|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 2, 2023 13:29:29 GMT
More projection . At least you are consistent. Boring but consistent. You exposing your lack of intelligence is quite amusing, but I have already spent too much time in your schoolyard. Bye. Quite the contrary old boy. A school yard is exactly where you belong . Have a last dribble and call it quits . Its the mindzone after all ❤️ |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 2, 2023 14:05:07 GMT
It is worth noting that 7 years have now passed since the referendum. Substantial numbers of people who voted in it are no longer with us, whilst anyone under 25 now were never asked then, so why should they consider the result binding for all time? i dont agree with the premise of sandys argument. The public were asked to vote , and gave an answer. They dont have to accept anything , as they arent the ones enforcing the result. The politicians are the ones who have to accept the democratic mandate .
No result is binding for all time. That phrase is the very antithesis of democracy. Surely testing public opinion on a regular basis is what democracy is all about?
Which of course means that if Scottish Independence is voted for I do not have to accept it. I am not sure in what sense 'not accepting' would work. If the public give an answer that is a decision made for everybody. Liking it is of course something else and it seems that if Scottish independence was voted for the very next morning I could actively work to change the result around by a process of non cooperation with making Independence work. I am sure that way lies madness and the run of the democratic process. No harm in testing public opinion but what happens if Independence is gained by a narrow margin and 6 months, later when public opinion is tested, rejoining the UK gains the narrow victory because the rejoiners have been very active. Would there be a cry of 'give it time to work'. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 2, 2023 14:48:25 GMT
Unless you live in Scotland, you wouldn't get a vote, Sandy. Quite rightly.
If you do though, yes of course if the vote went for Independence, you would absolutely be within your democratic rights to campaign for a second referendum to remain part of the UK during the implementation period while details are worked out of what independence would mean before it took place. Indeed it might well be sensible to legislate to hold such a confirmatory vote once the details were known to ensure the people really want to take such a massive step. (That of course was the trouble with the EU vote, the initial referendum was voting on a bit of a blank canvas with no-one knowing the nature of departure. It feels likely that the public would not have voted for such a "hard" version of Brexit)
Once Independence had actually taken place, you would equally be well within your democratic rights on the day after Independence to campaign to rejoin the UK. Just like with the EU however, doing so would need the consent of the remaining UK/EU which is unlikely to be available without an overwhelming political consensus to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Nov 2, 2023 14:57:49 GMT
i dont agree with the premise of sandys argument. The public were asked to vote , and gave an answer. They dont have to accept anything , as they arent the ones enforcing the result. The politicians are the ones who have to accept the democratic mandate .
No result is binding for all time. That phrase is the very antithesis of democracy. Surely testing public opinion on a regular basis is what democracy is all about?
Which of course means that if Scottish Independence is voted for I do not have to accept it. I am not sure in what sense 'not accepting' would work. If the public give an answer that is a decision made for everybody. Liking it is of course something else and it seems that if Scottish independence was voted for the very next morning I could actively work to change the result around by a process of non cooperation with making Independence work. I am sure that way lies madness and the run of the democratic process. No harm in testing public opinion but what happens if Independence is gained by a narrow margin and 6 months, later when public opinion is tested, rejoining the UK gains the narrow victory because the rejoiners have been very active. Would there be a cry of 'give it time to work'. you dont have to accept scottish independence. What matters is that those in power follow what the majority have voted for.
the accusation stands that plenty of remainers didnt accept brexit. It still happened , and here we are. Steves point earlier was that some memebrs of joe public excercising their democratic right to hold a pre european viewpoint isnt the reason brexit has failed.
sure. that doesnt mean you have to whole heartedly endorse brexit . You could carry on in an indy scotland attempting to politicaly campaign to rejoin england , and if you won , then so be it. Democracy is a neverendum.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Nov 2, 2023 15:02:25 GMT
i dont agree with the premise of sandys argument. The public were asked to vote , and gave an answer. They dont have to accept anything , as they arent the ones enforcing the result. The politicians are the ones who have to accept the democratic mandate .
