91–100 of 173 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The eu is far from a federation. And there is much imbalance between eu countries that a few more will burst against germany’s dictats. Everything that happens in the eu is decided by that country. Really worrying that few other countries speak up against it.
Care to provide an example?
Since the vote was so close, why not do another referendum on doing another referendum? You can organize this with one referendum, which is: 1. Would you like to do another referendum on leaving the EU? A) Yes B) No 2. Great-Brittain should leave the EU A) Yes B) No If people still want Great-Brittain to leave, then they bought themselves some time and otherwise this whole brexit thing has been resolved.
You joke, but asking the uninformed public to vote on such deep constitutional matters was what got the UK into this mess. Barely anyone in the public was qualified to give their judgement on the merits of continuing inside the EU versus the concept of being out of it. The question was then morphed by the Leave side into "do you think we should stop immigrants coming to the UK?", with the consequences we can all see…
Sure, but this is true of all issues. It doesn't distinguish brexit in any way.
The usual thought is that that's how things are supposed to be. If you withheld the franchise to people who were qualified to exercise it, almost nobody would be allowed to vote.
>and does not reflect the preparations spearheaded by Johnson that are now underway. All the more reason to be alarmed. The guy seems like a complete loose cannon - more likely to cause additional chaos that help. Really starting to wonder whether this isn't one big geopolitical campaign to short an entire country.
This idea is at least 70 years old and takes adventage of democracy flaws.
>and does not reflect the preparations spearheaded by Johnson that are now underway. All the more reason to be alarmed. The guy seems like a complete loose cannon - more likely to cause additional chaos that help. Really starting to wonder whether this isn't one big geopolitical campaign to short an entire country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, this document was drafted by Boris Johnson's pro-Brexit government. E: Apparently it was his predecessor, but it's nevertheless not drafted by Labour.
Totally false. And using fear in politics is nothing new. The US now has tariffs on Canada because of the "risk" Canada poses to national security. The idea that the UK crumbles (the document has things like cancer patients dying, folks with diabetes dying - its just an incredible list) seems far fetched. The UK operated prior to the EU without all these disasters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, this document was drafted by Boris Johnson's pro-Brexit government. E: Apparently it was his predecessor, but it's nevertheless not drafted by Labour.
Totally false. And using fear in politics is nothing new. The US now has tariffs on Canada because of the "risk" Canada poses to national security. The idea that the UK crumbles (the document has things like cancer patients dying, folks with diabetes dying - its just an incredible list) seems far fetched. The UK operated prior to the EU without all these disasters.
This is true. But what’s discussed is how difficult it is to untangle 40 years of ever tighter integration. Decades ago things weren’t made in british factories using parts delivered just in time to be assembled, from multiple European supplier factories. No one is arguing that it’s impossible for Britain to function outside the EU. But “it worked before” isn’t an argument that leaving won’t be a disaster.
Taking the same argument ad absurdum: Britain used to operate without electricity and cars. Now there is a hundred years of electricity and cars integrated into every corner of British society so if cars and electricity was suddenly removed, it would take a long time for Britain to adapt to the new old system of candles and horses. It would work (it has operated that way before) but it would be a disaster for quite some time. An initial shortage of horses and candles wouldn’t be the only problem.
Since the vote was so close, why not do another referendum on doing another referendum? You can organize this with one referendum, which is: 1. Would you like to do another referendum on leaving the EU? A) Yes B) No 2. Great-Brittain should leave the EU A) Yes B) No If people still want Great-Brittain to leave, then they bought themselves some time and otherwise this whole brexit thing has been resolved.
You say that, (Even if it is a joke) but here in the UK, this is exactly the same as the 'People's Vote' that gives the final say to the people on how the Brexit process should progress, despite the UK already voting leave in 2016. Democracy doesn't care on how 'close' the result was, the people voted to leave and that should be respected.
This vote is an instruction from the electorate for parliament to deliver the referendum result and in anyway reversing it, undermines the democratic process. When the Scottish independence referendum of 2014 happened, they accepted the result to remain and that was that.
If another referendum goes through and it was leave again, how many times do you need to accept the result? 2? 6? or 19? You might as well roll an unfair dice if you want to hold another referendum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's like voting over whether vaccines work or not... Some things should be left to experts. This is the major criticism of direct democracy.
Indeed. A recent poll was quoted on yesterday's "Any Questions?" show on BBC Radio 4 by a Brexiteer, which apparently asked the public "should MPs represent their own views or those of their constituents?". Some small number of voters - I forget, but it was around 7% - thought they should represent their own views and the rest thought those of their constituents. This was, in the Brexiteer's view, evidence that MPs d…
This is generally not true. We elect representative so they can express our views. We don't care what their views are, except to the extent that their views might impede them from expressing our views.
Since the vote was so close, why not do another referendum on doing another referendum? You can organize this with one referendum, which is: 1. Would you like to do another referendum on leaving the EU? A) Yes B) No 2. Great-Brittain should leave the EU A) Yes B) No If people still want Great-Brittain to leave, then they bought themselves some time and otherwise this whole brexit thing has been resolved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You joke, but asking the uninformed public to vote on such deep constitutional matters was what got the UK into this mess. Barely anyone in the public was qualified to give their judgement on the merits of continuing inside the EU versus the concept of being out of it. The question was then morphed by the Leave side into "do you think we should stop immigrants coming to the UK?", with the consequences we can all see…
It's like voting over whether vaccines work or not... Some things should be left to experts. This is the major criticism of direct democracy.
And yet here we all are, living with the results of the professional experts who know everything. If they are all experts in all things they vote on, why is everything such a mess all of the time?