Off Topic Politics Thread
- Thread starter ChilcoSaint
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
You must log in or register to see media
This has been my point of view since i first realised brexiteers were divided on how to implement Brexit. Ive never been in favour of straight revoking article 50.
Yes with the public watching blow by blow as parliament debates and amends the bill, has a final vote then it's our turn.
Unfortunately, probably not a huge percentage of the public will be watching closely, the rest will still just feed off the daily dose of slogans and soundbites from the usual sources to reinforce their already established views.
That goes for both sides.
It's one of the things I'm most disappointed by I think - given the momentous decisions to be made, there are still people who say they don't understand politics, or aren't interested in politics yet would be the first ones to cry when it all goes tits up.
When will people realise politics is what shapes their lives, and that they have a voice in the process?
I know I was a bit tongue in cheek but hoping there's more interest as the process continues. I wonder what the viewing figures were for the votes, perhaps now more realise this is just the start of the next phase far more complex. Oh hoping for better than 1-1 Friday
Mate, Firstly, to be democratic, it cant be legally binding. It has to be able to change if for example, the EU change something we disagree with we cant be forced to implement it without consultation.
Secondly, its very hard to actually legally bind something so complex where we don't know what will happen. you can legally bind the sending of an exact letter, We cant legally commit to a trade agreement that we don't know what the contents will be.
Thirdly, the problem was that Brexiteers were divided on the implementation of Brexit. as long as there's no doubt there, you will get a very clear majority without any form of binding. The way our democracy works is that the government get punished in elections if they do things the public don't want. That's how we commit them in our parliamentary democracy.
It would be binding in the sense that everything is prepared and there's no real way to change our mind now in time.
A straight 2 choice question - leave or remain? I hope that people will get off their arses and vote for that, especially the millions who didn't bother last time and I'd certainly be prepared to use it to settle the whole hash.
The problem we'll have still though is that if the vote went heavily towards remain (which I think it would given the young vote and the politicisation of some of the apathetic ) then we will have millions of original leave voters who will be furious that their democratic vote was ignored and then overturned. That being the case, a second referendum will be damaging because of the first, fraudulently fought referendum.
I'm quite prepared to put up with angry voters though, as the majority of the population would be pretty happy with a stay result.
I don't blame leavers for the mess we are in, even stubborn ignorant ones, I blame their political masters for using the population to achieve Party goals.
Dave Pigfucker Cameron first for his complacency
Then Maybot for pulling the pin on the Article 50 process so quickly - which she didn't need to do as the referendum was just advisory - rather than putting plans into place, checking viability of options and then doing the whole Art50 thing
Boris is the worst of the PMs though because I think the other 2 had principles whereas Boris has no redeeming characteristics.
And finally the movers and shakers behind every one of the above mentioned political pawns are the worst of all. They are the only ones who benefit from Brexit and it would have been at the expense of the entire economy and population of the country to achieve this...
Not sure I agree. For one thing, if the 2016 referendum had been legally binding, it would have been disallowed, because of the proven criminal activities by Vote Leave. It was only because the the referendum was advisory that the result was allowed to stand.
Most people advocating a second referendum would agree it should be legally binding, and closely scrutinised for electoral fraud.
Secondly, what you are saying about the uncertainty on trade agreements applies to what the government are trying to get through Parliament right now. MP’s are being asked to pass into law a Withdrawal Agreement that seeks to form a Free Trade Agreement with the EU by the time the Implementation Period ends on 31st December 2020, although the government can ask for a 2 year extension. How does that differ from what would be asked in a referendum?
Thirdly, your memory of the 2016 referendum is different from mine. People were promised rainbows and unicorns and magic money trees if they voted Leave, all of which promises have been found to be completely false. The government’s own impact assessment of the current deal show a significant reduction in GDP of over 6%, plus all the uncertainty over workers’ rights, environmental protection, and especially the potentially devastating effect on the Good Friday Agreement. On top of that, most polls say people would now vote Remain, especially the 2.2 million new voters who were under 18 in 2016.
Add a large group of motivated overseas voters, this old fart included. I've been registered for years, there's need for a registration campaign overseas and in the UK.
This was actually kind of what i am getting at. the bill is 110 pages of lots of specific laws and such we must repeal and implement, but does not legally bind us to a unspecific trade agreement as that would not be possible even though both sides have agreed to make one. And this is after we have already come to a much clearer idea of what is going on. if you want to put a full legal document infront of the public with get out clauses etc then that would work. it wouldn't be democratic as anything that prevents a change of mind is not democractic, but it would work. Though Im pretty sure there's a law that makes signing things you don't understand non binding. You cant bind "leave" or " Remain" .
But all those issues are the business of Parliament. They have to thrash all the detail out and get the WAB through to the point of passing into law, but the final say should be given back to the people. What you say about legally binding not being democratic doesn’t really apply, the whole point of democracy is that laws can be changed if the public, through their representatives, demand it.
An estimated 16 million apples have been left to rot in the ground in British orchards because of a shortage of pickers from the EU.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...left-to-rot-as-eu-pickers-stay-away-ctsdvtbsw
What a bloody farce this whole business has become.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...left-to-rot-as-eu-pickers-stay-away-ctsdvtbsw
What a bloody farce this whole business has become.
Yeah? i have nothing against having a referendum to implement a law, just having a law that says this decision cant be changed either with another vote or through an elected representative.
The majority of people MP's in parliament have been coming up with ways to leave Europe so binding that part wouldn't have changed anything anyway.