EU Referendum - In/Out?

[Fierce_LiNk]

So now Tory MPs just have a yes/no vote on May?

 

I'm not even sure it goes that far. I've also seen talk of letting Gove back into the race and having a straight shoot-out between the two of them, but I can't see that happening. The Leadsom backers will/have begun to shift their support to May and that's it. She'll be the next leader of the Conservatives.

 

This is all a right fucking mess, tbh. Made even worse with Eagle vying to usurp Corbyn for Labour's leadership.

[Fierce_LiNk]

So now Tory MPs just have a yes/no vote on May?

 

I'm not even sure it goes that far. I've also seen talk of letting Gove back into the race and having a straight shoot-out between the two of them, but I can't see that happening. The Leadsom backers will/have begun to shift their support to May and that's it. She'll be the next leader of the Conservatives.

 

This is all a right fucking mess, tbh. Made even worse with Eagle vying to usurp Corbyn for Labour's leadership.

[Rummy]

This is all a right fucking mess, tbh. Made even worse with Eagle vying to usurp Corbyn for Labour's leadership.

 

What I don't understand there is that the people who elected her apparently support Corbyn as leader - I can't understand why she isn't/hasn't been taken to task more for that fact alone! Why be elected if you're going to ignore what your people think!

 

EDIT: Ouch. Leadsom's news might have hurt Eagle's announcement a bit! Apparently a lot of journalists might have gone to cover the former rather than the latter, and there's a quick and slightly cringe clip I've seen of her calling out for the BBC and some other notable political journalists for what I presume are questions, expecting them to be there and getting no response lol.

 

EDITEDIT: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/11/angela-eagle-abandoned-by-media-in-favour-of-andrea-leadsom/ - this one's easier -

Edited July 11, 2016 by Rummy

[Rummy]

This is all a right fucking mess, tbh. Made even worse with Eagle vying to usurp Corbyn for Labour's leadership.

 

What I don't understand there is that the people who elected her apparently support Corbyn as leader - I can't understand why she isn't/hasn't been taken to task more for that fact alone! Why be elected if you're going to ignore what your people think!

 

EDIT: Ouch. Leadsom's news might have hurt Eagle's announcement a bit! Apparently a lot of journalists might have gone to cover the former rather than the latter, and there's a quick and slightly cringe clip I've seen of her calling out for the BBC and some other notable political journalists for what I presume are questions, expecting them to be there and getting no response lol.

 

EDITEDIT: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/11/angela-eagle-abandoned-by-media-in-favour-of-andrea-leadsom/ - this one's easier -

Edited July 11, 2016 by Rummy

[Kav]

What I don't understand there is that the people who elected her apparently support Corbyn as leader - I can't understand why she isn't/hasn't been taken to task more for that fact alone! Why be elected if you're going to ignore what your people think!

 

EDIT: Ouch. Leadsom's news might have hurt Eagle's announcement a bit! Apparently a lot of journalists might have gone to cover the former rather than the latter, and there's a quick and slightly cringe clip I've seen of her calling out for the BBC and some other notable political journalists for what I presume are questions, expecting them to be there and getting no response lol.

 

EDITEDIT: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/11/angela-eagle-abandoned-by-media-in-favour-of-andrea-leadsom/

 

That's comedy gold right there!

[Kav]

What I don't understand there is that the people who elected her apparently support Corbyn as leader - I can't understand why she isn't/hasn't been taken to task more for that fact alone! Why be elected if you're going to ignore what your people think!

 

EDIT: Ouch. Leadsom's news might have hurt Eagle's announcement a bit! Apparently a lot of journalists might have gone to cover the former rather than the latter, and there's a quick and slightly cringe clip I've seen of her calling out for the BBC and some other notable political journalists for what I presume are questions, expecting them to be there and getting no response lol.

 

EDITEDIT: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/11/angela-eagle-abandoned-by-media-in-favour-of-andrea-leadsom/

 

That's comedy gold right there!

[Rummy]

That's comedy gold right there!

 

I can't stop watching it lol. If the bulk of Jeremy Corbyn's current support are the youth on social media, this poor woman is about to get super wrecked. At least someone from the media was there to cover it, I guess!

