What I’m saying is that the minimum requirement for democratic citizenship is recognising that sometimes your side can legitimately lose. It’s not a reason to stop arguing for what you think is right. It’s a reason to be honest about the process. If we all act like we get to pick and choose which results we accept as legitimate, then we’re no better than Trump or his followers.
A brexiteer also pre-emptively called for a 2nd referendum, when he thought Leave would lose.
As an aside, I don’t see how we can ever get 75% of the population to vote, but if we did, and if 60% of those voted for whatever, that would lend far more “democratic” credence to whatever.
No, what you said was
referring to me.
And which I argue against.
As to what you are now saying:
is a much more reasonable position.
Back to Brexit, I don’t see how there could be any deal that can actually be said to be leaving the EU, that doesn’t materially hurt us as a country. There seems to be only a list of bad and worse deals, and the MPs can’t even agree what they want.
The current situation is a farce, and maybe a postponement/cancellation of A50 and a properly run, properly worded and presented 2nd referendum to choose which deal, or no deal, or no change might actually get stuff done.
I’m not arguing the vote was illegitimate, but neither is it some sacrosanct thing with the ability to override the rest of our democratic machinery. Like I said earlier, through most of parliament’s history referendums were assumed to be unconstitutional “alien devices”. (The joys of not having a constitution written down in one place…)
The govt promised to turn the result into legislation, which would still need to pass through the rest of our democratic process. They could have, for instance, noted the narrow result, reached out and worked out a compromise that would find a majority in both houses, likely quite a soft Brexit that maintained a customs union at the very least. (During the campaign, I remember Leavers saying that any idea of dropping out of the customs union was absurd, project fear etc.) Along the way they lost their mandate for the hard Brexit they wanted, but carried on acting like they hadn’t.
It’s neither illegitimate nor undemocratic for parliament to use our democratic processes to block or frustrate the government - if the government do not have a majority, they need to compromise and build consensus. They didn’t, and the Tories may yet break the promise they made because of that. But that’s all it is, another broken Tory promise, not some undemocratic outrage.
No one is pilloring the Dems for doing everything possible and using Byzantine politcal manoeuvring to stop the wall. The narrative that stopping this racist, ethno-nationalist economic disaster is non democratic is just as false as the crap the GOP and Trumpsters push out to justify their racist, ethno-nationalist project. The leeway that this sub gives to Brexiters that it doesn’t give the Trump supporters is disgusting.
They also could have decided to take the ‘hard Brexit’ path, but engaged seriously with the problem - beginning a perhaps decade long process of re-implementing EU bodies and legislation into UK law, preparing for customs, working seriously on solutions for the NI problem, etc. This would have been difficult, and required the government to acknowledge it would make multiple terms to fully resolve. But it could have done so.
Instead it took this farce of a path forward, raced to trigger Article 50, and now we’re in this mess.
BTW, both the LRB’s Talking Politics and the 538 Politics recent podcasts are about the current Brexit situation, and with a couple of the same people even (so there’s probably at least some overlap).
Indeed. At least by some point in April, we should have an idea of what could carry a majority, which might have been a good starting point before activating Article 50.
It’s just so embarrassing what we’re asking the rest of the EU to put up with. I’d hate more than anything for us to leave with no deal, but if the EU flat out refused any extension then to be honest at this stage I’d completely understand.
In the spirit of general politeness that we find here at qt3 I’d like to actually thank you for at least making me find evidence for my beliefs.
I would like to believe no one is this stupid.
But I know douche face up there genuinely is this stupid to not realize how ironically wrong everything he said is.
of course they are
"Hard-core Brexiteers led by former U.K. Independence Party leader Nigel Farage set out Saturday on a two-week “Leave Means Leave” march between northeast England and London, accusing politicians of “betraying the will of the people.”
The turn out is low because it seems all the Brexiter ultras are on socmedia defending the Christchurch shooter. The ukpolitics threads on Reddit are a good indicator of the sheer volume of support he has.
Looking bad for May and her deal:
Bold move by Bercow. That could be the final nail in the coffin for May.
Kind of a bullshit move too, to be honest. Can’t see why meaningful vote 2 was OK but meaningful vote 3 isn’t, especially given what Cox said.
Wasn’t that a stipulation, that EU wouldn’t grant an extension unless the dynamic changed? Offering the same deal again doesn’t offer much beyond more time to bring MP’s on board, which seems doubtful. If two weeks away from no deal Brexit couldn’t galvanize them…
I dunno. I support Brexit but even I’m of two minds as to whether another “meaningful vote” should be allowed. Best 2 out of 3? :)
Sure, but in terms of the precedent he’s citing, if MV3 was out of order, so was MV2. Nothing changed, legally between MV1 and MV2. As the Attorney General confirmed.