Yeah but I think it's a shiiiiit point and undemocratic in its position. Also completely different from the US presedential election in which I don't go with the thoery that it's been sensibly accepted by those that voted, which you're suggesting.
The crying from many on both sides of the debate, and the Atlantic, is beyond pathetic at times I'll give you that, but that's about the only decent point you've raised.
comment by ifarka, (U8182)
posted 1 hour, 50 minutes ago
the rest of the country should have the humility to respect the vote and get together to make the country stronger.
Not destabilize the economy and push the country towards constitutional crisis.
Because they lost and want to throw there toys out of the pram.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Problem is, it's the incumbent Government who are driving the country towards constitutional crisis by their refusal to accept that in order to trigger Article 50, an Act of Parliament must be passed by the House.
May's "timetable" implies she wants to ignore, or at the very least, circumvent the laws which make this country what it is.
This is how fascist dictatorships start, by doing exactly what they want, by any means possible, even if it means breaking multiple laws.
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 2 minutes ago
Surely there must be a more justified merit-based system which can differentiate between qualified and unqualified voters?
---
Not exactly what millions of people gave their lives for, is it? Maybe only people over 50 should be allowed to vote, because they have life experience.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't agree with a merit based system regarding voting at all. Everyone is entitled to a say.
One thing I think was a missed opportunity during the referendum was not letting those 16+ vote. This is a decision that will affect 16 year olds a lot more than voters aged 70+.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversely you could argue that 16 year olds don't have the maturity to make important decision.
When I was in college the overwhelming majority were left wing idealists. As many of these people mature and gain real life experience they start to veer to the centre/right.
I'd no more value the vote of a 16 year old than I would that of a 60 year old racist with a remedial IQ.
Globaly there is a move against established politicians and politics
====================================
Maybe, but they seem to be attracting as their figure heads, disingenuous self serving $c.u.mbag$, who see it as an opportunity to further their own careers, or increase their own influence over government policy. I mean to say, who wants politicians doing politics, when you can have real estate billionaires doing it instead.
Seems strange that behind most of these 'of the people' movements, like Brexit, and the anti political establishment campaign of Trump, are extremely wealthy men and women, who prior to their involvement in theses campaigns, had no previous involvement, or interest in fighting for the cause of ordinary working men and women in this country, or the US.
As I said earlier, they are basically con men, who will change absolutely nothing, as that was never really their intention in the first place.
In terms of change, Its not exciting or dynamic, but simply a little sad, and pathetic.
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 2 minutes ago
Surely there must be a more justified merit-based system which can differentiate between qualified and unqualified voters?
---
Not exactly what millions of people gave their lives for, is it? Maybe only people over 50 should be allowed to vote, because they have life experience.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't agree with a merit based system regarding voting at all. Everyone is entitled to a say.
One thing I think was a missed opportunity during the referendum was not letting those 16+ vote. This is a decision that will affect 16 year olds a lot more than voters aged 70+.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversely you could argue that 16 year olds don't have the maturity to make important decision.
When I was in college the overwhelming majority were left wing idealists. As many of these people mature and gain real life experience they start to veer to the centre/right.
I'd no more value the vote of a 16 year old than I would that of a 60 year old racist with a remedial IQ.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When did idealism become a bad thing?
We need to start all over again...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kju7hf4mgDo
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 34 minutes ago
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 2 minutes ago
Surely there must be a more justified merit-based system which can differentiate between qualified and unqualified voters?
---
Not exactly what millions of people gave their lives for, is it? Maybe only people over 50 should be allowed to vote, because they have life experience.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't agree with a merit based system regarding voting at all. Everyone is entitled to a say.
One thing I think was a missed opportunity during the referendum was not letting those 16+ vote. This is a decision that will affect 16 year olds a lot more than voters aged 70+.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversely you could argue that 16 year olds don't have the maturity to make important decision.
When I was in college the overwhelming majority were left wing idealists. As many of these people mature and gain real life experience they start to veer to the centre/right.
I'd no more value the vote of a 16 year old than I would that of a 60 year old racist with a remedial IQ.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd say 16 year olds are more informed and socially aware now than when I was that age. Are you also saying that a 16 year old who can leave home, get a job and live an adult life isn't mature enough to vote?
Add to the fact the referendum was on the cards for 2 years leaving ample opportunity for education about the vote and their responsibility. It could've also paved the way for young people being more aware about their vote the next time a GE comes around.