[Rummy]

That's comedy gold right there!

 

I can't stop watching it lol. If the bulk of Jeremy Corbyn's current support are the youth on social media, this poor woman is about to get super wrecked. At least someone from the media was there to cover it, I guess!

[gaggle64]

First statement from May was read by Chris Grayling, scuttlebutt via Robert Peston is he'll be the next chancellor.

 

Edited July 11, 2016 by gaggle64

[gaggle64]

First statement from May was read by Chris Grayling, scuttlebutt via Robert Peston is he'll be the next chancellor.

 

Edited July 11, 2016 by gaggle64

[Pestneb]

So.. remainers have to leave the EU, and leavers get lead out of Europe by a politician who believes it's the wrong direction. Great. Hands up anyone who voted in the referendum and is happy with the result?

 

I just hope May does better than Brown did.

I notice a pattern emerging.. when a prime minister says "I will serve the whole term but will step aside at the end of that term and not run for prime minister" it means "I will try to win the election so I can say I won x amount of times, then after a few months I'll step aside" and maybe add on "to let a muppet fall flat on their face so I look even better."

Time will tell.

 

I guess all we can do now is hope may does an excellent job in the circumstances. And that labour sort themselves out in time for the GE.

[Pestneb]

So.. remainers have to leave the EU, and leavers get lead out of Europe by a politician who believes it's the wrong direction. Great. Hands up anyone who voted in the referendum and is happy with the result?

 

I just hope May does better than Brown did.

I notice a pattern emerging.. when a prime minister says "I will serve the whole term but will step aside at the end of that term and not run for prime minister" it means "I will try to win the election so I can say I won x amount of times, then after a few months I'll step aside" and maybe add on "to let a muppet fall flat on their face so I look even better."

Time will tell.

 

I guess all we can do now is hope may does an excellent job in the circumstances. And that labour sort themselves out in time for the GE.

[pratty]

So now it is clear there was never any plan and all the people responsible have left. In any other circumstances this would be considered null and void and we'd forget it ever happened!

 

Why would we though? This is what we collectively decided through the previously and almost universally championed democratic system. The remain voters complaining that they have had something forced on them against their will by the majority were perfectly happy to to do the the exact same thing to the leavers. We all knew this is the nature of democracy, we all effectively said we will inflict our wishes on the minority should our cause be the majority, and we condoned this very system with our willing and even enthusiastic participation in it.

 

Cameron said he would honour the vote to leave, he is the one passing the buck if he leaves before leading us out. Those who lead the leave campaign weren't campaigning to be Prime Minister, that's not what they wanted, they just wanted to leave the EU, they're two totally different things, there's a lot more to being Prime Minister than just managing the EU leave and aftermath. But because Cam doesn't fancy the job anymore we should ignore the vote and blame other people for not wanting to be PM?

 

We all knew there was no concrete plan in place before the vote, hence all the talk of uncertainty if we vote to leave, so why would this disqualify the result of the referendum? As soon as the referendum was announced Cameron and his government should have conceived of a potential exit strategy should the vote go that way, but evidently they didn't because they arrogantly assumed the majority of the people wouldn't possibly defy their government's wishes to remain.

[pratty]

So now it is clear there was never any plan and all the people responsible have left. In any other circumstances this would be considered null and void and we'd forget it ever happened!

 

Why would we though? This is what we collectively decided through the previously and almost universally championed democratic system. The remain voters complaining that they have had something forced on them against their will by the majority were perfectly happy to to do the the exact same thing to the leavers. We all knew this is the nature of democracy, we all effectively said we will inflict our wishes on the minority should our cause be the majority, and we condoned this very system with our willing and even enthusiastic participation in it.

 

Cameron said he would honour the vote to leave, he is the one passing the buck if he leaves before leading us out. Those who lead the leave campaign weren't campaigning to be Prime Minister, that's not what they wanted, they just wanted to leave the EU, they're two totally different things, there's a lot more to being Prime Minister than just managing the EU leave and aftermath. But because Cam doesn't fancy the job anymore we should ignore the vote and blame other people for not wanting to be PM?

