How would you react if parliament blocked EU exit?

this basically means that fishing quotas should have been even strictera good example of how the discussion quickly becomes technical, and difficult for the general public to understand and decide

would a referendum on the EU fisheries policy be a sensible solution ? no. There is no way that the general public could make a reasoned, well-informed decision

Governments and directly-elected Parliaments are there for a reason

BIB: this is a tricky situation because technically without this requirement quotas would be unenforceable because people could claim it was an accident when it wasn't and just ignore the quotas. so you do have to look at both sides of the argument for that.

The electorate chose the wrong decision in the last 2 elections as well and the last 2 referendums. Eventually we got to consider if voting should be allowed in the first place, if they keep picking the wrong answer, what's the point? We need a system like they had before parliament came into being

wth bro i am not arguing with you - i am agreeing with you. You have clearly demonstrated you are the fountain of "truth" and "objectivity" (Cos u said so above)

I suggested you could decide whats best for all 65 million people of UK because you are objective and full of truth

The patronising condescension is in your notion that only Remainers have been objective, only Remainers have appreciated facts and done research. Because of your self-righteous belief that Remain was the inherently correct decision, you're unable to grasp the possibility that Leave voters also put some thought into their decision but merely came up with a different end result than you.
Let's look at Remain's arguments. First of all, Leavers are racists and bigots. For obvious reasons, this didn't sway anyone.
On the economics side, Cameron and Osborne's doomsday predictions were dismissed as desperate and of no credibility. There were indeed credible analysis of more moderate financial gloom, however ultimately these were not enough to sway many people. No one ever thought leaving would instantly turn the UK into a land of gold and honey. Many people however believed that it was a price worth paying to be free of EU bureaucracy. There's a reason that something like 90% of British fishermen voted leave. They have seen first hand the EU destroying their livelihoods.
Many older Brits were alive way before the EU existed in it's current form of the UK was a member, and so were puzzled by claims that the UK is a tiny island state that needs the EU to survive.
Immigration was obviously a hot topic. Me personally, I have no issue with large scale immigration so long as the government funds services in line with the increased population. However the jist of the Remain campaigns argument over this was Luvvies and students singing Kumbaya and career politicians telling ordinary people that their problems that they are facing first hand were all imaginary.
So as you can see, people who voted Leave did indeed weigh up all the facts and made an informed decision. They just, shock horror, came to a different conclusion to you.

Yeah fair one, I suppose you could have a cod trawler catching unlimited amounts of every other fish.

That's your opinion; I'm not a fan of the Tories, but I prefer them to Milliband's and Corbyn's labour. General elections are a lot different to referendums, because we have one every 5 years.

Are you referring to the AV referendum in 2011? I agree the public made the wrong decision. Something as complex as the EU or voting reform shouldn't be held to the public; people are too ignorant and uninformed. However, this is a democracy, and we need a democracy. What other system of government would you propose? Ultimately, people should have the right to vote on matters that effect them. Overall, I think referendums are fine for issues which aren't too complex, but when something as complex as the EU is at stake, I think it should be left to the MPs to decide. People let their ignorance blind them, are easily manipulated by the media and are unable to think critically.

See you continue to prove just how useless you are in this matter, you're not worth my time of discussion fgs

But clearly you haven't weighed up all the facts. Cameron's predictions was not the only prediction! In fact Cameron is the very insignifact part of the whole movement. I strongly advise you research further into this, at least in particular the possible outcomes of leaving the EU as many more have been described negatively compared to remaining in the EU.

It isn't that were calling the leave voters racist however undeniably many voted leave almost purely because of immigration without researching the impacts of the decision on other, much more important aspects. Also I really hate the idea people are against immigration when it has been repeatedly proven to fuel the country's economy, while bigoted views have been disproved again and again. That's one of the factors that lead me to believe people voted blindly without analysing every other aspect.