No result is binding for all time. That phrase is the very antithesis of democracy. Surely testing public opinion on a regular basis is what democracy is all about?
. No harm in testing public opinion but what happens if Independence is gained by a narrow margin and 6 months, later when public opinion is tested, rejoining the UK gains the narrow victory because the rejoiners have been very active. hang on a minute sandy. You and other brexiter have argued that
1. Brexit is forever
2. 40 years must pass
3. a generation must pass
4. i have argued 7 years as per the gfa must pass as a benchmark for whatthe uk gove deem acceptable timescale.
Now you move goalposts and argue 6 months would pass in scotland before a vote i held again?
Do we vote six months after a general election because people dont like the snp and tories in government? No we dont.
We could hold another vote after a scottish parliamentary term and if pro uk parties won , then go about rejoin.
Im not sure why brexit is any different. If starmer wins the enxt GE , then he should rejoin the eu , but he has decided to couch his political language behind making brexit work , and attempting to deceive the electroate which is what im against.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 2, 2023 15:03:30 GMT
Unless you live in Scotland, you wouldn't get a vote, Sandy. Quite rightly. If you do though, yes of course if the vote went for Independence, you would absolutely be within your democratic rights to campaign for a second referendum to remain part of the UK during the implementation period while details are worked out of what independence would mean before it took place. Indeed it might well be sensible to legislate to hold such a confirmatory vote once the details were known to ensure the people really want to take such a massive step. (That of course was the trouble with the EU vote, the initial referendum was voting on a bit of a blank canvas with no-one knowing the nature of departure. It feels likely that the public would not have voted for such a "hard" version of Brexit) Once Independence had actually taken place, you would equally be well within your democratic rights on the day after Independence to campaign to rejoin the UK. Just like with the EU however, doing so would need the consent of the remaining UK/EU which is unlikely to be available without an overwhelming political consensus to do so. I live in Scotland, the point of course is that the decision in a fork in the road is left or right and then that decision is taken by vote then one has to progress down the chosen route not hobble the horses, or break the wheels to give time to reconsider an outcome to one's preference. The point is as regards acceptance. One can grumble as the wagons move off, one can keep shouting for a reconsideration what one should not do is try and direct towards one's preferred fork once the wagons move off. It may be a fine line but we have seen what actually happened. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 2, 2023 15:07:20 GMT
. No harm in testing public opinion but what happens if Independence is gained by a narrow margin and 6 months, later when public opinion is tested, rejoining the UK gains the narrow victory because the rejoiners have been very active. hang on a minute sandy. You and other brexiter have argued that
1. Brexit is forever
2. 40 years must pass
3. a generation must pass
4. i have argued 7 years as per the gfa must pass as a benchmark for whatthe uk gove deem acceptable timescale.
Now you move goalposts and argue 6 months would pass in scotland before a vote i held again?
Do we vote six months after a general election because people dont like the snp and tories in government? No we dont.
We could hold another vote after a scottish parliamentary term and if pro uk parties won , then go about rejoin.
Im not sure why brexit is any different. If starmer wins the enxt GE , then he should rejoin the eu , but he has decided to couch his political language behind making brexit work , and attempting to deceive the electroate which is what im against.
1) No I haven't 2) No I haven't 3) No I haven't 4) I did not argue for 6 months I asked if that would be acceptable in terms of the acceptance of any decision by referendum. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Nov 2, 2023 15:11:31 GMT
hang on a minute sandy. You and other brexiter have argued that
1. Brexit is forever
2. 40 years must pass
3. a generation must pass
4. i have argued 7 years as per the gfa must pass as a benchmark for whatthe uk gove deem acceptable timescale.
Now you move goalposts and argue 6 months would pass in scotland before a vote i held again?