 

We all knew there was no concrete plan in place before the vote, hence all the talk of uncertainty if we vote to leave, so why would this disqualify the result of the referendum? As soon as the referendum was announced Cameron and his government should have conceived of a potential exit strategy should the vote go that way, but evidently they didn't because they arrogantly assumed the majority of the people wouldn't possibly defy their government's wishes to remain.

[gaggle64]

Theresa May will be PM Wednesday evening. No vote.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36768148

Edited July 11, 2016 by gaggle64

[gaggle64]

Theresa May will be PM Wednesday evening. No vote.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36768148

Edited July 11, 2016 by gaggle64

[Ashley]

It's the very definition of being left to clean up someone else's shit (including Cameron's). And if you don't think some of the Leave party were campaigning to be PM we must have been watching different referendums. They even talked about policies they'd enact!

 

The people that campaigned for it backed out when it happened. The people that are left to deal with it are those that didn't want it. I'm not saying I expect it to be ignored, it is just a shit position to be left in.

 

I do question as there was no plan for leave what did people vote for? There's not even a clear definition of what "leave" entails.

 

And in regards to democracy people aged 16/17 weren't allowed to vote. UK migrants that had lived abroad for more than 15 years weren't allowed to because it wouldn't affect them much, but EU migrants that lived in the UK for more than 15 wouldn't even though it has the same affect upon them as UK migrants. It was democratic in the sense it was voted on and will be enacted, but it's not the perfect democracy that some people seem keen to insist. It's flawed. Democracy is flawed.

 

If MPs voted to not go through with it do you think people that voted leave, who are currently saying how democracy should be followed do you think they'd just say "well that's democracy, okay"?

 

And I'd personally argue what is being forced on remainers is bigger than if it had gone the other way, especially in light of today's research stating declining living standards are down to austerity and not immigration and the UN's recent statement that the austerity programme is a breach of international human rights. But you could of course argue either way.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Ashley

[Ashley]

It's the very definition of being left to clean up someone else's shit (including Cameron's). And if you don't think some of the Leave party were campaigning to be PM we must have been watching different referendums. They even talked about policies they'd enact!

 

The people that campaigned for it backed out when it happened. The people that are left to deal with it are those that didn't want it. I'm not saying I expect it to be ignored, it is just a shit position to be left in.

 

I do question as there was no plan for leave what did people vote for? There's not even a clear definition of what "leave" entails.

 

And in regards to democracy people aged 16/17 weren't allowed to vote. UK migrants that had lived abroad for more than 15 years weren't allowed to because it wouldn't affect them much, but EU migrants that lived in the UK for more than 15 wouldn't even though it has the same affect upon them as UK migrants. It was democratic in the sense it was voted on and will be enacted, but it's not the perfect democracy that some people seem keen to insist. It's flawed. Democracy is flawed.

 

If MPs voted to not go through with it do you think people that voted leave, who are currently saying how democracy should be followed do you think they'd just say "well that's democracy, okay"?

 

And I'd personally argue what is being forced on remainers is bigger than if it had gone the other way, especially in light of today's research stating declining living standards are down to austerity and not immigration and the UN's recent statement that the austerity programme is a breach of international human rights. But you could of course argue either way.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Ashley

[pratty]

If MPs voted to not go through with it do you think people that voted leave, who are currently saying how democracy should be followed do you think they'd just say "well that's democracy, okay"?

 

Not in this instance no, because it's not the same. It's the directly expressed will of the people being overruled by the even more flawed indirect and messy representation of the people by an elected supposed intellectual superior. The system of the latter really only exists because of the impracticality of doing the former on every single issue, but when we do have a referendum surely it must take precedence?

 

Too me it seems illogical that the representatives of the people should be able to overrule the people themselves, if they do then how can they claim to represent the views of the people if their verdicts don't match what the people have already expressed?

 

It's the very definition of being left to clean up someone else's shit (including Cameron's). And if you don't think some of the Leave party were campaigning to be PM we must have been watching different referendums. They even talked about policies they'd enact!

 

We may have, to be fair I can't say I was following these people's every utterance during the referendum campaign but at no point during the referendum lead up did I ever here Gove or Johnson campaigning to be Prime Minister. But you may be right.

 

The people that campaigned for it backed out when it happened. The people that are left to deal with it are those that didn't want it.

