| Ironic isn't it..... 09:48 - Jan 16 with 4329 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
......that all these rejectors of democracy now want another shot at democratic choice to return power to the most undemocratic institution in recent history to weald control over their lives!
A view just echoed by one of those ignorant uneducated university (young) lecturers on sky news. |  |
| |  |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 09:50 - Jan 16 with 4070 views | StokieBlue |
A rather simplistic view wouldn't you say?
A counter argument would be that no decisions should be made on partial or in this case totally incorrect information.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 09:57 - Jan 16 with 4028 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 09:50 - Jan 16 by StokieBlue |
A rather simplistic view wouldn't you say?
A counter argument would be that no decisions should be made on partial or in this case totally incorrect information.
SB |
That would apply to every election since the year dot. | |
| |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 09:57 - Jan 16 with 4031 views | ElephantintheRoom |
Or you could take the view that the referendum was a badly-thought short cut to unite a badly fractured tory party, fought on misinformation, not to mention the rather important caveat that the terms of the Scottish referendum and the good Friday agreement rather made coming out of the EU utterly impossible in the first place. Given the insanity of entrusting an impossible task to the same fractured, incompetent party that put us in this mess, an all party solution appears entirely democratic, given that the referendum, largely decided on prejudice and misinformation was an all-party decision as well. Can't see too much wrong with having a referendum along the lines of the first, on which we joined the EEU - based on the factual benefits of joining (or leaving, as it would be in this case). Also it's worth remembering that only 17million voted to jump off a cliff... ie over 40 million didn't.... and it is the sovereign duty of our sovereign parliament to act in the best interests of the country. Not to do so would be treason. |  |
| |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 09:59 - Jan 16 with 4016 views | dryas |
He sounds like he's rather more informed on these matters than you. |  | | |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 10:00 - Jan 16 with 4015 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 09:57 - Jan 16 by ElephantintheRoom |
Or you could take the view that the referendum was a badly-thought short cut to unite a badly fractured tory party, fought on misinformation, not to mention the rather important caveat that the terms of the Scottish referendum and the good Friday agreement rather made coming out of the EU utterly impossible in the first place. Given the insanity of entrusting an impossible task to the same fractured, incompetent party that put us in this mess, an all party solution appears entirely democratic, given that the referendum, largely decided on prejudice and misinformation was an all-party decision as well. Can't see too much wrong with having a referendum along the lines of the first, on which we joined the EEU - based on the factual benefits of joining (or leaving, as it would be in this case). Also it's worth remembering that only 17million voted to jump off a cliff... ie over 40 million didn't.... and it is the sovereign duty of our sovereign parliament to act in the best interests of the country. Not to do so would be treason. |
Although I agree with a lot of that, what would your opinion be following the result of referendum part 2.......will it depend on the result, or shall we go for 66% required this time! 
Edit.....did you vote for or against Tusk, Junker etc......? [Post edited 16 Jan 2019 10:03]
| |
| |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 10:02 - Jan 16 with 4009 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 09:59 - Jan 16 by dryas |
He sounds like he's rather more informed on these matters than you. |
Who, the person I agree with? | |
| |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 10:07 - Jan 16 with 3990 views | BlueBadger |
Up there with the fervent opponent of neoliberalism and deregulation desperate to see a set of cirucumstances liable to result in more deregulation and privatisation in this country. [Post edited 16 Jan 2019 10:09]
|  |
| |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 10:10 - Jan 16 with 3978 views | Guthrum |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 09:57 - Jan 16 by BanksterDebtSlave |
That would apply to every election since the year dot. |
Elections require the parties to issue detailed manifestoes of their intentions, then defend them in public debate and under media scrutiny.
There were no manifestoes for the Referendum. Nobody presented a detailed case for what form Brexit would take or the process to get there. Thus any serious debate or scrutiny could be side-stepped with bland assurances or derisive slogans ("Project Fear"). Opponents of EU membership were not forced to defend their detailed position because they didn't have to present one.