Do we vote six months after a general election because people dont like the snp and tories in government? No we dont.
We could hold another vote after a scottish parliamentary term and if pro uk parties won , then go about rejoin.
Im not sure why brexit is any different. If starmer wins the enxt GE , then he should rejoin the eu , but he has decided to couch his political language behind making brexit work , and attempting to deceive the electroate which is what im against.
4) I did not argue for 6 months I asked if that would be acceptable in terms of the acceptance of any decision by referendum. re read the thread. Earlier , i think it was bancroft , asked what an acceptable timscale for revisiting referendums would be , and i said in my opinion 7 years , whcih is what the uk government agrees northern ireland can revisit referendums by an internationally recognised treaty.
Thats the benchmark.
6 months , clearly is nonsensical , and so is 40 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 2, 2023 15:14:36 GMT
OK you live in Scotland. Lets say there is a referendum re independence in say 2025 and the result comes back in favour.
It is highly likely at that stage that Scotland and the UK government will then enter an extended period of negotiation agreeing the precise terms of what that independence should look like - currency, trade, debt, peoples rights to travel and live in the other etc etc - there are many details to agree. Lets say that negotiation takes until 2027.
Would it not be right once the details are known in 2027 for the Scottish People to be asked again - "now you know what exactly Independence will entail, do you still want to do this"
More pertinently, if you don't agree with Independence, are you really to be banned from exercising your democratic rights between 2025 and 2027 not to campaign to seek to persuade your fellow citizens to change their mind and to stay within the UK?
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Nov 2, 2023 15:17:31 GMT
Unless you live in Scotland, you wouldn't get a vote, Sandy. Quite rightly. If you do though, yes of course if the vote went for Independence, you would absolutely be within your democratic rights to campaign for a second referendum to remain part of the UK during the implementation period while details are worked out of what independence would mean before it took place. Indeed it might well be sensible to legislate to hold such a confirmatory vote once the details were known to ensure the people really want to take such a massive step. (That of course was the trouble with the EU vote, the initial referendum was voting on a bit of a blank canvas with no-one knowing the nature of departure. It feels likely that the public would not have voted for such a "hard" version of Brexit) Once Independence had actually taken place, you would equally be well within your democratic rights on the day after Independence to campaign to rejoin the UK. Just like with the EU however, doing so would need the consent of the remaining UK/EU which is unlikely to be available without an overwhelming political consensus to do so. I live in Scotland, the point of course is that the decision in a fork in the road is left or right and then that decision is taken by vote then one has to progress down the chosen route not hobble the horses, or break the wheels to give time to reconsider an outcome to one's preference. The point is as regards acceptance. One can grumble as the wagons move off, one can keep shouting for a reconsideration what one should not do is try and direct towards one's preferred fork once the wagons move off. It may be a fine line but we have seen what actually happened. what are you talking about sandy. Brexit was voted on in 2016 mate. its now 2023. The next election capable of dealing with brexit will be next october , 8 years after the initial vote.
Not 6 months. People can clearly see what has happened .
what are you scared of? Democracy?
Just as i criticised clowns like starmer for being anti democratic , im now criticising people like you demanding more time . You dont get to set the timescale for another vote.
i blieve if starmer wins the enxt election on a rejoin ticket , he then can democratically rejoin the eu. My one critisism of him and his party is the deceitfull way they are going about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 2, 2023 20:10:15 GMT
I live in Scotland, the point of course is that the decision in a fork in the road is left or right and then that decision is taken by vote then one has to progress down the chosen route not hobble the horses, or break the wheels to give time to reconsider an outcome to one's preference. The point is as regards acceptance. One can grumble as the wagons move off, one can keep shouting for a reconsideration what one should not do is try and direct towards one's preferred fork once the wagons move off. It may be a fine line but we have seen what actually happened. what are you talking about sandy. Brexit was voted on in 2016 mate. its now 2023. The next election capable of dealing with brexit will be next october , 8 years after the initial vote.