Idealism isn't a bad thing, but important decisions should be based on reality and fact, not unobtainable dreams.
What percentage of 16 year olds leave home and get job so in this modern day? Less than 1% I'd wager.
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 1 minute ago
What percentage of 16 year olds leave home and get job so in this modern day? Less than 1% I'd wager.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I said they are entitled to if they want. If they're old enough to rent a home and get a job then why not vote?
Even if they do live at home I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to vote with education on it at school and parental discussion. As I said the referendum was a decision that will effect the rest of their lives.
Exactly, it will affect the rest of their lives. My political views now are not aligned with my views from when I was 16. My opinions have been tainted by reality, cynicism and experience. I'm certain that had a 16 year old me had the power to vote on lifelong issues I would be cursing that young man today.
In my experience, people only look at ways to expand the electorate if they think it would benefit them. I can see why the proposition allowing a couple of million uninformed idealistic 16 years olds to vote in the referendum appealed to certain elements of the political class.
Lambeau
Our political views of 4/5 years ago may not be aligned with your political views of today. Things change over time. Does someone experience a significant amount of "reality, cynicism and experience" in the two years between 16-18?
I don't see why 16 year olds should be discounted on this basis.
A counter argument could be made that 75-80 year olds are not going to feel the full effect of Brexit so should've been removed from the electorate. This is not an opinion I hold personally but uses similar logic to your own re 16 year olds.
The young fail to vote, then moanš
Liberal left fail to listen to the peopleš”
New dawn, globally, against globalization.
Hispanics, Latinos, Asians and women all voted in huge numbers for Trump.
The argument that just because you lost the vote that you should fall in line is stupid really.
You think that democrats won't oppose any of the policies that Trump might push through?
I mean whats the point in having opposition party if people believe just because a party lost that everyone should fall in line.
The referendum rightly or wrongly was decided by people, and the politicians are going to go through with it. However, its ridiculous to presume that we should hand it over to Theresa May, and she can decide what kind of deal we will get. To leave the EU cannot just be answered with a yes or no, because we have to have some sort of plan of what will replace it. Handing it over to the ironically un elected Theresa May without any debate would be kind of stupid to be honest.
Also you think had the remainers won that people wanting to leave the EU would have shut up? No they wouldn't have.
Also you think had the remainers won that people wanting to leave the EU would have shut up? No they wouldn't have
------------------
There will always be people on either side who espouse the democratic method, yet when the majority do not share their views revert to autocratism.
That or bay and whine at the moon or to whoever they cam find to bore.
Joaquin,
Its not falling into line , its about respecting democracy , you continue your cause win loose or draw.
I would say its clear that there is an undemocratic tone to the response to this election and Brexit. Both have jad people who dont agree with the vote protesting against it rather than accepting its what the majority of people voted for, which is what democracy is about.
I would say its clear that there is an undemocratic tone to the response to this election and Brexit.
-
It was interesting listening to BBC5Live this morning. There were a lot of angry young American's protesting against Trump, saying things like 'America does not want Trump' and 'We will not accept this result.' Now, I'm absolutely in support of people having the right to express their disappointment. However, self-entitlement is fast becoming a cancer on modern day society. The very assumption by these protesters that they can speak for America epitomises the arrogance of many millennials and the liberal left.
I subscribe to a lot of mailing lists for a variety of organizations along the political spectrum, because I like to keep abreast of global politics. I had an interesting email from one particular group this morning (SumOfUs), which unsurprisingly contained a lot of words like 'shocked, afriad, anxious,' but the crux of the message was asking members what they think are the priorities for the future, and asking us to vote.
I put these options to you all:
1) Getting Money Out Of Politics
2) Fair Trade Deals
3) Standing With Our Most Vulnerable
4) Jobs And The Economy
5) Fighting Corporate Deregulation
6) Climate Justice
For the layman, I'm inclined to believe that the priority would be Jobs and the Economy. Gauging today's rhetoric in the states this morning, this (and the obvious impacts of globalisation) seems to be what got Trump elected.
I think the key issue is that the governing powers accept the democratic process, the individual will always have their view and be happy with the outcome or unhappy.
But to try to overturn and undermine the democratic process is the stuff of tin pot democracies.
comment by ifarka, (U8182)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
I think the key issue is that the governing powers accept the democratic process, the individual will always have their view and be happy with the outcome or unhappy.
But to try to overturn and undermine the democratic process is the stuff of tin pot democracies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody is trying to overturn the referendum.
