[QUOTE]"Having a second vote, or a vote to second-guess the will of the British people is not an acceptable way forward."[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-rules-out-brexit-vote-for-mps-10612305[/URL]
May is weaselling her way out of making the decision herself, because she knows the whole thing will go tits up. She can then say she was only following orders.
The idea of a commons vote on it is stupid though, with only one purpose: to try and block Brexit. What are we meant to do if we reject it? Answer: There is nothing we can do, we're stuck out of the EU but without a deal.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51183789]The idea of a commons vote on it is stupid though, with only one purpose: to try and block Brexit. What are we meant to do if we reject it? Answer: There is nothing we can do, we're stuck out of the EU but without a deal.[/QUOTE]
The call was for a vote on the terms of exit - if the Commons doesn't think the deal is worth it, they're well within their rights to reject it. It's either that or hand it to the people, who have already demonstrated they don't know or care about economics. What right does the Prime Minister have to force an unfavourable treaty on the country? This is absolutely a matter for Parliament.
If the deal isn't satisfactory, then Brexit can't go through - what message does it send to the EU that we're basically going to have to accept any deal they give us? Am I misunderstanding something?
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51183789]The idea of a commons vote on it is stupid though, with only one purpose: to try and block Brexit. What are we meant to do if we reject it? Answer: There is nothing we can do, we're stuck out of the EU but without a deal.[/QUOTE]
the UK hasn't left the EU yet.
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;51183821]What right does the Prime Minister have to force an unfavourable treaty on the country?[/QUOTE]
Literally every single one, constitutionally it is well within the power of the Prime Minister to sign international treaties. Since the assumption is that it has the backing of her party then it doesn't need to go to a vote.
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;51183821]
If the deal isn't satisfactory, then Brexit can't go through.[/QUOTE]
But the point that has been made is that the people have voted for Brexit, whether they approve of the deal is irrelevant. Besides how can you trust parliament to objectively scruitinise a Brexit deal when 3/4s of them were against Brexit.
[QUOTE=The mouse;51183862]But the point that has been made is that the people have voted for Brexit, whether they approve of the deal is irrelevant. Besides how can you trust parliament to objectively scruitinise a Brexit deal when 3/4s of them were against Brexit.[/QUOTE]
Because he's mad that his side lost the vote.
[QUOTE=The mouse;51183862]But the point that has been made is that the people have voted for Brexit, whether they approve of the deal is irrelevant. Besides how can you trust parliament to objectively scruitinise a Brexit deal when 3/4s of them were against Brexit.[/QUOTE]
people didn't vote on the terms of brexit though
it seems unfair that we'll be going for a hard brexit when its something few people want and it would prove to be extremely damaging to this country and its interests
[QUOTE=The mouse;51183862]Literally every single one, constitutionally it is well within the power of the Prime Minister to sign international treaties. Since the assumption is that it has the backing of her party then it doesn't need to go to a vote.
But the point that has been made is that the people have voted for Brexit, whether they approve of the deal is irrelevant. Besides how can you trust parliament to objectively scruitinise a Brexit deal when 3/4s of them were against Brexit.[/QUOTE]
I trust them more than the lying cunts who headed the Leave campaign.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51183826]the UK hasn't left the EU yet.[/QUOTE]
We will be by the time the deal can be voted on
[QUOTE=The mouse;51183862]But the point that has been made is that the people have voted for Brexit, whether they approve of the deal is irrelevant. Besides how can you trust parliament to objectively scruitinise a Brexit deal when 3/4s of them were against Brexit.[/QUOTE]
"The People" voted to recommend Brexit to the Commons. Not to actually leave the EU right there and then. Referendums are rarely totally legally binding because we know direct democracy is a fucking joke of a system. It's only because of the cunts in power that people are insisting that this is totally a 100% legally binding referendum and "WE'RE GOIN TO TAKE BAKE CONTOLL!!".
