How would you react if parliament blocked EU exit?

I'm not sure what point you're making now.
The UK's EU membership is a pivotal enough decision that a referendum was warranted. Any notion that a certain policy is too important to be left to the masses is beyond insulting. Lets not forget said representatives that won the General Election put in on their election manifesto in the first place. The referendum wasn't magicked out of thin air or initiated by mob rule.

No, it was initiated by a weak leader as part of a plan to try to secure his position and end the apparently endless bickering in his party.

Essentially the referendum we just had was a misuse of the concept of a referendum. Generally, referenda in democratic countries are invoked when the government (and possibly all of the major parties) are firmly convinced that a major national change is required and it is then put to the people for affirmation.

An example might be merging with another country, removing a monarchy or adopting a new currency.

I could accept that joining or leaving the EU is such a decision, but not against a backdrop of a deeply riven ruling party and where conspiratorial and secretive agendas are being played out, not least that the Prime Minister, supposedly on one side, was most probably on the other.

Reply 221

Andy98

20

Damage has already been done, too late

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 222

Plagioclase

21

Original post by pol pot noodles

Any notion that a certain policy is too important to be left to the masses is beyond insulting

it is indeed insulting which is why it's sad that it's true.

Reply 223

DJBay123

OP

9

Lol. I didn't think that we would get close to reaching this when i made this thread month ago. Now there is a good chance there is. And with most Brexit leaders and main speakers NOT in parliament, whilst most for IN were MP's. This could get interesting.

Reply 224

username878267

15

Original post by Plagioclase

it is indeed insulting which is why it's sad that it's true.

I don't even see it as insulting. Do we really want mob rule?

Some woman in the audience on question time the other day was criticising the courts for 'using a statute from the 1600s to make its decision'

That statute was the bill of rights, arguably our most important constitutional instrument...

Do I trust someone who criticises the courts for making reference to the bill of rights, as being well qualified to make a major policy decision?

Absolutely not.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 225

goatygoat

11

Original post by Bornblue

I would argue that the line was rather 'don't blame immigrants for the failure of successive governments to invest in public services and housing'.

Blaming immigration for overcrowded public services speaks more about a failure to invest and a failure to build than it does for immigration. That line attacks the symptom, rather than the cause.

There is also the obvious hypocrisy of politicians like Farage on the leave side who favor less government funding for public services (low tax, low spend economy) yet when it comes to immigration, they suddenly .care massively about our poor public services. It just strikes me as opportunist, they care about public services when it suits them

I don't think immigration is the most wonderful thing in the world, nor do I necessarily think we should have absolute freedom of movement. What I was concerned about was people blaming immigration rather than blaming a lack of investment which was the real cause.

The problem is the Government want to have their cake and eat it. Immigrants bring in more tax revenue, but the government doesn't want to spend it on more public services since it wants to reduce the deficit. If there weren't migrants, the services would not be overcrowded (as much) but the deficit would stay the same or increase. With the migrants, the services are overcrowded but the deficit has a chance at decreasing.
Pick your poison.

Reply 226

goatygoat

11

Original post by Plagioclase

it is indeed insulting which is why it's sad that it's true.

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” Churchill

Reply 227

username878267

15

Original post by goatygoat

The problem is the Government want to have their cake and eat it. Immigrants bring in more tax revenue, but the government doesn't want to spend it on more public services since it wants to reduce the deficit. If there weren't migrants, the services would not be overcrowded (as much) but the deficit would stay the same or increase. With the migrants, the services are overcrowded but the deficit has a chance at decreasing.
Pick your poison.

People complain massively about demand for public services but rarely complain about supply.

Public services are often just a convenient proxy to criticise immigration.

Reply 228

999tigger

19

Original post by DJBay123

Lol. I didn't think that we would get close to reaching this when i made this thread month ago. Now there is a good chance there is. And with most Brexit leaders and main speakers NOT in parliament, whilst most for IN were MP's. This could get interesting.

Theres blocking an theres blocking.
Did you mean MP's delayed exit and ensured we wen through the correct legal process or did you mean block as in permanently prevent exit and to go against the will of the people in the referendum? They are completely different.

Reply 229

nulli tertius

21

Original post by 999tigger

Theres blocking an theres blocking.
Did you mean MP's delayed exit and ensured we wen through the correct legal process or did you mean block as in permanently prevent exit and to go against the will of the people in the referendum? They are completely different.

Time is a political weapon. The Telegraph claims today (I haven't seen the evidence) that Remain now has a narrow opinion poll lead. If that solidifies, arguments about frustrating the will of the people will start to sound very hollow.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 230

Gwilym101

17

Depends what you mean by blocking brexit. If May actually has to say how she's going to go about Brexit (which would be nice if she did) and Parliament said, "No that's a stupid idea, go back and do it again". I'd be fairly pleased.

If they halted it completely and that meant it was never happening, as someone who voted remain, I'd be pissed. The only way I'd respect any politician who voted against it would be if they immediately resigned straight after.

Reply 231

999tigger

19

Original post by nulli tertius

Time is a political weapon. The Telegraph claims today (I haven't seen the evidence) that Remain now has a narrow opinion poll lead. If that solidifies, arguments about frustrating the will of the people will start to sound very hollow.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Whilst I understand your viewpoint, there is a difference between making sure soemthing follows the correct procedure to straightforward blocking because you disagree. Any opinion poll is not going to stand in the way of a referendum. As ive already posted on here months ago, then the only scenario with enough credibility to go against the referendum would be a general election with one party clearly backing remain and them winning a massive majority.

Protest.

Chortle.

Original post by goatygoat

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” Churchill

Because just telling people what to do all the time works really well...

Also if people are too stupid to vote on important issues then surely they are too stupid to pick people to do somon theor behalf.

The truth is Representative Democracy is a ruse. It lets people think they carry some influence, sometimes they even do when the matter is trivial but at its core it is a way of inhibiting rather than facilitiating the will of the people.

Reply 235

Crb822

3

If that's what happens then I think that it is disgusting not to mention undemocratic. I didn't want Brexit, I was strongly against it but that's what the majority voted for and I accept that. Delaying or even preventing Brexit would make things worse and those MPs thinking of making things even more difficult just because the voting didn't go their way need to grow up. Parliament should be looking at making a good future out of Brexit rather than moaning about it.

Reply 236

RuWill2001

2

Original post by Crb822

If that's what happens then I think that it is disgusting not to mention undemocratic. I didn't want Brexit, I was strongly against it but that's what the majority voted for and I accept that. Delaying or even preventing Brexit would make things worse and those MPs thinking of making things even more difficult just because the voting didn't go their way need to grow up. Parliament should be looking at making a good future out of Brexit rather than moaning about it.

It wouldn't really be undemocratic if elected MP's voted against it.

Reply 237

999tigger

19

Original post by Crb822

If that's what happens then I think that it is disgusting not to mention undemocratic. I didn't want Brexit, I was strongly against it but that's what the majority voted for and I accept that. Delaying or even preventing Brexit would make things worse and those MPs thinking of making things even more difficult just because the voting didn't go their way need to grow up. Parliament should be looking at making a good future out of Brexit rather than moaning about it.

Its really not undemocratic to ensure that exot is done legally. that is all that is happening.

Reply 238

RuWill2001

2

But realistically the only way Brexit will be blocked is if there is another election and a party (either Lib Dems or Labour) pledge to block brexit and if they're elected upon that promise then there would be no problem with them fulfilling that promise. Although this is very unlikely to happen.

I don't see any other way for brexit to be blocked...