|
|
Post by thomas on Oct 25, 2022 8:12:05 GMT
I note you avoided the question you were asked. No surprise there. your argument falls apart. Theres no question to answer. Democracy is very simple and easy to understand. piss poor attempts at sophistry , or false dichotomies wont change the fact democracy must always prevail once the public have given a democratic answer. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Oct 25, 2022 8:15:00 GMT
Theres every logic.
The brexit referendum rules were made before the game was played. You dont toss the table up in the air because you lose the game of cards and demand to start again do you?
Democracy is fairly simple , unles you are a bitter twisted anglo remainer. You run a campaign for your side , you then vote on it , and 50 +1 wins the day. Once the result is implemented , then the adults normally agree a new campaign can begin again for the next vote.
What you dont do in any demcoracy is run a vote , not implement the result , and then try every dirty trick in the book to overturn the previous result .
That way is the way to violence and civil unrest.
If you cant stand the rules of democracy ,and are a bad loser , then dont partake in the gamble in the first fucking place. Its not diffcult stuff.
If sometime after the referendum before we actually left - let’s say in September 2017 - the majority of the electorate had decided that a mistake had been made, would it have been more legitimate democratically to follow the will of the people in 2016 or the will of the people in 2017? let me answer this so you feel appeased in some small meaningfull way.
No.
The result must be enacted .
As it turned out , you had five votes over a four year period to see if the public had changed thier minds , and each time brexiters walloped you at the ballot box. So it really is a piss poor hypothetical question when considering the facts and that the public had not changed thier minds .
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Oct 25, 2022 8:22:08 GMT
You really are all over the place.
Whether there was a majority for Brexit or against Brexit by say 2017 we will never know. What we were discussing was whether it was democratically legitimate for those people who thought it a bad idea to seek by persuasion to get the electorate overall to change its mind and not shoot the country in the foot (as they saw it). The answer to that is of course yes, just as it would have been democratically legitimate for Farage to begin to a new campaign to leave, as he intended to, had the initial result been remain.
As I say old news now, the damage has been done and it is increasingly clear we will pay a heavy price for our folly, but realistically that folly can now not be corrected. On to the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Oct 25, 2022 8:26:00 GMT
You really are all over the place. Whether there was a majority for Brexit or against Brexit by say 2017 we will never know. What we were discussing was whether it was democratically legitimate for those people who thought it a bad idea to seek by persuasion to get the electorate overall to change its mind and not shoot the country in the foot (as they saw it). The answer to that is of course yes, just as it would have been democratically legitimate for Farage to begin to a new campaign to leave, as he intended to, had the initial result been remain. As I say old news now, the damage has been done and it is increasingly clear we will pay a heavy price for our folly, but realistically that folly can now not be corrected. On to the future. im not all over the place. Im consistent as it it very easy to understand for those that want to. Hold vote , enact the result and then go again after.
Whats difficult to understand?
The public hadnt changed their mind by 2017. They then had two further votes in 2019 to show if they had , and both times brexiters won in the euro elections and the GE.
Democracy must always be enacted before any change of opinon can be allowed to change the course of events later on through a further vote.
I know im not english , but im not sure what part of my posts you dont understand?
Is this the infamous remoaner inability to accept contrary opinions yet again?
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Oct 25, 2022 8:38:40 GMT
No you really are.
Whether the majority of the electorate had changed its mind before Brexit was enacted or not is arguable but irrelevant to the question we were discussing.
That question was whether it was democratically legitimate for those who disagreed with Brexit to seek by democratic persuasion to persuade the majority to oppose it. You say no but you havent remotely justified why. I say yes of course, it is the very nature of democracy that people may campaign and seek to persuade fellow citizens towards their view. You can't stop the democratic process just because you have what you want. As I said it would have been just as legitimate for Farage to recommence campaigning for Leave as he announced he intended to if the 2016 result had tipped the other way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Oct 25, 2022 8:45:53 GMT
If sometime after the referendum before we actually left - let’s say in September 2017 - the majority of the electorate had decided that a mistake had been made, would it have been more legitimate democratically to follow the will of the people in 2016 or the will of the people in 2017? let me answer this so you feel appeased in some small meaningfull way.
No.
The result must be enacted .
As it turned out , you had five votes over a four year period to see if the public had changed thier minds , and each time brexiters walloped you at the ballot box. So it really is a piss poor hypothetical question when considering the facts and that the public had not changed thier minds .
