REFERENDUM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION THREAD

[thehistorymakers]

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.

They were 2 separate things. Accepting article 50, was agreeing that negotiations could start. To vote against that was saying you didn't respect the result.
The ammendments were to try to get what you wanted out of the talks. I can see why people voted for ammendments and have no problem with that. I don't respect voting against article 50 being released, as it is not respecting a result that remain had lost.
It is binding now, as parliament has voted to accept the referendum result to begin the process of leaving the EU.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Nope, again, that's not how it works.

It's clearly a piece of crap of a document - laughably short. Hence the absolutely huge number of suggested amendments to it (you do not normally get anything like that amount of proposed changes to a White Paper). Nine amendments suggested, won none of them (because no Tories other than Ken Clarke are rebelling on this one, even though loads of them actually favour Remain and even more are against May's ideas on Brexit).

Why should Labour then accept the White Paper and vote for the Bill? They weren't happy with it a few hours previously, nothing has been changed, why are they voting for it now? That's not how Parliament works.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

Democracy should be free and fair elections, where the people choose politicans to represent them.

I see democracy as so much more. It is the ability to agree and disagree. To hold politicians to account between elections. To protest or to cheer. To be able to demonstrate or show support. Where people, individuals and groups are given (or take) responsibility to change things. To be able to influence and shape.

If you think democracy starts and finishes at free and fair elections you are not a democrat. You have abdicated your responsibility to society except when it is time to vote. That's not democracy.

 

[Johnny75]

Would you respect 48% of MP's voting against triggering article 50?

 

[Johnny75]

I see democracy as so much more. It is the ability to agree and disagree. To hold politicians to account between elections. To protest or to cheer. To be able to demonstrate or show support. Where people, individuals and groups are given (or take) responsibility to change things. To be able to influence and shape.

I think that's a wonderful description TSB.

 

[thehistorymakers]

Nope, again, that's not how it works.

It's clearly a piece of crap of a document - laughably short. Hence the absolutely huge number of suggested amendments to it (you do not normally get anything like that amount of proposed changes to a White Paper). Nine amendments suggested, won none of them (because no Tories other than Ken Clarke are rebelling on this one, even though loads of them actually favour Remain and even more are against May's ideas on Brexit).

Why should Labour then accept the White Paper and vote for the Bill? They weren't happy with it a few hours previously, nothing has been changed, why are they voting for it now? That's not how Parliament works.

Parliament represent the people and the people voted to leave. Parliament asked them to vote and it would cause an uproar if after having the biggest referendum in our history, if the government then decided not to listen and go against the majority. There were only 2 choices, leave or remain. There is no half staying or half leaving, the EU wouldn't accept that and that wasn't what was on offer in the referendum.
Having voted to leave, not to accept releasing article 50, was not to accept the result ( will of the majority of the people). Releasing article 50, wasn't a vote to see if you wanted to leave or stay, it was a vote to accept the result that the people had given, to leave. To vote against that, was to vote against accepting that your side had lost and not accepting the democratic result.
The ammendments were different, no problem like I said, people voting for ammendments, but it can't be right to complain against the parliamentary results of the referendum. Many leavers spent weeks saying they didn't want may to make the decisions without going to parliament. Well she did and won everything, the reason being she has a parliamentary majority. I find it hard now to see how people can complain about the results in parliament.

So the people have voted to leave, the parliament has voted to leave. Do you agree, according to Farron, that the house of Lords is unaccountable and undemocratic, that it should be able to block the democratic result of the people and then parliament to leave the EU?

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

These are all points you've made earlier in the day and they don't have anything to do with what I just said.

I've already said what I expect the Lords to do.

 

[Doctor Doog]

They were 2 separate things. Accepting article 50, was agreeing that negotiations could start. To vote against that was saying you didn't respect the result.
The ammendments were to try to get what you wanted out of the talks. I can see why people voted for ammendments and have no problem with that. I don't respect voting against article 50 being released, as it is not respecting a result that remain had lost.
It is binding now, as parliament has voted to accept the referendum result to begin the process of leaving the EU.