 

I don't care what they want, it's not about them, they only get one vote/say in it like the rest of us. Is it really too much to expect politicians to deal with the democratically determined will of the people?

 

I do question as there was no plan for leave what did people vote for?

 

Surely to leave the EU, the specifics of the ins and outs are the government's responsibility to make it happen. An exact specific plan what to do next would be difficult anyway as it would be dependant on the various negotiations, the outcome of which can't be accurately foreseen. I think many leavers realise this, that leaving had a high degree of uncertainty and was still worth the risk.

 

in regards to democracy people aged 16/17 weren't allowed to vote. UK migrants that had lived abroad for more than 15 years weren't allowed to because it wouldn't affect them much, but EU migrants that lived in the UK for more than 15 wouldn't even though it has the same affect upon them as UK migrants. It was democratic in the sense it was voted on and will be enacted, but it's not the perfect democracy that some people seem keen to insist. It's flawed. Democracy is flawed.

 

Absolutely it is, we knew this before the vote but I get the feeling reaminers would not bring this up had they won. Leaving the EU means we have one less flawed democracy to contend with, a flawed democracy where an even greater minority of people than those in the UK can suffer the effects of a majority they disagree with.

 

If as many remainers insisted, that the EU is indeed democratic and that this is a good reason to stay ("we have to be in it to have our say on it" etc), then surely to be consistent they must still generally believe in the value of the democratic system despite it's faults.

 

And I'd personally argue what is being forced on remainers is bigger than if it had gone the other way, especially in light of today's research stating declining living standards are down to austerity and not immigration and the UN's recent statement that the austerity programme is a breach of international human rights. But you could of course argue either way.

 

Yes it's subjective, and when comparing it's not easy because you can't always just put a number on people's many reasons for their vote, both leave or stay.

 

To say the consequences for each side are uneven implies that an a straight forward vote (i.e. one-person-one-vote, either for or against, with the majority deciding the result) is an unsatisfactory way to decide what to do. However even if we accepted what you say about the greater imposition on remainers, to set a required greater-than-51% percentage for the leave vote to outweigh the supposed greater imposition to the remainers would be arbitrary considering the aforementioned subjective nature of the argument. And to not have a vote at all would surely be the least democratic solution.

[pratty]

If MPs voted to not go through with it do you think people that voted leave, who are currently saying how democracy should be followed do you think they'd just say "well that's democracy, okay"?

 

Not in this instance no, because it's not the same. It's the directly expressed will of the people being overruled by the even more flawed indirect and messy representation of the people by an elected supposed intellectual superior. The system of the latter really only exists because of the impracticality of doing the former on every single issue, but when we do have a referendum surely it must take precedence?

 

Too me it seems illogical that the representatives of the people should be able to overrule the people themselves, if they do then how can they claim to represent the views of the people if their verdicts don't match what the people have already expressed?

 

It's the very definition of being left to clean up someone else's shit (including Cameron's). And if you don't think some of the Leave party were campaigning to be PM we must have been watching different referendums. They even talked about policies they'd enact!

 

We may have, to be fair I can't say I was following these people's every utterance during the referendum campaign but at no point during the referendum lead up did I ever here Gove or Johnson campaigning to be Prime Minister. But you may be right.

 

The people that campaigned for it backed out when it happened. The people that are left to deal with it are those that didn't want it.

 

I don't care what they want, it's not about them, they only get one vote/say in it like the rest of us. Is it really too much to expect politicians to deal with the democratically determined will of the people?

 

I do question as there was no plan for leave what did people vote for?

 

Surely to leave the EU, the specifics of the ins and outs are the government's responsibility to make it happen. An exact specific plan what to do next would be difficult anyway as it would be dependant on the various negotiations, the outcome of which can't be accurately foreseen. I think many leavers realise this, that leaving had a high degree of uncertainty and was still worth the risk.

 

in regards to democracy people aged 16/17 weren't allowed to vote. UK migrants that had lived abroad for more than 15 years weren't allowed to because it wouldn't affect them much, but EU migrants that lived in the UK for more than 15 wouldn't even though it has the same affect upon them as UK migrants. It was democratic in the sense it was voted on and will be enacted, but it's not the perfect democracy that some people seem keen to insist. It's flawed. Democracy is flawed.

