Boris to prorogue again - rule by government without Parliament Watch

username1421435
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#81
Report 4 weeks ago
#81
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
Let me ask you this then, since your all high and mighty on democracy...

Say all of the apparent scaremongering, which I would call the truth, comes to fruition. There are medication shortages, food shortages, five day waits at the ports, riots, job losses as companies now can’t afford to stay in our country. My simple question, is all of that worth it, for the act of saying that we followed through with democracy?
Quite simply, yes. It isn't about 'saying' we followed through with democracy, it's the dangerous precedent that is set if we do not.

You make it sound like the UK needs the EU to survive; from what you are saying you are making the case that the UK can never leave the EU because of all that will ensue.

Again, I'm not saying that the government should take the UK out of the EU without a deal, but the government certainly has a mandate to ensure the UK does leave the EU.

Democracy is about finding the best deal for the UK whilst respecting the majority of the referendum. Cameron, having campaigned to remain, felt he could no longer do this and hence resigned as PM and MP. Just because you think remaining is best for the country does, unfortunately does not have any weighting - I agree with doing what is in the best interests of the country, but only within the constraints of the mandate the government have; that mandate is to fulfill the outcome of the referendum, regardless of how small the majority is.
0
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#82
Report 4 weeks ago
#82
(Original post by lawtc2019)
Quite simply, yes. It isn't about 'saying' we followed through with democracy, it's the dangerous precedent that is set if we do not.

You make it sound like the UK needs the EU to survive; from what you are saying you are making the case that the UK can never leave the EU because of all that will ensue.

Again, I'm not saying that the government should take the UK out of the EU without a deal, but the government certainly has a mandate to ensure the UK does leave the EU.

Democracy is about finding the best deal for the UK whilst respecting the majority of the referendum. Cameron, having campaigned to remain, felt he could no longer do this and hence resigned as PM and MP. Just because you think remaining is best for the country does, unfortunately does not have any weighting - I agree with doing what is in the best interests of the country, but only within the constraints of the mandate the government have; that mandate is to fulfill the outcome of the referendum, regardless of how small the majority is.
But in short, you have countless industry experts warning about the affects of a no deal brexit. You already have companies cutting jobs, the pound drops every time the chance of a no deal brexit goes up. It has also never returned to it's pre brexit level. How can you possibly justify the misery that will most likely come as a result of a no deal brexit because of one vote, which has a 2% difference? It's ludicrous.

Quite simply, the UK does need the EU to survive. All of these pie in the sky ideas that we can go ahead and forge new trade deals and live off our own means are complete fallacy. We are not the country we think we are. It's as simple as that. 60% of our food comes from the EU either inside it, or via it. As soon as you then have problems in getting the food in via the ports you have a major issue. Where do we get 60% extra food from? At the same prices? We won't is the answer. Prices will rise for food. I 100% guarantee that now, never mind the supply issue.
2
reply
username1421435
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#83
Report 4 weeks ago
#83
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
But in short, you have countless industry experts warning about the affects of a no deal brexit. You already have companies cutting jobs, the pound drops every time the chance of a no deal brexit goes up. It has also never returned to it's pre brexit level. How can you possibly justify the misery that will most likely come as a result of a no deal brexit because of one vote, which has a 2% difference? It's ludicrous.

Quite simply, the UK does need the EU to survive. All of these pie in the sky ideas that we can go ahead and forge new trade deals and live off our own means are complete fallacy. We are not the country we think we are. It's as simple as that. 60% of our food comes from the EU either inside it, or via it. As soon as you then have problems in getting the food in via the ports you have a major issue. Where do we get 60% extra food from? At the same prices? We won't is the answer. Prices will rise for food. I 100% guarantee that now, never mind the supply issue.
How can you justify a mandate to remain when less people in the UK voted for it? If what I'm suggesting is ludicrous, what you're suggesting is just unimaginable.

A lot of people think we need the EU to survive because they have not known any different. You're basically saying the EU has honey trapped us and even decades down the line we won't be able to leave because we are dependent on them.

Yes, there is the possibility of food prices rising, shortages and whatever other thing you want to spout out, but the truth is this; there are reasons why people voted to leave the EU in the first place which counteract your points. I'm not saying they aren't valid, but you can't only consider one side and not the other
0
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#84
Report 4 weeks ago
#84
(Original post by lawtc2019)
How can you justify a mandate to remain when less people in the UK voted for it? If what I'm suggesting is ludicrous, what you're suggesting is just unimaginable.

A lot of people think we need the EU to survive because they have not known any different. You're basically saying the EU has honey trapped us and even decades down the line we won't be able to leave because we are dependent on them.

Yes, there is the possibility of food prices rising, shortages and whatever other thing you want to spout out, but the truth is this; there are reasons why people voted to leave the EU in the first place which counteract your points. I'm not saying they aren't valid, but you can't only consider one side and not the other
But we are now three years down the line. Look at the voting demographics from the original result. Why should I be forced out of the EU by the vote of the elderly?