How many times do you need to be told that "I won - you lost" isn't a debate. That you don't respect voting against article 50. inter alia, means that you don't respect democracy. There is a vote, in parliament, where the majority of voters are not instructed via the whip of how they should vote. How can you be against that? I would also have been astounded, outraged even, if the vote had gone against article 50, even though I am strongly a remainer. Not to have the vote would have been the the first step towards the UK being the Zimbabwe of Europe.

 

[thehistorymakers]

I see democracy as so much more. It is the ability to agree and disagree. To hold politicians to account between elections. To protest or to cheer. To be able to demonstrate or show support. Where people, individuals and groups are given (or take) responsibility to change things. To be able to influence and shape.

If you think democracy starts and finishes at free and fair elections you are not a democrat. You have abdicated your responsibility to society except when it is time to vote. That's not democracy.

And to accept when you lose and win graciously. Not to try to win on the street and social media what you couldn't win on polling day.
People have the right to protest I agree, they don't have a right to block the side that won the democratic elections, through obstruction, so the people who won, never get what they voted for. That is a recipe for anachy and extremism, not democracy.

 

[Trips]

So the people have voted to leave, the parliament has voted to leave. Do you agree, according to Farron, that the house of Lords is unaccountable and undemocratic, that it should be able to block the democratic result of the people and then parliament to leave the EU?

Firstly, the house of lords is not undemocratic.

Secondly, absolutely it should go to the Lords to pass through. And as DW has previously said I hope they do a better job of challenging the government on Brexit plans, and making sure that we are as ready as we possibly can be before we trigger Article 50.

 

[thehistorymakers]

I see democracy as so much more. It is the ability to agree and disagree. To hold politicians to account between elections. To protest or to cheer. To be able to demonstrate or show support. Where people, individuals and groups are given (or take) responsibility to change things. To be able to influence and shape.

If you think democracy starts and finishes at free and fair elections you are not a democrat. You have abdicated your responsibility to society except when it is time to vote. That's not democracy.

And to accept when you lose and win graciously. Not to try to win on the street and social media what you couldn't win on polling day.
People have the right to protest I agree, they don't have a right to block the side that won the democratic elections, through obstruction, so the people who won, never get what they voted for. That is a recipe for anachy and extremism, not democracy.

 

[thehistorymakers]

How many times do you need to be told that "I won - you lost" isn't a debate. That you don't respect voting against article 50. inter alia, means that you don't respect democracy. There is a vote, in parliament, where the majority of voters are not instructed via the whip of how they should vote. How can you be against that? I would also have been astounded, outraged even, if the vote had gone against article 50, even though I am strongly a remainer. Not to have the vote would have been the the first step towards the UK being the Zimbabwe of Europe.

I am not saying won lost is a debate, I am saying we leave or stay. That's what the vote was for. I have already posted that it would have been favourable to have stayed in the single market, but the EU have said they will not accept us having our own sovereignty and controlling our own borders, if we stay in the single market. That is why the government has said we are leaving the single market, because without sovereignty and controlling our borders, we wouldn't have left the EU and that is what the majority of people and now parliament have voted for. In short, there is no 3rd way. It is in or out.

 

[thehistorymakers]

Firstly, the house of lords is not undemocratic.

Secondly, absolutely it should go to the Lords to pass through. And as DW has previously said I hope they do a better job of challenging the government on Brexit plans, and making sure that we are as ready as we possibly can be before we trigger Article 50.

Do you think the house of Lords should be able to block the UK leaving the EU? It was Tim Farron who said the house of Lords is unaccountable and undemocratic. As he is the champion of the remain campaign lately, I used his description of the house of Lords, before the referendum of course.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

And to accept when you lose and win graciously. Not to try to win on the street and social media what you couldn't win on polling day.
People have the right to protest I agree, they don't have a right to block the side that won the democratic elections, through obstruction, so the people who won, never get what they voted for. That is a recipe for anachy and extremism, not democracy.

