scotland to become a member when it formally becomes independent in 2016. The A…
It would probably never happen and would be incredibly silly but it's interesting to think about if it could.