You should stay. You’d fit right in.
This seems like quite a good ad.
I mean - we’ve had way worse takes in this thread, but this is an awful take at the current time.
A second Brexit referendum is not antidemocratic. it has never been, given that there is nothing preventing the voters from returning the same result again. In the current situation, where a series of parties are going to the election with a promise to hold a second referendum - it is absolutely not antidemocratic. This is what democracy is about. If a person doesn’t want a second referendum, their course is clear - vote on the parties that will drive the nation off the cliff to honor their interpretation of the mandate from the first referendum.
The solution, of course, is that the representatives take the majority away from him by crossing the aisle - which is what has happened once already. It is what should have happened in the USA a long time ago as well, if the GOP contained anyone with a shred of integrity (say what you will about the Tories, but at least prior to this election, it contained some people of integrity). The question that remains to be answered now is whether there are still anyone left after Boris has swung the whip (and I’m not thinking in terms of Brexit now - more in what happens when Boris starts breaking the law, as he surely will).
I really don’t get the fear over Corbyn. Yeah - I agree that there are reasons to be concerned about the policies of some of his inner circle, but - excepting a miracle - there is absolutely no way he can form a majority government. No matter how personally extreme his cabinet is, it will still have to govern with in a coalition united on only one thing - Brexit. That’s not the recipe for a long-lasting coalition.
Economist goes for the LibDems. Not that it means much for the LibDems but it should mean a lot to the traditional Tory business base and City.
I don’t understand the ‘anti-democratic’ thing.
Are we really saying that if in some counter-factual world, the Liberal Democrats surged(!) and were elected as the majority party and formed a government, on the back of a very clear ‘reverse Brexit!’ policy that has all but defined the party over the least year or two, that them enacting the very policy they have campaigned on would be a travesty of democracy?
It’s similar to the US where people think impeaching Trump would somehow “reverse” the 2016 election; basically, it’s BS to scare people and grab attention.
Aceris
7257
No it’s not you offensive twat. Did you see where I said I’d come around to the idea? You are just trolling
Aceris
7258
Ultimately the yardstick is that the expected mechanical result of a democratic exercise should ideally always occur. Otherwise people think their vote was ignored. Paddy Ashdown will never forgive you 😀
Imagine the result had been the other way and Farage and Boris were campaigning for a 2nd ref.
CraigM
7259
Because a horrifically vague refferendum, which neither specified a mechanism or the nature of the eventual agreement, should be sacrosanct?
Imagine you were choosing a restaurant among a group of people. 9 people said they wanted pizza, and 10 said fish and chips. However the person pushing for fish and chips insisted on a place that costs $100 for the order, fries the fish in used motor oil, and the servers punch you in the face on the way out.
Would you think it reasonable to insist that everyone get fish and chips, or would it be reasonable to say in light of new information on the specifics of fish and chips do we want to do pizza instead?
Its not like the referendum was on a specific proposal or timeline.
The entire referendum was fundamentally unreasonable. It was not a specific actionable plan, rather simply a preference for a broad direction. However foolish I may view it is irrelevant. If they had taken the refferendum, and used that as an end goal and then set up specific plans and timelines and put those to a vote? it would be hard to argue that was not democratic. Because it is disingenuous, at best, to pretend the type of Brexit being offered was what 51% of the people voted for.
Aceris
7260
No. I have said the exact opposite. Are you hard of reading? Stop jumping into the thread and ignroing the context you troll.
You are ignoring my point - however badly put together the referendum may have been, both sides said during the campaign that a Leave vote would mean we would leave the EU.
But what if two democratic exercises result in contradictory expectations?
(Also, a small majority for change surely doesn’t produce an expectation for complete overhaul.)
Aceris
7262
It’s the job of the politicians to try to avoid this scenario. Because it inevitably results in people feeling their victory was ignored, which weakens democracy.
Brexit goes badly enough and you’ll really see damage to democracy.
But democratic expectations are reversed all the time! We have elections constantly!
Okay, maybe you will say that the referendum has different expectations than a general election.
Maybe I can buy that. But that ball was dropped at the time of the referendum. Are politicians expected to uphold the mistakes of their predecessors? It’s also the job of politicians to tell the public the truth, including admitting to mistakes that they or their predecessors have made.
Democracy is also undermined by politicians ignoring reality.
CraigM
7265
I’ve followed this thread as much as anyone reasonably can. I find notion of a second referendum as being undemocratic, especially given new information about both how Brexit would be pushed, as well as the nature and effects, to be curious, at best.
Which is a more polite response than yours deserves. Which is why I end with this: fuck off.
Honestly, that would look like perfectly normal politics. Like losing an election but deciding to campaign in the next one. Like trying to repeal a law that you voted against in the last session. Like trying to pass a law that was voted down in the last session,
Don’t have to imagine. In Farage’s own words.
“In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.”
Aceris
7268
And the elected body gets to stay in power for the appointed length of time.
Indeed, which is why I now accept a second referendum is necessary. And why claiming that it is
democratic is toxic.
Aceris
7269
I’m not sure “we’re not behaving any worse than Farage would have” is really the argument you want to be making here :)
That isn’t the argument I’m making - it is that the calls for a second referendum on the details are perfectly reasonable with such a marginal vote on such a broad and deep change.