All of these things are happening now and it isn't resulting in anarchy or extremism. All the things you list above are consequences of democracy, not affronts to it.

If enough people were able to exert enough pressure to demand another referendum - that would be democracy in action. It is pretty much how the first referendum came about. People campaigned for it and forced politicians to enable it to happen. Did those people campaigning for a referendum accept they lost when elected government after elected government refused to have a referendum? Your logic would be that they should have accepted that they had lost the argument years ago and accepted it gracefully.

What you are about is not democracy. It is abdication of civic responsibility.

 

[Trips]

Do you think the house of Lords should be able to block the UK leaving the EU? It was Tim Farron who said the house of Lords is unaccountable and undemocratic. As he is the champion of the remain campaign lately, I used his description of the house of Lords, before the referendum of course.

"Should" they be able to block it - Yes.

"Will" they block it - I highly doubt it.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

Do you think the house of Lords should be able to block the UK leaving the EU? It was Tim Farron who said the house of Lords is unaccountable and undemocratic. As he is the champion of the remain campaign lately, I used his description of the house of Lords, before the referendum of course.

Just to stop you asking this question ad infinitum. Yes, absolutely. The House of Lords SHOULD be able to (try) and block the UK leaving the EU. Their role in our current parliamentary system requires them to have this function.

Whether an unelected chamber should have that power is a different debate but at the moment it is what it is and it would be undemocratic to remove that power from them merely to enable something to happen that not everyone agrees with.

 

[Johnny75]

"Should" they be able to block it - Yes.

"Will" they block it - I highly doubt it.

I think you're bang on Trips. It would be nice if they threw it back to the government and told them to write their white paper properly but I'm not sure that's on the cards.

 

[thehistorymakers]

All of these things are happening now and it isn't resulting in anarchy or extremism. All the things you list above are consequences of democracy, not affronts to it.

If enough people were able to exert enough pressure to demand another referendum - that would be democracy in action. It is pretty much how the first referendum came about. People campaigned for it and forced politicians to enable it to happen. Did those people campaigning for a referendum accept they lost when elected government after elected government refused to have a referendum? Your logic would be that they should have accepted that they had lost the argument years ago and accepted it gracefully.

What you are about is not democracy. It is abdication of civic responsibility.

So we don't get to see our democratic right see it's fruition, because even though the people voted to leave, the parliament voted to leave, both main parties have backed article 50 and 2 of the 9 liberal Democrats abstained and didn't block article 50, that civil unrest, often funded by multimillionaire who don't even reside in the UK, should be able to block what the people and parliament voted for.
This is what the 2 liberal Democrats said about abstaining on article 50.

Explaining his decision to abstain last night on Twitter, former health minister Mr Lamb posted: “We are democrats.

“For better or worse we all voted to hold the referendum. You can't now say we reject the result.”

He added: “I am a democrat. We gave people a vote. We can't ignore what they decided.”

Mr Lamb also retweeted posts in support of his decision.

The Liberal Democrats joined an overwhelming majority of MPs in supporting the holding of the EU referendum when the House of Commons voted in 2015.


Protests by activists who lost at the voting booth, should not be able to block a democratic result backed by Parliament.

 

[thehistorymakers]

I think you're bang on Trips. It would be nice if they threw it back to the government and told them to write their white paper properly but I'm not sure that's on the cards.

So you agree the house of Lords should be able to block us leaving the EU?, even though the majority of the electorate in the biggest ever turn out voted to leave and parliament also voted to accept the result.

I am amazed, Johnny. Truly am.

 

[thehistorymakers]

"Should" they be able to block it - Yes.

"Will" they block it - I highly doubt it.

Wow, flabbergasted.