Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

How would you react if parliament blocked EU exit? watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rxns_00)
    I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying.
    Democracy is all well and good in things such a general election, where people pick what sort of policies they support and it is fine to have subjective opinions. However something irreversible such as this shouldn't be a decision made by the public. It should be discussed by people with experience and the democratic vote should have been done between them.
    It's not about what the public want when it comes to this, "we want sovereignty" is all great until the economy starts to crumble and we enter recession. Personal opinion should not take part in this, it should be completely based on correct predictions and factual information.
    Its the same thing! The plebs gave power to Blair and he went and killed jundreds of thousands in a war the experts said was because they had weapons of mass destruction! They didnt!

    Sure the experts got it wrong but it was the plebs that made it happen by voting Blair. We just need to accept the fact common people are too thick to have any say on politics and their lives. Leave it to one or two leaders until they decide to pass the power on to whomever in their expert opinion they deem fit.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Leavers should ask themselves - if Remain had won by 5000 votes, would they have accepted the result?

    Clearly the size of the majority does matter.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rxns_00)
    I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying.
    Democracy is all well and good in things such a general election, where people pick what sort of policies they support and it is fine to have subjective opinions. However something irreversible such as this shouldn't be a decision made by the public. It should be discussed by people with experience and the democratic vote should have been done between them.
    It's not about what the public want when it comes to this, "we want sovereignty" is all great until the economy starts to crumble and we enter recession. Personal opinion should not take part in this, it should be completely based on correct predictions and factual information.
    I think experts on the financial market/economists should have had their final say on this issue. Britain should have listened to them, they understand much more than any of us the implications of leaving the EU. All the warning signs were presented to us from these people but the British public took their 'freedom of democracy' completely the wrong way. We acted as spoiler, rebellious teenagers to be quite frank
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Calling your opinions objective. Claiming only the other side lied. Saying people who disagree with you simply didn't know better or are uninformed. I'm not sure what's worse, that you are all the adjectives I described, all that you don't realise it.
    I'm not saying my opinion is objective. OBJECTIVELY looking at the matter is being able to appreciate factual arguments of both sides and having done proper research based on expert predictions and statistical information and finally appreciate that one option is simply much better than the other for the better future of the country. I'm sure if you'd done enough research and not have blindly followed the likes of Farage and Johnson you wouldn't be here trying to offend me with few arguments to offer.
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    Its the same thing! The plebs gave power to Blair and he went and killed jundreds of thousands in a war the experts said was because they had weapons of mass destruction! They didnt!

    Sure the experts got it wrong but it was the plebs that made it happen by voting Blair. We just need to accept the fact people are too thick to have any say on politics. Leave it to one or two leaders until they decide to pass the power on to whomever in their expert opinion they deem fit.
    I really can't be arsed for you sarcastic arse. You literally have no sensible arguments just like the other person

    That probably sums up the "leave" side. A lot of blabber but little truth and objective viewpoints
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rxns_00)
    I'm not saying my opinion is objective. OBJECTIVELY looking at the matter is being able to appreciate factual arguments of both sides and having done proper research based on expert predictions and statistical information and finally appreciate that one option is simply much better than the other for the better future of the country. I'm sure if you'd done enough research and not have blindly followed the likes of Farage and Johnson you wouldn't be here trying to offend me with few arguments to offer.


    I really can't be arsed for you sarcastic arse. You literally have no sensible arguments just like the other person

    That probably sums up the "leave" side. A lot of blabber but little truth and objective viewpoints
    It seems like everybody is wrong except you! Perhaps you could be the person to make all decisions for the United Kingdom?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    It seems like everybody is wrong except you! Perhaps you could be the person to make all decisions for the United Kingdom?
    Don't know where you're getting that from. All I've said is I'm being objective. Didn't say nothing about people being wrong. Once again lot of bol*ocks coming through but no arguments worth of notice.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rxns_00)
    Don't know where you're getting that from. All I've said is I'm being objective. Didn't say nothing about people being wrong. Once again lot of bol*ocks coming through but no arguments worth of notice.
    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
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    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.
    You clearly still don't understand. 1.9% over is not majority. Simple as that. Leave won by MINORITY. In fact both could be considered minorities as there was barely any difference

    I'll say it again, a majority vote is NOT needed for one side to win. One side CAN win by minority
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    If parliament ignores the result of the referendum the next general election will be a bloodbath for the Tories and Labour. UKIP will either form a government and take Britain out of the EU or have so much influence that neither side could rule.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by katherine9609)
    You clearly still don't understand. 1.9% over is not majority. Simple as that. Leave won by MINORITY. In fact both could be considered minorities as there was barely any difference