 

Absolutely it is, we knew this before the vote but I get the feeling reaminers would not bring this up had they won. Leaving the EU means we have one less flawed democracy to contend with, a flawed democracy where an even greater minority of people than those in the UK can suffer the effects of a majority they disagree with.

 

If as many remainers insisted, that the EU is indeed democratic and that this is a good reason to stay ("we have to be in it to have our say on it" etc), then surely to be consistent they must still generally believe in the value of the democratic system despite it's faults.

 

And I'd personally argue what is being forced on remainers is bigger than if it had gone the other way, especially in light of today's research stating declining living standards are down to austerity and not immigration and the UN's recent statement that the austerity programme is a breach of international human rights. But you could of course argue either way.

 

Yes it's subjective, and when comparing it's not easy because you can't always just put a number on people's many reasons for their vote, both leave or stay.

 

To say the consequences for each side are uneven implies that an a straight forward vote (i.e. one-person-one-vote, either for or against, with the majority deciding the result) is an unsatisfactory way to decide what to do. However even if we accepted what you say about the greater imposition on remainers, to set a required greater-than-51% percentage for the leave vote to outweigh the supposed greater imposition to the remainers would be arbitrary considering the aforementioned subjective nature of the argument. And to not have a vote at all would surely be the least democratic solution.

[Ashley]

Not in this instance no, because it's not the same. It's the directly expressed will of the people being overruled by the even more flawed indirect and messy representation of the people by an elected supposed intellectual superior. The system of the latter really only exists because of the impracticality of doing the former on every single issue, but when we do have a referendum surely it must take precedence?

 

Too me it seems illogical that the representatives of the people should be able to overrule the people themselves, if they do then how can they claim to represent the views of the people if their verdicts don't match what the people have already expressed?

 

It was an advisory referendum and we elect our MPs to make decisions for us. If they decided to not listen to an advisory referendum it would be democratic (in the sense that it is within the "rules" of democracy). I'm not saying it would be wise, it is democracy. As I said, democracy is flawed. I was just trying to highlight ways in which it could be flawed.

 

I don't care what they want, it's not about them, they only get one vote/say in it like the rest of us. Is it really too much to expect politicians to deal with the democratically determined will of the people?

 

I'm not saying they shouldn't or anything, I'm just saying its a shit situation to find yourself in. It comes with the job obviously, but it's shit to be told to do something you don't want to do by a load of people that didn't prepare anything and have buggered off (and obviously I'm talking about the politicians here).

 

Surely to leave the EU, the specifics of the ins and outs are the government's responsibility to make it happen. An exact specific plan what to do next would be difficult anyway as it would be dependant on the various negotiations, the outcome of which can't be accurately foreseen. I think many leavers realise this, that leaving had a high degree of uncertainty and was still worth the risk.

 

But what does leave the EU entail? Are we still going to be in the single market? Do we want an EEA deal? How about something like Norway? Or something more bespoke? Clearly the racism that has untangled since some people were voting for kicking people out of the country, in spite of the campaign stating that wouldn't happen.

 

My point is without a clear plan people were voting for "something else tbc" and that seems like a shitty part of democracy. When we vote in elections we vote based on a party's mandate (except those random independents who never bother putting one together but there's a good reason they don't do well). We weren't given details about what it would entail. I'm sure if you asked those 17 million people, the answers of what they expect(ed) would vary significantly. There's going to be common ones, obviously, but it was just "do something". And I get that is part of it. The whole Network rant. But that's fine for a film, less good when its the future of your god damn country.

 

Absolutely it is, we knew this before the vote but I get the feeling reaminers would not bring this up had they won. Leaving the EU means we have one less flawed democracy to contend with, a flawed democracy where an even greater minority of people than those in the UK can suffer the effects of a majority they disagree with.

 

I wasn't saying it was a surprise, I was just saying it shows weaknesses in the "but it was democracy!" argument. There was an attempt to legally stop people voting (as in they were going to pursue it through the courts). Yes you have to set boundaries, but they seemed messy and arguably undemocratic.

