Off Topic The Politics Thread

[Chaz]

The referendum was not binding on Parliament. The government cannot invoke Article 50 without a Parliamentary debate on it and a vote. I expect them to do that and vote to invoke Article 50. They aren't brave enough to do anything else even if they believe its a bad idea.

It doesn't help anyones case to keep harping on about "democratic decisions" and "the will of the people". Whatever some of you think is or is not binding, this referendum never was binding and is not binding now. It has enabled us all to tell Parliament the answer to a simple question. The next step is whether or not our MPs feel they should abide by the result or not. I expect them to debate and vote to invoke Article 50.

Only then, can official discussions with the EU begin. They won't officially talk to us until we've told them officially we're intending to leave. We won't know what they're prepared to offer (or not) until that point is reached. Unofficial discussions are just that.

If we find ourselves in a difficult place as a result of those negotiations, it will be too late to change our mind and ask to stay after all. That's why we need to consider how and when we do it very carefully indeed.

And if...

 

[sheffordqpr]

Not so. I posted an opposing view, and rather than debate it, you chose to ignore it. I can see why you voted Leave now.

You had an opportunity to explain EXACTLY why we should re-vote and failed to grasp that chance. Rather than deride my decision to vote out, try and change my decision. I AM willing to debate, as the tenet of my post suggested. It is YOU who failed to debate. I can see why you have lowered yourself to attacking my views. People like you are not worthy of my interest.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

You want to take us back to the Middle Ages? You want to take us back to slavery, Empire building through military conquest, and the Plague? It's a different world now. It's an incredibly different world to 40 years ago, let alone a thousand. I'm frankly amazed you don't acknowledge that.

Yes, it's a global world that stretches way beyond a failing EU. And this country has for centuries shown that it is incredibly resourceful and successful, and is still doing so. As presently constituted, the EU is not the future. Perhaps when it fails, if it is replaced by a looser group of trading nations, it might be. But not until then.

 

[sheffordqpr]

You want to take us back to the Middle Ages? You want to take us back to slavery, Empire building through military conquest, and the Plague? It's a different world now. It's an incredibly different world to 40 years ago, let alone a thousand. I'm frankly amazed you don't acknowledge that.

What a churlish response.

 

[Chaz]

You had an opportunity to explain EXACTLY why we should re-vote and failed to grasp that chance. Rather than deride my decision to vote out, try and change my decision. I AM willing to debate, as the tenet of my post suggested. It is YOU who failed to debate. I can see why you have lowered yourself to attacking my views. People like you are not worthy of my interest.

Not at all. You really don't get it, do you? The point of a re-vote (either in parliament or publically) would be to give the public a clear understanding of what 'Leave' and 'Remain' actually mean - something that for Leave was completely unclear, s no discussions on any point had even been considered. And then - once the terms of the Exit were fully known, a decision could be made.

Are you really saying that you don't care about the terms of the departure, you just want out? That's very foolhardy.

And if you want to discuss without personal insults, then please continue, otherwise there's no point. Argue against my view by all means, but saying things like "People like you are not worthy of my interest" ought to be beneath you.

 

[Chaz]

What a churlish response.

Not at all. Goldie mentioned the last 1000 years. I can only assume that's what he was talking about. As I pointed out - it's a very different world, and you cannot use 'empire-days' logic when discussing 21st Century politics or economics.

 

[sheffordqpr]

Not at all. You really don't get it, do you? The point of a re-vote (either in parliament or publically) would be to give the public a clear understanding of what 'Leave' and 'Remain' actually mean - something that for Leave was completely unclear, s no discussions on any point had even been considered. And then - once the terms of the Exit were fully known, a decision could be made.

Are you really saying that you don't care about the terms of the departure, you just want out? That's very foolhardy.

And if you want to discuss without personal insults, then please continue, otherwise there's no point. Argue against my view by all means, but saying things like "People like you are not worthy of my interest" ought to be beneath you.

You still have not answered my question. I suggest that you read it again. I also suggest that you re read YOUR comment re: the way I voted.I can do personal insults, but only when I have been attacked myself.

 

[sheffordqpr]

Not at all. Goldie mentioned the last 1000 years. I can only assume that's what he was talking about. As I pointed out - it's a very different world, and you cannot use 'empire-days' logic when discussing 21st Century politics or economics.

You know exactly what he was referring to, or do you really need it spelling out to you? You are not doing yourself any favours.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

The referendum was not binding on Parliament. The government cannot invoke Article 50 without a Parliamentary debate on it and a vote. I expect them to do that and vote to invoke Article 50. They aren't brave enough to do anything else even if they believe its a bad idea.

It doesn't help anyones case to keep harping on about "democratic decisions" and "the will of the people". Whatever some of you think is or is not binding, this referendum never was binding and is not binding now. It has enabled us all to tell Parliament the answer to a simple question. The next step is whether or not our MPs feel they should abide by the result or not. I expect them to debate and vote to invoke Article 50.

Only then, can official discussions with the EU begin. They won't officially talk to us until we've told them officially we're intending to leave. We won't know what they're prepared to offer (or not) until that point is reached. Unofficial discussions are just that.

