• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

REFERENDUM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION THREAD

That is where threads get closed down. People being derogatory and thinking they are right and other people's opinions are worth nothing. Then to say I am not a Democrat, when you quite clearly find it hard to believe that people who you consider inferior to you offer nothing to the debate.
I will not get tangled up in childish rebukes Debate, but we are meant to be, being grown up, not like acting like
children.

Doesn't take long for the new format to go out the door. I was quite enjoying the new format, too. Shame the childish insults have to start again.

I was making an observation about your contribution to the debate. My observation was derogatory about your contribution to the debate. I was being honest. I don't consider you inferior or superior - that is something you gave peddled on numerous occasions as an attempt to invalidate what I gave posted. Someone who believed in democracy would, for example, be willing to answer a question that has been put to you about what you understand democracy means. It seems that if we don't share a common understanding of that concept it would be a major barrier to reaching consensus.

I put it to you again, you are not a democrat. As you have often posted that "we" must abide by the democratic process how can calling you out as undemocratic be anything other than derogatory.

Yet there was a whole paragraph before that which you have not even acknowledged let alone responded to. Because you are not a democrat. You have no desire to engage in any constructive debate. Because you are not a democrat. You do not consider it is reasonable for people to object to the "will of the people" because you are not a democrat.

You want your opinion to over ride completely those who disagree with you on the basis of one vote on one day and point to that as democracy. Because you are not a democrat.
 
I was making an observation about your contribution to the debate. My observation was derogatory about your contribution to the debate. I was being honest. I don't consider you inferior or superior - that is something you gave peddled on numerous occasions as an attempt to invalidate what I gave posted. Someone who believed in democracy would, for example, be willing to answer a question that has been put to you about what you understand democracy means. It seems that if we don't share a common understanding of that concept it would be a major barrier to reaching consensus.

I put it to you again, you are not a democrat. As you have often posted that "we" must abide by the democratic process how can calling you out as undemocratic be anything other than derogatory.

Yet there was a whole paragraph before that which you have not even acknowledged let alone responded to. Because you are not a democrat. You have no desire to engage in any constructive debate. Because you are not a democrat. You do not consider it is reasonable for people to object to the "will of the people" because you are not a democrat.

You want your opinion to over ride completely those who disagree with you on the basis of one vote on one day and point to that as democracy. Because you are not a democrat.

I don't want my opinion to over ride anyone's. I want to post without being insulted because my opinion is different to all. You say I don't make a contribution, you say that as a fact not an opinion, which of course it is.
Do you think you can post about Brexit, without being condescending to the people who think differently to you?
Debate anything that you like, but try not to bring me in to the debate on a personal level, it will fuck the thread up again

We can put the passed behind us and try to be respectful to other people's opinions. I take this format as a new opportunity, not a point scoring game.
 
I think SNP had a different agenda, it was to leave the UK.

Quite possibly, but that wasn't what I asked.

My question was, how do you think SNP MP's should of voted? Should they have gone with the will of the majority in Scotland?
 
THM. This new part of the forum was only created today, so perhaps you're ignorant of how its going to work. Engage in debate (and that involves answering reasonable questions put to you), or we'll remove you from the debate.

Your call.
 
So people just ask me questions? How does make a debate. You have just sent out a green flag to bombard me with questions, to get me banned. One poster the whole day asking me questions, with obvious answers, how does that help a debate. Another already insulting me, how does that help a debate?
I think the Scottish parliament had another agenda, is a genuine answer.
I asked you a sensible question and you closed the thread, because you didn't like the answer You would have had to given. Now you are threatning to bar someone, because he doesn't want to get in a long tit for tat talking about nothing.
Why don't you try being fair and say, don't make a poster centre of attention, don't continuously ask one poster a question after question?
Play by new rules, fairness, without insults, turn a new leaf, instead of just trying to censor someone who voted differently to you?
 
You were asked how SNP MPs should have voted - i.e for or against.

'They had another agenda' isnt an answer. You can see that, right?
 
You were asked how SNP MPs should have voted - i.e for or against.

'They had another agenda' isnt an answer. You can see that, right?

They had other interests, other than the EU referendum. The original question was the referendum was a national referendum, so polititions should vote on article 50, on a national vote, not constituent. However Scotland would be different, because it was more bothered about getting another referendum to leave the UK So I understand why they voted against article 50. I don't like it, but understand it.
 
They had other interests, other than the EU referendum. The original question was the referendum was a national referendum, so polititions should vote on article 50, on a national vote, not constituent. However Scotland would be different, because it was more bothered about getting another referendum to leave the UK So I understand why they voted against article 50. I don't like it, but understand it.

So, in a representative democracy - who is representing the 48% if 100% of MPs should vote the same way in your world? That comes across as very undemocratic.
 
They had other interests, other than the EU referendum. The original question was the referendum was a national referendum, so polititions should vote on article 50, on a national vote, not constituent. However Scotland would be different, because it was more bothered about getting another referendum to leave the UK So I understand why they voted against article 50. I don't like it, but understand it.

This isn't true. My Scottish family (admittedly a small sample) don't want Scotland to leave the Union but voted to remain. I imagine there were quite a few like them but I am assuming that.

I would think their SNP rep would represent their constituencies wouldn't you?
 
So, in a representative democracy - who is representing the 48% if 100% of MPs should vote the same way in your world? That comes across as very undemocratic.