 

I really don't understand what your last sentence is saying but that is just me!

 

If as many remainers insisted, that the EU is indeed democratic and that this is a good reason to stay ("we have to be in it to have our say on it" etc), then surely to be consistent they must still generally believe in the value of the democratic system despite it's faults.

 

Again, I'm just trying to point out how our democracy is flawed and undemocratic in ways because one of the arguments against the EU was its undemocratic. I voted for an MEP and they (in their opinion) represent my view in Europe.

 

Yes it's subjective, and when comparing it's not easy because you can't always just put a number on people's many reasons for their vote, both leave or stay.

 

To say the consequences for each side are uneven implies that an a straight forward vote (i.e. one-person-one-vote, either for or against, with the majority deciding the result) is an unsatisfactory way to decide what to do. However even if we accepted what you say about the greater imposition on remainers, to set a required greater-than-51% percentage for the leave vote to outweigh the supposed greater imposition to the remainers would be arbitrary considering the aforementioned subjective nature of the argument. And to not have a vote at all would surely be the least democratic solution.

 

I'd argue no vote would have been more democratic given the campaign - it was based on lies, misrepresentations, misdirection (on both sides) and with little regard as to what would happen. I generally like democracy, but I think the issue was too big and complex to put to the public in the short time frame that was given. It was reckless and feckless and arguably given that MPs are supposed to make informed decisions on our behalf it would have been more democratic to let them do the job we elect them to do. Obviously the most democratic would have been to put it to a vote in a reasoned position, but that is not what we got.

 

Also ha:

 

[tweet]752577625860796416[/tweet]

 

Between this and his tweet last year about a vote for Ed Milliband resulting in chaos and a vote for him resulting in stablility he should probably not make statements in the future!

Edited July 11, 2016 by Ashley

[Ashley]

Not in this instance no, because it's not the same. It's the directly expressed will of the people being overruled by the even more flawed indirect and messy representation of the people by an elected supposed intellectual superior. The system of the latter really only exists because of the impracticality of doing the former on every single issue, but when we do have a referendum surely it must take precedence?

 

Too me it seems illogical that the representatives of the people should be able to overrule the people themselves, if they do then how can they claim to represent the views of the people if their verdicts don't match what the people have already expressed?

 

It was an advisory referendum and we elect our MPs to make decisions for us. If they decided to not listen to an advisory referendum it would be democratic (in the sense that it is within the "rules" of democracy). I'm not saying it would be wise, it is democracy. As I said, democracy is flawed. I was just trying to highlight ways in which it could be flawed.

 

I don't care what they want, it's not about them, they only get one vote/say in it like the rest of us. Is it really too much to expect politicians to deal with the democratically determined will of the people?

 

I'm not saying they shouldn't or anything, I'm just saying its a shit situation to find yourself in. It comes with the job obviously, but it's shit to be told to do something you don't want to do by a load of people that didn't prepare anything and have buggered off (and obviously I'm talking about the politicians here).

 

Surely to leave the EU, the specifics of the ins and outs are the government's responsibility to make it happen. An exact specific plan what to do next would be difficult anyway as it would be dependant on the various negotiations, the outcome of which can't be accurately foreseen. I think many leavers realise this, that leaving had a high degree of uncertainty and was still worth the risk.

 

But what does leave the EU entail? Are we still going to be in the single market? Do we want an EEA deal? How about something like Norway? Or something more bespoke? Clearly the racism that has untangled since some people were voting for kicking people out of the country, in spite of the campaign stating that wouldn't happen.

 

My point is without a clear plan people were voting for "something else tbc" and that seems like a shitty part of democracy. When we vote in elections we vote based on a party's mandate (except those random independents who never bother putting one together but there's a good reason they don't do well). We weren't given details about what it would entail. I'm sure if you asked those 17 million people, the answers of what they expect(ed) would vary significantly. There's going to be common ones, obviously, but it was just "do something". And I get that is part of it. The whole Network rant. But that's fine for a film, less good when its the future of your god damn country.

 

Absolutely it is, we knew this before the vote but I get the feeling reaminers would not bring this up had they won. Leaving the EU means we have one less flawed democracy to contend with, a flawed democracy where an even greater minority of people than those in the UK can suffer the effects of a majority they disagree with.