The result was judged in the courts and rightly so as it is PART of our democracy.
Both the major parties are prepared to go through with it, as both have said they will follow through with the wishes of the people. So there is nothing to complain about.
What they are debating about is what relationship should it be replaced with, as the referendum didn't actually answer this. Labour are pro single market, whilst Theresa May and conservatives are hard Brexit.
Like I said nothing was over turned by people. The referendum result was falsely presented as being the final ultimatum, which it wasn't.
I think you will find the group who challenged the referendum in the high courts are trying to overturn it .
Debating what relationship it should be replaced with ??????????????????????????????
Errrrrrrrr, but sorry surley that would be difficult to achieve with a hostile Europe , who are an integral part of the what the relationship would look like.
It seems to me that the Brexit vote could only do what it could and that was suggest possible options and the remain vote didn't believe that there was enough unhappy people to actually support the out vote.
This referendum has been the cards since pre New Labour, the result is binding I agree it will need to ratified .
But if you believe that the referendum is not being undermined and an attempt to overturn it is not underway , I suggest that this is an extremely naive view to assume.
The media and establishment have orchestrated a climate of fear, which is undermining the result and whilst it is in limbo it is making the vote vulnerable
comment by ifarka, (U8182)
posted 2 minutes ago
I think you will find the group who challenged the referendum in the high courts are trying to overturn it .
Debating what relationship it should be replaced with ??????????????????????????????
Errrrrrrrr, but sorry surley that would be difficult to achieve with a hostile Europe , who are an integral part of the what the relationship would look like.
It seems to me that the Brexit vote could only do what it could and that was suggest possible options and the remain vote didn't believe that there was enough unhappy people to actually support the out vote.
This referendum has been the cards since pre New Labour, the result is binding I agree it will need to ratified .
But if you believe that the referendum is not being undermined and an attempt to overturn it is not underway , I suggest that this is an extremely naive view to assume.
The media and establishment have orchestrated a climate of fear, which is undermining the result and whilst it is in limbo it is making the vote vulnerable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly what relationship it should be replaced with means whether we continue to be part of the single market like Norway or Switzerland, or we don't. This has to be established as the referendum hasn't given a result for that.
The law is unbiased to the referendum results. Like I said before the only thing it has meant is that parliament can scrutinise the process, and decide what Brexit looks like i.e.. hard/soft. All it is dictating is that Theresa May can't by herself dictate the relationship the UK has with the EU.
The UK is leaving the European Union, I accept that and so do other people who voted remain. However, to say now that because we lost we lose our voices is undemocratic.
Also you state that the media is orchestrating a climate of fear, well from what I can see that behaviour is coming from the right wing tabloid press.
Like I said this radical overturning of the will of the people hasn't happened. The referendum is just following the letter of the law. Your Brexit is happening! The only thing which is being debated is what the terms are.
"Your Brexit is happening! The only thing which is being debated is what the terms are. "
This. I'm really fed up of people telling me it's anti democratic to try and discuss how Breixt is 'achieved'.
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 15 minutes ago
"Your Brexit is happening! The only thing which is being debated is what the terms are. "
This. I'm really fed up of people telling me it's anti democratic to try and discuss how Breixt is 'achieved'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I find the irony in foreignly owned newspapers attacking a British court, ruling on British laws by labelling them unpatriotic losers
Wasn't it patriotic to believe in British laws now so long ago?
The BBC have also been associated with promotion of the climate of fear.
Im at a loss to see how a potential round of horse trading will be effective , it would cause obstacles , which I assume may well be open to judicial process.
In others words remainers trying to wriggle out of the outcome.
I believe the government is the elected body and it should handle the negotiations , parliament should soley ratify the decision of the referendum.
"I believe the government is the elected body and it should handle the negotiations , parliament should soley ratify the decision of the referendum"
This option does not represent everyone who voted though. It represents those who voted Conservative. It also dismisses the elected leaders of the governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
As it was a bi-partisan vote negotiations should be discussed by Parliament & the representatives of Scotland, Wales & NI.
Sign in if you want to comment
Americans unite after Trump win!
Page 4 of 5
posted on 9/11/16
Yeah but I think it's a shiiiiit point and undemocratic in its position. Also completely different from the US presedential election in which I don't go with the thoery that it's been sensibly accepted by those that voted, which you're suggesting.
