This referendum was about ideology from top to bottom, start to finish. It was to resolve the ideological question, is Britain to be governed, through the twenty first century by a sovereign British people, or by Jean Claude Juncker, Angela Merkel and their foreign, unelected, unaccountable, successors?(Original post by Plagioclase)
Yes, the difference is that a general election cycle lasts 5 years whereas this decision is permanent. A general election is also a constitutional matter which is at least somewhat to do with ideology rather than a pure assessment of the evidence whereas the EU decision is not the former and totally the latter. It is a decision that should be taken by parliament, not the public.
That is the sort of momentous national decision we don't ask "experts" to decide for us. (Even those as eminent as Oxford Economics Professors and former Ambassadors to the UN). We the people should determine this. And we did. That is democracy.
Yes it is how things are done in this country. We are a representative democracy that determines ad hoc matters of supreme national importance through referenda.(Original post by Plagioclase)
It is not how things are done in this country. Our country is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.
As constitutional precedent I cite the referendum which committed us to stay in the, then, Common Market in the 1970's. Those that created our current devolution systems in Soctland and Wales, and the fact that Scotland remains a member of the UK after a referendum. As it will remain until and unless another referendum determines otherwise.
I think you are living in a bubble if you believe there is no risk of that..(Original post by Plagioclase)
I honestly do not believe that this will happen. Once it is explained to the public that the changes they voted for in the referendum are impossible and the full implications are explained (i.e. the fact that it is impossible for the UK to negotiate the necessary deals within the 2 year period of Article 50, the impacts on healthcare, education, science etc.) then I would hope that the public would be more amiable towards it. After all, this referendum was nothing more than an advisory poll, even though it wasn't represented as that. But this country should not be damaged by the failings of certain politicians.
If you metropolitan elitist guys subvert this referendum you are attacking the very concept of democracy itself.
That is really really dangerous.
Turn on thread page Beta
We aren't going to stop free movement, so what exactly did Brexiters vote for? watch
- 11-07-2016 12:21
(Original post by Plagioclase)
- 11-07-2016 13:50
It is not how things are done in this country. Our country is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. This referendum was only offered as a cheap ploy to gather more votes for the Tories and should not be viewed as anything more.
In recent years you are certainly wrong about this. We have held a number of referenda on constitutional questions and almost everyone accepts that even the integrity of the country is subject to a referendum: no one would propose parliament vetoing Scotland's secession after a "Yes" vote for instance. We have taken a similar stance on Northern Ireland, Gibraltar, and the Falkland Islands. The established principle in the UK today is that parliament handles day-to-day business and referenda decide higher questions; referenda are not only part of the system but clearly trump a mere Commons majority.
In the past you may have been right but then before 1918 the principle was still that the House of Commons represented land owners, not the whole population. That is less than 100 year ago.
I do not see the two as separable. If parliament is legitimate as a representative of popular will, clearly a referendum is a better representation of popular will on any given question, so a referendum result has greater legitimacy than parliament. If we think that parliament's legitimacy derives from some other source then the most recent precedent you are going to find is that parliament is the representative body of a confederation of landowners, in which case a lot of people should be disenfranchised. If you don't want that one either, you are going to have to start making stuff up.Last edited by Observatory; 11-07-2016 at 13:55.
- 11-07-2016 16:46
OK, so after the events today we have a lot more clarity. May has said "Brexit means Brexit," the Tory Party is uniting behind her and she will be able to command a Commons majority. There won't be a General Election short term, nor a second referendum.
Things are starting to settle down.
So we can turn to the substance of this thread. It is no longer, "Will there be a Brexit at all?" but "What kind of Brexit will it be? Soft or hard?"
And the OP fails to understand what is actually going on. Free movement of Labour is non negotiable on our part. Whatever happens immigration from the EU is going to be controlled.
The jargon is of EEA -1. That is membership of the single market without free movement. We should clearly push for this as the best option, but it looks highly unlikely. But if you don't ask you don't have any chance to get.
Then we see what if anything they offer us short of that. They need to "punish" us for having the temerity to leave their dying club, to discourage "les autres" but it is in their interests to strike some kind of deal short of a hard Brexit will which hurt them too. But then their governance is such a cluster**** you can't guarantee they will even come up with something which works to their own good.
So finally we need to have a steely determination to settle for a hard Brexit. Trade won't cease, the pound will devalue further which will help us be internationally competitive, and they can't stop us trading Euro derivatives offshore. The City has the expertise and network and infrastructure. We won't be hidebound by stupid EU rules. We will more than survive.
Yeah, BMW's and cheese will be more expensive. We will have to change our cars less often and our waistlines can improve. If that means a car worker in Munich loses his job or a French farmer goes hungry, too freaking bad. That's their problem for not coming to a mutually beneficial deal.
There will be an economic cost, no doubt about that. But that is the price of freedom.
(Original post by Plagioclase)
- 11-07-2016 17:38
Indeed. It's quite sad that we're now in a situation where expertise is something to be ashamed about.
However there is some truth in this with a lot of people:
(Original post by generallee)
Do you want Brexit to result in a terrible deal for Britain so that you can be proven right all along?
Do you actually hate your country, is that it?
(Original post by Plagioclase)
Yep, precisely that mob stupidity.
I do not accept that a vote made by an uninformed electorate on the basis of promises that are unattainable and flagrant lies is democratic in the slightest.Last edited by KimKallstrom; 11-07-2016 at 17:46.
(Original post by Observatory)
- 11-07-2016 18:32
I do not see the two as separable. If parliament is legitimate as a representative of popular will, clearly a referendum is a better representation of popular will on any given question, so a referendum result has greater legitimacy than parliament. If we think that parliament's legitimacy derives from some other source then the most recent precedent you are going to find is that parliament is the representative body of a confederation of landowners, in which case a lot of people should be disenfranchised. If you don't want that one either, you are going to have to start making stuff up.
The people who voted for Brexit still have no clue as to whether they will end up with anything resembling what they think they voted for.
Offline21ReputationRep:TSR Support Team
- TSR Support Team
(Original post by KimKallstrom)
- 11-07-2016 19:39
Sort it out. It's not a good look. I don't; like the result any more than you do and, like I said, I also lament the anti-intellectualism we are seeing growing. But your elitist snobbery is typical of the Remain campaign and I'm telling you it drove away a lot of people in the referendum. The campaign was trying to sell to people a status quo that they see as not working for them at all for decades and when it proves to be a tough sell, they're just sneered at, smeared and dismissed as "uniformed" just like you're doing. Then you wonder why this happened.....