Secondly, back up your point then. Counteract my points, give me one benefit of the food and medication shortages...
0
reply
username1421435
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#85
Report 4 weeks ago
#85
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
But we are now three years down the line. Look at the voting demographics from the original result. Why should I be forced out of the EU by the vote of the elderly?

Secondly, back up your point then. Counteract my points, give me one benefit of the food and medication shortages...
I'm sorry but you can't take away the vote of the elderly with the proviso that "they're going to die soon so it shouldn't matter", because the vast majority of those elderly have done a damn sight more for this country than you or I.

I have not said there is a benefit to food or medication shortages, please don't twist my words. I have said there are benefits to leaving the EU; plenty of which can be found online. This has once again strayed from what we're debating. This is not a question of whether the UK should have voted to leave or remain in the EU - they already voted.
0
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#86
Report 4 weeks ago
#86
(Original post by lawtc2019)
I'm sorry but you can't take away the vote of the elderly with the proviso that "they're going to die soon so it shouldn't matter", because the vast majority of those elderly have done a damn sight more for this country than you or I.

I have not said there is a benefit to food or medication shortages, please don't twist my words. I have said there are benefits to leaving the EU; plenty of which can be found online. This has once again strayed from what we're debating. This is not a question of whether the UK should have voted to leave or remain in the EU - they already voted.
So what are the benefits of leaving the EU? I don’t want to look online, I want you to back up the point you made.
0
reply
username1421435
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#87
Report 4 weeks ago
#87
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
So what are the benefits of leaving the EU? I don’t want to look online, I want you to back up the point you made.
No you don't, you quite simply want to turn this debate from one which you are losing into a completely different one.

The debate we were arguing is whether the government has a mandate to leave the EU based on the referendum. Every point you have made about the majority, turnout, being 'lied to', and the vote of the elderly (amongst others) has been put down with no response from you. Unless you are willing to concede that the government does in fact have a mandate to ensure Britain leaves the EU, or are willing to actually argue the original debate, I am going to end the discussion here.

We are not getting side tracked by another debate on whether leaving or remaining in the EU is the best option. I could happily argue for either side, even though I voted to remain in 2016, but that is a completely different debate that serves no purpose other than to distract us from the fact that whilst you still believe that it is wrong for the referendum result to be carried out, you cannot provide any substantive or conclusive arguments to suggest otherwise.
0
reply
Le Male
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#88
Report 4 weeks ago
#88
(Original post by DJKL)
And your cure is freeze up lending markets so that those with ready access to funds can still buy and those without cannot. Couple it with a downturn in economic activity and greater risk of unemployment and you create a perfect storm . In a market with lending rationed/constrained who does a lender risk granting a loan to, the party with lots of assets/equity or the first time buyer with very little?

When the dust all settles on your new lower priced Nirvana an even larger percentage of the housing stock is owned by what group? Your cure is not a cure, you are pointing out an issue but in no way solving the issue.

If you want to improve asset price affordability do not lock up the works, slow things gradually, build more, put disincentives in place re holding unused property etc. It may not be dramatic, or headline grabbing, it may not be quick, but what is important, actually curing the problem or merely pretending to cure the problem?
We have been trying your suggestion for years and it has failed to make any sort of meaningful difference. People are cash poor because their rents and mortgage payments are so absurdly high, the very fact people are so reliant on credit and at the mercy of banks is the issue.

The housing stock in this country is already extremely well concentrated because in the last century some people were able to buy up housing stock and the political decision making has lead to a massive increase in the price of that housing stock and it is absurd suggestions like 5% mortgages which has exacerbated this problem. You are also a food if you think the richest people are holding tonnnes of cash ready to given that most of them will be mostly in property and equities already.
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#89
Report 4 weeks ago
#89
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
But we are now three years down the line. Look at the voting demographics from the original result. Why should I be forced out of the EU by the vote of the elderly?

Secondly, back up your point then. Counteract my points, give me one benefit of the food and medication shortages...
So are you saying we should have a maximum voting age then?
0
reply
Le Male
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#90
Report 4 weeks ago
#90
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
But we are now three years down the line. Look at the voting demographics from the original result. Why should I be forced out of the EU by the vote of the elderly?

Secondly, back up your point then. Counteract my points, give me one benefit of the food and medication shortages...
"Why should kids who have never worked in a proper job be given more of a say than people who have worked for decades and have actually run a household?"
0
reply
The Mogg
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#91
Report 4 weeks ago
#91
(Original post by Le Male)
"Why should kids who have never worked in a proper job be given more of a say than people who have worked for decades and have actually run a household?"
Also funny that if the older demographic voted more for remain then we wouldn't be having this discussion. To people like this one, it's "the elderly can only vote if they agree with me!"
1
reply
Le Male
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#92
Report 4 weeks ago
#92
(Original post by The Mogg)
Also funny that if the older demographic voted more for remain then we wouldn't be having this discussion. To people like this one, it's "the elderly can only vote if they agree with me!"
Right. I voted to remain and would vote leave in a 2ndref, simply to spite the 20-something year old middle class manbabies who think their ****ty undergraduate degrees make them more qualified to speak on issues they know nothing about than Danny the plumber.
0
reply
DJKL
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#93
Report 4 weeks ago
#93
(Original post by Le Male)
We have been trying your suggestion for years and it has failed to make any sort of meaningful difference. People are cash poor because their rents and mortgage payments are so absurdly high, the very fact people are so reliant on credit and at the mercy of banks is the issue.