Normally, when proposing a radical change or major project, one is required to put forward plans, costings, timetables and the like. None of that happened (in the mainstream "debate", certainly no consensus) before June 2016 and little since, apart from May's plan which nobody apparently likes. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Ironic isn't it..... on 10:14 - Jan 16 with 3960 views | dryas |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 10:02 - Jan 16 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Who, the person I agree with? |
If that's what you meant it didn't sound like it! | | | |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 10:24 - Jan 16 with 3927 views | Oldsmoker |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 10:10 - Jan 16 by Guthrum |
Elections require the parties to issue detailed manifestoes of their intentions, then defend them in public debate and under media scrutiny.
There were no manifestoes for the Referendum. Nobody presented a detailed case for what form Brexit would take or the process to get there. Thus any serious debate or scrutiny could be side-stepped with bland assurances or derisive slogans ("Project Fear"). Opponents of EU membership were not forced to defend their detailed position because they didn't have to present one.
Normally, when proposing a radical change or major project, one is required to put forward plans, costings, timetables and the like. None of that happened (in the mainstream "debate", certainly no consensus) before June 2016 and little since, apart from May's plan which nobody apparently likes. |
So what you're saying is the decision that could change the course of the countrys' history in such a profound way was given very little thought because it was no big deal anyway.
Yep. That about sums it up. |  |
| |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 10:31 - Jan 16 with 3910 views | Guthrum |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 10:24 - Jan 16 by Oldsmoker |
So what you're saying is the decision that could change the course of the countrys' history in such a profound way was given very little thought because it was no big deal anyway.
Yep. That about sums it up. |
Carelessness. All done in too much hurry and without enough thought.
Mainly because they thought Remain would win easily and that would get rid of the UKIP problem. Should have learnt from the Scottish Referendum, where it took a desperate, last-ditch effort to pull the cat out of the bag against well-organised opponents. | |
| |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 11:28 - Jan 16 with 3835 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
Apparently we shouldnt have another referendum.
But we should have a third general election in just over 3 years!! |  |
| |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 11:29 - Jan 16 with 3826 views | MattinLondon |
You’re not a fan of the House of Lords then? |  | | |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 11:43 - Jan 16 with 3797 views | Guthrum |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 11:28 - Jan 16 by Marshalls_Mullet |
Apparently we shouldnt have another referendum.
But we should have a third general election in just over 3 years!! |
Multiple general elections is not a problem in and of itself. We've had two in the same year before.
If anything it's healthy to frequently refresh the UK's lawmaking body. Gives us a chance to pass a verdict on how we think they're doing. | |
| |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 11:45 - Jan 16 with 3785 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 11:43 - Jan 16 by Guthrum |
Multiple general elections is not a problem in and of itself. We've had two in the same year before.
If anything it's healthy to frequently refresh the UK's lawmaking body. Gives us a chance to pass a verdict on how we think they're doing. |
I wouldnt disagree, my point was more against the idea that another referendum would be undemocratic. | |
| |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 12:04 - Jan 16 with 3743 views | NthQldITFC |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 10:10 - Jan 16 by Guthrum |
Elections require the parties to issue detailed manifestoes of their intentions, then defend them in public debate and under media scrutiny.
There were no manifestoes for the Referendum. Nobody presented a detailed case for what form Brexit would take or the process to get there. Thus any serious debate or scrutiny could be side-stepped with bland assurances or derisive slogans ("Project Fear"). Opponents of EU membership were not forced to defend their detailed position because they didn't have to present one.
Normally, when proposing a radical change or major project, one is required to put forward plans, costings, timetables and the like. None of that happened (in the mainstream "debate", certainly no consensus) before June 2016 and little since, apart from May's plan which nobody apparently likes. |
What proportion of manifesto promises are honoured? There's no real accountability in politics, or corporate management. Not disagreeing that the referendum question was inevitably facile, but perhaps the lack of any real integrity in 'the system' is why a new start outside of the stale and bloated status quo is as good a way forward as any. |  |
| # WE ARE STEALING THE FUTURE FROM OUR CHILDREN --- WE MUST CHANGE COURSE # | | Poll: | It's driving me nuts |
| |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 12:05 - Jan 16 with 3740 views | Guthrum |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 11:45 - Jan 16 by Marshalls_Mullet |
I wouldnt disagree, my point was more against the idea that another referendum would be undemocratic. |
The distinction is that with a second referendum, you're just re-asking the same specific question, or a variant thereupon. It's an acknowlegement that something was wrong with the first one (poorly worded question, lack of information upon which to base the decision, etc.).