There's a reason we vote representatives in as MPs and MEPs, the public are nowhere near educated enough to actually decide on foreign and domestic policy for the entire union on a policy-by-policy basis. It's too much for Steve in Greggs to educate themselves on reasonably.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51183870]Because he's mad that his side lost the vote.[/QUOTE]
It's pointless to talk about winning and losing sides, everyone's in the same boat.
you have to remember as well, this is a party with an already slim majority, under the leadership of a pm the people didn't elect, and changing the manifesto that the people barely voted them in on, the whole democratic aspect here is pretty much absent
[QUOTE=The mouse;51183862]Literally every single one, constitutionally it is well within the power of the Prime Minister to sign international treaties. Since the assumption is that it has the backing of her party then it doesn't need to go to a vote.[/quote]
Even if 100% of the Tory party was behind her (which it quite clearly isn't), there's no indication that Parliament is behind her - Parliament being (referendums notwithstanding) the voice of the people. The government can't do things unchecked by Parliament - that would be the undoing of centuries of British democracy.
[quote]But the point that has been made is that the people have voted for Brexit, whether they approve of the deal is irrelevant. Besides how can you trust parliament to objectively scruitinise a Brexit deal when 3/4s of them were against Brexit.[/QUOTE]
I certainly want people who know about international relations and domestic economics to approve of the deal - the other option is for there to be a second referendum on the terms of exit, if the Will of the People is the only cast-iron check that can be accepted. We've essentially said that no matter what deal the EU gives us, we'll accept it - objections to brexit notwithstanding, doesn't that kind of reduce our negotiating power?
The 'ultra hard Brexit destroy the EU' minority hides behind the 52%, many of whom hold views which are nowhere near as extreme, and act as if anything but a nuclear strike against Brussels will cause a new bloody Civil War.
[QUOTE=Marzipas;51183972]you have to remember as well, this is a party with an already slim majority, under the leadership of a pm the people didn't elect, and changing the manifesto that the people barely voted them in on, the whole democratic aspect here is pretty much absent[/QUOTE]
Exactly, we are giving the Tories full control on a decision that will affect the UK for generations. You better believe I want every decision to be scrutinised. I don't want to pay for their mess in 10 years because we pulled out too fast when Theresa May couldn't hold her load
The brexit referendum was largely based on fearmongering and misinformation and therefore arguably a bad choice.
If you believe that leaving EU is truly the people's democratic will, what's there to oppose in another vote?
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51183826]the UK hasn't left the EU yet.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but who knows if the EU wants the UK to stay in at this point?
[QUOTE=hexpunK;51183923]"The People" voted to recommend Brexit to the Commons. Not to actually leave the EU right there and then. Referendums are rarely totally legally binding because we know direct democracy is a fucking joke of a system. It's only because of the cunts in power that people are insisting that this is totally a 100% legally binding referendum and "WE'RE GOIN TO TAKE BAKE CONTOLL!!".
There's a reason we vote representatives in as MPs and MEPs, the public are nowhere near educated enough to actually decide on foreign and domestic policy for the entire union on a policy-by-policy basis. It's too much for Steve in Greggs to educate themselves on reasonably.[/QUOTE]
I wonder if people would have the same attitude towards the Scottish independence referendum if they had voted to leave...
"Well you may have voted to leave the UK, but it's only advisory!"
[QUOTE=David29;51184652]I wonder if people would have the same attitude towards the Scottish independence referendum if they had voted to leave...
"Well you may have voted to leave the UK, but it's only advisory!"[/QUOTE]
That's different, the Scottish have an internationally recognised right to self determination that parliament would be forced to honour or face international condemnation. In the case of the EU referendum the elected representatives would flatly vote against hard Brexit. In addition to that, 2 out of 4 countries in the Union, Northern Ireland and Scotland voted to remain, while the other 2 voted to leave. The outcome was nowhere near as simple as that in the Scottish referendum.
Besides which, an act of parliament would have been legally mandatory to get Scotland leaving the Union anyway, I'm pretty sure.
[QUOTE=David29;51184652]I wonder if people would have the same attitude towards the Scottish independence referendum if they had voted to leave...
"Well you may have voted to leave the UK, but it's only advisory!"[/QUOTE]
If it was a referendum, sure I would. You can suggest to your governing body "hey discuss this and weigh up what we think we want against the impacts". But outright letting the public decide on massive things like this directly is dangerous.
The public just aren't educated enough on foreign (or domestic) policy in general. This is why we have expert groups to model and predict things for us. Rather than going on "well it [I]feels[/I] like Merkel is fucking me with a barbed dildo", when it has nothing to do with the EU.
