Parliament should not invoke Article 50 - the referendum was a farce

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I think if we put the combined amounts the Mailygraph and the SkySun spent on this, we'd be lucky to get change out of £100m.

    The Mail alone spilled out so many lies - yet even just casually listening to people in shops and so on, you can tell they are widely believed.
    I dont think it's a fair comparison between a select audience (those who choose to read specific media) and a mailing to every single registered voter in the UK.

    You could argue that those who read the mail were always going to vote for Leave anyway because of their personal beliefs which lead them to read the mail in the first place.

    Regardless; you've lost. It would be political suicide for any MP to ignore the majority of their constituents.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    Fair enough, what happens if the Conservatives lose their majority at the next election and Jeremy Corbyn has the mandate to form a government with a coalition with Scottish and Welsh nationalists and Greens. You might see the same sort of chaos in the currency and stock markets as happened yesterday. Faced with that sort of threat, the Conservative PM should immediately announce that he cannot and does not accept the new government, call a Royal Commission to find out the real implications to the UK of having this sort of government, and then declare a 5-year moratorium on action, continuing the Conservative government.

    I am sure you would see the sense in this.
    Not comparing like with like - a free and fair election and its outcome is not the same thing as a 50/50 referendum result, with a completely distorted process, massive lies and the whole thing set up to serve the interests of a narrow faction of only one party, with undue control of a large part of the media.

    Indeed, there's a word for the scenario I've just described - fascism.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    I dont think it's a fair comparison between a select audience (those who choose to read specific media) and a mailing to every single registered voter in the UK.

    You could argue that those who read the mail were always going to vote for Leave anyway because of their personal beliefs which lead them to read the mail in the first place.

    Regardless; you've lost. It would be political suicide for any MP to ignore the majority of their constituents.
    You'd be OK with all the London and Scotland MPs voting against it?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    You're being ridiculous and flying in the face of the facts. We had a very close referendum and the referendum itself was not legally binding. There is no justification from the result so far for Parliament to suddenly act and launch us out of the EU, indeed, the reverse is true - it should be subject to much reflection and possibly a general election on the issue.

    So far we have not had democracy, but a distorted, twisted sham of it.
    Dam never seen so many toys chucked out the pram. Some serious bed wetting going on here.

    Full of Suprises I have been arguing on TSR for the past couple of weeks and I have literally gone over your so called experts 2 who are Keynesian Economists. I have mentioned the QE nightmare and yet no1 can argue against it.
    Your camp just keeps repeating the same thing over again. Facts Facts Facts.

    Sorry but this is a arguement and there are conflicting facts. So far you haven't dared to argue with anyone to reinforce your experts facts and its getting very boring replying to you.

    This is as bad as the time when you ignored the whole thing about the Green's backing Agenda 21 UN depopulation plan.

    If you want me to take you seriously your going to need some substance instead of being a parrot.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Don't you think the Leave voters will be just as angry and determined as you are, if you try something like that?

    A lot of people think this vote was a turning point, but I have a feeling that in the end, it really didn't matter. The writing was on the wall for the EU anyway. Other countries resented the terms Brussels offered to the UK as being too generous, so many analysts believe that even if you'd taken the offer, other countries would have started voting out and the block would have started to collapse.

    On top of that, no one would have accepted the result either way. The Leave voters wouldn't have given up, and eventually there would have been a breaking point. The opposition to leaving the EU later would be weaker after important countries started leaving, so they'd find it easier and easier to support their position. This was likely inevitable.

    I predict that the EU is a failure, and that the UK is merely the first of many dominos. At least a few countries were only willing to stay in with Britain's weight in the union pushing for limitations of Brussel's authority. The EU will become even more intolerable for the remaining member states. On top of that, many other EU members don't have seats in NATO or other important organizations, and the loss of Britain therefore weakens them considerably, as they often looked to Britain to be their voice in said organizations.

