REFERENDUM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION THREAD

[Johnny75]

Where was that written down?

 

[Sam-Wolf]

The point is that it was internal matter for the Conservative party with Cameron wanting to bring their Eurosceptic wing under control, sprinkled with a little bit of sabre rattling from UKIP who a grand total of one MP and he was a defected Conservative. There was no need to go to the country to settle that issue. Cameron put the referendum in the manifesto because he assumed it was like shooting fish in a barrel to win it. That’s mistake one.

To compound this, the Remain campaign was then run in a totally half-arsed fashion again because they assumed it was a slam dunk win. Nobody cottoned on to the idea that if the Leave campaign consistently used a load of tosh without challenge that a chunk of the public would actually believe them. That’s mistake two.

So yes, it should never have gone to the people in the first place.

I don't think I've agreed with anything on this thread this much in a long time!

 

[Papper]

It was Farage-driven. It was IDS-driven. It was Rees-Mogg driven. It wasn’t people driven at all.

Not so sure but 17.4 million people agreed with it and seconded it in the recent EU elections (on a single issue). Are you saying these people were placing dark thoughts in our heads? Leading us astray? Why are they scared of another election (without concessions that ultimately amount to reversing a democratic decision) ?

 

[Papper]

Where was that written down?

In the section that said LEAVE. Sadly they couldn't do a multiple choice - we simply had to listen to the experts IE the 'democratically elected' Prime Minister and Chancellor. Just admit you don't like the decision and want it completely reversed. We can then apply the same logic to every future vote ..

 

[Papper]

I don't think I've agreed with anything on this thread this much in a long time!

So basically another one saying that votes don't count unless it's what you voted for.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

If only I was saying that...

 

[Papper]

If only I was saying that...

You are saying the people of this country should not have been allowed to vote on leaving the EU which is about the same. Well we did and the vote was clear. The reason being you disgree and want to reverse the outcome. Fair enough, but By doing so you are being undemocratic ... and when this gets questioned you get the likes of Johnny who first accuses me of smoking crack and then attempts to rewrite history to suit his agenda.

 

[BillyDee]

It was an advisory referendum. Nothing in law said it was anything else, despite what some politicians promised (politicians lie...). MPs chose to accept the referendum result and voted to enact A50.
Since then MPs have voted to reject WAs and to extend A50. All very democratic (bar an illegal progrouging...)

 

[Tony Towner]

As someone who voted remain and still wants to remain I find the advisory referendum argument as disingenuous as the £350m on the bus. Legally it may be correct, but it's a complete rewriting of history to suggest that's how anybody on either side of the debate treated it.

 

[Papper]

It was an advisory referendum. Nothing in law said it was anything else, despite what some politicians promised (politicians lie...). MPs chose to accept the referendum result and voted to enact A50.
Since then MPs have voted to reject WAs and to extend A50. All very democratic (bar an illegal progrouging...)

Yes they advised the electorate to make a decision and then ignored it. They then refused to grant another election unless we are asked to advise again? How many chances at advising do we get - best of three, five or seven? They call another election without concessions alluding to us remaining in the EU and the result will be the same as the referendum and the recent EU elections (on a single issue). If this is democracy gawd elp us ..

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

You are saying the people of this country should not have been allowed to vote on leaving the EU which is about the same. Well we did and the vote was clear. The reason being you disgree and want to reverse the outcome. Fair enough, but By doing so you are being undemocratic ... and when this gets questioned you get the likes of Johnny who first accuses me of smoking crack and then attempts to rewrite history to suit his agenda.

It’s completely different. There should never have been a vote. But there was. And therefore in my opinion (much as I would personally like a straight revocation and end the thing) the only way it can be reversed is if a second referendum is called and produces a different result.

After all, on the night of the vote FARAGE himself said a 52:48 result would be unfinished business and this would not be over, not by a long way. I assume that only applies in one direction then?

 

[Papper]

It’s completely different. There should never have been a vote. But there was. And therefore in my opinion (much as I would personally like a straight revocation and end the thing) the only way it can be reversed is if a second referendum is called and produces a different result.

After all, on the night of the vote FARAGE himself said a 52:48 result would be unfinished business and this would not be over, not by a long way. I assume that only applies in one direction then?

Why shouldn't there have been a vote? Membership of the EU has been a moot point and plagued many Parliaments. Why not go the whole hog and vote for a EURO Parliament and turn Westminster into social housing. It seems you mistrust or may think an elected Parliment in Westminster is incapable of making decisions on workers rights etc. EU incidentally agreed with the last deal/treaty but that wasn't good enough for those who wish to reverse a democratic mandate.