It's not undemocratic per se, in that the people are voting, but those backing the winning option in the first one are in a position to complain that their favourable initial outcome is simply being discarded.
With a GE, you are renewing the decisionmaking body elected on your behalf, with instructions to come up with and justify ways of solving the problems before us.
Part of the problem is that we're simply not very used to referenda in the UK, having only had two, plus a few strictly regional ones, in the last 40-odd years. | |
| |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 12:08 - Jan 16 with 3729 views | Superfrans |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 09:57 - Jan 16 by BanksterDebtSlave |
That would apply to every election since the year dot. |
The difference is that an election is fought on multiple issues, with each of the parties outlining their policies in much more detail/accuracy than was the case with the referendum.
Then, of course, you have the release valve of another general election five years later, when you can vote out anyone who has lied to you.
Problem with Europe is that if we come out, we'll be out for a generation, maybe forever. |  |
| |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 12:12 - Jan 16 with 3713 views | Guthrum |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 12:04 - Jan 16 by NthQldITFC |
What proportion of manifesto promises are honoured? There's no real accountability in politics, or corporate management. Not disagreeing that the referendum question was inevitably facile, but perhaps the lack of any real integrity in 'the system' is why a new start outside of the stale and bloated status quo is as good a way forward as any. |
Ministers are constantly pulled up on having failed to fulfil manifesto promises and accused of making U-turns if they backtrack. That's where the adversarial aspect of the Commons works and press scrutiny is effective. | |
| |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 12:23 - Jan 16 with 3688 views | Lord_Lucan |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 11:45 - Jan 16 by Marshalls_Mullet |
I wouldnt disagree, my point was more against the idea that another referendum would be undemocratic. |
Do you understand the difference between a referendum and a General Election? |  |
| |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 13:14 - Jan 16 with 3596 views | factual_blue |
For clarification, are you talking about South Weald or North Weald? |  |
| |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 17:56 - Jan 16 with 3520 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 13:14 - Jan 16 by factual_blue |
For clarification, are you talking about South Weald or North Weald? |
Laputa! | |
| |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 17:56 - Jan 16 with 3519 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 11:29 - Jan 16 by MattinLondon |
You’re not a fan of the House of Lords then? |
Take a wild guess! | |
| |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 07:12 - Jan 17 with 3393 views | Leaky |
| Ironic isn't it..... on 09:57 - Jan 16 by ElephantintheRoom |
Or you could take the view that the referendum was a badly-thought short cut to unite a badly fractured tory party, fought on misinformation, not to mention the rather important caveat that the terms of the Scottish referendum and the good Friday agreement rather made coming out of the EU utterly impossible in the first place. Given the insanity of entrusting an impossible task to the same fractured, incompetent party that put us in this mess, an all party solution appears entirely democratic, given that the referendum, largely decided on prejudice and misinformation was an all-party decision as well. Can't see too much wrong with having a referendum along the lines of the first, on which we joined the EEU - based on the factual benefits of joining (or leaving, as it would be in this case). Also it's worth remembering that only 17million voted to jump off a cliff... ie over 40 million didn't.... and it is the sovereign duty of our sovereign parliament to act in the best interests of the country. Not to do so would be treason. |
The European Economic Community was formed in 1957 ( commonly known as the Common Market.. The UK had a referendum in 1975 & voted to join. The UK has had no referendum on joining the EU. This is where the problem lies. We moan about the currant crop of MP's messing Brexit up. Perhaps if the people had been given a vote when the Common Market morphed into the EU we wouldn't be in the mess we are now |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