    I think that ignoring a plebiscite that was promised to be binding is a terrible idea. Revolutions have happened over less grievous insults to the people. It's quite likely that if Parliament simply doesn't follow the results of the poll, there will be civil unrest and economic chaos worse than the consequences of a Brexit. In fact, most of Europe wants you out ASAP because staying in will cause problems for them. In fact, they'd probably suspend your membership under Article 7 if Parliament did something that blatantly undemocratic. The only reasonable chance of remaining now that might be tolerated is a second referendum.

    There are some countries where you could get away with something like that, but it would be a terrible idea in Britain. The reason why is actually very well described by a German who is familiar with British culture.
    http://www.dw.com/en/my-brexit-diary...man/a-19239617

    Basically, British people already mistrust government and don't like to be interfered with. That's just a part of their character. Britain just isn't Germany or China, and it would be inappropriate to govern the country as if it were Germany or China. So imagine what happens when that government then flouts the will of the people in broad daylight rather than just through byzantine bureaucracy that would allow them to hide it from the average person? Brexit is still preferable to that kind of chaos.

    There is another part of the puzzle to consider as well. Britain's membership in the EU has always been controversial. Many European governments didn't want Britain to join in the first place, and those sentiments are now certainly rekindled. Britain already has more opt-outs from various aspects of the EU than any other country. You don't even use the Euro... isn't it obvious that Britain has been conflicted about being part of the EU all along, and that it's been an awkward fit? People who believe that the UK has been enthusiastic about the EU, that it hasn't been controversial, and that it's a good fit for their country are kidding themselves.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    You'd be OK with all the London and Scotland MPs voting against it?
    Sure, if it makes them feel better. I doubt it would have much effect...

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    You're being ridiculous and flying in the face of the facts. [...]

    So far we have not had democracy, but a distorted, twisted sham of it.
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Since when and on what planet does 'democracy' mean 'referendum result by a sliver over 1% difference."? Democracy is electing representatives to decide for us in a properly constituted parliament.
    You may want to reacquaint yourself with a little something called irony - 'sliver over 1% difference?' It was a difference of 4 percent.

    And who died to make you the arbiter of what democracy is or isn't? Please, stop destroying whatever credibility you have left. It's painfully obvious even to those that normally side with you that you're simply throwing a hissy fit because this one election didn't go the way you wanted it to.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheTechN1304)
    We did demand that parliament listen to us. They gave us a referendum. 52% of people voted leave, or did you forget about that?
    51.9 actually.

    The difference between the Leave and Remain vote was just over 1 person in 100.

    On that, we are completely altering Britain's path in the world and very likely destroying our economy, or at least, rendering significant harm to it.

    I scratch my head that people think that is OK and calmly accept it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    When it's basically 50/50, there is no 'majority'.
    If it's not 50/50, there is a majority, no matter how slight.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Not comparing like with like - a free and fair election and its outcome is not the same thing as a 50/50 referendum result, with a completely distorted process, massive lies and the whole thing set up to serve the interests of a narrow faction of only one party, with undue control of a large part of the media.

    Indeed, there's a word for the scenario I've just described - fascism.
    Whats a free and fair election? You mean one where the first past the post system means that lots of votes are wasted and so you only need 42% of the electorate to vote for you to get a majority and form a government?

    Or one where the existing government of teh day isn't allowed to spend £9m of taxpayers money to produce its own campaign material?

    I think you need to look up what fascism actually is, its about shutting down the democratic process, denying free speech, jailing political opponents etc. It's not about holding referendums and deciding things by majority consent.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    Whats a free and fair election? You mean one where the first past the post system means that lots of votes are wasted and so you only need 42% of the electorate to vote for you to get a majority and form a government?

    Or one where the existing government of teh day isn't allowed to spend £9m of taxpayers money to produce its own campaign material?