    I'll say it again, a majority vote is NOT needed for one side to win. One side CAN win by minority
    I suggest you ask your teachers for remedial classes in dictionary use, comprehension and arithmetic. If one side receives 52% of the electorate's vote while the other gets 48%, the first side has a majority.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by katherine9609)
    You clearly still don't understand. 1.9% over is not majority. Simple as that. Leave won by MINORITY. In fact both could be considered minorities as there was barely any difference

    I'll say it again, a majority vote is NOT needed for one side to win. One side CAN win by minority
    I keep telling you I don't understand what you mean, yes. Explain to me what according to you makes that not a majority.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rxns_00)
    I'm not saying my opinion is objective. OBJECTIVELY looking at the matter is being able to appreciate factual arguments of both sides and having done proper research based on expert predictions and statistical information and finally appreciate that one option is simply much better than the other for the better future of the country. I'm sure if you'd done enough research and not have blindly followed the likes of Farage and Johnson you wouldn't be here trying to offend me with few arguments to offer.
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    I keep telling you I don't understand what you mean, yes. Explain to me what according to you makes that not a majority.
    You are in danger of receiving a visit from the RSPCA, accused of cruelty to dead horses.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hugo13)
    We acted as spoiler, rebellious teenagers to be quite frank
    there is a reason why most referendums (like this last one) are "consultative" and do not imply directly applicable decisions

    it is, usually, left to parliaments - not to the general public - to take legally-binding decisions
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    There's a reason that something like 90% of British fishermen voted leave. They have seen first hand the EU destroying their livelihoods.
    .
    this is a very good example

    the EU has introduced fishing quotas simply because over-fishing has drastically depleted fish stocks. By continuing over-fishing practices, fishermen would have eventually completely destroyed the very fishing stocks on which continuation of their activity depends

    sadly, many times, you simply cannot trust the general public to know what is good for them. Does this mean that democracy should be abolished, and 'enlightened despotism" is the way forward ? No, of course

    it means simply that decisions involving technical issues should not be decided by referendums. In fact, many highly democratic countries do not hold referendums at all. Directly-elected Parliaments are there for some very good (and highly democratic) reasons.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kryptonian)
    I would be glad that they have finally seen sense.
    (Original post by Drewski)
    There are 8 Lib Dem MPs.

    Out of, what, 650? They have no power. Empty threat.
    (Original post by madmadmax321)
    On the whole I would be very happy as it means I might still be able to get into the job sectors I want to work in
    (Original post by drowzee)
    The Lib Dems alone cannot block it. However, if enough MPs from across all the parties form a majority, then yes they could block it. I would rejoice tbh; I know it's undemocratic but I know the public made the wrong choice.
    (Original post by george_c00per)
    Here come the Leave campaigners shouting "FFS IT'S DEMOCRACY WE VOTED 2 LEAVE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!1!!1! " ....
    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
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Manchester_123)
    We need a system like they had before parliament came into being
    Unfettered monarchy? I understand the queen would have voted to leave the EU.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    this is a very good example

    the EU has introduced fishing quotas simply because over-fishing has drastically depleted fish stocks. By continuing over-fishing practices, fishermen would have eventually completely destroyed the very fishing stocks on which continuation of their activity depends

    sadly, many times, you simply cannot trust the general public to know what is good for them. Does this mean that democracy should be abolished, and 'enlightened despotism" is the way forward ? No, of course

    it means simply that decisions involving technical issues should not be decided by referendums. In fact, many highly democratic countries do not hold referendums at all. Directly-elected Parliaments are there for some very good (and highly democratic) reasons.
    British fishermen have no issue with quotas to protect fish population numbers, which the EU has not done. 75% of commercial stocks are overfished despite 42 years of the CFP. That's an epic failure.
    What they have issue with is policies such as the requirement to tip dead fish overboard if they are not of the species the Trawler is meant to be catching. In some areas this amounts to about 13% of the catch. The CFP also favours industrial trawlers fleets, while smaller more sustainable boats have no chance of surviving.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    British fishermen have no issue with quotas to protect fish population numbers, which the EU has not done. 75% of commercial stocks are overfished despite 42 years of the CFP. That's an epic failure.
    this basically means that fishing quotas should have been even stricter
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    What they have issue with is policies such as the requirement to tip dead fish overboard if they are not of the species the Trawler is meant to be catching. In some areas this amounts to about 13% of the catch. The CFP also favours industrial trawlers fleets, while smaller more sustainable boats have no chance of surviving.
    a 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
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    British fishermen have no issue with quotas to protect fish population numbers, which the EU has not done. 75% of commercial stocks are overfished despite 42 years of the CFP. That's an epic failure.
    What they have issue with is policies such as the requirement to tip dead fish overboard if they are not of the species the Trawler is meant to be catching. In some areas this amounts to about 13% of the catch. The CFP also favours industrial trawlers fleets, while smaller more sustainable boats have no chance of surviving.
    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.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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