Not 6 months. People can clearly see what has happened .
what are you scared of? Democracy?
Just as i criticised clowns like starmer for being anti democratic , im now criticising people like you demanding more time . You dont get to set the timescale for another vote.
i blieve if starmer wins the enxt election on a rejoin ticket , he then can democratically rejoin the eu. My one critisism of him and his party is the deceitfull way they are going about it.
I missed your 7 years somewhere along the line and my six months was just an example of if pressure was extreme to revisit especially if circumstances had changed, say Scotland joining the EU, which was why I put 'if' into the sentence. If an election is a revisit of a referendum then 2019 stands as a leave vote so possibly only 4 years since a vote. I would think Brexit will be a very difficult question to answer directly for Labour at the next election. I have not demanded more time. My whole point was that if you have a democratic vote by way of a referendum to make a decision then everyone has to work to make that decision work no matter how much they disagree. If Scotland votes for independence I have an obligation not only to accept the result but also to act in good faith to further that decision. That is what democracy is. As regards Brexit that 'good faith' was in decidedly short supply. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 3, 2023 6:51:59 GMT
Leftie collectivists have a very poor record of democracy. No better and more enduring than right wing . Democracy is an illusion. The 2016 EU referendum proved it . The lies and distortions and the taking advantage of opinions that depend on which way the political wind is blowing at the time, plus an easily led electorate, exposed the foolishness of this country indulging in referendum. So I'm not sure whether we are in agreement or not. Sounds like you would prefer a dictatorship when there's a chance you could lose out in a democratic vote. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 3, 2023 6:58:02 GMT
OK you live in Scotland. Lets say there is a referendum re independence in say 2025 and the result comes back in favour. It is highly likely at that stage that Scotland and the UK government will then enter an extended period of negotiation agreeing the precise terms of what that independence should look like - currency, trade, debt, peoples rights to travel and live in the other etc etc - there are many details to agree. Lets say that negotiation takes until 2027. Would it not be right once the details are known in 2027 for the Scottish People to be asked again - "now you know what exactly Independence will entail, do you still want to do this" More pertinently, if you don't agree with Independence, are you really to be banned from exercising your democratic rights between 2025 and 2027 not to campaign to seek to persuade your fellow citizens to change their mind and to stay within the UK? Not that I can speak for the Scots, but that isn't fair game. There should be one vote at the beginning and be done with it. If the UK government knew there was a second vote coming, they could ensure (as the EU tried) to make the deal so bad it would bolster a vote to stay. In other words, one negotiating partner would have the upper hand and be motivated to make the deal so unpalatable for the other party, they ensure that a second vote is pretty much assured in their favour. That's not democracy, that's rigging it. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 3, 2023 7:25:45 GMT
The lies and distortions and the taking advantage of opinions that depend on which way the political wind is blowing at the time, plus an easily led electorate, exposed the foolishness of this country indulging in referendum. So I'm not sure whether we are in agreement or not. Sounds like you would prefer a dictatorship when there's a chance you could lose out in a democratic vote. No, I prefer Representative Democracy where those elected have the responsibility and the resources by which to be better informed on subjects than is the average individual. IMO referendum in the UK would prove to be too damaging to the country in the long run, especially now that the social media is available to the more extremist individuals. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 3, 2023 7:29:47 GMT
Sounds like you would prefer a dictatorship when there's a chance you could lose out in a democratic vote. No, I prefer Representative Democracy where those elected have the responsibility and the resources by which to be better informed on subjects than is the average individual. IMO referendum in the UK would prove to be too damaging to the country in the long run, especially now that the social media is available to the more extremist individuals. But they weren't better informed. Much of their information derived from project fear. Many politicians professed economic, pollical, social Armageddon if we left the EU. How wrong were they? I can speak for myself, and don't need to be represented by some Eurocultist at the ballot box, thank you very much. |
|