    I think you need to look up what fascism actually is, its about shutting down the democratic process, denying free speech, jailing political opponents etc. It's not about holding referendums and deciding things by majority consent.
    Faking majority consent through devious means to obtain an austerity agenda and extreme libertarian policies (see: Gove, Farage, etc) that most people otherwise wouldn't vote for is indeed a kind of fascism.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    51.9 actually.

    The difference between the Leave and Remain vote was just over 1 person in 100.

    On that, we are completely altering Britain's path in the world and very likely destroying our economy, or at least, rendering significant harm to it.

    I scratch my head that people think that is OK and calmly accept it.
    What do you think would happen if they didn't invoke it?

    They'd be nationwide strikes that would go on for who knows how long, probably riots.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scott.)
    What do you think would happen if they didn't invoke it?

    They'd be nationwide strikes that would go on for who knows how long, probably riots.
    Oh dream on, what absolute nonsense. There would be minor discontent and threats from Farage and a lot of hot air from the Tory boys who control the Leave movement.

    It really isn't a working class movement as you imagine - they simply manipulated some working class people into voting for them in the referendum and some voted Leave not because they support Gove, Farage and their vile gang of tax dodgers and dotty pensioners, but because they thought it a protest vote against austerity and the authorities generally. Of course, they are now going to get a much bigger dose of austerity for their trouble. :sad:
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The petition for a second referendum with better rules is now at almost 2m signatures.
    https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    The petition for a second referendum with better rules is now at almost 2m signatures.
    https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215
    What do you do when remain win in a hypothetical rerun of the referendum and the brexit side then demands another rerun? You sound dangerously undemocratic. They can just as easily say you are manipulating and bullying voters. For example shaming them by calling them racist for voting brexit.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tsunaomi)
    If it's not 50/50, there is a majority, no matter how slight.
    Not according to Nigel Farage:

    "In a 52-48 referendum, this would be unfinished business by a long way". Nigel Farage, last month

    https://twitter.com/DavidLammy
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    You'd be OK with all the London and Scotland MPs voting against it?
    I'd be okay with Scotland leaving the UK, and I couldn't care less what the people of London want, as they had their chance to vote and turn out to vote for remain and the turnout there was lower than elsewhere. If those people cared so much then maybe they should have got off their fat asses and did something about it.

    This is the main problem in the UK at the moment. It is fully of spoilt entitled brats with this attitude. They had an opportunity to do something about it, didn't and expected everyone else to do it for them, and then when they didn't get what they want its everyone else's fault, the world is unfair and they're being marginalised.

    Why don't you go and invite Laurie Penny around and you can both talk about how life is unfair whilst going through a few boxes of Kleenex together?

    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I scratch my head that people think that is OK and calmly accept it.
    You could scratch your head for the rest of time and you still wouldn't find anything that represents an open mind in there.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James.Carnell)
    What do you do when remain win in a hypothetical rerun of the referendum and the brexit side then demands another rerun? You sound dangerously undemocratic. They can just as easily say you are manipulating and bullying voters. For example shaming them by calling them racist for voting brexit.
    We are demanding democracy. A non-binding referendum has produced a wafer thin result that Nigel Farage himself previously said would be unacceptable. That is no basis for taking the biggest national decision for decades.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Not according to Nigel Farage:

    "In a 52-48 referendum, this would be unfinished business by a long way". Nigel Farage, last month

    https://twitter.com/DavidLammy
    Where does that say he wants a second referendum?

    He actually said:

    "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."

    Of course he would continue to fight for leaving the EU. He has spent over 20 years fighting for it and he kept getting closer and closer all the time, so why would he give up when there is only a marginal loss? Nowhere did he suggest that he wanted a second referendum so now do us a favour and go and do something constructive with your evening you compulsive liar.

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    We are demanding democracy. A non-binding referendum has produced a wafer thin result that Nigel Farage himself previously said would be unacceptable. That is no basis for taking the biggest national decision for decades.


    LIAR!!!!!!

    He actually said:

    "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 12, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you rather have...?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.