As I said before, the majority of UK citizens have had to live and suffer in the EU, against their wishes. We voted out at the first chance.
I believe we are rather in the EU or out. As we have voted out, we are leaving. We would have liked to stay in the single market, but the EU won't let us control our borders and regain sovereignty and be in the single market.
I hope the Tory party gets defeated in the near future and a new look Labour party gets its act together and supports working class people. I don't know if that will happen but that is my wish.
The 48- 52 is a none argument for me. It was leave or stay, leave won in the referendum. Remain knew the rules, entered the competition and lost. Article 50 is about starting the process of leaving the EU. As we voted to leave, I believe the vote in parliament was to accept the result. Accept that you lost and vote for the beginning of the process of leaving. A vote against article 50, is not to accept you lost and not to play by the rules. It was an attempt to change a result that you lost in a democratic referendum, by default.
Anyway we move on from there now. Parliament has listened to the decision of the majority of the voters and we are leaving. Reality, there was only ever leave or stay on the table.
Would you be against the house of Lords trying to block the majority vote of the people, which is now backed by Parliament?
After all, Tim Farron said, the house of lords is undemocratic and unaccountable!
 
So who represents the 48% of voters who didn't want to leave?

This is why I asked you about your definition of democracy. What exactly is it?
 
The Tories won the last election then decided to immediately try to ram through some appalling legislation on Welfare (even by their own standards). The Commons shamefully accepted it, abetted by Harriet Harman instructing Labour to abstain. I was rather pleased for the good of the country that the Lords did what they're asked to do which is provide a system of checks and balances and told the Government in no uncertain terms that this was totally unacceptable and they could either rewrite it or not bother.

I would hope that the Lords will ask for a good deal more clarity from the Government on what exactly it is they're planning to do because "dunno lol" is the extent of nearly eight months' planning so far. When they provide said clarity then it can go through. Hiding behind shit poker metaphors will not do.
 
As I said before, the majority of UK citizens have had to live and suffer in the EU, against their wishes. We voted out at the first chance.
I believe we are rather in the EU or out. As we have voted out, we are leaving. We would have liked to stay in the single market, but the EU won't let us control our borders and regain sovereignty and be in the single market.
I hope the Tory party gets defeated in the near future and a new look Labour party gets its act together and supports working class people. I don't know if that will happen but that is my wish.
The 48- 52 is a none argument for me. It was leave or stay, leave won in the referendum. Remain knew the rules, entered the competition and lost. Article 50 is about starting the process of leaving the EU. As we voted to leave, I believe the vote in parliament was to accept the result. Accept that you lost and vote for the beginning of the process of leaving. A vote against article 50, is not to accept you lost and not to play by the rules. It was an attempt to change a result that you lost in a democratic referendum, by default.
Anyway we move on from there now. Parliament has listened to the decision of the majority of the voters and we are leaving. Reality, there was only ever leave or stay on the table.
Would you be against the house of Lords trying to block the majority vote of the people, which is now backed by Parliament?
After all, Tim Farron said, the house of lords is undemocratic and unaccountable!

I believe in representative democracy. The only question that the referendum asked was whether to leave the EU. Everything else is still up for grabs and if parliament, be it the Commons or the Lords act in such as way as to represent the people then they will have my support. A vote against article 50, in a representative democracy based on constituencies is perfectly acceptable. All things being equal, in a representative democracy, votes in parliament would broadly mirror the aspirations of the people who give parliament the legitimacy to make decisions on their behalf. This parliament has done exactly that and a bill to trigger Article 50 is likely to pass.

Some of the amendments put forward I would have preferred if they had been passed - such as the one to guarantee the rights of EU workers currently in the UK. I also believe that most people (on both sides of the argument) would have accepted such an amendment...but the government prefers to use people as negotiating tools.

SNP MPs represented their constituents views - if their agenda is a second referendum and independence then the UK leaving the EU is possibly in their interests.

But still the question remains unanswered. What is your definition of democracy? It is clearly different to mine. Democracy must be more than a single issue, we live in a complex world with many competing priorities, needs and challenges.
 
Wow, do I need to invest in a tin helmet to come on this thread :handbags::D
 
I believe in representative democracy. The only question that the referendum asked was whether to leave the EU. Everything else is still up for grabs and if parliament, be it the Commons or the Lords act in such as way as to represent the people then they will have my support. A vote against article 50, in a representative democracy based on constituencies is perfectly acceptable. All things being equal, in a representative democracy, votes in parliament would broadly mirror the aspirations of the people who give parliament the legitimacy to make decisions on their behalf. This parliament has done exactly that and a bill to trigger Article 50 is likely to pass.

Some of the amendments put forward I would have preferred if they had been passed - such as the one to guarantee the rights of EU workers currently in the UK. I also believe that most people (on both sides of the argument) would have accepted such an amendment...but the government prefers to use people as negotiating tools.

SNP MPs represented their constituents views - if their agenda is a second referendum and independence then the UK leaving the EU is possibly in their interests.

But still the question remains unanswered. What is your definition of democracy? It is clearly different to mine. Democracy must be more than a single issue, we live in a complex world with many competing priorities, needs and challenges.

I have been asked 24 questions today. I have answered 21. I have asked 1, it wasn't answered.

The vote on article 50, was to say do you agree that leave won, so we can start the process of leaving the EU. It wasn't to ask, did you want to leave or remain, because that had already been decided.

Are you saying that you agree that the house of Lords should be able to over ride the vote by majority of people in the UK and also the elected house of Commons.?
 
Democracy should be free and fair elections, where the people choose politicans to represent them.
 
That's not what the vote was.

The vote was - this is the White Paper the Government have prepared (lol), do you agree with the whole two sides of A4 they have written on the biggest constitutional decision to face the country in decades, is this the right way to go about things. As NINE amendments were proposed then I would say that it was pretty apparent that there were plenty of concerns and plenty of scope to vote against it because yet again, the Tory administration can't draft anything properly and they operate in a remarkably slapdash manner. Case in point, this not being a binding referendum.
 
Back
Top