The crying from many on both sides of the debate, and the Atlantic, is beyond pathetic at times I'll give you that, but that's about the only decent point you've raised.
posted on 9/11/16
comment by ifarka, (U8182)
posted 1 hour, 50 minutes ago
the rest of the country should have the humility to respect the vote and get together to make the country stronger.
Not destabilize the economy and push the country towards constitutional crisis.
Because they lost and want to throw there toys out of the pram.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Problem is, it's the incumbent Government who are driving the country towards constitutional crisis by their refusal to accept that in order to trigger Article 50, an Act of Parliament must be passed by the House.
May's "timetable" implies she wants to ignore, or at the very least, circumvent the laws which make this country what it is.
This is how fascist dictatorships start, by doing exactly what they want, by any means possible, even if it means breaking multiple laws.
posted on 9/11/16
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 2 minutes ago
Surely there must be a more justified merit-based system which can differentiate between qualified and unqualified voters?
---
Not exactly what millions of people gave their lives for, is it? Maybe only people over 50 should be allowed to vote, because they have life experience.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't agree with a merit based system regarding voting at all. Everyone is entitled to a say.
One thing I think was a missed opportunity during the referendum was not letting those 16+ vote. This is a decision that will affect 16 year olds a lot more than voters aged 70+.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversely you could argue that 16 year olds don't have the maturity to make important decision.
When I was in college the overwhelming majority were left wing idealists. As many of these people mature and gain real life experience they start to veer to the centre/right.
I'd no more value the vote of a 16 year old than I would that of a 60 year old racist with a remedial IQ.
posted on 9/11/16
Globaly there is a move against established politicians and politics
====================================
Maybe, but they seem to be attracting as their figure heads, disingenuous self serving $c.u.mbag$, who see it as an opportunity to further their own careers, or increase their own influence over government policy. I mean to say, who wants politicians doing politics, when you can have real estate billionaires doing it instead.
Seems strange that behind most of these 'of the people' movements, like Brexit, and the anti political establishment campaign of Trump, are extremely wealthy men and women, who prior to their involvement in theses campaigns, had no previous involvement, or interest in fighting for the cause of ordinary working men and women in this country, or the US.
As I said earlier, they are basically con men, who will change absolutely nothing, as that was never really their intention in the first place.
In terms of change, Its not exciting or dynamic, but simply a little sad, and pathetic.
posted on 9/11/16
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 2 minutes ago
Surely there must be a more justified merit-based system which can differentiate between qualified and unqualified voters?
---
Not exactly what millions of people gave their lives for, is it? Maybe only people over 50 should be allowed to vote, because they have life experience.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't agree with a merit based system regarding voting at all. Everyone is entitled to a say.
One thing I think was a missed opportunity during the referendum was not letting those 16+ vote. This is a decision that will affect 16 year olds a lot more than voters aged 70+.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversely you could argue that 16 year olds don't have the maturity to make important decision.
When I was in college the overwhelming majority were left wing idealists. As many of these people mature and gain real life experience they start to veer to the centre/right.
I'd no more value the vote of a 16 year old than I would that of a 60 year old racist with a remedial IQ.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When did idealism become a bad thing?
We need to start all over again...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kju7hf4mgDo
posted on 9/11/16
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 34 minutes ago
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 2 minutes ago
Surely there must be a more justified merit-based system which can differentiate between qualified and unqualified voters?
---
Not exactly what millions of people gave their lives for, is it? Maybe only people over 50 should be allowed to vote, because they have life experience.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't agree with a merit based system regarding voting at all. Everyone is entitled to a say.
One thing I think was a missed opportunity during the referendum was not letting those 16+ vote. This is a decision that will affect 16 year olds a lot more than voters aged 70+.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversely you could argue that 16 year olds don't have the maturity to make important decision.
When I was in college the overwhelming majority were left wing idealists. As many of these people mature and gain real life experience they start to veer to the centre/right.
I'd no more value the vote of a 16 year old than I would that of a 60 year old racist with a remedial IQ.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd say 16 year olds are more informed and socially aware now than when I was that age. Are you also saying that a 16 year old who can leave home, get a job and live an adult life isn't mature enough to vote?
Add to the fact the referendum was on the cards for 2 years leaving ample opportunity for education about the vote and their responsibility. It could've also paved the way for young people being more aware about their vote the next time a GE comes around.
posted on 9/11/16
Idealism isn't a bad thing, but important decisions should be based on reality and fact, not unobtainable dreams.
posted on 9/11/16
What percentage of 16 year olds leave home and get job so in this modern day? Less than 1% I'd wager.
posted on 9/11/16
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 1 minute ago
What percentage of 16 year olds leave home and get job so in this modern day? Less than 1% I'd wager.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I said they are entitled to if they want. If they're old enough to rent a home and get a job then why not vote?