Also the argument about older Brits living in the UK before the EU... I think you're forgetting the reason UK joined the EU is because this was needed. And the need has not ceased! If anything, with factors such as high terrorism alerts, we really do need the EU supporting us. We can develop inside the EU at a rate much higher than we would be able to inside of it, which has been predicted by a considerable number of economists if you have a quick Google search (I'd provide links but I'm sure they're easy to find on your own if you wish to have a glance at least). The older generation is missing the sovereignty however they're not realising the EU has evolved together as one and we have been a part of it and times have quite frankly changed. We're no longer the great British nation invading other countries and colonising whatever land we had a liking for. Those times are long gone before the current generations have even been here so I don't see why we're still attached to those days. It is no longer possible. We are civilised and educated and are looking for prosperity on our land which is an easier target within the EU than outside of it as research by financial experts show.

and that's why that rule was introduced. It isn't a perfect solution by any means but it's the best solution to act as a disincentive.

It hasn't really worked though. Either way the CFP has failed to reduce over-fishing. Better oversight of trawler fleets could have been better. Confiscation of unlicensed catches, fines etc. there are so many other alternatives.

1 million is not majority. Not when one side is 16m+ and the other 17m+. 3% difference between the vote is also not majority. In fact, the vote is practically equally divided. If for example leave would be 25m and remain 5m then yes, that would be majority. But a 1m/3% difference is not majority.

The word majority means "over half", do you see "over half" of the voters being on the leave side? Yeah exactly, you don't

Please go educate yourself before you comment. Sometimes reading a history or politics book is much more beneficial for you than Wikipedia or a calculator 😊

What bizarre system are you using. You originally said

"The word majority means "over half", do you see "over half" of the voters being on the leave side? Yeah exactly, you don't "
But you do. 51.9% of the voters is over half of the voters. I'll keep repeating this because it keeps being true, I don't know what you're on about.

What he said lol

It is over 50% so it is a majority . . .

Posted from TSR Mobile

That's your opinion; I'm not a fan of the Tories, but I prefer them to Milliband's and Corbyn's labour. General elections are a lot different to referendums, because we have one every 5 years.

Are you referring to the AV referendum in 2011? I agree the public made the wrong decision. Something as complex as the EU or voting reform shouldn't be held to the public; people are too ignorant and uninformed. However, this is a democracy, and we need a democracy. What other system of government would you propose? Ultimately, people should have the right to vote on matters that effect them. Overall, I think referendums are fine for issues which aren't too complex, but when something as complex as the EU is at stake, I think it should be left to the MPs to decide. People let their ignorance blind them, are easily manipulated by the media and are unable to think critically.

now u have ur independence ur simply ukp

will the uk exist after brexit? no

so ur now p

p = pee

pee is bad

ur party is bad

checkmate

Overly-technical? I'm talking about how the fishermen voted. I'm sure they understand how their own industry regulation works.

I sort of understand your general gist though, although it's dangerous territory. I'm of the opinion that Governments and directly elected Parliaments are there to implement the will of the people. Like literally, that's their only purpose. It doesn't matter if they think they know better. By all means attempt to persuade otherwise, but the only reason there's such voter discontent is entirely because they believe the establishment is marginalising and ignoring their views.

yes, the fishermen know how their industry works : but they do not know how their particular sector fits in with national (or EU) policy. Most every economic sector wants assistance and/or protection from external competition : it is the function of Governments and Parliaments to work out how this legitimate wish fits in with general policy. And they are much better equipped to do so than the "general public", due to their political experience and time available

direct democracy is an utopia. We live in systems where representative democracy is implemented

this means that every four or five years people elect their representatives on the basis of an overall judgement about both people and agendas, and - bar extraordinary circumstances such as wars, coups d' etat, breakdown of political systems- this is it. It is not possible for "the people" to share in executive power and Government administration

where I agree with you is about the growing discontent in lower middle/working classes : this derives mainly from the sluggish economy and employment market. However, my view is that the remedy adopted in this case (Brexit) is worse than the disease and will harm most those who brought it about