The housing stock in this country is already extremely well concentrated because in the last century some people were able to buy up housing stock and the political decision making has lead to a massive increase in the price of that housing stock and it is absurd suggestions like 5% mortgages which has exacerbated this problem. You are also a food if you think the richest people are holding tonnnes of cash ready to given that most of them will be mostly in property and equities already.
The smarter ones are sitting on high liquidity, after all what does a disaster capitalist do? Why does say Berkshire carry higher liquidity (not that I count them as disaster capitalists), they do it because they can react to opportunities.

Some bedtime reading:-

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/...api_taft_p1_i1
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#94
Report 4 weeks ago
#94
(Original post by lawtc2019)
How can you justify a mandate to remain when less people in the UK voted for it? If what I'm suggesting is ludicrous, what you're suggesting is just unimaginable.
Easy. In 2005, the country voted for Tony Blair. 5 years later, things changed, people changed their minds and voted in Cameron.

Three years ago, informed by lies on all sides the a slim majority voted leave. Three years on things have changed and no doubt people's views have changed with them. If you are a true democrat, surely you would be calling for a new referendum with options on hard brexit, the current deal or remain?

After all. People stand to lose a lot through Brexit. Surely you would offer the country the opportunity to say what is right by it?
Last edited by ByEeek; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
The Mogg
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#95
Report 4 weeks ago
#95
(Original post by Le Male)
Right. I voted to remain and would vote leave in a 2ndref, simply to spite the 20-something year old middle class manbabies who think their ****ty undergraduate degrees make them more qualified to speak on issues they know nothing about than Danny the plumber.
Oi, don't diss Danny like that.
0
reply
username1421435
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#96
Report 4 weeks ago
#96
(Original post by ByEeek)
Easy. In 2005, the country voted for Tony Blair. 5 years later, things changed, people changed their minds and voted in Cameron.

Three years ago, informed by lies on all sides the a slim majority voted leave. Three years on things have changed and no doubt people's views have changed with them. If you are a true democrat, surely you would be calling for a new referendum with options on hard brexit, the current deal or remain?

After all. People stand to lose a lot through Brexit. Surely you would offer the country the opportunity to say what is right by it?
Brexit was always going to take around 3 years - during the 2016 election it was known that the leave date was March 2019.

As a believer in democracy, I am absolutely for a referendum - one where the options are exiting with a deal, or exiting with no deal. I am not for a referendum on whether to leave the EU - that has already happened.

What's wrong with a general election anyway? None of the three party leaders are fit to run their own party, let alone the country - make no mistake.
0
reply
josh75
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#97
Report 4 weeks ago
#97
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
Let me ask you this then, since your all high and mighty on democracy...

Say all of the apparent scaremongering, which I would call the truth, comes to fruition. There are medication shortages, food shortages, five day waits at the ports, riots, job losses as companies now can’t afford to stay in our country. My simple question, is all of that worth it, for the act of saying that we followed through with democracy?
Why don't you just come out and admit your a technocrat?
0
reply
JanusGodofDoors
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#98
Report 4 weeks ago
#98
I know I'm supposed to weep for democracy, but honestly the idea that some sort of dictatorship might be instituted by that blonde kinda funny guy from Have I Got News For You makes me want to laugh hysterically. It would be like if the US was led by a racist reality TV presenter who governs via twitter ...oh wait
0
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#99
Report 4 weeks ago
#99
(Original post by Andrew97)
So are you saying we should have a maximum voting age then?
Perhaps, yes. Quite frankly, some people voted for something which will then not effect them.
(Original post by Le Male)
"Why should kids who have never worked in a proper job be given more of a say than people who have worked for decades and have actually run a household?"
“Run a household” Jesus wept.
0
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#100
Report 4 weeks ago
#100
(Original post by lawtc2019)
No you don't, you quite simply want to turn this debate from one which you are losing into a completely different one.

The debate we were arguing is whether the government has a mandate to leave the EU based on the referendum. Every point you have made about the majority, turnout, being 'lied to', and the vote of the elderly (amongst others) has been put down with no response from you. Unless you are willing to concede that the government does in fact have a mandate to ensure Britain leaves the EU, or are willing to actually argue the original debate, I am going to end the discussion here.

We are not getting side tracked by another debate on whether leaving or remaining in the EU is the best option. I could happily argue for either side, even though I voted to remain in 2016, but that is a completely different debate that serves no purpose other than to distract us from the fact that whilst you still believe that it is wrong for the referendum result to be carried out, you cannot provide any substantive or conclusive arguments to suggest otherwise.
Justify your so called “mandate.”

What are the benefits of leaving the EU? And I mean proven benefits as well...
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (65)
23.21%
No (215)
76.79%

Watched Threads

View All