Even if they do live at home I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to vote with education on it at school and parental discussion. As I said the referendum was a decision that will effect the rest of their lives.
posted on 9/11/16
Exactly, it will affect the rest of their lives. My political views now are not aligned with my views from when I was 16. My opinions have been tainted by reality, cynicism and experience. I'm certain that had a 16 year old me had the power to vote on lifelong issues I would be cursing that young man today.
In my experience, people only look at ways to expand the electorate if they think it would benefit them. I can see why the proposition allowing a couple of million uninformed idealistic 16 years olds to vote in the referendum appealed to certain elements of the political class.
posted on 9/11/16
Lambeau
Our political views of 4/5 years ago may not be aligned with your political views of today. Things change over time. Does someone experience a significant amount of "reality, cynicism and experience" in the two years between 16-18?
I don't see why 16 year olds should be discounted on this basis.
A counter argument could be made that 75-80 year olds are not going to feel the full effect of Brexit so should've been removed from the electorate. This is not an opinion I hold personally but uses similar logic to your own re 16 year olds.
posted on 9/11/16
The young fail to vote, then moanš
Liberal left fail to listen to the peopleš”
New dawn, globally, against globalization.
Hispanics, Latinos, Asians and women all voted in huge numbers for Trump.
posted on 10/11/16
The argument that just because you lost the vote that you should fall in line is stupid really.
You think that democrats won't oppose any of the policies that Trump might push through?
I mean whats the point in having opposition party if people believe just because a party lost that everyone should fall in line.
The referendum rightly or wrongly was decided by people, and the politicians are going to go through with it. However, its ridiculous to presume that we should hand it over to Theresa May, and she can decide what kind of deal we will get. To leave the EU cannot just be answered with a yes or no, because we have to have some sort of plan of what will replace it. Handing it over to the ironically un elected Theresa May without any debate would be kind of stupid to be honest.
Also you think had the remainers won that people wanting to leave the EU would have shut up? No they wouldn't have.
posted on 10/11/16
Also you think had the remainers won that people wanting to leave the EU would have shut up? No they wouldn't have
------------------
There will always be people on either side who espouse the democratic method, yet when the majority do not share their views revert to autocratism.
That or bay and whine at the moon or to whoever they cam find to bore.
posted on 10/11/16
Joaquin,
Its not falling into line , its about respecting democracy , you continue your cause win loose or draw.
posted on 10/11/16
I would say its clear that there is an undemocratic tone to the response to this election and Brexit. Both have jad people who dont agree with the vote protesting against it rather than accepting its what the majority of people voted for, which is what democracy is about.
posted on 10/11/16
I would say its clear that there is an undemocratic tone to the response to this election and Brexit.
-
It was interesting listening to BBC5Live this morning. There were a lot of angry young American's protesting against Trump, saying things like 'America does not want Trump' and 'We will not accept this result.' Now, I'm absolutely in support of people having the right to express their disappointment. However, self-entitlement is fast becoming a cancer on modern day society. The very assumption by these protesters that they can speak for America epitomises the arrogance of many millennials and the liberal left.
I subscribe to a lot of mailing lists for a variety of organizations along the political spectrum, because I like to keep abreast of global politics. I had an interesting email from one particular group this morning (SumOfUs), which unsurprisingly contained a lot of words like 'shocked, afriad, anxious,' but the crux of the message was asking members what they think are the priorities for the future, and asking us to vote.
I put these options to you all:
1) Getting Money Out Of Politics
2) Fair Trade Deals
3) Standing With Our Most Vulnerable
4) Jobs And The Economy
5) Fighting Corporate Deregulation
6) Climate Justice
For the layman, I'm inclined to believe that the priority would be Jobs and the Economy. Gauging today's rhetoric in the states this morning, this (and the obvious impacts of globalisation) seems to be what got Trump elected.
posted on 10/11/16
I think the key issue is that the governing powers accept the democratic process, the individual will always have their view and be happy with the outcome or unhappy.
But to try to overturn and undermine the democratic process is the stuff of tin pot democracies.
posted on 10/11/16
comment by ifarka, (U8182)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
I think the key issue is that the governing powers accept the democratic process, the individual will always have their view and be happy with the outcome or unhappy.