 

I wasn't saying it was a surprise, I was just saying it shows weaknesses in the "but it was democracy!" argument. There was an attempt to legally stop people voting (as in they were going to pursue it through the courts). Yes you have to set boundaries, but they seemed messy and arguably undemocratic.

 

I really don't understand what your last sentence is saying but that is just me!

 

If as many remainers insisted, that the EU is indeed democratic and that this is a good reason to stay ("we have to be in it to have our say on it" etc), then surely to be consistent they must still generally believe in the value of the democratic system despite it's faults.

 

Again, I'm just trying to point out how our democracy is flawed and undemocratic in ways because one of the arguments against the EU was its undemocratic. I voted for an MEP and they (in their opinion) represent my view in Europe.

 

Yes it's subjective, and when comparing it's not easy because you can't always just put a number on people's many reasons for their vote, both leave or stay.

 

To say the consequences for each side are uneven implies that an a straight forward vote (i.e. one-person-one-vote, either for or against, with the majority deciding the result) is an unsatisfactory way to decide what to do. However even if we accepted what you say about the greater imposition on remainers, to set a required greater-than-51% percentage for the leave vote to outweigh the supposed greater imposition to the remainers would be arbitrary considering the aforementioned subjective nature of the argument. And to not have a vote at all would surely be the least democratic solution.

 

I'd argue no vote would have been more democratic given the campaign - it was based on lies, misrepresentations, misdirection (on both sides) and with little regard as to what would happen. I generally like democracy, but I think the issue was too big and complex to put to the public in the short time frame that was given. It was reckless and feckless and arguably given that MPs are supposed to make informed decisions on our behalf it would have been more democratic to let them do the job we elect them to do. Obviously the most democratic would have been to put it to a vote in a reasoned position, but that is not what we got.

 

Also ha:

 

[tweet]752577625860796416[/tweet]

 

Between this and his tweet last year about a vote for Ed Milliband resulting in chaos and a vote for him resulting in stablility he should probably not make statements in the future!

Edited July 11, 2016 by Ashley

[pratty]

But what does leave the EU entail? Are we still going to be in the single market? Do we want an EEA deal? How about something like Norway? Or something more bespoke? Clearly the racism that has untangled since some people were voting for kicking people out of the country, in spite of the campaign stating that wouldn't happen.

 

My point is without a clear plan people were voting for "something else tbc" and that seems like a shitty part of democracy. When we vote in elections we vote based on a party's mandate (except those random independents who never bother putting one together but there's a good reason they don't do well). We weren't given details about what it would entail. I'm sure if you asked those 17 million people, the answers of what they expect(ed) would vary significantly. There's going to be common ones, obviously, but it was just "do something". And I get that is part of it. The whole Network rant. But that's fine for a film, less good when its the future of your god damn country.

 

A fair point. I understand where you're coming from, I just think many people were simply voting to get out of the EU, not voting for what to do afterwards.

 

I really don't understand what your last sentence is saying but that is just me!

 

No problem, what I meant is seeing as a flaw of democracy is how so many people can suffer the wishes of the majority, the larger the number of people under a single democracy the more the effect of that flaw is magnified, as more people can (as a minority) suffer under a majority.

 

I'd argue no vote would have been more democratic given the campaign - it was based on lies, misrepresentations, misdirection (on both sides) and with little regard as to what would happen. I generally like democracy, but I think the issue was too big and complex to put to the public in the short time frame that was given. It was reckless and feckless and arguably given that MPs are supposed to make informed decisions on our behalf it would have been more democratic to let them do the job we elect them to do. Obviously the most democratic would have been to put it to a vote in a reasoned position, but that is not what we got.

 

I think any say is better than no say. I think democracy is a lot more than a system of representation, it's ultimately about the people having an influence, therefore the more direct influence - the more democratic.

 

Lies are a part of politics i'm afraid, politicians also lie during the elections that determine the representatives you say should have decided our EU membership, should we not vote on them either because of lies?

 

Imagine if someone had decided not to count a vote of yours, or deny you your right to vote altogether, because they decided in their proclaimed wisdom that you didn't have discernment to tell the truth from the lies. Would you be content to yield to their judgement?

