221–230 of 316 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really wish they'd stop calling it a "clear majority". I'm not sure when 52-48 was ever such.
I've never seen anyone call this a clear majority, all the news I've read, seen and heard called it close. Anyone who calls this a clear victory or clear majority is kidding themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rhetorical question, isn't it. Of course they wouldn't. Support for the EU is deeply rooted in a belief that people can't/shouldn't rule themselves: they need to delegate 'complex matters' to elite experts who, of course, only have the people's best interests at heart. The sudden belief that the referendum was only a fancy opinion poll entirely fits with this narrative.
> deeply rooted in a belief that people can't/shouldn't rule themselves Of course I believe that. Everyone who isn't a rabid libertarian or anarchist believes that, whichever side of political spectrum they come from. I imagine you believe it too to some degree. In representative democracies we don't rule ourselves, we choose the people who will rule us, which isn't the same thing at all. There's a lot of valid argum…
You don't have to be a rabid libertarian or anarchist to think that Direct Democracy has something to offer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government has already set out how they want Brexit to work. I haven't heard Labour or other parties set out how they want Brexit to work, except the Lib Dems who don't want Brexit to happen at all. If the only plan for Brexit out there is the one the government has, then of course that's the one that is going to be implemented. Parliament does have the opportunity to influence that plan, though.
"The government has already set out how they want Brexit to work" Have they? I'd really like to see this.
Okay, they haven't quite spelt it out in the level of detail some would have liked, but they've provided more detail than other parties have, and I'm sure further details will emerge in due course.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really wish they'd stop calling it a "clear majority". I'm not sure when 52-48 was ever such.
I've never seen anyone call this a clear majority, all the news I've read, seen and heard called it close. Anyone who calls this a clear victory or clear majority is kidding themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure what that has to do with my comment. Perhaps you meant to reply to someone else?
I disagree with what you said about it being okay to attempt to stop Brexit, even after we voted against membership of the EU and never agreed to be part of it in the first place.
We did agree to be in the EU.
In any case, I trust you'll never vote again or protest against any voting outcomes that you disagree with as you seem to think that once a vote has been held, the outcome can never be disagreed with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really wish they'd stop calling it a "clear majority". I'm not sure when 52-48 was ever such.
> I really wish they'd stop calling it a "clear majority". I'm not sure when 52-48 was ever such. It's a majority though. If they wanted to have a higher threshold for the vote (say 60%) they should have done as much when writing the referendum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My take on this is that it was a "qualified" majority to "Leave" but no specific plan was outlined as to what "Leave" entailed. "Remain" is easy: Status quo. "Leave" means many different things to many people. In a constitutional republic (such as Ireland for instance) a referendum clearly specifies the change to the constitution down to the wording and an open informed debate is had on what the consequences, and pos…
That the meaning of "Leave" was left so vague was with hindsight reckless. It allowed the leave campaign to bring together all the various differing factions as they could all believe it meant what they wanted it to mean. I can only assume the government was so confident it would win that it went for an option that gave the best soundbite and best opportunity to shut up the euro skeptics in the Conservative party.
It makes for fascinating reading. It covers the data science angle of how the "Leave" campaign operated.
Basically yeah, they just figured out iteratively what a possible "Leave" constituency might want to hear and just fed it to them. Details shmetails.
By far the most illuminating piece I've read on the phenomenon and I think it goes some way towards explaining what's going on in the US right now ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah this is the kind of legalese bs that leads to violent overthrows of governments. If you believe that this will stop Brexit you are living in phantasy land.
This kind of "legalese bs" happens all the time in Switzerland and you won't find a lot of people believing Switzerland is on a brink of a violent government overthrow. Referendums are usually a mandate to the parliament to implement something.If the referendum idea turns out to be impossible (like eating and having your cake) then the parliament will dismiss or water down this mandate.
And its the government itself that initiated this on its terms so it should follow through on it. Not a fringe party but the ruling government parties.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plenty of Conservative MPs and Conservative voters opposed Brexit. A general election would force the Conservatives to adopt a manifesto position on Brexit and be held accountable for the consequences of that position. It may not be a victory against Brexit, but it's a victory for democracy.
Since when have party manifestos been used to hold political parties to account?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salisbury_Convention
Note that this appears to be a "constitutional convention" rather than a hard and fast bit of law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who are you blaming exactly when you say that "EU refused"? What should this other party have done -- written a Leave plan when the UK government wouldn't do it? The referendum was a matter between the UK electorate and their government. Other EU states played no part in that. The Treaty of Lisbon specifically offers a way for a member state to withdraw in the timespan of two years. Not sure how you read that as "irr…
The EU should absolutely have been willing to talk about it, yes! Article 50 was only put there because the British insisted on it. Read what the guy who wrote it thinks: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-refe...
Cameron did negotiate with EU leaders and tried to get concessions (on top of the existing special treatment that Thatcher and others negotiated over the years). Isn't that "talking"? Why didn't the UK government make a plan for the Leave option after those negotiations were concluded?
The lack of clarity around Leave is really not the fault of anyone except the UK government. Blaming it on other states is just avoiding responsibility.