But to try to overturn and undermine the democratic process is the stuff of tin pot democracies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody is trying to overturn the referendum.
The result was judged in the courts and rightly so as it is PART of our democracy.
Both the major parties are prepared to go through with it, as both have said they will follow through with the wishes of the people. So there is nothing to complain about.
What they are debating about is what relationship should it be replaced with, as the referendum didn't actually answer this. Labour are pro single market, whilst Theresa May and conservatives are hard Brexit.
Like I said nothing was over turned by people. The referendum result was falsely presented as being the final ultimatum, which it wasn't.
posted on 10/11/16
I think you will find the group who challenged the referendum in the high courts are trying to overturn it .
Debating what relationship it should be replaced with ??????????????????????????????
Errrrrrrrr, but sorry surley that would be difficult to achieve with a hostile Europe , who are an integral part of the what the relationship would look like.
It seems to me that the Brexit vote could only do what it could and that was suggest possible options and the remain vote didn't believe that there was enough unhappy people to actually support the out vote.
This referendum has been the cards since pre New Labour, the result is binding I agree it will need to ratified .
But if you believe that the referendum is not being undermined and an attempt to overturn it is not underway , I suggest that this is an extremely naive view to assume.
The media and establishment have orchestrated a climate of fear, which is undermining the result and whilst it is in limbo it is making the vote vulnerable
posted on 10/11/16
comment by ifarka, (U8182)
posted 2 minutes ago
I think you will find the group who challenged the referendum in the high courts are trying to overturn it .
Debating what relationship it should be replaced with ??????????????????????????????
Errrrrrrrr, but sorry surley that would be difficult to achieve with a hostile Europe , who are an integral part of the what the relationship would look like.
It seems to me that the Brexit vote could only do what it could and that was suggest possible options and the remain vote didn't believe that there was enough unhappy people to actually support the out vote.
This referendum has been the cards since pre New Labour, the result is binding I agree it will need to ratified .
But if you believe that the referendum is not being undermined and an attempt to overturn it is not underway , I suggest that this is an extremely naive view to assume.
The media and establishment have orchestrated a climate of fear, which is undermining the result and whilst it is in limbo it is making the vote vulnerable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly what relationship it should be replaced with means whether we continue to be part of the single market like Norway or Switzerland, or we don't. This has to be established as the referendum hasn't given a result for that.
The law is unbiased to the referendum results. Like I said before the only thing it has meant is that parliament can scrutinise the process, and decide what Brexit looks like i.e.. hard/soft. All it is dictating is that Theresa May can't by herself dictate the relationship the UK has with the EU.
The UK is leaving the European Union, I accept that and so do other people who voted remain. However, to say now that because we lost we lose our voices is undemocratic.
Also you state that the media is orchestrating a climate of fear, well from what I can see that behaviour is coming from the right wing tabloid press.
Like I said this radical overturning of the will of the people hasn't happened. The referendum is just following the letter of the law. Your Brexit is happening! The only thing which is being debated is what the terms are.
posted on 10/11/16
"Your Brexit is happening! The only thing which is being debated is what the terms are. "
This. I'm really fed up of people telling me it's anti democratic to try and discuss how Breixt is 'achieved'.
posted on 10/11/16
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 15 minutes ago
"Your Brexit is happening! The only thing which is being debated is what the terms are. "
This. I'm really fed up of people telling me it's anti democratic to try and discuss how Breixt is 'achieved'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I find the irony in foreignly owned newspapers attacking a British court, ruling on British laws by labelling them unpatriotic losers
Wasn't it patriotic to believe in British laws now so long ago?
posted on 10/11/16
The BBC have also been associated with promotion of the climate of fear.
Im at a loss to see how a potential round of horse trading will be effective , it would cause obstacles , which I assume may well be open to judicial process.
In others words remainers trying to wriggle out of the outcome.
I believe the government is the elected body and it should handle the negotiations , parliament should soley ratify the decision of the referendum.
posted on 10/11/16
"I believe the government is the elected body and it should handle the negotiations , parliament should soley ratify the decision of the referendum"
This option does not represent everyone who voted though. It represents those who voted Conservative. It also dismisses the elected leaders of the governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
As it was a bi-partisan vote negotiations should be discussed by Parliament & the representatives of Scotland, Wales & NI.
Page 4 of 5