[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;51184705]That's different, the Scottish have an internationally recognised right to self determination that parliament would be forced to honour or face international condemnation. In the case of the EU referendum the elected representatives would flatly vote against hard Brexit. In addition to that, 2 out of 4 countries in the Union, Northern Ireland and Scotland voted to remain, while the other 2 voted to leave. The outcome was nowhere near as simple as that in the Scottish referendum.
Besides which, an act of parliament would have been legally mandatory to get Scotland leaving the Union anyway, I'm pretty sure.[/QUOTE]
An abstract nation has the right to self determination but actual voting people don't?
[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;51184705]That's different, the Scottish have an internationally recognised right to self determination that parliament would be forced to honour or face international condemnation. In the case of the EU referendum the elected representatives would flatly vote against hard Brexit. In addition to that, 2 out of 4 countries in the Union, Northern Ireland and Scotland voted to remain, while the other 2 voted to leave. The outcome was nowhere near as simple as that in the Scottish referendum.
Besides which, an act of parliament would have been legally mandatory to get Scotland leaving the Union anyway, I'm pretty sure.[/QUOTE]
It's really not different. A referendum is still a referendum and - allegedly - is only advisory.
The SNP at least outlined what they wanted to accomplish with the Indy ref and had a plan that could be openly scrutinised and debated. The EU referendum is different because instead of having a plan that can be debated and scrutinised before a decision is made, the decision has already been made and the plan is being pulled together as fast as possible without any opportunity for the opposition (who, conveniently are for the Tories, are in complete disarray) to give any kind of opinion. We don't even know what the fuck a "hard Brexit" will involve but we just have to go with it because the Tories say so. It's completely backwards and not democratic at all.
[QUOTE=Tacooo;51184776]The SNP at least outlined what they wanted to accomplish with the Indy ref and had a plan that could be openly scrutinised and debated. The EU referendum is different because instead of having a plan that can be debated and scrutinised before a decision is made, the decision has already been made and the plan is being pulled together as fast as possible without any opportunity for the opposition (who, conveniently are for the Tories, are in complete disarray) to give any kind of opinion. We don't even know what the fuck a "hard Brexit" will involve but we just have to go with it because the Tories say so. It's completely backwards and not democratic at all.[/QUOTE]
Really? What was the SNP's plan again? Because at one point I remember Salmond basically saying "we're going to still be using the the pound, even though the UK has said we can't!"
[QUOTE=Marzipas;51183972]you have to remember as well, this is a party with an already slim majority[/QUOTE]
According to the latest opinion polls, Conservatives are now a full 17 points ahead of Labour.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;51183923]"The People" voted to recommend Brexit to the Commons. Not to actually leave the EU right there and then. Referendums are rarely totally legally binding because we know direct democracy is a fucking joke of a system. It's only because of the cunts in power that people are insisting that this is totally a 100% legally binding referendum and "WE'RE GOIN TO TAKE BAKE CONTOLL!!".
There's a reason we vote representatives in as MPs and MEPs, the public are nowhere near educated enough to actually decide on foreign and domestic policy for the entire union on a policy-by-policy basis. It's too much for Steve in Greggs to educate themselves on reasonably.[/QUOTE]
The European Union Referendum was signed into law, it had special provisions around it.
[url]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents[/url]
It does not say the outcome is legally binding, but it does state obligations that were to be adhered to (that I'm pretty sure most parties failed to do).
[QUOTE=SpartanApples;51184875]According to the latest opinion polls, Conservatives are now a full 17 points ahead of Labour.[/QUOTE]
that may be so but that doesn't change the margin they got elected in with
the only reason I kinda support but don't expect one is due to the lying from the leave side, ie the 350 million to the NHS
Lol at all these butthurt liberal lefties and their idle dreams of elitist oppression.
You have a lot in common with the Khymer Rouge.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitpost" - Novangel))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Meester;51190654]Lol at all these butthurt liberal lefties and their idle dreams of elitist oppression.
You have a lot in common with the Khymer Rouge.[/QUOTE]
Submitting a very sensitive decision to a group of knowledgeable elected representatives = elitist oppression.
OK.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.