|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 3, 2023 7:35:54 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. Voting is democracy. If referendum is imposed then a second vote at some time would involve a better informed voter, just as the second vote referendum in Ireland proved. A better informed voter is less likely to be misled. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 3, 2023 7:45:01 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. The last Labour Government took us into a war in Iraq based in part on intelligence information that they manufactured.... they were no better informed than anyone else. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 3, 2023 7:52:01 GMT
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. Voting is democracy. If referendum is imposed then a second vote at some time would involve a better informed voter, just as the second vote referendum in Ireland proved. A better informed voter is less likely to be misled. Nope, because it motivates negotiators knowing there is a second vote. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 3, 2023 7:52:35 GMT
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. Better informed? that will only be determined by the eventual outcome. So far the result of the Referendum it isn't looking good. While many forecasts were OTT there has been some truth in them. In the main the so called 'Project Fear' was just the Outers way of avoiding the possible pitfalls that were being pointed out. It is good to be independent with original individual thinking, but IMO it maybe a little on the arrogant side to think that one's opinions are the be all and end all of any debate. I have long held the belief that opinions are not absolutes, they are just the stepping stones to becoming better informed. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 3, 2023 7:55:11 GMT
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. The last Labour Government took us into a war in Iraq based in part on intelligence information that they manufactured.... they were no better informed than anyone else. The invasion was Legal and Correct at that time. So what is your point? |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 3, 2023 7:57:12 GMT
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. Better informed? that will only be determined by the eventual outcome. So far the result of the Referendum it isn't looking good. While many forecasts were OTT there has been some truth in them. In the main the so called 'Project Fear' was just the Outers way of avoiding the possible pitfalls that were being pointed out. It is good to be independent with original individual thinking, but IMO it maybe a little on the arrogant side to think that one's opinions are the be all and end all of any debate. I have long held the belief that opinions are not absolutes, they are just the stepping stones to becoming better informed. You are still informed before the first vote. Leave or stay and the possible outcomes from this. In your scenario you want the electorate forced down a specific avenue so as to ensure and secure a vote you agree with. That's not democracy. That's rigging it. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 3, 2023 7:58:20 GMT
The last Labour Government took us into a war in Iraq based in part on intelligence information that they manufactured.... they were no better informed than anyone else. The invasion was Legal and Correct at that time. So what is your point? It was not correct - there were no WMD's and certainly none that were going to be fired in the next 45 minutes. You say you want to wash your hands and leave it to the politicians - the basic fact is that the politicians cannot be trusted. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 3, 2023 7:59:23 GMT
Voting is democracy. If referendum is imposed then a second vote at some time would involve a better informed voter, just as the second vote referendum in Ireland proved. A better informed voter is less likely to be misled. Nope, because it motivates negotiators knowing there is a second vote. That is obviously your opinion, the second Irish referendum suggests you are wrong. A referendum is negotiated after the result. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 3, 2023 8:08:39 GMT
Nope, because it motivates negotiators knowing there is a second vote. That is obviously your opinion, the second Irish referendum suggests you are wrong. A referendum is negotiated after the result.In your opinion. But Brexit suggests you are wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 3, 2023 8:22:10 GMT
Better informed? that will only be determined by the eventual outcome. So far the result of the Referendum it isn't looking good. While many forecasts were OTT there has been some truth in them. In the main the so called 'Project Fear' was just the Outers way of avoiding the possible pitfalls that were being pointed out. It is good to be independent with original individual thinking, but IMO it maybe a little on the arrogant side to think that one's opinions are the be all and end all of any debate. I have long held the belief that opinions are not absolutes, they are just the stepping stones to becoming better informed. You are still informed before the first vote. Leave or stay and the possible outcomes from this. In your scenario you want the electorate forced down a specific avenue so as to ensure and secure a vote you agree with. That's not democracy. That's rigging it. Yes, as in the UK referendum, informed by lies, insinuated lies and distortions. Your scenario that you projected onto me has absolutely nothing to do with me. The UK referendum was a disgraceful black mark in the history of the UK, all lies and distortions. Such lies and distortions would have been exposed to the voters before a second vote, then 'Out or In' the result would have more credibility. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 3, 2023 8:23:03 GMT
That is obviously your opinion, the second Irish referendum suggests you are wrong. A referendum is negotiated after the result.In your opinion. But Brexit suggests you are wrong. Brexit proves that lies and distortions can win. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Nov 3, 2023 8:28:16 GMT
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. ive answered your points above numerous times , and all you do , as you have before on other issues , is rehash the same points over and over.
I was asked what a suitable timescale to revisit a referendum was , i gave an answer based on what the uk government think is suitable in northern ireland. Thats the benchmark.
We already have accepted time scales for general elections , so dont try and move goalposts and confuse to further delay revisiting votes. If you want to revisit a referendum , its 7 years , if by election , its 4 to 5 years.
So no , the next election is next year. Thats when brexit can be revisited according to your uk parliament rules , which clearly states no previous parliament can bind a future parliament. Not my rules , theirs.
As ive said numerous tiems sandy , i couldnt care less wether you accept rejoin at uk level , or scot indy. Thats up to you. Democarcy is majority rule ,and always has been , not one fly in the ointment squealing he cant get his own way.
|
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 3, 2023 8:28:58 GMT
You are still informed before the first vote. Leave or stay and the possible outcomes from this. In your scenario you want the electorate forced down a specific avenue so as to ensure and secure a vote you agree with. That's not democracy. That's rigging it. Yes, as in the UK referendum, informed by lies, insinuated lies and distortions. Your scenario that you projected onto me has absolutely nothing to do with me. The UK referendum was a disgraceful black mark in the history of the UK, all lies and distortions. Such lies and distortions would have been exposed to the voters before a second vote, then 'Out or In' the result would have more credibility. Not all lies. Voters had to make an informed opinion and sift through the distortions as you suggest. This happens come every general election to. I'm going to assume (rightly I suspect) that had the vote gone your way, you'd never be here today standing for a second vote. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 3, 2023 8:32:37 GMT
The invasion was Legal and Correct at that time. So what is your point? It was not correct - there were no WMD's and certainly none that were going to be fired in the next 45 minutes. You say you want to wash your hands and leave it to the politicians - the basic fact is that the politicians cannot be trusted. Obviously posters like yourself cannot be trusted. The 45 mins was actual intelligence but was found to be 'single sourced' so was dropped. Blix knew that the missiles and chemicals known to be destroyed by Iraq, did not agree with the receipts for materials he was in possession of. This was proven to be the case by the post invasion Iraq survey force. And is the reason why Blix and the UN inspectors were still looking for them until March 2003. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 3, 2023 8:41:32 GMT
Yes, as in the UK referendum, informed by lies, insinuated lies and distortions. Your scenario that you projected onto me has absolutely nothing to do with me. The UK referendum was a disgraceful black mark in the history of the UK, all lies and distortions. Such lies and distortions would have been exposed to the voters before a second vote, then 'Out or In' the result would have more credibility. Not all lies. Voters had to make an informed opinion and sift through the distortions as you suggest. This happens come every general election to. I'm going to assume (rightly I suspect) that had the vote gone your way, you'd never be here today standing for a second vote. That assumes that voters would sift through the lies and distortions. I was still informing some Outers in 2021 that the EU was not run by unelected individuals. I did vote remain, but my suggestion of a second vote is if the circumstances suggests one is advisable in around 40 years time. Or better still if a government is elected on the understanding that a request for membership of the EU is their intention, thereby avoiding the need for a referendum. But that would only reflect the situation then, which could be we are OK as we are. |
|