 

Additionally if a vote can be prevented or disqualified on the basis that there may be lies affecting the vote, then that is open to constant abuse, because then the mere presence of a lie inserted into the public discourse is all that is needed to prevent any undesired vote.

[pratty]

But what does leave the EU entail? Are we still going to be in the single market? Do we want an EEA deal? How about something like Norway? Or something more bespoke? Clearly the racism that has untangled since some people were voting for kicking people out of the country, in spite of the campaign stating that wouldn't happen.

 

My point is without a clear plan people were voting for "something else tbc" and that seems like a shitty part of democracy. When we vote in elections we vote based on a party's mandate (except those random independents who never bother putting one together but there's a good reason they don't do well). We weren't given details about what it would entail. I'm sure if you asked those 17 million people, the answers of what they expect(ed) would vary significantly. There's going to be common ones, obviously, but it was just "do something". And I get that is part of it. The whole Network rant. But that's fine for a film, less good when its the future of your god damn country.

 

A fair point. I understand where you're coming from, I just think many people were simply voting to get out of the EU, not voting for what to do afterwards.

 

I really don't understand what your last sentence is saying but that is just me!

 

No problem, what I meant is seeing as a flaw of democracy is how so many people can suffer the wishes of the majority, the larger the number of people under a single democracy the more the effect of that flaw is magnified, as more people can (as a minority) suffer under a majority.

 

I'd argue no vote would have been more democratic given the campaign - it was based on lies, misrepresentations, misdirection (on both sides) and with little regard as to what would happen. I generally like democracy, but I think the issue was too big and complex to put to the public in the short time frame that was given. It was reckless and feckless and arguably given that MPs are supposed to make informed decisions on our behalf it would have been more democratic to let them do the job we elect them to do. Obviously the most democratic would have been to put it to a vote in a reasoned position, but that is not what we got.

 

I think any say is better than no say. I think democracy is a lot more than a system of representation, it's ultimately about the people having an influence, therefore the more direct influence - the more democratic.

 

Lies are a part of politics i'm afraid, politicians also lie during the elections that determine the representatives you say should have decided our EU membership, should we not vote on them either because of lies?

 

Imagine if someone had decided not to count a vote of yours, or deny you your right to vote altogether, because they decided in their proclaimed wisdom that you didn't have discernment to tell the truth from the lies. Would you be content to yield to their judgement?

 

Additionally if a vote can be prevented or disqualified on the basis that there may be lies affecting the vote, then that is open to constant abuse, because then the mere presence of a lie inserted into the public discourse is all that is needed to prevent any undesired vote.

[Pestneb]

Only DC could state what would happen in a leave situation, he was the ONLY one in a position to lay out a position. He didn't, hoping that the uncertainty would work on the general UK populace as it did with scotland (What WOULD have happened if scotland left the UK? to this day we can't say, because they left it ambiguous).

 

We will see if article 50 ever gets triggered. The remainers are being very vocal because they lost. If article 50 isn't triggered, and it is announced that we're staying then that is very tricky.

 

nations, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference.

 

The people of the UK have announced to the world that they wish to be sovereign and leave the governance of the EU.

As things stand now, can the EU even allow the UK government to ignore its people?

The only way out of this would, in my view, have been a pre-emptive negotiation, then a second referendum spelling out "leave will mean... £350 million sent to the EU, following the EU's laws, accepting freedom of movement.... but no say on the running of the EU. Remain will mean the same but with a say on how it is run. Make your choice UK."

 

However, the EU are refusing this until article 50 is triggered. Once that takes place, I believe that it is irreversable, meaning that a decision to remain in the EU would mean adopting the Euro, losing many of the perks the UK still currently enjoys and probably being opted in to "an ever closer union".

 

I believe a leave then return scenario is the worst possible out come here... ignore the leave vote and remain or leave and permanently leave having negotiated terms well are the two scenarios that I see that would inflict the least damage to the UK.. although I see only one of those options being left open to the UK. To be honest, the EU's response to the referendum has made me more eurosceptic and happier with the vote outcome.. despite the fact that I have lost thousands in the immediate aftermath.