If we find ourselves in a difficult place as a result of those negotiations, it will be too late to change our mind and ask to stay after all. That's why we need to consider how and when we do it very carefully indeed.

Strongly disagree with your second paragraph. The aspect of democracy in the referendum is crucial.

You're right Parliament would not be so rash as to fail to implement what the 52% voted for.

The referendum was not legally binding on Parliament. The Queen has the power to sack the entire Australian Government. Both are true. Neither will be enforced.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

Not at all. Goldie mentioned the last 1000 years. I can only assume that's what he was talking about.

Sure, assume I'm advocating the return of slavery, military invasion of other lands and spreading the Plague. That's all entirely reasonable in Chazworld.

 

[Chaz]

You still have not answered my question. I suggest that you read it again. I also suggest that you re read YOUR comment re: the way I voted.I can do personal insults, but only when I have been attacked myself.

I've answered your question, you just don't want to acknowledge it. And if you'd like to point out where I personally attacked you, and not your opinion, then please do so.

 

[Chaz]

You know exactly what he was referring to, or do you really need it spelling out to you? You are not doing yourself any favours.

Are you telling me the world hasn't changed? And that the same socio-economic and political environment of the past 1000 years still exists? Or are you going to accept that the world has moved on, and we as a nation cannot go back to what appear to some to be 'the good old days' of rickets and smog?

 

[sheffordqpr]

I've answered your question, you just don't want to acknowledge it. And if you'd like to point out where I personally attacked you, and not your opinion, then please do so.

Well, you haven't and I can't be arsed to repeat it ad nauseum.

 

[sheffordqpr]

Are you telling me the world hasn't changed? And that the same socio-economic and political environment of the past 1000 years still exists? Or are you going to accept that the world has moved on, and we as a nation cannot go back to what appear to some to be 'the good old days' of rickets and smog?

As you SHOULD well know, he was referring to the fact that we survived as a stand alone nation for millennia. No reference was made to slavery, smog, imperialism etc. You brought these to the table, no one else. That says more about you than a million words ever could. You are doing all this to provoke a reaction. I will react with pity.

 

[Uber_Hoop]

Can't you two just get a room?

 

[ELLERS]

What a churlish response.

Agree he is on planet Corbyn. Watch out for WWIII Chaz!

 

[TheBigDipper]

Strongly disagree with your second paragraph. The aspect of democracy in the referendum is crucial.

You're right Parliament would not be so rash as to fail to implement what the 52% voted for.

The referendum was not legally binding on Parliament. The Queen has the power to sack the entire Australian Government. Both are true. Neither will be enforced.

We both believe that Article 50 will be invoked, even though you & I didn't vote the same way at referendum time. We both agree the stated purpose behind the referendum was to advise Parliament, not to instruct it. That was the "democratic decision" - the delivery of advice. That job is complete.

Some people continue to use the word "democracy" to mean "direct democracy", which we both know is not the case in the UK, which is a "representative democracy". They say that to ignore the advice given would be "undemocratic". Well, if we were a direct democracy, they'd be correct. We aren't.

Our representative democratic requirements have been satisfied.

Maybe if we want to change the way our country operates so it does become a direct democracy we could have a referendum?

(I'll get my coat...)

 

[rangercol]

Bloody hell!
The vote has been and gone.
Armageddon never materialised.
The economy is doing much better than all the so called experts and many on here were predicting and they are now having to back-track.
I can't quite believe that there are people on here still churning out the same old garbage.
We voted to leave.
We will leave.

Get over yourselves and move on.

Britain is great and will prosper.

 

[ELLERS]

Bloody hell!
The vote has been and gone.
Armageddon never materialised.
The economy is doing much better than all the so called experts and many on here were predicting and they are now having to back-track.
I can't quite believe that there are people on here still churning out the same old garbage.
We voted to leave.
We will leave.

Get over yourselves and move on.

Britain is great and will prosper.

This all day long.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

We both believe that Article 50 will be invoked, even though you & I didn't vote the same way at referendum time. We both agree the stated purpose behind the referendum was to advise Parliament, not to instruct it. That was the "democratic decision" - the delivery of advice. That job is complete.

Some people continue to use the word "democracy" to mean "direct democracy", which we both know is not the case in the UK, which is a "representative democracy". They say that to ignore the advice given would be "undemocratic". Well, if we were a direct democracy, they'd be correct. We aren't.

Our representative democratic requirements have been satisfied.

Maybe if we want to change the way our country operates so it does become a direct democracy we could have a referendum?

(I'll get my coat...)

"Direct democracy" and "representative democracy" are constitutional terms of art, so technically I'm sure you're quite correct.

But what people are talking about is a spirit of democracy - and that spirit would be broken, and trust in Parliament irretrievably undermined, if the electorate was asked to vote on a critical course of action, and this vote was ignored for no other reason than members of Parliament including the unelected House of Lords felt they knew better.

We're agreed this won't happen.

...and no more referendums for a while....!