 

[nimrod]

looks like fun on here

isn't the obvious issue is that there are numerous ways to leave the EU - canada deal, norway deal, TM deal, BJ deal, corbyn deal, no deal - which one exactly did the people vote for? All, some, 1, none? it wasn't covered on the ballot paper and the person that asked the question fked off as soon as he got an answer he didn't want.

the "non-democratic" argument is (imo) totally false given that, if you really want to know which form of brexit the people want, you would ask them. and the people who are shouting non-democratic the loudest are the ones who don't want to ask them to specify. these are pseudo-democrats. and nevermind that a) the parliamentary impasse has been created as a result of a "democratic" election; and b) the referendum result cannot usurp parliament itself - it's a relatively basic principle of sovereignty but during this debacle has also been re-affirmed in the UK courts.

according to some, it's almost as if the country is in the position it's in without the "people" ever having any say on the matter rather than as a result of the "people" voting, making their choice and letting their government of their choice get on with it. that's the UK democratic model. the people periodically have the chance to change the model - they could vote for electoral reform/parties. when they are given the chance, they sh.it all over it.

i still regrettably consider papper like a fifth columnist for the corporates and "elites". because whilst he has a final utopian anti-corporate destination he has no path of getting there that doesn't seem to involve trusting the wrong personnel to deliver it. guess what, they won't.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Why shouldn't there have been a vote? Membership of the EU has been a moot point and plagued many Parliaments. Why not go the whole hog and vote for a EURO Parliament and turn Westminster into social housing. It seems you mistrust or may think an elected Parliment in Westminster is incapable of making decisions on workers rights etc. EU incidentally agreed with the last deal/treaty but that wasn't good enough for those who wish to reverse a democratic mandate.

Because it was an internal Conservative Party issue. Cameron needed to appease the ERG. Plus he knew the Lib-Dems were in for a kicking over austerity so the chances of them propping him up for a further term were slim. And so he was worried about leaching enough votes to UKIP that he would lose power. It had nothing to do with any other motive whatsoever.

 

[Papper]

i still regrettably consider papper like a fifth columnist for the corporates and "elites". because whilst he has a final utopian anti-corporate destination he has no path of getting there that doesn't seem to involve trusting the wrong personnel to deliver it. guess what, they won't.

I suppose herein lies my anarchist persuasions. First step, total accountable through Westminster then proven parties may emerge. But then again I was told a while back that MP's don't serve us they make decisions on our behalf - some will always be more equal than others eh ...

 

[Papper]

Because it was an internal Conservative Party issue. Cameron needed to appease the ERG. Plus he knew the Lib-Dems were in for a kicking over austerity so the chances of them propping him up for a further term were slim. And so he was worried about leaching enough votes to UKIP that he would lose power. It had nothing to do with any other motive whatsoever.

So you are saying that there wasn't a consensus/peoples movement that had a desire to leave the EU? I strongly disgaree - To me you are describing an inability to counter change amongst the population. It's a fiery topic going back years ... JC even advocated leaving the EU.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Christ pre-dated it by a bit!

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

So you are saying that there wasn't a consensus/peoples movement that had a desire to leave the EU?

There are dozens, nay hundreds or even thousands of fringe movements across the country at any given time. However you don't start putting them all at the front and centre of Government policy as that would be ludicrous.

The likes of Cash, Redwood, Bone etc were just joke figures for years.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

But taking your point seriously, yes there was a movement pushing for it, but in my view certainly not consensus. If you look at polls of what the population considered important policy issues over the decade leading to the referendum, Europe really didn’t feature that highly.

I do agree about Corbyn though. There’s definitely one in favour of Brexit there. That’s why his party and policy on it is so conflicted and bumbling.

 

[nimrod]

I suppose herein lies my anarchist persuasions. First step, total accountable through Westminster then proven parties may emerge. But then again I was told a while back that MP's don't serve us they make decisions on our behalf - some will always be more equal than others eh ...

lol, you're a funny sort of anarchist..
Democracy is nothing but the Tyranny of Majorities, the most abominable tyranny of all - pierre joseph Proudhon
of course, it isn't often even a majority in the case of the UK model...

in my anarchistic mind, I don't care what the "people" decide, that's a 'c'est la vie" scenario for me. I trust my own reason & independence. though I seem to have more respect for democracy than most "democratically" minded people