But as you yourself said 'The brexit referendum rules were made before the game was played' And they were broken, big time. By record levels. And then all the big promises of Vote Leave were shown to be BS as they very much could not and never have delivered on that promise that UK businesses would trade freely with the EU. Our biggest export area of Financial Services continues to have huge difficulties selling in the EU. And then May tried to foist on the UK a truly awful exit deal so there was nothing wrong with MPs refusing to back that. But there was no anti democracy a you and others have positioned. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Oct 25, 2022 8:47:11 GMT
Oh FFS Jonksy you keep repeating this BS here, there and probably everywhere and now you can't even post properly See if you can get a serious poster to endorse your shite about FCO 30/1048See if you can get a serious poster to refute it.
Grow a pair for once and admit that the UK electorate were taken into your beloved eu under no more than the lie of we were only joining a trading bloc ONLY. Of course they would have had a job to sell their BS to even some of the brain dead if they had of told the truth that we would lose our rights, our own indentity and our sovereignty. Even you couldn't flog that fact off.  ^ |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Oct 25, 2022 8:55:45 GMT
See if you can get a serious poster to refute it.
Grow a pair for once and admit that the UK electorate were taken into your beloved eu under no more than the lie of we were only joining a trading bloc ONLY. Of course they would have had a job to sell their BS to even some of the brain dead if they had of told the truth that we would lose our rights, our own indentity and our sovereignty. Even you couldn't flog that fact off. ^ Unlike some I don't have to ask anyone to fight my battles or call up my trolls and abuse my own authority to try and support my own views. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Oct 25, 2022 9:08:50 GMT
 ^ |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Oct 25, 2022 9:20:21 GMT
let me answer this so you feel appeased in some small meaningfull way.
No.
The result must be enacted .
As it turned out , you had five votes over a four year period to see if the public had changed thier minds , and each time brexiters walloped you at the ballot box. So it really is a piss poor hypothetical question when considering the facts and that the public had not changed thier minds .
But as you yourself said 'The brexit referendum rules were made before the game was played' And they were broken, big time. By record levels. And then all the big promises of Vote Leave were shown to be BS as they very much could not and never have delivered on that promise that UK businesses would trade freely with the EU. Our biggest export area of Financial Services continues to have huge difficulties selling in the EU. And then May tried to foist on the UK a truly awful exit deal so there was nothing wrong with MPs refusing to back that.
But there was no anti democracy a you and others have positioned. Rubbish revisionism of the deluded. Nobody believes you but you. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Oct 25, 2022 9:24:00 GMT
Seems you don't understand democracy
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 25, 2022 9:28:04 GMT
I hope this country never uses referendum again, but if it does there would need to be clear rules and guidelines in order to not repeat the shoddy imitation of a referendum of 2016. There was clear rules and a guideline.
Sorry you dont like democracy when it goes against you , but sometimes you have to accept people dont agree with your views.
If there was then they were clearly broken. I'm referring to any future referendums which IMO, the breaking of rules and or regulations should make the result null and void, even if they were in my favour. That might be a little too honest of me, for you to understand. Your silly immature false assessment posted about me and democracy just makes you look silly and immature. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Oct 25, 2022 9:33:24 GMT
IMHO for future referendums it would be better to go down a route of deterring illegality than reruns. Proper £1M per person involved fines and jail sentences for 'perverting the course of democracy' would make people think twice. Also an ability (which IIRC New Zealand has) to preclude the making of false statements in a campaign would be a good move.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 25, 2022 9:39:02 GMT
But as you yourself said 'The brexit referendum rules were made before the game was played' And they were broken, big time. By record levels. And then all the big promises of Vote Leave were shown to be BS as they very much could not and never have delivered on that promise that UK businesses would trade freely with the EU. Our biggest export area of Financial Services continues to have huge difficulties selling in the EU. And then May tried to foist on the UK a truly awful exit deal so there was nothing wrong with MPs refusing to back that.
But there was no anti democracy a you and others have positioned. Rubbish revisionism of the deluded. Nobody believes you but you. Can you show the anti-democracy? Or are you just expressing an opinion? |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 25, 2022 9:45:48 GMT
IMHO for future referendums it would be better to go down a route of deterring illegality than reruns. Proper £1M per person involved fines and jail sentences for 'perverting the course of democracy' would make people think twice. Also an ability (which IIRC New Zealand has) to preclude the making of false statements in a campaign would be a good move. Yes, that makes more sense, backed up with the possibly of a re-run if necessary. |
|
